Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle (fictional U.S. state)[edit]

Mostly original research, no out-of-universe notability. ShadowHalo 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge whatever can be sourced into List of fictional U.S. states. PubliusFL 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all the non-OR is already there. "Eagle State is the state in which Fairview, the primary place of action for the ABC television series Desperate Housewives, is located. Its exact location is not known." ShadowHalo 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that was a pre-emptive strike in case someone comes back and says "look, this source says that license plates in Desperate Housewives say 'Eagle State'!" ;-) PubliusFL 17:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Current articles exist where this information is pertinent, this is nothing that will or can ever be improved above a stub, that would put paid to that. Ravenswing 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above, esp as all the non-OR is already at List of fictional states. Cricketgirl 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and unnecessary. — Wenli 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to List of fictional U.S. states or Desperate Housewives (which should also have the information there, if it isn't already). FrozenPurpleCube 23:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think many people are likely to type in "Eagle (fictional U.S. state)", but if this is deleted Eagle State (currently a redirect to this article) should definitely be redirected to one of the two articles you mention. That's something people are likely to search for. PubliusFL 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never can tell what people will type, and redirects are cheap. And yes Eagle State should also be changed. FrozenPurpleCube 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Desperate Housewives. Not original research per IMDB, otherwise delete category:Fictional U.S. states because if there will be no articles for the fictional states then the category is not necessary. --FateClub 23:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know that the name of the state is Eagle. But this is still OR: "The state's name is likely born out of not wanting to use a specific state or in order to not have blank license plates, like many movies and TV shows tend to do." ShadowHalo 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then adding a {{fact}} wherever it is appropriate would be of more benefit rather than deleting the entire article. How is it supposed to grow or to be improved if whatever portion that does not fit the guidelines cause the article to be deleted. --FateClub 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no evidence of any non-trivial coverage (stating that Eagle is the name of the state is trivial) or out-of-universe notability. If an article can't demonstrate this, then there's no reason for it to exist. ShadowHalo 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be the case of all but 2 articles (Houston and Springfield) in the category:Fictional U.S. states and most of if not all future inclusions. --FateClub 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Pokémon test. If other articles don't meet notability guidelines, then they should be deleted, not used as a reason to keep other articles that don't meet notability guidelines. ShadowHalo 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I am changing my opinion to redirect. Cheers, --FateClub 01:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional state. Herostratus 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We already have List of fictional U.S. states (sorry for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reference.) ^cont ygugsa295 _talk 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Storey[edit]

NN with the main contrib being only a likely WP:COI/WP:AUTO violation by Srstorey (talk · contribs). There are some incoming links, but they all seem to refer to an old boxer, the wrong person. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does this person even exist? The only IMDB entry for "Sam Storey" is for an assistant art director, not an actor. Herostratus 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is either a pure hoax or a substitution of the word "star" for "extra". I even checked the extended acting list at imdb for a few of the individual films and bubkis.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting to see the progression from speedy to prod to AFD to a relisted AFD. What's next, DRV? I should hope not. YechielMan 02:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; article is also extremely short. --HubHikari 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is a consensus that this is a hoax and false autobiography, and block article creator. The chance that someone who had "starred" (even in small roles) on "Charmed", "Lost", "Heroes", and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", all of which have significant fandoms, could have no acting credits listed at the IMDb is roughly zero. The debate can be closed now since it this is a relist and the discussion is unanimous. --Metropolitan90 05:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Mardavich 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's highly unlikely that someone with a speaking part in multiple high-profile films and television shows would not have these credits listed on IMDB or anywhere else online. Unverifiable and possibly hoax. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with everybody on the hoax idea. All of those TV shows and Movies are highly popular among the same group. Teenagers. The chances of one actor being in many highly popular teenage shows, yet no data to support it, is very low indeed. Also, if he has "starred" in so many TV shows and films, then why isn't there data on exactly what parts he plays? No citations, stub, and it seems this guy only exists as an old boxer. Delete indeed. @ YechielMan: This has been through that many deletion stages? Odd. Avatarfan6666 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University College JCR First Year Representative[edit]

Not sufficiently notable in my view. Casper Gutman 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: I just don't believe it will be possible to develop JCR committee posts into encyclopaedic articles. There isn't an article about the Univ. JCR itself, for goodness' sake!

Casper Gutman 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - extremely NN. Possibly could've been speedied. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per EliminatorJR. On the verge of speedy delete. Tim.bounceback ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Descriptions of the existence of positions at a specific university organization of one (albeit very prominent) university. This is a blackhole.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Speedy if possible. No matter what the university, this is too specific for articles.DGG 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete All Fails WP:N. Chevinki 05:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Most seem to be stubs, and too specific. If they stay, at least merge them all into one article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Hill (band)[edit]

The article does not assert notability per the guidelines in WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article would be deleted. The band has been on several large scale tours, won a major national contest, and is scheduled to record at one of the best studios in the country as a result (West49/Much Music Battle Of The Bands: http://megawattstudios.com/ the studio has recorded canadian bands Sloan, The Trews, etc etc) and they even played the Canadian Open Skateboarding kick off party ( http://www.west49music.com/news.jsp?newsId=3114 or http://www.punknews.org/article/19726 ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.249.72 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. I live in Nova Scotia and have not heard about this band. --Bryson 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They have no albums out and are unsigned; checking Google finds very few hits about them. They might technically qualify under WP:Band for having toured and having won an award, but with so little buzz, I'm inclined to say let's wait for the album to come out, at least. Brianyoumans 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC says that their East Coast Music Awards performance and music competition win are notable enough. Please don't start making up your own rules. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial (simply a notation of who's on the bill at a particular event is trivial coverage) independent secondary sources offered to establish notability. Mwelch 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the event happens to be a top billing (as in main band listing) in a country's biggest venue or musical festival, I tend to disagree with that. (Not that that's the case here). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a band is prominent enough to have top billing at the country's biggest venue or musical festival, I dare say there will be some secondary coverage of said band out there beyond only a simple listing of them as being billed at said festival. Mwelch 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Ford MF 05:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also fails WP:MOS, including WP:MOS#Contractions. --Spebi 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "performed at 2006 East Coast Music Awards" and winning a major music competition is enough claim of notability per WP:MUSIC. I'll dig up some sources if that's what it takes to save the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says they made an appearance at the show not that they won anything. -Nv8200p talk 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They won the November 2005 MuchMusic/West 49 Battle of the Bands, and while both are very notable I have no idea how major the actual competition is since googling it returns this article. Also, I have had trouble finding independent reliable sources about the band. –Pomte 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: From WP:MUSIC: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." People are asserting here that performing in this "East Coast Music Awards" deal and winning this "Battle of the Bands" thing qualify. Could we have from someone knowledgeable some reason to believe that these are in fact "major" music competitions? There are a lot of blind assumptions flying about, the more so in that this is the band's sole claim to notability, so far. RGTraynor 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't count as neutral, but I did look at the West49 contest info, what I could find, and I thought it looked sort of lame. The contest consisted of a series of podcasts, where people were supposed to vote on the best band of each set, and then there was a champions podcast to pick the overall winner. The problem was, it looks like the contest was supposed to last a year, but ended up dragging on for about 2 years. And finding info about it on the web was not that easy; it doesn't seem to have gotten very much publicity. I can't really say how much publicity it got in Canada, not being in Canada myself, but it didn't look like a lot. And it hasn't gotten them signed. On the whole, it was certainly something, but I think it was decidedly less than a "major award". Brianyoumans 21:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not Myspace. ~Step trip 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of the Aegean article. No notability outside of being affiliated with the university. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyAegean[edit]

Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. Leuko 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have some more info please, if you like, for the fact that this article-page has been noted for "speedy-deletion". There is a small talk on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yannisap referring on the article. Please inform me more for any policy changes that may have changed, since the creation of the original page, which is on Wikipedia for some time. This is about a non-profit student effort that is supported and integrated with University of the Aegean, Greece. Please contact me for more info! Yannisap 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and see if it develops and gets better sourcing. This is a little off the beaten track for us, and I think it deserves a chance to develo- , with help. DGG 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me more on how to contribute more and help! Can you guide me a bit? I have already entered some more info, and I'd like to find and "connect" the content to more wiki articles, for the new content-info I've entered. What else can be done, or to be mentioned as well? thnx in advance! Yannisap 09:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not connections with other WP articles that is primarily needed, though that is desirable. What is primarily needed is references from third-party independent published sources discussing the work of the organization. For articles like this, relevant professional magazines, online or print , do nicely, as do statements in official university or government sources--but not from the U. of the Aegean, and not blogs. Your fourth external link is a good one, from http://www.chiosnews.com, a local news source. (and since it is in Greek, it will help readers evaluate it if you translate a key phrase or two.)DGG 02:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanx a lot for your details, I think I am getting somehow on the idea... I will try to translate some references on the above article... And I will try to put some more info... Well most of our references are from local media, usually newspapers, but since it was not in English, I thought it wouldn't be good to mention it. Is is good to submit references on specific efforts and/or events that we have done and they have been published as a reference on several news papers? As an example, we have taken some interviews from several people, that we have also sent on local media to re-publish as well, or use it as they want. On the other hand, there are some newspapers that have no web presence, or send their issues by mail in PDF format. Can I upload a specific page, of reference, or screenshots of them? Thank you again and I'm looking forward for a responce! Yannisap 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However I've seen it done with a our school club GUG where it was redirected into the school article. --CyclePat 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't get it -- this is an intranet (or, to be finicky, an extranet) for a multi-campus school. Inherently non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect dhartung (and I don't mean that sarcastically, I don't want to come off too terse) nothing is "inherently" non-notable. Anything with multiple reliable third party sources is, by definition, notable. Wintermut3 05:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, anything with such sources is inherently verifiable. The sources need to establish something noteworthy about the subject too. Mere existence is not enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again friends. With all my due respect too, I must notice that is not an "intranet" article. I don't know how to express it as the culture here in Greece may somehow differ; our effort/initiative, has been a scheme that refers to the University, but its open way on contributing (anyone has the ability to register on it as a member) has given the opportunity on hight school students to learn more about student life on the Uni, to find some info about the classes, as well as we have started to develop ways on inter-action between other student communities around Greece, to achieve a huger network of people, that would be able to inform about the live and activities on Greek academic life... There are people from all around Greece (and alumni students from Aegean Uni, from around the world) that visit and participate. This idea hasn't been achieved in Greece in any other form, and the "connection" idea is even unique, not for University of the Aegean only but in general here. I don't know if I have helped in some way to express the feeling of this effort. People here are not very used to (student) communities and with our effort we try also to do our best, specially by motivating people that are less interested or less experienced in web and computer stuff! (unfortunately, there are many that are not interested or they're even against computers, as they can't find their way or understand the opportunities...) (sorry for the huge text and my English) Yannisap 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a merge into the University of the Aegean. Notability outside the university might be questioned, but within the university, it's clearly notable.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in Greek newspapers, it seems. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be further developed xC | ☎ 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge & Delete: For pity's sake, this is a university's private, proprietary intranet system. Damn near every university around has one. Are those mentions anything more than trivial? RGTraynor 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend RGTraynor, I am sorry for being such a "pain in the ass", but I assume that you haven't got the base idea for this effort. I understand why you say this is an intranet system, but I believe if you could read Greek and surf on it for a while, you could immediately understand that myAegean is not only this. It's not even this, as there are bulleting boards on the departments, based on Email posts mainingly, and the central one on: http://www.aegean.gr/aegean/greek/events/default.htm. Almost every uni has one of these information systems, but, in fact, in Greece, this is not a default service/condition. So "my" is not a part of all these. And in addition, in myAegean, we are focusing on a community that drives a form of evolution, and tries, using the IT to develop actions, to inform, to bring ways and ideas into action and, in fact, bring a new situation here, as some things are not so known or "by default". Especially on Greek countryside... Sorry again for my flooding... Yours faithfully. 195.251.152.18 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable or unique apart of few big words and generic phrases. Pavel Vozenilek 06:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will try to do our best even the article stays in Wikipedia or not. I promise you dear friend Pavel Vozenilek, with all my respect, that what I say is not "big words" or "generic phrases". Even if the article goes for deletion, we will not stop our efforts, because we have a vision and some principles that we are to defend. Maybe it's not the time so good now, because we are still on the beginning. If it wasn't a true effort, we wouldn't mind to be in Wikipedia. But we feel that we have a place here. I can't persuade you and I know it, because the matter is typical. We need references, but references that are somehow difficult to achieve, because it needs some hard work and time, specially time. I hope some day we will return here and have them all. Because our effort is not "big words", but big actions. I know this because we have worked hard without any great help from others. And we all feel an enthusiasm for all this. Thank you all in advance, I will not write again so much. I will stop here and just leave it to the evolution. I am just sad. Thank you all, all you that gave some of your precious time to take notice on this. Greetings from Greece! You are all welcome here any time! (and maybe we can show you more on what we do)

The AfD process on Wikipedia is about decision whether given text does belong here or does not. It is about the text and nothing else. Pavel Vozenilek 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the text needs more development.. I understood that there is 1 major thing we need: references from outside the Uni, and references that shows sth worthy to mention. In addition, if there would be a part of a paper/essay, that refers to myAegean, this would also be good. Am I right on this? I am looking forward to get some more info and to submit it here too. There are also people that work on their diplomas on "Social Networks", that refer to "myAegean", I think. Well, thank you again and if there is sth that I didn't understand well, please let me know! Yours faithfully and hope to go on! 62.1.144.83 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Pesach Mendelson[edit]

This google search shows that he has 18 ghits. While the lead might seem impressive to the uninitiated, reading "a Rebbe at the Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy" what this means is "a teacher at a high school. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons expessed. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Tim.bounceback ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Generic Politician 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:N.--Bryson 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know Rabbi Mendelson personally. Seriously, I was a camper when he was an adult staffer/visitor at Mogen Av, and I see him around on the Yeshiva University campus. I'm amused that someone loved and revered him so much as to create a Wikipedia article for him. Now, taking off my real-life hat and putting on my nerd hat, he fails the notability criteria. YechielMan 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N.--HubHikari 07:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 07:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sw!ms[edit]

Notability not asserted, established, or sourced per WP:MUSIC. Declined speedy. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it is borderline. Three released albums though only one seems to have any significance. Their link to An Albatross and their festival appearances, plus (possibly) three albums leads me to want to give the benefit of the doubt. Malla nox 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Re-direct - No assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC). re-direct per Mgm.--Bryson 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. 2 albums and one EP, from local Scranton labels. They sound pretty good to me, but I don't think they need an article. Brianyoumans 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC musician criterion number 5. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also possible to simply mention the side project in the main article, as is already the case. Brianyoumans 22:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and reliable sources. I have concerns about the notability of An Albatross as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all other delete nominations. BlackBear 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Wenli 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe An Albatross is notable enough to justify this article according to WP:MUSIC's criterion 5. Poeloq 09:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John Reaves (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calthorpe clinic[edit]

This article has had notability and orphan tags sitting on it for a month now. Delete unless it's proven that this neighborhood health clinic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. szyslak (t, c) 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clinic. Herostratus 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reason for deletion or are you suggesting the Mayo Clinic should go too? Please elaborate. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem very notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:N.--Bryson 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states it was the first clinic outside London to provide abortions. That is an assertion of notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if sources can be found. It would appear that "the first abortion provider to open a clinic outside London in 1969." was historically notable.DGG 03:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick look in LexisNexis shows this clinic was the main subject of multiple news articles over the last 4 years. I beleive an indepth investigation from Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service is a good idea before considering deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please simply add what you have to the article. DGG 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I get access to LexisNexis again I will see what I can do. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 three online links were trivial with the only one with UKR as the main subject being a two line blog entry. One (potential) non-trivial source doesn't suffice. --Wafulz 05:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Resistance[edit]

Article about a UK based video game blog. A previous article was deleted a year ago via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Resistance. A new article was written, and speedily deleted for failing WP:WEB. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:WEB.--Bryson 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability sufficiently asserted, I think. Ford MF 06:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mentions are not just in passing, the Edge (magazine) reference actually precedes an interview with UK:R on the death of the Dreamcast because it is described as where "Europe's Sega cognoscenti gathered to discuss the burning issues of the day". This asserts more notability than most of the undeleteable webcomic dreck on Wikipedia. - hahnch e n 11:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The links I clicked on only mentioned the website in passing and were trivial, which means at most we have one non-trivial source which doesn't meet WP:WEB which needs multiple, non-trivial works about the subject. Chevinki 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. What a joke. American-centric Wiki deletes something because people in the US don't 'get it'.

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The University Computer Club[edit]

Initially prodded for deletion as a non-notable club, the original concern was:If there is a cite for actually being the first [organised personal computer user group in the world], then it should be kept. An additional reference was added here and the prod tag removed; however, I believe it is a primary source that really doesn't satisfy the original prod concern. A quick search yielded no secondary sources to support the claims of notability in the article. UnfriendlyFire 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for speciousness. It claims to be the first organised personal computer user group in the world, yet there is no verification given for this claim. Additionally, the term 'personal computer' may not have been in use in 1974, at the club's inception, as the MITS Altair 8800 of 1975 is arguably the world's first true PC. Eddie.willers 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't vote, because I haven't looked for sources, but this is clearly a case that I believe shows the importance of sources. Sources related to the subject are entirely acceptable, but not to determine notability (establishing if they are indeed the first). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavydMadeley: I think the person personal is a misnomer. The club was founded in 1974, as its own records will attest. The first computer owned by the club was an Alpha Micro AM1000, but before that the club was formed to get time on the University's PDP-6 (the first PDP-6 sold outside of DEC: http://www.ultimate.com/phil/pdp10/pdp6-serials). The club has had a long and rich history in Western Australian computing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.56.15.217 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007. — 203.56.15.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
We haven't as yet found good sources to back the claim to be the first personal computer club in the world. However, we have evidence of the club's significant contribution to the Western Australian computing community from 1974 - extremely early for a computing club, and before computing facilities were available to the public - onwards. Our silver jubilee award and other documentation as to club projects on do exist and could be scanned to provide veracity as to the club's significance. After such efforts would the article be suited for inclusion, or should we just back this article up and move it to another site? I also take issue with the club history not being "credible", as it was prepared at the club's expense by an academic, albeit one with association to the club. Grahame 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Grahame, unfortunately he is not independent in this matter, regardless of his credibility in his own field. It is primary sourced material which cannot lend weight to claims regarding notability. It would be original research to review sufficient Computer Club histories to categorically say, this one is the oldest one remaining in existence. If someone independent of this club does that research then we have independent works which establish notability.Ga rr ie 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT. No independent sources given, no sources for their claims. RGTraynor 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no nontrivial independent reliable sources. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent sources. Unfortunately - the clubs' own records don't lend weight to notability, independent coverage does. Ga rr ie 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tampa, Florida. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Monroe Middle School[edit]

Unremarkable middle school, no assertion of notability, very little content. DoorsAjar 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep solely because I think consensus a while back was to keep public schools because their government sites were seen as verifiable. gren グレン 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus has only been for high schools, and they don't always make it. I'm personally inclined to support middle school articles that have good information in them. I think there's actually a consensus beginning to form to dump articles that look like this one.Noroton 17:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is usual for this type of article. (With apologies to Grenavitar, I generally vote to delete middle schools unless they claim to be more than just another middle school, and sometimes even then.) YechielMan 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question This article is obviously a stub. Is it the intention to do away with stubs for school articles--there are a few thousand others. Is it further the intention to do away with stubbs altogether? If not, why should we remove the ones for schools particularly? If wer do vote to delete this one there are many more to go, and I suppose they could best be bnominated county by county (obviously not including the ones that have deveoped articles). DGG 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to nominate any school articles (or any article in general) that isn't notable. Schools are not exempt from this. TJ Spyke 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will automatically support any deletion of a ~~K-8~~ non-high school [self-edit after seeing DGG's comments below] school article at least a month old and with only a few lines of information in it. They should all go into school district articles. I'm sympathetic to well-meaning editors who are trying to produce good articles and may not know how. But I'm coming around to thinking we should be merciless with the rest. Noroton 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (self edit as shown above Noroton 13:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If we are to do this, we should do this fairly and in groups, and with consideration for any articles that may have been worked on by the students. In general I support stubs, but for topics such as this where most of the articles will inevitably be stubs,i agree it makes more sense to simply include them in a list until the articles can be written. I'd go for K-9, not just 8.

Delete DGG 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with stubs, school stubs included, as long as they pass WP:ATT. I have a problem with stubs that do not show notability, regardless of the category. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability asserted (and, no, schools are NOT inherently notable). This isn't even a directory, just saying where the school is and its school colors? TJ Spyke 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to larger school district. Schools are not inherently notable. WP risks becoming a directory otherwise. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into school district. It can be spun out when it gets substance beyond stub level. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its respective school district. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable middle school ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let it be restarted when someone has the ability or motivation to create a proper school article. Drop the spoonful of information here into a school district article, if it exists; if not, wave good-bye. Noroton 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no assertion of notability, fails WP:ATT. The article itself hasn't been touched in over a year, which tends to shoot down the notion that it's ever likely to be improved. Furthermore, a look at the contribution list of the creator shows the creation of well over a hundred of these stub school articles over the course of two weeks in January and February of 2006, many of which haven't been touched since and which strike me as a likely source of many more AfDs. I don't think we should be carpetbombed with stub articles for every non-notable middle school in the entire Tampa Bay area, myself. RGTraynor 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I really think substubs like that devalue WP. Yes, anybody and everybody can add articles, but does it have to look like it? --Butseriouslyfolks 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATT or WP:N, whichever way that masturbatory poll is going at the moment. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to respective school district (or locality) per WP:LOCAL and school guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't bother merge/redirecting. Fails to make any attempt at establishing notability.--Wizardman 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district or what have you. Saying "don't bother redirecting" defies our longstanding redirection guidelines. Redirects are cheap and exist for a reason, use them. RFerreira 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Hús ö nd 01:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Fantasy[edit]

Typical nonnotable band. I'd prod it, but it's been edited a lot so I feel that's not quite fair. YechielMan 01:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here meeting WP:BAND (nor after perusing their website). Just the barest assertion taking it out of speedy range.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any WP:BAND criteria (the latest news section makes me think someone is using wikipedia as a free webhost). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no assertion of notability, could be speedied. NawlinWiki 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wenli 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish settlement[edit]

Simply a POV Fork of Cyprus dispute. The title of the article might be original research, the content contains two paragraphs about the property disputes in the Cyprus dispute, however not clear how they qualify under "Turkish settlement". Delete, and merge (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. Baristarim 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a clear POV fork. The parent article has problems, too, but that's not for this discussion. YechielMan 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable subject that acquires a topic of its own. --Mardavich 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research. Baristarim 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Turkish settlement is one of the top issues of the Cyprus dispute, but not only. I would go for a redirect to a subheading with the same title within the Cyprus dispute article, but until then... NikoSilver 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be notable, but it is a fork.. Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see the POV of the title. Settlers and settlements do exist. And I do know that there is a series of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights vindicating Greek-Cypriot citizens having lost their property. And the fact that the government of the Republic of Cyprus accepts in the not-occupied territoty of Cyprus Turkish-Cypriots but not settlers who came to Cyprus later proves their existence.--Yannismarou 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And when there is a recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe named Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus ... well ... I don't think that anybody here can question notability.

Let's see some of what this Recommendation says: "It is a well-established fact that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified since its de facto partition in 1974, as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turkish Cypriot administration and Turkey. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admit that Turkish nationals have since been systematically arriving in the northern part of the island. According to reliable estimates, their number currently totals 115 000." "The settlers come mainly from the region of Anatolia, one of the least developed regions of Turkey. Their customs and traditions differ significantly from those present in Cyprus. These differences are the main cause of the tensions and dissatisfaction of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population, who tend to view the settlers as a foreign element" "In particular, the Assembly expresses its concern at the continuous outflow of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population from the northern part of the island. Their number decreased from 118 000 in 1974 to an estimated 87 600 in 2001. In consequence, the settlers outnumber the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population in the northern part." "In the light of the information available, the Assembly cannot accept the claims that the majority of arriving Turkish nationals are seasonal workers or former inhabitants who had left the island before 1974. Therefore it condemns the policy of “naturalisation” designed to encourage new arrivals which was introduced by the Turkish Cypriot administration with the full support of the Government of Turkey."

I think that this very important political document could also prompt the further improvement of this notable article.--Yannismarou 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. What is going on guys? Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. If there can be a comprehensive page detailing Israeli Settlements, why not Turkish ones? Chesdovi 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Yannismarou. This TR POV pushing is outrageous; these settlements do exist, denying that would like denying the Chinese settlements in Tibet and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank etc. [due to edit conflict]: Thanks to Chesdovi for also raising the issue.--Domitius 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I can't think of a single non-politically motive for suggesting deletion. As Domitius said those events are factual, someone who wants to remove them can only have a biased agenda. Miskin 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the rhetoric to a minimum please and watch for NPA. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Baristarim 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another political documents treating the issue of Turkish settlers: RESOLUTION 10.3.1988 of the European Parliament: "Expects the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation simultaneously to put pressure on the Turkish government, which is linked to the EEC by an association agreement and is an applicant for membership, to draw up a precise timetable for the withdrawal of its troops, in accordance with the proposals made by the UN SecretaryGeneral, and that of the Turkish settlers ..."
I would also like to remind everybody here that the issue of settlers was the main reason the Greek Cypriot side and the Republic of Cyprus rejected the Annan Plan. See this report by Associated Press.--Yannismarou 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Settlers" NOT "Turkish settlements" - WP:OR is clearly at issue for the title. It is not clear what the title implies, nor what its usage is. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Nobody is stopping anyone from developping the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. This is a part of Cyprus dispute, i'd ask kindly that the editors do not introduce yet another pov ridden and controversial article which is covered somewhere else. --A.Garnet 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the resolutions above are also "POV ridden" and "contrversial". Well, after deleting the article, we'll also get rid of them.--Yannismarou 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the state of this article. The sources can be applied somewhere else. --A.Garnet 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then name me the "POV ridden" claims of the article. Although I believe that the resolutions I mentioned above are more harsh than the article itself towards the phainomenon of Turkish settlement.--Yannismarou 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article first makes the claim that "Turkish settlements are communities established by Turkey", as if Turkey is somehow the Ottoman Empire passing a decree to establish overseas colonies. The use of word colonisation again portrays Turkey as orchestrating the movement of Turkish migrants. Turkey does not decide who goes to Cyprus, many Turks go to work over summer in the tourist season and return. Those who do stay are required to have a work permit. But this article does not seem concerned with these details, only in portraying Turkey in a certain light. Furthermore, the article says "such settlements currently exist..." as if this is a common phenomena regarding Turkey, when in fact this an aspect specifically related to the Cyprus problem. These are problems within a few lines, I dont expect this article to get better as it grows in size, but rather become another ugly Cyprus article. --A.Garnet 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to your arguments:

The settlers are coming from Turkey. Tyrkey allows them to settle in Northern Cyprus by allowing them to go there. If Turkey wanted to impede this phainomenon, it would have done it. Therefore, Turkey may not be Ottoman Empire, but it is a sovereign state tolerating this situation, and showing no will to reverse it. I thus believe that the verb "established" pictures with characteristic accuracy the present situation. After all, if it was not Turkey that "established" the settlement, then why are the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament asking Turkey, in particular, to resolve the problem. I'm afraid, Garnet, that once again your problem is not with the article, but with the clear and sound resolutions of European Organizations and with the publications of UN. And, unfortunately, I can't help with that problem.
The noun "colonisation" is again a NPOV term, also used by the Parliamentary Assembly of the COuncil of Europe. Unless you think, of course, that the great majority of this Parliament, and, therefore, the great majority of the population of Europe are biased against Turkey in this particular issue. But again this is your personal belief and impression. Official documents matter, and official documents of international organization are crystal clear about the ongoing colonisation of occupied Cyprus by Turkey.
I fail to understand your third point. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more clear and specific, so that I can give an accurate answer. Such settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus, their existence is confirmed by all the international organizations, and it is Turkey which is held responsible for their existence. What is exactly your problem here?--Yannismarou 09:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not base articles on parliamentary or any political resolution. This is an encylopedia, we create academic articles based on scholarly research. Resolutions are fine for expressing support for one point of view, but they should not be the basis of any article. To be honest though Yannis, I have given up caring, this article will stay, it will be poor and ugly like a lot of other Cyprus related articles and that will be that. --A.Garnet 10:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We search all available verifiable sources. That is why we also search news reports, which are not strictly part of what you call "scholarly research".--Yannismarou 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pov fork ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great idea for an article; needs expanding. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to closing administrator to note that - of the keep votes (as of now) one is from the creator of the article (User:Chesdovi), and the rest from Greek users who have engaged on many occasions in edit-warring and disputes with Turkish users, me included. I really had thought that at least for the TR-GR users this was over, but I was wrong. Article's title is WP:OR, and a FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute and develop the content there - what is the big deal, really? Baristarim 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what are Turkish settlements, anywhere in Cyprus, where there is a Turkish flag? Then I don't think there are that many. deniz^T_C 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, there is are no Turkish settlements anywhere but where the Turkish flag is flown? No Turkish settlements in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania, or anywhere else, right? Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The picture on the page was some mosque with a Turkish flag (in Cyprus). I thought it was related to settlements, maybe it's not. So, then what are these settlements? In those Balkan countries we might have some "ghetto"s where Turkish people live and have lived for many hundred years (by the way, are they still called settlers?) Are the Turkish settlements in Cyprus ghettos of people from Turkey? I would rather guess that they would blend in, spread kinda uniformly among the 'original' Turkish Cypriots, not build some ghettos. Are they house by house, like any house owned by a settler is a settlement? What about the students? I think the first sentence of the article might be wrong, it should read "after the invasion" not "established by Turkey". I don't think Turkey established any ghettos there. deniz^T_C 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Settlements aren't necessarily inhabited by "settlers" in the sense of migrants. I assume you live in a settlement, which the United Nations uses to refer to any inhabited place. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and its talk page. Since "Turkish" is both a nationality (you can have a Turkish passport and be of e.g. Greek, Armenian, Arab, Jewish, or Kurdish ethnicity) and an ethnicity (you can be ethnically Turkish and hold e.g., a Bosnian, Russian, or US passport), the use of Turkish to modify settlement in the context of Cyprus could well mean settlements in Cyprus inhabited by people of Turkish ethnicity or with Turkish passports. Based on the sources, these groups largely overlap anyway. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am sorry, but that would be our own interpretation as to what it means. Wikipedia transmits knowledge that exists: it is not a place to interpret information: No-one has been able to show where in the English language "Turkish settlement(s)" is used when referring to the Cyprus dispute, and especially not in the major news media - no such sources have been brought. Please see WP:OR - not to mention Fork issues with Cyprus dispute + Most common name policy. Baristarim 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, there is no need to have two separate POV names for the same territory. --FateClub 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps rename to Turkish settlement in Cyprus per the above and the deletionists seem to be pushing a POV. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how it is not a fork of Cyprus dispute and also produce any major news media release mentioning the expression "Turkish settlement"? "Israeli settlements" are regularly used by every news organization in the world, however this is not and poses WP:OR problems, on top of WP:fork.. And deletionists seem to pushing what POV precisely? (as of now) of the five delete votes, three were from non-Turks and two from Turks, am I missing something? Baristarim 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect, it is too generic term. Pavel Vozenilek 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete;Must.^T ^C 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC).. Per nomination.[reply]
Update. I expanded and cited the article. The first section needs the editing of editors with better sources to Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot sources, whom I invite to contribute. As far as the title is concerned, personally I believe that a renaming like the one proposed above by Carlossuarez46 (Turkish settlement in Cyprus or Turkish settlers in Cyprus) would be nice.--Yannismarou 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see below Rename to Turkish settlers in Cyprus (if it's only about the new immigrants) or Redirect to TRNC (if 'settlers' before 1974 will also be included) or . ~~Basically clarify the definition first.~~ deniz^T_C 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel (term is too vague and ambiguous) and merge whatever information is relevant into the appropriate articles. Khorshid 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a fact that settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus and by deleting this article would not chnage anything. It is very informtive about the topic. Although there might be some POV in the article it should be fixed, but not delete the whole article. ROOB323 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone can be give me a name of these "settlements" in Northern Cyprus if they are such a fact? If you people are going to draw connotations with Israeli settlements i.e. the creation of new towns and villages to accomodate settlers, then i'd like to know their names. --A.Garnet 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping the homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots negated the need for that, wouldn't you agree? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but that's rhetoric and such interpretations will simply stay ours. Nearly all impartial voters have agreed that this article was a fork, and it still hasn't been shown where in the English language the term "Turkish settlement" has been used - I can easily do a Google search for "Israel settlements", or in any major news agency's web-site and get hundreds of thousands of hits. None of the keep voters still hasn't been able to show news releases et al where such an expression is used - let alone bring sources per WP:ATT that show or name any of these "Turkish settlement". The title has WP:OR problems, and the article is a WP:FORK of Cyprus dispute. I don't get what the big deal is really, no-one is saying that the content should be deleted. However, you surely must see the OR and Fork problems of this article? Baristarim 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric? Interpretations? You're not seriously denying that settlers were brought in from Turkey to alter the island's demographic balance after 1974, and occupy properties whose title deeds belong to Greek Cypriots? I simply can't fathom why the Turkish editors are getting their knickers into a knot over such petty semantics. Turkish settlement doesn't have to refer to specific locations - although it could well do - it is an also an abstract noun referring to the indisputable act of bringing in those settlers in the first place. Simple English, really. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not denying or confirming anything, however please bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in the English language, otherwise it is WP:OR. Baristarim 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Turkish settlement has taken place on Cyprus? You're kidding me, right? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "Turkish settlement" as a term is used in the English language like "Israeli settlements" (which was the first line of argument and analogy by the keep voters) - if not, what the term means will be OR since Turkish settlement can also refer to Turkish neighborhoods in Berlin etc. Can you please bring per WP:ATT sources that attest that a) The term "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language and b) moreover, that there is an overwhelming concensus in the English language usage that it refers to the Cyprus dispute. You say "Israeli settlements" to any English language speaker, and they will understand what you are referring to, however you say "Turkish settlement" and they will not understand what you are talking about. Come on, prove me wrong: Bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in English, and especially in the news media et al. I am sorry Kekrops, but please do not continue this conversation unless you can address the issues raised. All impartial users have agreed that this was a fork, and you still haven't produced any of the sources I asked for above. Baristarim 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As I said, please do not assume bad faith Kekrops, I clearly said in my nom "merge if possible any content to Cyprus dispute" - nobody is asking for it to be "wiped off the face of the planet". I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you can't understand the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun, that's your problem. The term is used almost ubiquitously in English, as attested by the sources provided on this page which you have dismissed. If you're denying that Turkish settlers/settlement is used in English, you must be getting pretty desperate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Turkish settlement" is not used in English, definitely not when referring to the Cyprus dispute, then prove me wrong and bring me sources attesting to its usage in BBC, CNN et al reports - however you can easily find sources saying "Israeli settlements". I definitely know the difference between nouns, however WP:ATT clearly says that our knowledge is irrelevant. That usage has to be out there. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is out there. Yet again, you're trying to deny the undeniable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The search results at the BBC News website returns a whopping ZERO hits [1] And when searched not as a single term, it returns a whopping 26 hits, all referring to the "political settlement" [2]. I wonder who is "denying the undeniable". Even though I am Turkish, my primary language is English and I am telling you that the term "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language. Btw, pls cut down on the straw man and rhetoric, it is not helpful to the debate. Baristarim 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are results for "Israeli settlement" [3] and "Israeli settlements" [4]. So I rest my case :) Baristarim 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article wants to discuss the composition of North Cyprus in terms of mainland Turks and their integration into Cyprus then that should be done under Demographics of Cyprus. That imo is the most npov way of doing it. --A.Garnet 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the benefit of those who cannot or will not understand that Turkish settlement means precisely the same thing as Turkish settlers, the only difference being that the former is an abstract noun denoting the latter which is a concrete noun, here is a Turkish source which has been quoted by Turkish editors on numerous occasions and which uses the term in all possible permutations: http://cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. Enjoy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News carries much more weight when it comes to establishing English usage than cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. And BBC has never used it [5]. Give it up Kekrops, there is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language, not the least when referring to the Cyprus dispute. Your claim that they mean the same thing is your own opinion, I respect that, but WP:ATT says that our opinions are not relevant - there has to be an established usage in the English language. I have brought extremely authoritive sources that attest that there is no such usage (see above). volkan.htm is not the same. Plus this article has WP:FORK issues on top of WP:OR, merge the content, what is the big deal? Baristarim 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor has CNN. "Turkish%20settlement" - your persistence is astonishing Kekrops! :) There is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is not OR. Should I dig up more authoritive sources? Baristarim 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your persistence in failing to understand simple English grammar is what is truly astonishing here. If you seriously think your point is proven by a BBC or CNN site search, I rest my case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is proven per WP:ATT that there is no such usage (since it was the first line of defense and analogy coming from the creator of the article and most of keep voters, that "Turkish settlement" was akin to "Israeli settlements" - which has been proven wrong by established English usage using WP:ATT). Plus this article still has Fork issues on top of OR. Merge it to Cyprus dispute.. Baristarim 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you really can't stomach the term Turkish settlement, you might like to consider instead Turkish colonisation, as per the Council of Europe document provided by User:Yannismarou. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of stomaching, it is a question of OR, NPOV and undue weight. All of this is covered under "Cyprus dispute" - nobody is stopping from including anything in that article, but that is the article suited for all that information. Thus, the Fork issue. Baristarim 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for Garnet's attempt to create a Cypriot Civil War article. Your concern for the sanctity of WP:FORK was not as ardent in that case, unfortunately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to tell me what exactly is FORK about covering the disintegration of Cyprus before 74? --A.Garnet 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, once you tell me what is "fork" about covering the process by which an ethnically pure Turkish "state" was established in the north of Cyprus, namely by means of the expulsion of the Greek population and the massive influx of settlers from Turkey, or Turkish settlement if you will. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was not in Wikipedia when that article was created, so I don't know the story. Baristarim 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The story, Baris, is that the article I created was an attempt to plug a huge gap in the coverage of Cyprus related articles in that no detailed explanation was given of intercommunal violence from 63-74 which disintegrated the Republic. The issue in this article however, which barely adresses it, can be found in Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Cypriot refugees, Cyprus, and Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word settlement has two quite distinct meanings: (1) a community consisting of a number of dwellings; (2) the process of settling, as the result of migration. The title of the article is accordingly ambiguous. The disputed article as well as the present discussion appear to confuse the two meanings, whether accidentally or not. As defined in the lead of the article, the meaning is unambiguously (1), but in a curiously restricted sense. It is as if we were to have an article "Italian house" starting "An Italian house is a house built by Italians during World War I." Are settlements of Turks in Kos or Bulgaria then not Turkish settlements? Settlements of Turks on Cyprus have existed since the 16th century. In the remainder of the article, the meaning gradually shifts to (2). Although many Turks may have settled on the island after the partition, and the Republic of Turkey has not discouraged this, these migrants did not form new settlements, and no evidence is presented in the article that any communities were established by Turkey in Cyprus after the partition, nor do the cited sources support this contention. Thus, following the restricted definition of the lead, there are no Turkish settlements. The definition in the lead can be relaxed, of course, to refer to any Turkish communities, including those in existence on Cyprus at the time of the EOKA coup, but that defeats the whole purpose of the article, which would have to be completely rewritten to accommodate the new definition. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all versed on this subject, but your comment that "these migrants did not form new settlements" seems to be contradicted by a letter printed in the IHT: "Hundreds of illegal settlements have been established in occupied areas"Chesdovi 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, those are the letters of readers, you are aware of that, right? Please give the link to the article itself, if it is mentioned there. But you might be right a little bit, once I posted a comment on a Kurdish newspaper (?) website (I don't remember the website now, I found it through Yahoo! Alerts quite a while ago, it was the English version, I bookmarked it but then removed bookmark after like a week), they were bashing Erdoğan for a comment he made, in a few minutes the website was filled with anti-Turkish comments, I wrote something like Talabani said about the same thing, but my comment was not published, even though many other Turkey-bashing ones were published after that. So, having a comment there might reflect the opinion of the journalist as well, but that might be true only for that Kurdish website. deniz^T_C 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely pointing out that there is another opinion and of course the letter carries no weight! (Where is a list of "new" Turkish settlements on the web? Why are the Israeli ones so well documented?!!) Chesdovi 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as WP:ATT states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Where is the reliable source for the statements in the lead? --Lambiam ^Talk 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, your opinion is more valuable to me than that reader's opinion is. I changed my vote to delete only, as the current lead claims things with no support and then the article deals with something else, apparently the article won't get better. I am worried it will be anything goes — anytime the editor feels like it. Now we even have the Turkish settle-ment, act of settling. deniz^T_C 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. So many settlers in the occupied area of Cyprus that outnumber the Turkish Cypriots Aristovoul0s 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lambiam. On reading the title I honestly had never even considered the possibility of the concrete as opposed to the abstract meaning of "settlement", but as Lambiam rightly points out, the article thoroughly mixes the two up. In its present form it is ill-defined and muddled, and as such not a suitable sub-article for the main Cyprus conflict article - hence, it is a fork. Come back and write a new article on "Turkish settlement on Cyprus" (abstract!) when you've well thought out what the topic and its relation to the superordinate articles is going to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WMW Fowler[edit]

Article violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Article contains unsourced and poorly sourced claims. Article lacks notability. Masterpedia 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. --Masterpedia 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As none of the claims seem the least controversial, I do not see how the intent of BLP is violated.DGG 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not violate WP:BLP anyway, as Fowler died in 1977 [6]. He made the front page of The Times according to the Shropshire Star, and it sounds like Countryman's Cooking is a very notable, best-selling and widely covered book. --Canley 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to be moved to W. M. W. Fowler though. --Peta 04:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean W.M.W. Fowler. TJ Spyke 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and support move, as per Peta. Ford MF 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He seems notable, needs to be move to W.M.W. Fowler though. TJ Spyke 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator didn't explain how Fowler lacks notability and I don't see any claims that would violate WP:BLP or even BDP if it existed. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as author of popular book, has source. NawlinWiki 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient notability. Agree on move as well. JavaTenor 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above, sufficient notability exists. What is BDP? Yamaguchi先生 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 1) I agree article should be moved to W.M.W. Fowler and have done as suggested. 2) Fowler died in 1977 (as stated). 3) The information on the page was initially sourced from Fowlers own book which is referenced. Two further references have also been added that support the information. Jcwhizz 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Blueprint[edit]

They are a non-notable label without even their own website. The first hit on Google is discogs.com (which contains an entry for everything), and the second is Wikipedia. They don't seem to have signed any notable artists or groups; there is no reason for their inclusion. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:ATT. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ab e g92contribs 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ianblair23 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Furletti[edit]

Article is about an insignificant secretary for an unimportant Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs. Masterpedia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination. --Masterpedia 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baristarim 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a member of parliament for 6 years. Article does need a lot of work. But his name gets a decent ammount of news results [7], suggesting he meets WP:N. --W.marsh 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Parliament of Victoria that is. Still, notable enough for me given the news results. --W.marsh 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BIO. Member of provincial legislature and member of the Shadow Ministry in Victoria makes him notable enough. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, that's for sure. He was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in the Victorian Upper House, and held several shadow ministries himself (Ports, Natural Resources and Energy), so a bit more notable than the article makes out. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of Parliamentary Secretary (i.e. they're not a secretary in the "Mr Furletti, take a letter" sense of the word). --Canley 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article needs improvement, but members of Parliament are notable.--Grahamec 03:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep All members of a national legislature are of course notable. But this seems to be the parliament of one of the provinical governments of Australia. I am not the least sure whether all members of a provincial (or US state) legislature are notable. This is a wider stretch than I've previously seen. (Assuming I am not totally wrong about the Govt. structure of Australia)DGG 03:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BIO seems to expect that provincial (and U.S. state) legislators will be notable. The news hits seem to bear that out here. Mwelch 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from WP:BIO Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures - that's pretty specific. Ga rr ie 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Limited[edit]

Appears to be an advert for a non-notable company. I've not speedied just in case there's a good reason to keep it, but at present there's nothing to suggest notability Iridescenti 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Respectable sources. DGG 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources. Ab e g92contribs 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we need articles on corporations that are essentially invisible to the general public, unless they are extremely significant in some way. As a marketing firm that assists businesses in marketing to businesses, in a single industry, this is not something we need in an encyclopedia. And we certainly don't need the Google Maps link showing where its office is... Brianyoumans 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know who reads Wikipedia. We have plenty of articles that are not of interest to the general public but to a specific group of people. Your comment is not based on policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep--there are two totally respectable sources. If sourcing is enough for N, as is being widely claimed, then they are notable. (Though I consider client lists in such articles to be internal linkspam). DGG 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of clients helps establish the notability of the company. They wouldn't be half as notable if their clients were much smaller companies. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize this, but it creates a problem in terms of the generation of linkspam. The only general solution I can think of is to list but not link. Agreed, this is not really much of a problem here, because only a few companies are listed. But some such articles have many more. Just mentioning it. DGG 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is little more than a press-release mission statement and a partial list of clients. There's no actual "article" here. Ford MF 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources. The mission statement is obvious for this type of company so it can be removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While the company has several clients which are notable in their own right, the article seems rely rather heavily on name-dropping. As Brianyoumans' reply seems to suggest, it is important for the entity to have some sort of claim to fame. This second paragraph — which seems to provide some information about the company — reads like it was ripped from some sort of prospectus. Aarktica 19:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Iridescenti. When in doubt, please use the {{prod}} tag; if that approach fails, you can always bring it here. Aarktica 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't prod it because I thought it was borderline enough to warrant a debate (the fact that it has four keep and three delete !votes seems to bear that out). If I was certain, I'd have db-spammed it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ankiro[edit]

Article is about a small company, with very few employees making a minor software product for a narrow customer base. If listed at least 10000 other small danish companies should listed as well.

Delete, No external sources. Yawn. Ab e g92contribs 22:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any sources of notability either. YechielMan 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge, but someone with more knowledge about the subject, i.e. participants here, will have to do it. John Reaves (talk)

Tommy (comics)[edit]

As much as I am an X-Men fan, this article is necessarily of too little notibility even to fans of the X-books to merit a full Wikipedia article. Outside of her being the (debatable) first victim of the Mutant Massacre in Uncanny X-Men # 210, there is nothing else that would support a full article, as that issue and a handful of appearances on the animated series comprise the entire corpus of her existence in the Marvel Universe. Pat Payne 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a merge into the Morlocks article might make sense, but looking at it almost all the others have articles and the number of them makes a merge unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and other minor Morlock articles into a single List of Morlocks per WP:FICT. Not enough material to sustain a separate article but would work nicely as part of a character list. Otto4711 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If she's not noteworthy enough for a separate page that doesn't mean the article should be deleted entirely. The nominator himself/herself doesn't appear to have considered merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Otto4711. Could be useful to someone looking for information on Morlocks. Hewinsj 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The list of Morlocks idea is a good one. - Denny 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as CSD A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Castle Eagles Football Roster[edit]

Non-notable high-school (American) football team. Not even clear that the content is verifiable. Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under {{db-group}}. No assertion of notability. Tagged as such.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per above i am surprise it been on here as long it have beenOo7565 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With thanks to the vandal who turned this into an attack page. Without him/her, it probably would've been here much longer. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers[edit]

Nomination

~~Listcruft~~ List more suited to a Wrestling fansite. The individual wrestler articles overwhelmingly have details of the subject's signature moves making collective lists redundant.
Checking [[Category:Professional_wrestlers_by_nationality]] country by country gave a total of 714 articles (which doesn't take into account uncategorised biographies) and given that often wrestlers have more than one "finishing move" and that new wrestler articles are created all the time, this list is shown to be clearly unmaintainable. </If the list was now 100% complete there would be in excess of 1000 lines - far too collossal. There is also the issue of complete lack of references/citations or even appropriate internal links.

Suriel1981 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the fact that this is the only unnecessary wrestling moves article. There is no need for a repository of finishing moves, as the wrestler's individual articles store the names and descriptions. I also support deletion due to the fact that this article is completely unverified. -- The Hyb rid 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator exhausted all the points. I have nothing to add. YechielMan 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another problem is that the listing of the moves is completely different from how they are listed in the normal articles and use phrases that appear to have been made up on the spot. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom ZBrannigan 03:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no way this could be realistically maintained. MarcK 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant list, also impossible to maintain MPJ-DK 10:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator should be ~~slammed~~ slapped with a wet fish for mentioning the word listcruft, but the rest of his nomination is as sound as it can be. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The potential for abuse and misinformation outweighs the utility of the page. McPhail 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' (super-spin hit delete button sitting in chair) For all the reasons above, it's hard to add any more to the reasons, except to say that the "descriptions" added to each entry in the list are also positively bamboozling for someone not interested in the "sport" (like me). Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per MarcK's comments. Quatreryukami 15:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it it is very useful and there is no point in taking it down and it took a lot of work to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.245.113 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - it is completely useless. The actual articles serve the purpose of this list. It is just taking up space, and hasn't been shown to be reliable. -- The Hyb rid 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the nomination demonstrated the reasons for taking it down. I do understand the article must have taken a lot of work and I certainly sympathise but WP policies really should be checked on before putting a lot of time/energy into a creation. Suriel1981 13:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I realize the point of the nominator, as this is an endless list, but I feel the opening paragraph is a perfect definition of what a finishing maneuver is. I tried to search for a page that had only the definition, of which none currently exist. All pages with similar titles redirect to this page. I would like to nominate the first paragraph as an official definition, or even a stub, for a page entitled "Finishing Maneuvers". —YeLLeY511 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see the terms finishing- or signature moves needing a separate page, but Professional wrestling does need a section/paragraph describing them. ↪Lakes (Talk) 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Wafulz 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Opera[edit]

non notable christian rock band. a couple of indie records, but no singles, article notes that band "broke up after struggling to gain mainstream popularity" indicating it fails WP:BAND. Also is completely unsourced, so violates WP:A ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and bundle with For Madmen Only (Atomic Opera album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No notability established. Both seem to only have redlinks (the blue ones for the album are all for different people with the same name.) Bobanny 19:00, 23 March 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}}.

STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP there are too many examples of rock bands inside of wikipedia so there is precedence. Kemper Crabb and Frank Hart are ICONS of independent Christian rock music. Atomic Opera often perfomed with the likes of Galactic Cowboys and King's X. Just because some people apparently don't like them is NOT a good reason to remove the information. Unless wikipedia is about censorship (??) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjcox (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC). — Cjcox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP Just because they broke up once before does not make them a candidate for deletion. They did reconvene and are still an active band. I went through and removed the "red links" that were another person's argument for deletion. And what does "Delete as it's not yet a suitable subject for wikipedia." mean? Please be more specific than that, Mr. Berry. Also, the citing of WP:BAND in the original argument is bogus, due to "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Also, to Ward3001, the article isn't self-promotional, as I wrote most of the content originally, and am not affiliated with the band. Also, the article is no longer unsourced as multiple references have been included. Dlwhiteman 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Those reasons for deletion are pathetic. The band is still around and all the members are making music. Just because some people don't know that doesn't mean this should be deleted. -JJ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.143.229 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC). — 161.253.143.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band has a long history, and it seems to be fairly notable - "Atomic Opera" and "Christian" generates 18,600 ghits, most of which seem to be the band. It isn't hard to find multiple reviews of their work online, and interviews; there seems to be a lot of interest in their work, especially in Christian rock circles. Brianyoumans 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. A perusal of the first couple dozen ghits seems to confirm the bands very minor notability, just barely enough to avoid deletion I think. Ford MF 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can any of the keep voters explain how this fulfills WP:MUSIC criteria? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now properly referenced. Dan, the CowMan 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unconvinced that there are any non-trivial published sources about this band, and as such fails the primary criterion of WP:MUSIC. All the stuff I can find on them is either from blog, directories and the like - nothing from an independent source to support the idea that this band is notable enough for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you now see that there are. Dan, the CowMan 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets central criteria of WP:MUSIC: "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Also meets criteria #3 "national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources" for touring with Dio. Note that the usage of the term "mainstream" from Swatjester's nomination refers to Rock radio outside of the Christian rock realm. The stuff that's played on most rock stations throughout the United States. It is possible for an artist to be notable in the Christian realm without success in "mainstream" music. The artist has a biography on All Music Guide [8]. Royalbroil^T : C 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite my immense distaste for the genre, it looks like it meets the multiple non-trivial standard. Ab e g92contribs 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is now properly referenced, meeting WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 03:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan, the CowMan. GreenJoe 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability concern addressed. Shimeru 07:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. David Lewis[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is a non-notable vanity (and COI) article. Lewis wrote this article about himself, and has exaggerated his awards and accomplishments. The Day prize is the only one he won outright (and it was for a collaborative work); the Broken Frontier is a web community-based award with no official standing, and Cinescape chooses multiple winners, hence "a winner" (their usage - Lewis skips that bit). The first hit for Lewis on Google is his own company, and there is no way to verify easily that he was ever more than a student contributor to the IJOCA. He's also not an "educator" but, given his current education level (self-stated PhD student), perhaps a teaching assistant. The sources on the article are his company site and his blog, and thus fail WP:RS. MSJapan 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Absolutely not an academic -- at least yet. Whether he qualifies otherwise I doubt, but cannot say for sure.DGG 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His credentials are unconvincing. YechielMan 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not notable as an academic, no, but his credentials are there in the comic book world. He's not wildly notable, to be sure, but I found a couple of sources and went ahead and added them to the article. His name definitely has decent prominence once you get into comicbook-specific press and web sites. Nonetheless, two of the sources I added are more mainstream, so as to be more clear about his overall notability. Mwelch 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very minor, but sufficiently notable in the comic book world. Ford MF 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. borderline notability, but glossy secondary sources do cover him and his work. John Vandenberg 05:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable science fiction films[edit]

List with many problems: It includes any film that has won a "widely-recognized" award (including a Razzie). "Widely-recognized" is inherently subjective. I know about films but I haven't heard of some of these awards. Annual box office receipts also appear to be a factor here.

WP:NOR states that unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material... (including) interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication. So unless these films have specifically been listed in this order, for this reason, by a reliable publication before, the list is OR.

Also problems with the title; "notable" just doesn't work in Wikipedia articles because, by definition, every science fiction film with an article is notable. I have proposed a rename (renaming it to anything else descriptive), but that was before I actually looked at the list properly and realised it shouldn't even be on here. Saikokira 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you're right about the problems in this article... but I'm not sure that it should be deleted for them. Films considered the greatest ever had many of these problems at one point but it's better (not great) now and seems to be accepted as an article that won't be deleted. With some work this could be the same. I'd vote keep if someone was going to clean this up. gren グレン 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the problems here are the type that can be solved by cleaning it up. Films considered the greatest ever is different because it's a list of superlatives, so most of the films on that list have ranked higher or won more awards in a particular field than any other. Saikokira 05:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any film with a Wikipedia article is supposed to be notable by definition and this is redundant to the far more comprehensive category system for science fiction films. If the award the films won is sufficiently notable then lists of the films that won those awards might be acceptable. Otto4711 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as the previous reasons this list is too loosely connected. If it was just sci-fi films that have won an Oscar, OK. If it was highest-grossing sci-fi films ever, fine. But where's the strong connection between a Golden Globe, a "Hugo", and a Razzie? There isn't one. There's a related AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to the 76th Academy Awards. Croxley 04:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate lists about the winners of the listed awards for those lists that don't already exist. A list of all notable SF films would be unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Otto4711 in saying that as "notability" is a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, by default a list of "notable" films is redundant to the existing category system. The article attempts to create a more narrow definition of "notability" but in doing so has injected a POV bias as to what constitutes a "widely-recognized" award. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auxilliary Fractions[edit]

Reads as a howto (see WP:NOT#IINFO); misspelt page title; incomprehensible EdC 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

needs an expert reading to the end, it seems this is not arithmetic as taught in the US or UK, but Vedic mathematics. I cannot evaluate tha, except to see that it is all based on or taken from one book. .DGG 09:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Vedic mathematics treats the topics lightly, from the same book. Changed name to a single "l" in text. Method explained and exemplified in article. Most math articles give and work out some examples. It is arithmetic, converting a fraction to a decimal value with mental math, without long division. As the algorithm is from one book, it is a rare, valuable resource. Larry R. Holmgren 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment it does not help that the writing is so horrid. I suggest withdrawing the nomination for now, submitting it to WikiProject math articles in need of attention and resubmit in a few weeks if no one has bothered to clean it up. Pascal.Tesson 23:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it has potential. If not, it can be redirected somewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with most of y'all. I judge this to be a viable topic (despite the very low number of google hits), but the presentation is horribly arcane. See if it can be translated into some variant of standard English. YechielMan 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WikiProject math per Pascal.Tesson. This may be a notable topic and even has featured article potential - but who can tell right now? --Charlene 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and submit to WikiProject Math. Ab e g92contribs 12:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. Given the evident consensus to keep; I'm going to close this discussion and mark the page as needing expert attention using {{expert-subject|Mathematics}}. I reserve the option to relist Auxiliary Fractions for deletion if it is not significantly improved within a reasonable time period. –EdC 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billingham Bags[edit]

Advertisement, not notable. Prod contested on two separate occasions in the past. Sable232 02:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not provide any indication of notability; reads like fan-site. ZBrannigan 03:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion, no assertion of notability. DoorsAjar 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough information to establish notability. BTLizard 10:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Articles here [9] [10] [11] from established magazines (these appear to be transcriptions from articles, so they are not just from one source). A major manufacturer of camera bags sold by many major photographic stores (B&H photo and Jessops off the top of my head). The article is poor at the moment but could easily be saved with a bit of work. Will attempt a cleanup soon --Xarr 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is a self-advertisement. — Wenli 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zio Systems[edit]

Nom looks like self-sourced SPAM to me; This company hardly registers with Google - and it claims to sell computer hardware. Fails WP:CORP methinks. Rklawton 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a fan-site. does not satisfy WP:ORG. ZBrannigan 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generated a lot of controversy recently after claims that it failed to deliver hardware. Outside of this (which is really just a forum spat, honestly), though, it's non-notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (For those not acquainted with the current controversy, I suggest reading through this {and maybe this too, if you have the patience}.) Nonnotable, plus there is controversy over whether ZioSys is even a company to start with. Also, for those aware of the controversy, WP:TROLL seems to apply (in spirit). Ourai ^тʃ_с 04:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a shell company owned by one person. Rulesdoc 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now), wait until all this blows over, see if anyone remembers it in a month's time. If not, then delete it. Lankiveil 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, the company is an ongoing scam. The page should be filled with current information though. Pmbarros 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they may or may not be a scam, but there doesn't seem to be any notability for this company, and no reliable sources provided from which to verify any of the information. -- Whpq 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Ourai. --Aarktica 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommyknocker (producer)[edit]

The article does not assert notability of the subject. Nv8200p talk 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom ZBrannigan 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain no references, but his Discogs entry is pretty extensive. Can anybody knowledgable about the genre produce any reliable sources? If so, my vote would likely be to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local club makeshift DJ. Not notable. Cioxx 17:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betinternet.com[edit]

Nom - speedied once; fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB Rklawton 02:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced--and that's all i can say, for I do not understand from the article itself what is its position among other companies in that line. DGG 03:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, amateur Sunday League team. NawlinWiki 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotiv FC[edit]

I'm astonished this page has lasted nearly a year! Anyway, fails WP:CORP as it appears to simply be a Sunday league team HornetMike 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
Delete - per nom. ZBrannigan 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. How did this page keep below the radar for so long! Daemonic Kangaroo 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Sunday recreational team, doesn't meet any form of guideline ChrisTheDude 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - could have been speedied despite its longevity. Qwghlm 07:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing to suggest this is anything other than a Sunday League team Jules 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As all above. Tangerines 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Moore[edit]

Possibly notable pioneer, article sources lost during page moves.

Partly procedural: At first glance, the subject of this article would seem important as an early pioneer of the European settlement of the area. However, the sources for this page were lost along with the early page history during some rather unclear page moves. The article obviously cannot stay without them, and I myself have no information on the subject. I ask some admin who knows how to retrieve the sources, so the article can be properly restored and discussed. . -- or perhaps the orig. ed who added the article still has the information. We have been discussing similar bios, & it would be a good time to clear the status of this one if possible. I cannot say which way it should go without knowing the sources. If restoring them is for some reason impossible, then of course it should be deleted. DGG 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article is in Inky Moore. There never were any sources in the article itself. There is only one online reference to this person - the link is on your talk page. Resurgent insurgent 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the note left on my talk page, the ref referred to is [12] (he's no. 160). which must obviously have been compiled from other sources. I am not in the least disputing about this article, just discussing it-- I have been puzzled by it, because it was obviously written from sources along with a number of other bios on Moores by User:Podiatrist, and I cant figure out where. (How the history got to be under Inky Moore is something I never did understand, but no matter), So i'd like to ask in public, and have it settled. If I ever have the time in some future year, I may try to find the real sources myself & either add or recreate depending on what the status of this article is by then. because it does seem obvious that a leader of an obviously historical rebellion should be notable and must have sources somewhere beyond the link above. But not my main interest in life. DGG 03:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sad comment on Canada, if you can lead a rebellion and still not be notable. Should this not be on the Canadian-related list? Johnbod 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable even given the era of his life. He's #55 in the page DGG linked to, not #160. (The WP:V pundits won't like it that the page is hosted on some ISP's personal web server and is likely to be self-published, but that is another matter for another time.) The writer of that page appears to have done much research, but assuming everything on the page is accurate, nowhere is he claimed to have been a "leader of the rebels" in any battle. So that info is unsourced. Under "notable events: military" his only notable event was "his service in the 1812-14 War with the Americans" and allegedly getting land in return for said service. Thus his best reliable claim to notability is only an unspecified role in another battle, which is not close to notability even in that era. Other things he did include being jailed, sentenced to death, moving residence several times, and owning about 500 acres of land, none of which are notable activities in themselves. Resurgent insurgent 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everything old is notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but once notable, they remain so. If he was a notable revolutionary in the 19th century, he remains so. I think getting sentenced to death for treason is generally notable, even if not executed. But agreed that this part is not currently documented. DGG 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It was a procedural nomination, and the consensus to keep is unanimous. Non-admin closure.

Brimstone (wrestler)[edit]

An anonymous user tagged this article for speedy deletion, leaving the following note:

non-notable wrestler; if for some reason this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (I think it does), could somebody please put it up for afd as a procedural nomination for failing notability requirements and being unreferenced, and perhaps even being spam? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make an account at this time. Thanks in advance. YechielMan 03:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was in multiple televized wrestling matches for notable wrestling organizations and has a comic book character based on his wrestling persona. Don't see how that is not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are more assertions of notability than in the majority of wrestling biography articles. The article is comprehensively referenced and relatively well written. McPhail 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In agreeing with the other users, there seems to be more than enough notability especially compared to MANY other wrestling biography articles on wiki. RingWars2007 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I realize that as the original creator of this article, my opinion is technically "biased" in favor of keeping the article, but I felt the fact that he has appeared in a range of media sources was enough to qualify him under the notability factor. I have noticed in my work on the to do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling, that many other wrestling-related wiki articles are either not sourced, poorly sourced, or seem non-notable (and not necessary). I had hoped this article was a step above those, and am still hoping! —YeLLeY511 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum total of human knowledge, cover everything we can find sources for. I was surprised to see so many sources on the wrestler, who I have never heard of before seeing the article being worked on in recent edits. Probably the anon who suggested it for speedy deletion hadn't heard of him either. Deletionism is so against the spirit of Wikipedia that it sickens me. Speedy keep I say, pretty much everyone is agreeing on this. KV(Talk) 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's quite notable, and the article isn't badly written. — Wenli 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of sources, but peppered with redlinks. Ab e g92contribs 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. Daniel Bryant 07:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trashketball (second nomination)[edit]

Still fails WP:NFT, WP:NEO. Due to the nature of the game, it is unlikely that it will ever be verifiable. Only new information appears to be a link to some Flash game. mi km 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4 and salt please. --Sable232 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4 per Sable232. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perim Özgeldi[edit]

Delete, per notability criteria of WP:BIO - the article says "Turkish press advisor who is working for one of the best comedian Mehmet Ali Erbil in Turkey." Not sure if press secretaries qualify as notable, even though the comedian might be. Gets 138 hits on Google, nearly all from Wikipedia mirrors like answers.com [13]. Baristarim 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Baristarim 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable deniz^T_C 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Free smyrnan 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Mehmet Ali Erbil doesn't warrant his own page, don't see how you can justify his press secretary having one. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Mehmet Ali Erbil does warrant his own page, it's just not done yet. deniz^T_C 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like an advertisement as well. — Wenli 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Headrick[edit]

He's a college student with a radio show and a blog. Big deal YechielMan 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Gets few hits other than his blogsite which is not the best link per WP:ATT and WP:EL. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above unless it can be independently sourced before close of AfD. janejellyroll 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw him discussed on an ESPN radio program by Bill Simmons who was talking about some of the better Sports bloggers on the internet. Rooks19

With new media and its recent advances and the growth of blogging, who is to say who is a legitimate source and who isn't? PerezHilton, Deadspin and countless others are on Wikipedia. Just because you don't follow NASCAR and haven't heard of his blog does not mean it should be deleted. He has a growing viewership because of his southern roots and knowledge of the sport. Keep Piggy on Wikipedia! AlSorr06 — AlSorr06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Articles need to be verifiable by someone else than the subject themself. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability for entertainers. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick irwin[edit]

Supposed three time world lightweight champion at the age of 16. Suspected hoax Mattinbgn/^talk 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax. ZBrannigan 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some stuff on Google about the guy, but I reserve judgement whether it is a hoax or not. Needs major cleaning up. Useight 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete sources needed to prove claims, then I would vote keep. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LexisNexis comes up dry. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing relevant on Factiva either. Unsourced, it looks very much a hoax. Resurgent insurgent 14:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I moved this to the proper capitalization. Ab e g92contribs 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the commenters above, does not meet relevant content policies or guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wood (cricketer)(1977)[edit]

Non-notable. Sources do not validate claims. Philippe 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional first class cricketer. See Cricinfo for details. --Mattinbgn/^talk 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Top-flight professional cricketer, sources appear to verify all info given. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if the sources don't validate given content, unless there's strong reason to assume it's promotional in nature or blatantly incorrect those are reasons for cleanup rather than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a dab notice on Matthew Wood (cricketer) to point here. I'd support a move to Matthew James Wood to avoid the ambiguity and the odd title with two modifiers. A middle name works just as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per Mgm. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though should be a little better sourced to verify the claim of being a professional - not to mention the fact that sources should really be listed as references, not external links :) Article does need some cleanup, and please move it to a better title per Mgm - the existing double-modified title is just ugly. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently trying to write an entry for every first class cricketer who has played for Yorkshire CCC. By definition a first class cricketer is a notable person. The entry will be expanded and properly presented soon but I can't do everything at once. The sources for the statistics, Cricket Archive, will be given. Nick mallory 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]

Keep. WP:BIO says "competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are by definition considered sufficiently notable for an article. This cricketer has played more than 100 professional matches. Johnlp 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a professional cricketer in the English first class game is celarly notable. If the sources are not good enough apply an appropriat tag. Peterkingiron 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has references to Wood's statistics on cricinfo and cricket archive and is linked to the Yorkshire Cricketers category. I agree the title is clumsy, but that was the link from the 'Yorkshire CCC players' page which I'm working my way through. If someone could change the title that would be great but I wouldn't presume to do that myself. This article is as complete and well sourced as a thousand others on similar first class cricketers and I'm not sure why it's still up for possible deletion. Nick mallory 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]

Keep As stated above. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geogre. →Bobby← 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin lacey[edit]

Non-notable subject; sources do not validate the claims. Philippe 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any sources to back up claims and indicate the subject is notable. janejellyroll 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, tagged as such. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium versus Wikipedia[edit]

Let's nip this in the bud. This page (even with a new title) appears to be waiting for something problomatic or a flamewar. It is impossible to compare the two without either having this be a op-ed or a direct fork of an article. Yanksox 03:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not because of the tendency for flamage, but because it's something more that allows WP:OR. --Dennisthe2 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The identical material is (currently) included in the Citizendium article -- this is therefore a fork, and ought not to be. (Not to mention the obvious flame/troll bait it represents." -- Simon Cursitor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single source not enough for this to be a noted controversy. Title implies original research. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic. On one hand, it is possible WP:OR. On the other hand, for all I know, this is not only a flamebait, but a bait that is setted by Citizendium editors to show the world that Wikipedia that there exist a cabal or censorship etc (if delete), or to show that there are no standard even if it IS WP:OR. (if keep). Proceed with extreme caution; if vote for any case, please put up good arguments beyond the WP:OR. George Leung 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any useful comparison content might be worth having in the Citizendum article though I doubt there is much to say about a project that is in its infancy it is crystal ball to suggest that this is a genuine alternative to wikipedia. MLA 10:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't a real article, it's a thinly veiled claim that Citizendium is better than Wikipedia. As for George Leung's concern - Citizendium's claims under those circumstances would be unsound: if delete, we are deleting a flamebait, inherently POV article, not being an evil cabal. If keep, we would be allowing that article to grow - something I find inappropriate given that the article on Citizendium will, or should be the location of any comparison of WP and CZ since CZ is arguably a fork or offshoot of Wikipedia. Let the standards existing in our AfD processes rule, and any challenge from an opportunistic CZ'er is baseless - we will have followed Wikipedia's standards and reached a reasonable conclusion via consensus. For the record, in this comment I do not imply that WP either is or is not better than CZ - I just can't see this article as anywhere near appropriate. Nihiltres 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inevitable comparison of Citizendium to Wikipedia is best covered in the Citizendium article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wonder what's User:QuackGuru's obsession with creating Wikipedia related articles. --Conti|✉ 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If and when the topic of Wikipedia vs Citizendium comparisons becomes too uweildy for the Citizendium article - properly backed up by reliable secondary sources of course - then perhaps a more comprehensive article can be written. Right now that set of circumstances does not exist and thus neither should this article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be perfectly frank, that's probably best left in the Citizendium article itself - this would be based off of a precedent set by articles for Everything2 and, by a long shot, Urban Dictionary (which, in its current state, I don't believe has such a comparison - but you get the idea). --Dennisthe2 16:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is clearly going nowhere. Yanksox is right, it's waiting for some sort of altercation. I also raise the question of how you'd source an article like this; it's inherently going to contain POV unless it's a simple statement of differences between the two sites. --Deskana (ya rly) 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple paraphrasing of a single source does not constitute an encyclopedia article on a topic. Obviously this is the sort of topic that could assemble a variety of sources into an interesting article, but for now, it doesn't. Sockatume 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete belongs in the Citizendium article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When a lot of voters believe it belongs in the Citizendium article your vote would be merge. Think long and hard about your votes. People are watching us. You never know. A news reporter could write a juicy story about Wikipedians and their real attitudes, and ... I'll let you fill in the blanks. Have a nice day. The truth will prevail. BTY, I vote MERGE. Note to closing administrator: Voters are saying merge and then they vote delete. You are all an interesting bunch. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, the culture of Wikipedia is scary. There is alreadly enough coverage. I'll let you in on a secret though: not many people give a damn about Wikipedia. Hence, the press really doesn't care about something as minute as deleting a barely one paragraph article. Yanksox 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't care about Wikipedia when something good is happening, but as soon as a hint of bad stuff happen, they will flock to it like bees to honey. Personally, I am neutral, but like I said, proceed with caution. Kudos to those that stated these with clear arguments.George Leung 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't happen at the hint of anything slightly bad. I've been here for a year and known about Wiki's existance before that. For the most part the press is somewhat lackadasical about Wiki, they only care in gigantic situations like Essjay and Schelgr., but the press doesn't monitor Wiki, it takes alot of people to jump up and down. This is a simple and small page, stop spitting so much into it, George. You and Quack need to relax. Yanksox 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alert That's what they said about Essjay in the beginning. Relax? or better yet procede with extreme caution. The votes for delete are a logical fallicy arguement. Therefore, it is a keep. Voting is based on logic and NOT the cabal (if delete). I find it interesting you are all in it together (vote the same). :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a better question is to ask is who are you? Who christened as Wikipedia's ombudsman? Yanksox 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And another thing: if you keep showing up with nonsensical blanket threats you can kindly show yourself the door. Yanksox 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - QG, what in blazes does Essjay have to do with this? Don't bring Essjay into the mess. This article is not about Essjay or how s/he (apparently) relates to this article we're discussing the deletion of, it is about the potential deletion of the article. --Dennisthe2 06:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wayyyyy too soon. Maybe in a year when sources can cover this. - Denny 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even sure what this article is supposed to be? Is it about a controversy? If so, which one - I don't know of any, and the article doesn't bring any forward. Is it supposed to be a comparison of Wikipedia and Citizendium? Then it's not an encyclopedic topic, AFAIK - and it surely could be covered on the page about Citizendium, or Wikipedia themselves. I mean, a "differences" page should only be created when there is substantial and informative material to be collected which could not be produced on the pages about the two items being compared. In this case, it is all of one line on either to summarize the comparisons - it doesn't need it's own article. --Haemo 02:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, no reliable sources to speak of, non-notable topic. Fails just about every policy we have (and probably just about every policy Citizendium has, though I confess I haven't checked). Xtifr _tälk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break

Alert The text of the article has significantly expanded. All the votes above have nothing to do with anything. Cordially. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously kidding, right. You've significantly altered the tone of this article in a way which makes it entirely unencyclopedic - note the continual use of "we" for instance. Furthermore, it's now virtually all WP:OR! This is an even stronger reason to delete it, and it hasn't even come close to addressing the primary complaint which is why is this topic encyclopedic in the first place? --Haemo 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should probably have made it clear in this AFD that you are the original creator of the article in question in the first place. I was quite confused. ---Haemo 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, you're joking. The article is still serious WP:OR, and there is no other documentation (with the possible exception of the Citizendium article). Finally, don't even get the idea that you speak for me - not only do you not, I find your pretention of doing so downright insulting. My !vote stands as is. --Dennisthe2 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here. The nice upstanding people at Citizendium are not afraid to make a comparison. Are you afraid? :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 07:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and we aren't Citizendium? What of it? --Haemo 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me expand on this, so it doesn't seem too terse - Citizendium is created as a response to Wikipedia. This article is their meta-namespace, to talk about what Citizendium is, and is not. It's not a mainspace article, and they don't appear to have an article on this in their mainspace either. There's no clear reasoning why this is an encyclopedic topic - they clearly don't think it is. --Haemo 07:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I'm stunned. What in tarnations am I supposed to be afraid of?! I'm at a point where the only thing I can ask you borders on a personal attack! Quit with the drama already - the smiley doesn't help. I have nothing more to say about this. --Dennisthe2 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ excessively self-referential and otherwise problematic. Just because we could do this according to our standards doesn't mean we should. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just adding to say that I don't mind Move to Wikipedia:, but failing that, this is definitely Deletable stuff. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: space. The obvious decision. Abeg92contribs 14:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I wouldn't even grant this, if I were me. Granted essays are inherently POV as a whole, but this isn't even a good essay. --Dennisthe2 15:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current, "expanded" article is a copy of Wikipedia:We aren't Citizendium, so there's not much of a point in moving this anywhere. That explains the POV and OR language, too. --Conti|✉ 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Citizendium. The article has nothing which isn't on the Citizendium article, so why the need for a comparison? It also assumes self references, ie assumes that the reader is on Wikipedia (rather than answers.com, etc). Comment: What on earth are all these paranoid references to "you are being watched"!? Come now, the black helicopters are not on their way! --h2g2bob 03:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Heppell[edit]

Vanity/promotion page about an educator whose importance is still pretty unclear after reading the article. This page was previously deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Heppell for the first debate. The entirety of sourcing available at this time consists of a couple of short bullet points in a "profile" on a news site [14]. There is also this, brought up in the previous debate as an award he won that (1) isn't an independent source, (2) reads like a press release, and (3) doesn't give any idea what the RTS Judges award is, or if it has any prestige, who awards it, et cetera. Given the shabby state of the article, the creation of it and some recent editing by User:Stephenheppell, and the borderline level of notability here, I say we delete. Mango juice^talk 03:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 04:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Vanity article, seems to exist to only promote. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability (people) Wikipedia:Autobiography DrKiernan 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chappelle's Show. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negrodamus[edit]

Completely uncited quote-farm about a single skit on Chappelle's Show. Sub-minor fiction character which even fails notability on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) since it does not have sufficient depth to sustain an independent article. At most it should redirect to the show or actor article. Anything remotely notable could easily be covered by the Paul Mooney or Chappelle's Show articles. Recently prodded but deprodded with no assertion of notability. Recommend delete, then redirect to either Paul Mooney or Chappelle's Show. Dual Freq 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sort of cruft pours through the TV every day. Herostratus 05:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. No way enough sources about this single skit exist. Fancruft. Funny skit, though. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per both above. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly move any notable quotes to wikiquote. Hewinsj 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chappelle's Show. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chappelle Show. LevelSolve 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge per above. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. - grubber 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyfe Style Supply Co.[edit]

Claims that they are known all over "the Los Angeles county" (sic) and have designed shirts for celebrities are unsourced. Google search turns up nothing beyond a myspace.com page. Db tag has been removed numerous times by creator. Fails WP:CORP janejellyroll 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for utter failure in meeting WP:CORP: Eddie.willers 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. BTLizard 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence of notability provided by the end of the AfD. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article can't even pretend to meet WP:CORP. Google finds next to nothing, and there are no external sources. Ale_Jrb ^talk 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, unfortunately. The article's a mess. All of the Keep votes noted that the article needs major work, generally pruning. There were some comments suggesting a split (of the potheads) or a merge, but not significant support for those solutions. I will now proceed to prune the article with a vengeance, as everyone agrees that that is a condition of it being kept. No prejudice against a renomination if the article doesn't soon figure out what it wants to be and moves in that direction. Herostratus 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous smokers[edit]

This list was nominated once before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers. At the time, the article lookedlike this.

The final keep vote acknowledged the need for substantial cleanup. The top of the article begs for references on the hundreds of claims made below. On the talk page, the following comment sums up my impression of the situation:

== This article is a total disaster. == This article has got to the point where any celebrity who has been photographed smoking is included. "Tony Yayo"? I really have no idea who he is, he certainly doesn't belong in this "iconic" article alongside Bette Davis and George Burns. This article needs MAJOR pruning. PatrickJ83 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's throw this article in the ashtray. And while were at it, let's throw in

YechielMan 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep List of famous smokers. The list does need major clean-up, but I don't think that is a sufficient reason to delete. The list need to be sourced because right now it is a magnet for all sorts of dubious claims (pictures "surfaced" of someone smoking a joint, so-and-so is "said" to have smoked pot everyday, and numerous references to people being marijuana smokers because they simply sang a SONG about smoking marijuana). The list should be reoriented to the original purpose of iconic smokers, not just anybody who was ever seen with a cigarette. janejellyroll 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am biased in that I like lists, which makes me want to keep it (with some serious cleanup), but I also don't see how this is helpful, because there are way too many smoking celebrities out there. Useight 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - smoking is not defining or unique or in any way indicative of notability. Otto4711 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - these are people who are 'notable' already who just also happen to smoke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 08:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete - This list is never going to be of interest to anyone. None of these people are famous for smoking. We may as well have a list of Famous people who wear brown trousers. Which someone is probably writing right now. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we turn this in a list of famous people who advertised smoking and a list of people who are known primarily for their smoking (Cigarette Smoking Man comes to mind)? Although the second list may be controversial, the first is definitely useful and either one or both together could eliminate a lot of the dubious entries on the current list. It would also greatly improve manageability (which is almost non-existent now). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prune, if need be; and revert it if it becomes unwieldy, but keep it. Might be best also if it were to move back to the former title, List of iconic smokers; but certainly it cannot be denied that figures like Fidel Castro, Winston Churchill, or Humphrey Bogart are indeed closely associated with smoking, even if they are not famous for smoking. FWIW I would remove any references to causes of death from the article; that comes across as waspish and so last-century. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extinguish. I find it curious that the purported definition as given by the lead section is "This is a list of famous people, for whom smoking is clearly a recognised part of their public image, or who are known for some unusual aspect of smoking", when the very first entry is for someone who "Was a closet cigarette smoker, a fact that came out shortly after her death". Despite the assertion by the lead section this is nothing more than an intersection between people who are famous and people who smoke - and given the popularity of smoking at one point in time the people who fit both those qualifiers will be enormous. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune. Only people whose smoking is iconic should be listed, entries like "Jessica Simpson was once photographed with a cigar" should be removed. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: And delete Nicotine users and former users, List of. Smokers are covered in List of famous smokers and there isn't much content for chewers. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should rise or fall with List of notable drug culture figures, either we prune the list under discussion back to the iconic and name it appropriately, or delete it, I don't frankly care which, but if this goes, I will nominate the the drug culture figures most of which are people who admitted that they inhaled (injected, or whatever) and really aren't iconic. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is of great interest to so many people, I don't know how some of you people can say otherwise. Brown pants, indeed! (Iridescenti, above) (For all we know, you "delete" voters could work in the tobacco industry and want a lower profile because of negative publicity. I've been a proud anti-tobacco campaigner for decades.) Some evidence for public interest are the campaigns to get celebrities to be better role models and the campaigns to reduce smoking in movies so that young people (the main movie theatre-goers) are less influenced to smoke. To participate for or against such campaigns, it helps to know about whom you are talking, so let's draw investigators to Wikipedia for that encyclopedic information! Many of the delete supporters are voting based on the quality of the article now, instead of how good it can be after we work on it more. We don't delete an article because it is unfinished and needs references. We should keep out the word "iconic" (too limited and trendy) in the criteria. Arkyan (above) has a good point--probably a great majority of entertainers in Western culture in the 1940s smoked. But because almost everyone believed the world was flat long ago doesn't mean that today's flat-worlders are not notable. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the newer article. I recently started the article Nicotine users and former users, List of (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That was before I knew about the older article (because the latter was hard to find!). Then I realised that the two articles are not exact duplicates. The chewers, etc. are added in mine. But more importantly, I have a section for ex-users. This is of great interest, for instance, Fidel Castro quit smoking, which greatly interests people and is an argument for admirers of Fidel to quit smoking. So I'd like to see the two articles merged, with all the features of both. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate non-tobacco. As part of the merge suggested above, how about separating the cannabis users and putting them elsewhere? They never really seemed to fit in this article. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge elsewhere. The cannabis smokers could get their own article, SqueakBox 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arkyan. --Dariusk 03:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Objectivity Persue Wikipedia and delete everything that does not conform to most current accepted propaganda on whatever subject. Let's have a Wikipedia Dogma to spread over the internet ... right? DasV 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination. Harryboyles 06:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUGs, FSUGs, GLUGs in India and Asia[edit]

A list of links to websites of user groups for various Unix-like operating systems. In blatant violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUG this to the trash bin in double-quick time as a collection of external links and nothing else. Resurgent insurgent 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy (comics)[edit]

Non-notable comic. Doesn't pass basic tests like existence of reliable third-party coverage (oddly, the sole thing I could find was this recommendation by an islamic website). The official website claims [15] that the comic will soon be available to a wide group of retailers, which suggests that it currently has little or no distribution. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lakers 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded - in the absence of sources it's impossible to check notability, especially with such an ungoogleable name. These may well be notable in Islamic countries; if anyone can dig out evidence of this I'm happy to change my !vote. The illustrations also look like copyvios. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi i don't know how to use html please fix up my mistakes- the Prophcey comics have a website which would be a great reference rather than the Islamic website it is http://www.prophecy.com.au/index.htm. sorry for the inconvenience Daqiq (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Daqiq[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with suggested cleanup. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhán Hoey[edit]

Does not making the Olympics confer notability? Her team finished 16th in the European trails... where's the cutoff? 20th? 50th? Irish triple jump champion yes. But triple jump is a darned obscure event, Ireland is a small country, and one editor noted "Multiple Irish triple jump champion but never jumped within 2-3 metres of standard in other countries". I'm sure she's buff and all, but where's the limit here? Herostratus 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One could argue that triple jump, being an Olympic event since 1896, is not that obscure... and as for the notability of Ireland, well, I don't know what to say. I would say that the national champion in a notable sport, in any country regardless of size, is notable. --Canley 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the triple jump is an obscure event either, and Ireland is not an insignificant country. Nevertheless there is a paucity of information here, which means that the article fails to establish notability. If it could be beefed up I'd be likely to say keep, but otherwise delete. BTLizard 09:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Canley; national champion in a reasonably notable sport seems legitimate enough. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but per reasons stated above, no need to delete.Yem75 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be expanded but being a stub is not a reason for deletion especially when some notability can be established. To the nominator, Tiddlywinks is obscure, triple jump is not... Xarr 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ten-time national champion in an Olympic sport. The article is a pathetic sub-stub lacking all relevant biographical information, but the subject is clearly notable enough. Xtifr _tälk 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything is pathetic here, it is the level of triple jump in Ireland generally and speficically the results of Siobhán Hoey. Punkmorten 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but to include her on the basis of her triple jump record is really plain silly. She to the best of my knowledge never competed in any of the following for Ireland- European championship either indoor or out, World or Olympic championship. I am not even sure that she competed in the Europa cup. The standard in the Europa cup and European indoor championship is quite low journeymen or journey women national champions normally get an outing in one or the other. There are also countless living Irish people who have won multiple track and field national titles- it is not for wikipedia to list them all. She triple jumped when the event was just introduced in senior competitions and won national titles. someone had to. Her performances compare very badly to standards in England, France, Germay or America at the time she jumped no where near the marks recorded by athletes in those countries at the time. As an aside she is not the Irish national triple jump record holder either- the long time record holder is also off the pace so to speak compared to other international athletes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Strong delete~~. Being a national champion in a sport is in itself far from notable, even in a large sport such as athletics. I'm a national champion in an athletics event, so if Canley's argument was true I would benefit from that in a way. On the other hand, our goal should be to build a high-quality encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover a set of guidelines known as WP:BIO cover this type of articles, and none of the criteria outlined there are met in this case. Punkmorten 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, forget the triple jump... as a bobsleigh team the Hoey sisters seem far more notable - there are several full articles about them in several Irish newspapers (and this is, after all, the primary criterion for notability): Cool run for Port sisters, Success for bobsleigh sisters but sponsors still giving them the slip, Sisters taking sport to the extreme, Fundraising drive to help Port.’s bobsleighing sisters. There's also The Sun in Britain, which seems to think they did qualify for Torino: You are sexski things!, as well as some scant biographical information on the CBS and Yahoo Olympic sites: CBS, Yahoo. --Canley 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my opinion to keep based on her merits (World Cup competitor) as a bobsledder alone. Punkmorten 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. per Punkmorten and also does not meet criteria of WP:BIO User:KRBN 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bobslieghers who nearly qualified for the Olympics how many other people around the world meet this criteria. It to my mind lacks notability. They have little relevance outside Ireland as Triple Jumpers but are better at bobsleigh by all accounts- but are still weak athletes by the standards that should be applied to wikipedia which is not here to include everyman and woman who every did some sport to an international or quasi international standard. still strong delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hmm, it's an encyclopedia, so I would say it probably is in order to record everyone who has excelled at national level in every recognised sport. Your mileage may vary, however I see no reason to delete articles for the sake of it, which is what this would seem to amount to. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would say the exact opposite - for the same reason: An encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not and does not cover everything. The fact that Hoey hardly excelled in triple jump (look at her results) is another discussion. Anyway, the bobsleigh achievements on the other hand seem good enough to merit inclusion. Punkmorten 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Canley 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article isn't a deletion candidate. Siobhan and Aoife Hoey made national news with their Olympic attempts. The Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent are two out of the three principal newspapers of Ireland. And that's before you consider that we're talking about a six-time national athletics champion. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still a strong delete. The Triple Jump point has surely been addressed at this point. Neither of the two ladies has any releveance at all outside of Ireland as Triple Jumpers. The fact that they made national headlines for a short period in Ireland when doing another sport in and itself does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. There is an inference here that they should be included because they are plucky Irish girls competing in a sport not normally associated with that country and they nearly made the Olympics. That is an extremely weak argument for inclusion. They got some publicity as at the time it was a good colour story. But the reality is they are unknown in Ireland. Bad Triple Jumpers, better but not notable bob sleighers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's a reason the primary criterion for notability is "multiple, non-trivial secondary sources" – whilst I'm sure many who participate in the AfD process would love to have a manual for biographies, and sportspersons in particular, which spelt out what was "notable" in black-and-white, this will never happen: Wikipedians would never satisfactorily agree on the thousands of arbitrary limits and rules required. The Hoey sisters meet the primary notability criterion, with multiple non-trivial references in Irish and UK media and sources over five years – whether this is due to their athletic achievements (which the press seem to have a fairly high opinion of) or because they're "plucky Irish girls" aiming for Olympic glory is irrelevant. You appear to be arguing that it is a bad precedent to include apparently lacklustre athletes, I would argue that it is a far more dangerous precedent to discard the primary notability criterion and instead rely on subjective opinions or "gut feelings" of athletic prowess. --Canley 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still a strong delete. They lack notability. The two are absolutely unheard of in the UK- do not accept there were multiple non trivial references there- they made some press for colour reasons whilst Olympic winter sports were in peoples minds. I travel between the two countries. If you want to put it in those terms they really are lacklustre athletes. Utterly irrelevant as Triple Jumpers and no relevance in winter sports. It is a dangerous precedent to keep these ladies here. Being Irish claiming to have no access to funds and nearly doing something seems to allow you to have these girls punch above their weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) — 84.112.142.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, you certainly seem to have a strong opinion on what is and isn't notable in Irish athletics and sport (see Sharon Foley). Might I suggest you sign up for a user name, so that you can suggest changes to the notability criteria on the relevant discussion page? Please also read up on notability guidelines, in particular "Notability is not subjective". --Canley 03:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking this person because they haven't signed up to an account is changing the goal posts. I have just googled Siobhan Hoey. As a track and field athlete she seems to have a long jump best of 6.02m and a triple jump best of around 12.38m. The Olympic standard for 2008 in each event is 6.72m and 14.2 m respectively. Therefore her p.b is 70cm shy in one case and 1.8m shy in the other. This discrepency strikes me as indicating an athlete who shouldn't be on wikipedia. The marks just referred to are the minimum required to get to the Olympics- to progress it would be normal to exceed what is asked of you in qualifying once you get there. I know little about the bob sleigh but I doubt that someone so average in one event suddenly becomes an Olympic standard athlete when they change to winter sports. And the fact is she didn't qualify in that either. Taking her argument at its height its basically she should be here because she came 16th in olympic qualifying when 15 were to go. She still missed it and we have no objective information on the difference between 15th and 16th place. The Irish Sports Council guy is spinning the story. Unless more bona fide objective information is given she really doesn't deserve to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.154.56 (talk • contribs).— 213.202.154.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not attacking them at all, and I'm very sorry if it comes across that way. They are of course welcome to continue to post and edit anonymously (as are you), there's nothing wrong with that at all. I just think that if one is going to issue dire warnings of dangerous inclusion precedents on AfD and talk pages, then one tends to have a little more credibility if one has a user account and signs their posts. Whatever... the standards the two of you are drawing are subjective and in opposition to Wikipedia's primary notability policy, that's all I'm saying. --Canley 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Objectively one can say she jumped certain distances in the long jump and triple jump, that are quite average, and did not qualify for either the 2002 or 2006 winter Olympics. In track and field her performances were 10-13% shy of the present Olympic 'A' standards. A man at the same standard who ran the 1500 metres would be running 4 minutes 15 seconds or so instead of the required time of around 3 minutes 37 seconds. Someone of that calibre evidently lacks notability and shouldn't get on wikipedia because they missed qualifying for the Olympics in winter sports also.

She is also not well known- I have just googled her again and 26 references came up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) — 213.202.149.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

OK, so is Olympic qualification your only standard for notability? Where do you stand on Eddie 'the Eagle' Edwards, who is widely noted as a terrible ski jumper, but qualified for the British Olympic team as the only applicant? How about the Jamaican Bobsled Team, also the only applicant, but notable as plucky lads giving it a go? How about a football player who plays in the FIFA World Cup, but doesn't qualify for the Olympic soccer team? Do you agree we should delete athletes who no longer meet your arbitrary "Olympic standard", but once were the best in the world in their time? As I keep saying, they meet the notability standard easily, full stop. Notability does not equal athletic prowess, or Google hits. --Canley 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between Hoey and Edwards the latter qualified for an Olympics as did the Jamaican team. Edwards was also extremely well known in the UK for some time in the late 1980s and there was a movie made about the Jamaican team. You keep deciding without any basis in fact that I am being arbitrary and subjective. I am not factually Hoey did not qualify for the Olympics either at track and field or winter sports. In the former situation she compted in any event that women had not done before. Whilst Triple Jump has been around for men since 1896 it was only introduced for women in the early 1990s. The standard in Irish athletics varies from year to year and event to event. Someone has to win the national championship each year. Jumping 12.4 metres or thereabouts really does not merit further comment. There are 25 perhaps more unmemorable Irish athletes who have won 5-10-15 multiple national titles because they were competing in a small country at a time when the standard of competition was low and have little relevance for an encylopedia like wikipedia. Hoey is one of them. On its own it is also irrelevant to be told Hoey finished 16th when 15 qualified for the Olympics bob sleigh. She could have been 16th by the proverbial mile. We just don't know from the information given. The google rating is relevant in one way- it indicates some validity to the statement that was made earlier that she is unknown. Google hits on Siobhan Hoey 26, Eddie Edwards 80,000, Jamaican team 3,00/, Cool runnings 1/2 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) — 213.190.141.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see that Siobhan Hoey did not win a medal in the America's cup event her sister and another women are said to have done. I tried to find these results online and can't. Does anyone have a link to this bronze medal win other than a provincial Irish newspaper. Other results for the Hoey's show them coming 17th/19 teams and 22/23 teams etc so this entry seems most odd. Very strong delete on track and field credentials. Doubtfull for inclusion as a bob sleighter until more information given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.141.210 (talk • contribs) — 213.190.141.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting of SpongeBob SquarePants[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication. A show does not accrue notability based on who broadcast it and a station doesn't accrue notability based on running a show in syndication. Otto4711 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being Spongeboblistcruft. Eddie.willers 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft directory. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even worthy of a merge with the main spongebob article. --Philo 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steptrip (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beast of Dean[edit]

I've just been through a lot of Cryptid pages. this one contains absolutely no sources or external links whatsoever. It does not beg any notoriety at all. The 1998 sighting has no source at all.
Nominate. Non-notable local myth. ZayZayEM 05:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its not a great article granted. Essentially its only because the British aren't used to having wild animals roaming around, since they killed them all in the proceeding 6000 years up to 1800's... Some sources:

http://www.active.visitforestofdean.co.uk/thedms.asp?dms=13&param1=earth&feature=12&venue=1302774&easi=true
http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/alumni/display/magazine.php?pageId=6&textId=38&pageNo=3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4833450.stm
http://www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/VisitorGuide/TheNationalPark/hottopics/reintroducingextinctspecies.htm
http://www.britishwildboar.org.uk/Confrontations.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Almost certain hoax. No mentions whatsoever on cryptozoology.com. Google brings up no mentions other than Wikipedia & mirror sites plus a few "I read about this on Wikipedia, does anyone know about it?" questions. None of the "sources" listed above refer to this animal, but just to other stories about non-native animals in the UK. Normally I'd say move to Beast of Gloucester - the only cryptid I can find any genuine reports of anywhere near the Forest of Dean - but all sources agree that the BoG was a big cat and not a "moose-pig". - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but without prejudice to recreation of a more general article based on such sources as the BBC magazine. I'd say the subject is probably a confusion or legend, rather than hoax. But given the total lack of sourcing for the details, probably the article is a hoax--though it's been worked on for quite a while by different eds. DGG 01:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources and Google only seems to bring up mirrors/forums Suriel1981 23:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian scientists[edit]

Like the recently deleted Australian musicians list this list is too broad in scope to every be complete (WP:LIST); there are no inclusion criteria, a look over the list shows that it includes, physical, biological and social scientists,; as well as people that aren't really scientists - like engineers and architects; this could run into thousands of people. There are good categories for all types of Australia scientists; delete. --Peta 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peta.--cj | talk 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the condition that Peta include every one of the people on this list in a category. JRG 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only categories the people included were missing is births/living/deaths.... --Peta 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks. Definite delete now. JRG 09:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I am not convinced that this list is unmaintainable. Although there are many Australian scientists, there is not so many notable enough to have articles that the list becomes an unmaintainable one. As for redundancy with the categorization scheme... well I'll agree that the list could be sorted by something else than the alphabet, chronologically by birth might be a better idea, but since each entry has a note of what science the person worked with, and when the person lived, I will call the list annotated, and as such not redundant. I feel that the list passes two criteria on the WP:LIST guideline, it is informative by virtue of the annotations, and it serves a purpose as a navigational aid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 18:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above, plus I forsee problems with the definition of "scientist". For example, at least some of the engineers/inventors on this list are not scientists (technology != science), many other problems with who ought to be considered a scientist are possible. Pete.Hurd 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly impossible to maintain. There are literally thousands of names added to a theoretical complete list every year, even ignoring definitional concerns. --Haemo 02:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad an inclusion criteria. Try List of Australian organic chemists, List of Australian research botanists... Ga rr ie 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American scientists[edit]

Please see this discussion; this list is even more untenable given that it covers the entire area of North America rather than a single country. Delete --Peta 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - intersecion between "North America" and "scientist" does not warrant an aricle. Otto4711 07:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list could easily be a million names long. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless I get to be on the list. Irene Ringworm 15:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment if you're on it I want to be on it too. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how many people is this list expected to grow to, hundreds of thousands, millions? Plus, I forsee problems with criteria for inclusion, explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian scientists. Pete.Hurd 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the related list. Even a "List of Canadian Scientists" would be inappropriate. --Haemo 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge back in to Krusty Gets Kancelled. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worker and Parasite[edit]

Delete - fictional cartoon within another fictional cartoon, the subject consumed approximately two minutes of screentime in one episode and was never mentioned again. The subject in no way passes notability guidelines. On the extremely off chance that someone might use the title as a search string, redirect to the episode in which it appeared, Otto4711 06:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge with Krusty Gets Kancelled, it used to be a section there, I don't know why its was deemed to need its own article. Gran² 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Gran2. --Rubber cat 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In fact I have already done this before. --Maitch 10:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Krusty Gets Kancelled, never mentioned in the show again, and the article establishes no real world notability. -- Scorpion 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Krusty Gets Kancelled. Whilst extensive information about the Simpsons isn't a bad thing at all, I think this should be merged, but with as much of this article as possible kept intact. Korinkami
Merge to one of the above - I'm not sure which is more appropriate, though. --Haemo 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, subject isn't notable and the only sources provided are trivial message boards and fan sites (e.g. geocities). John Reaves (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Nevada[edit]

Prod was removed, so I had to take this to AFD. Non-notable indy wrestler. A google search turned up no decent results. RobJ1981 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not-notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the tag after minor editing to establish his notability, which I am allowed to do as per template guidelines, and left a note on the talk page with no response from the nominator. He is a major competitor on the Midwestern independent circuit, particularly as part of the tag team Satisfaction Garanteed with Aaron Williams, and presently holds at least four tag team titles in three of the largest independent promotions in the Midwest-area. MadMax 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrix17 (talk • contribs)
Delete No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources, fails WP:BIO by a mile. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable until he makes the big leagues or gains notability in some other field. MLA 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reason of MadMax. Oo7565 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We tend to base our reasoning on notability guidelines, not on unsourced tangential commentary. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be noted: MadMax keeps re-adding useless sources. Message boards and fansites aren't helpful or reliable. Sourcing is good and all: when it's decent reliable sources, not just any random link you can find. RobJ1981 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I mentioned previously on my talk page, I never "re added" any sources nor was I informed prior to RobJ's removal that there was a problem with any of the sources I added. I assume the change took place during an edit conflict, however the "fansite" is actually an official website of prominant independent wrestler Nikita Allanov. The second link, Midwest Independent Pro Wrestling Discussion, is a longrunning messageboard which has been active for over seven years and, while is usally unconventional, I used to support the introductory statement concerning his notority among wrestling fans in the Cincinatti-area. I believe I am allowed to improve the article anyway I'm able and, if others feel the sources are useless, then they are free to take that into consideration when they vote. The other references were used both to support statments already made in the article (such as notable opponents, title changes and events) as well as to support the claim that New Era Wrestling itself is a notable independent promotion as it is covered by website's such as Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer.

Also, I've reverted RobJ's prior changes due to portions of text which were removed from the article and placed an unreferenced tag due to his concerns. As I have explained my reasons for adding those specific references, I don't think unwarrented accusations are nessessary. MadMax 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Era Wrestling is not a notable promotion. The coverage in the Wrestling Observer is as follows:

--New Era Wrestling from last night in Mount Healthy, OH: Dave Nevada b Coz Jackman, Cyrus Poe & Tommy Chill b Team Awesome, Garf Redman b Nikita Allanov, Chris Reno b Nick LeBeau, Ronnie Longworth b Wrestler X, Brad Callway NC Tim Lutz. Next show is 9/2

That's nothing more than a set of results almost certainly sent in by a fan, it's trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That specific link is meant to cite the opponent and event as well as the promotion's notability. New Era Wrestling is covered by several mainstream websites and there are general guidelines for fan submissions on most of these websites (otherwise they'd all be filled with backyard fed's and fly by night promotions). As opposed to a one time appearance, the promotion is listed frequently on WrestlingObserver.com as well as other mainstream wrestling websites such as Lords of Wrestling and PWTorch. Among its former roster includes Nikita Allanov, Tarek the Great and, most notably, Shane Douglas who has held the promotion's heavyweight title twice. MadMax 19:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are points on which I feel the subject fails (adapted from WP:BIO):
a credible independent biography, significant recognized awards or honors, wide name recognition, a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record of pro-wrestling, multiple features in credible news media, appearences in well-known television and other productions, a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to pro-wrestling, an important figure or widely cited by peers
Suriel1981 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wouldn't expect lesser-known wrestler to satisfy all of those but I cannot oppose deletion of a wrestler who fails to satisfy any. Suriel1981 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of his wrestling career is covered by his profile at New Era Wrestling while the Midwest Independent Pro Wrestling Discussion messageboard, again usually regarded as an unconventional source, does demonstrate at least a significant following among wrestling fans in the Cincinatti-area. MadMax 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW's profile on him [16] is either crap or he really is non-notable and they put everything they could. Suriel1981 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources provided mostly do not meet WP:RS. There's a blog, a forum, a geocities site and a mini-bio from the promotion he works for. Where are the secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of sources you expect for an independent wrestler, however I've already stated my reasons for adding those specific sources. I have also established that NEW is a notable promotion (one of its champions being Shane Douglas), second that he has face at least one notable opponent Nikita Allanov (whose notability I have established despite its nomination for deletion) and third that he has held championship titles in NEW and at least two other independent promotions (Intense Wrestling Incorporated being a feature story on Everybody's News as well as Al Snow and New Jack having previously competed in the promotion). Also the "geocites website" is an archive page of Allanov's official website NikitaAllanov.vze.com. The messageboard, a current and longrunning messageboard which specifically coveres in the Mid-West independent scene, shows Nevada is known in at least to wrestling fans in the area. Not the best of sources, but it does support that he is notable beyond the World Wrestling Coalition. MadMax 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd expect the type of sources specifically required by WP:A - If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This is an encyclopedia not a wrestling fan site, so we should not accept sources which clearly fail WP:RS in order to include an article about an independent wrestler. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has just as many references supporting its nobility, and in fact moreso, then more high profile independent wrestlers on Wikipedia such as Reckless Youth, Mike Quackenbush (if you exclude his books as an unrelable source), Crazy Train, Jonny Storm, Tom Howard, Joker, etc. yet meets the same qualifications for their inclusion. MadMax 02:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Reaves (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was delete. Far stronger arguments favoured the deletion of this article. Articles based on a series of news reports about a single incident or short series of incidents are far from encyclopedic content, though they are well covered at Wikinews. This does not strike me as an incident of WP:DENY or WP:COI, simply an example of a non-notable business. It exists and was in the news for a bit but as argued below, that does not make the company notable. There may be room for a discussion of the effect of people being paid to edit articles at Criticisms of Wikipedia but not for detailed coverage of a single such business. There is an urge to create articles when an incident receives a large amount of press attention but I think the important distinction between an encyclopedia and a newspaper needs to be born in mind- lets leave the reporting to Wikinews. WjBscribe 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz[edit]

Deleted by first afd, second was no consensus. I speedied it as G4 yesterday, my bad, I didn't notice the second AfD. Sources: an article about paid editing of Wikipedia, which has a bit about Gregory Kohs (article deleted and endorsed), slightly less about MyWikiBiz, and some about Microsoft. Second source: a press release. Not independent. Third and fourth sources: the Wikipedia Signpost, completely inappropriate self-reference. Kohs is not notable, by consensus, he is, however, banned. Quite why his one-man company which is never known to have traded more than a tiny amount, would be considered notable, is beyond me. Navel gazing, I guess. List it in project space in a long term abuse page, I suppose, but the company itself, if it still exists as a separate entity (debatable) is not in any way notable other than internally. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a singular and solely internally referenced article about a non-notable individual and his non-notable company.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Criticism of Wikipedia#Criticism of the contributors. If every source on MyWikiBiz mentions Wikipedia in the headline it's clear just why this company is mentioned in the news. ~ trialsanderrors 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge would be a reasonable idea, but criticism of Wikipedia may not be the right merge target; this was more about how we react to conflict of interest. Kohs criticises Wikipedia, but fomr the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of the project (and perhaps founded on a wish for it to be something it is not). Guy (Help!) 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think T&E was suggesting that it be merged there not as a source of criticism of Wikipedia, but a target of criticism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kohs is/was a contributor to Wikipedia, so the target seems appropriate. No objection to creating an article Minor contorversies surrounding Wikipedia though. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CNN article would more fit an article about paid articles, where mywikibiz might be mentioned. This company not notable enough for its own article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, and I think the nominator's behavior with regard to the subject says everything that needs to be said about this nomination. Everyking 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so that's one citation from the International Journal of Because I Said So, and a personal attack. Not a terribly good argument for keeping. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for expressing your opinion about my opinion, Guy. It remains unchanged, however. Everyking 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy's not-terribly-diplomatic riposte aside, this is a really bad argument. "Keep, notable" is worth just about as much as "Delete, non-notable." If it's notable, where has it been noted and why haven't you added this crucial source to the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't constructed as an argument. The "crucial source" appears to already be in the article. Everyking 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where specifically, please? What part of the descriptions of the included sources do you disagree with, and why do you feel they are sufficient for "multiple, independent, non-trivial" per WP:ATT and WP:RS? If you're going to assert something here, you need a better reason than Because I Say So With A Personal Diss. Barno 17:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:DENY. >Radiant< 08:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a single AP article partly about this topic isn’t nearly enough (WP:V, WP:N etc.). —xyzzy_n 09:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I got an e-mail from Greg suggesting that I add [17] and [18] to the article as sources. Well, somebody did, but both articles focus on the matter of Wikipedia versus paid writers with COI and mention the subject of this article only as a matter of context and introduction. Greg is ‘sure their lawyers would love to hear them described as trivial’, so: both sources’ coverage with respect to the subject of the article is trivial in the sense of our definition of notability. Lawyers need love, too. (Well, some need Miniluv, but I digress…) —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's only one third-party reliable source in the article. It looks like advertising. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trumpeting anyone? Not seeing much in the way of notability of this issue either. A possible alternative could be a Wikipedia:MyWikiBiz article/essay that discusses the COI aspects of the article. (→Netscott) 10:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just fails to come up to scratch on WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:N and others. This relist is procedure for procedure sake that we're making Guy do for no apparent reason. Sometimes I wonder if people here are getting unnatural pleasure from Wikipedia process, but I try not to think about it too hard and just get on with other things. Also, I like Radiant's WP:DENY, so I'll give that as a reason too. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 11:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. To get it out of the way, WP:DENY is an irrelevant argument, it refers to project pages and general mass hysteria over vandal activity. It is unrelated to what we put into Wikipedia. However, the fact that 1) this is a one-man company, and 2) a short-lived one (the blocks on the person behind it effectively stop its business model) and 3) not particularily famous, makes me feel that this is not a notable company at all. Even if a second source were found, I would still call this non-notable since anything related to the internet tends to inflate the number of sources, not due to notability, but due to easier access for journalists. (Is this a good place to note why I object to the WP:N "primary notability criterion"?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it again, Trialsanderrors' merge suggestion might be better. A singly sourced item on something which might have affected Wikipedia's integrity could be relevant there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above, for lack of independent reliable sources. Also the constant self-referencing and a lack of notability outside the WP community. I wouldn't object to a merge as a second preference. Sarah 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, abjectly fails WP:CORP. A one-line mention in Criticism of Wikipedia might be appropriate, but there's no need for either a merge or redirect. —Cryptic 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to my involvement in the investigation I'll limit my participation at this discussion, but I think the relevant standard ought to be WP:CORP. If this company had nothing to do with Wikipedia, would we keep this article? Durova^Charge! 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reason it's here in the first place is because it's self-referential. If this were about any other one-man company with negligible press coverage and negligible sales, it probably would have been shot on sight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As trialanderrors said. I did say keep last time, but I misinterpreted that. His company is THISCLOSE to just creeping in as a stub. Personally, I could care less that Kohs is banned for purposes of the article itself. If it gets another 1-2 sources independently it would be fine but not there yet. - Denny 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Seems to meet WP:WEB [19] even though we hate it. --W.marsh 13:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WEB applies to Internet phenomena such as blogs, not multiple Google returns that got generated as reprints of a single article in which this business was a subordinate topic. Durova^Charge! 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well this began as a website and that's what I think of it as, I don't really follow the drama related to this guy/company. Anyway WP:CORP is the same thing basically, multiple sources. And although a lot of the results are reprints of the same AP story, not all are. --W.marsh 14:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually this was a public relations business (not a website) that attempted to piggyback off Wikipedia's notability. The very slight amount of news coverage it received was all as a subordinate topic to stories about Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nevertheless that's more an argument to merge/redirect than delete. --W.marsh 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I have made only comments at this discussion and have not voted, but if you agree merge/redirect is more appropriate than keep would you change your vote to reflect that? Durova^Charge! 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well what people say is more important than the words they put bold formatting on, you've certainly implied an opinion. I said "keep or merge", as in, keep the content and a redirect to wherever it goes. Keeping the article outright would be okay in the meantime. The closer can read our comments and see what I think. --W.marsh 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm getting married in less than 24 hours, and when I have three completely unrelated editors not named Gregory Kohs pointing this out to me, I feel like I have to respond. Who gives a shit if we got it wrong numerous times in regards to the Gregory Kohs article, but we shouldn't get it wrong here too. W.marsh has offered a great resource, and here's another one, a German translation. Can we stop with the crap already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and between the German article and the subordinate mention in Bergstein's piece simple arithmetic deduces that this business grossed $250 - $500 during its entire operative lifetime. WP:CORP. Durova^Charge! 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, Jeff, congrats on the matrimony thing (my mate Mike is getting spliced tomorrow). Don't worry about Kohs, though - we got it right. See? It's redlinked :o) Guy (Help!) 17:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations! (Hey, now this AFD has an actual purpose.) —xyzzy_n 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lets face it, folks: given the size, revenue, and impact of this company, if this were ANYTHING other than Wikipedia-related it would be CSD-A7'd within 30 seconds of creation. We're supposed to avoid self-reference, so just the fact that we know about it (largely because it got its editors banned) doesn't mean it should get an article. Delete as hoplessly non-notable company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think it's about the opposite, personally. If a non-Wikipedia related company/group had a mainstream AP story written about it, we'd probably lean towards keeping it. Either fear of self referencing or an outright pro-Wiki bias is one thing that makes people want to delete this article. --W.marsh 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you W.marsh for being one of the few editors that does not have his head thoroughly entrenched up his ass. Oh let's see now, even though the subject of the article in question has been reported in the mainstream news, let's all vote to delete the article because god forbid it might sully Wikipedia's impeccable reputation. By the way, I was being sarcastic in my last sentence. I figured I'd have to point that out since most of you cretins are unable to grasp even the most rudimentary forms of wit. You are a miasmatic hirsute simian 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh this guy seems to be a single-purpose account and should probably be blocked. I'd do it myself but I'm not 100% familiar with this situation, plus I'm involved in the dispute at this point. --W.marsh 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indef blocked as an attack account and probable sockpuppet of User:MyWikiBiz. Durova^Charge! 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, unfortunatly per notablity, even though its wrong. Quatreryukami 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically unsourced, non-notable outside of Wikipedia internal culture, and nearly everything about this whole incident has already been endorsed for deletion by the community (Kohs is deleted and banned, the first AfD for this was delete followed by a no consensus). Burn it already. WP:N or WP:A or whichever one it all got merged into is the primary criterion and this fails. Ryanjunk 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments provided by Denny in the previous discussion. How are people coming to the conclusion that this is unsourced when there is a direct link to the Associated Press article? Burntsauce 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People are coming to the conclusion that this is unsourced because the only fact in the article that is corroborated by the Associated Press article are (two of) the pricing tiers. As for Denny's argument in the previous afd, I can only assume that he copy/pasted the links out of a Google News search without actually reading them, since they're all identical reprints of the same article. —Cryptic 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a fair response, although I still feel that the subject is notable enough to remain. Some of the other comments are too grounded in WP:IDONTLIKEIT line of thought and vice-versa. Burntsauce 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Jimbo found it notable enough to comment on it, might as well stay.. // Gargaj 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Deskana (ya rly) 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. It has one Associated Press article that's been reprinted many places. That's not nothing, but neither is it the "multiple works" required by Wikipedia:Notability. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep with the addition of the Chronicle and Die Welt article. The former may be debatable as to whether it's a qualifying work for purposes of notability, the latter isn't debatable, it's a respectable paper. Sorry, Guy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reprinted associated press article is way more than many of the buisnesses we've got articles for get... and of course every business we've got an article on was covered in USA Today and Fox News... and been covered by news agencies in Spain, Germany, and Japan (yes I know they're the AP article). Here's one link no one else mentioned above... The Chronicle For Higher Education... Why do we have to pound our reasoning through your thick skulls people? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also included as subject matter in a curriculum on CyberLaw at Harvard. Public speeches by Jimbo ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A good number of them, certainly inthe hundreds, are in the Wall Street Journal all the time. This one isn't, obviously, because it only traded for a few months if that and made next to no money. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uhm check the facts dude... Greg is still running the business ... its now called Centiare. And what does the fact it made next to no money matter? Lots of starting businesses dont make money at first *cough*Amazon.com*cough*. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between "making tons of revenue but no profit" as Amazon and "making less revenue than a weekend job at Burger King". Additionally, unless I'm missing something in looking at the site, but Centiare seems to be a completely different business. Ryanjunk 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unambiguously serious keep WP:CORP is easily met. self-reference is necessary as wikipedia itself is a main subject. wikipedia will look even worse if an article about its own questionable practices is deleted. why do people have such a vendetta against this germane and serious article when so many rap albums and pokemon characters are documented? i explicitly fear that "delete" opinions given here reflect people scared that further publicity of this well-known iffy decisionmaking episode will reflect negatively on the project. on the contrary, transparency and a willingness to acknowledge what happened is the only viable solution. Aaronbrick 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that there are numerous rap album and/or pokemon articles that need to be deleted, please be bold! Ryanjunk 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved To satisfy WP:N, there has to be multiple third party stories on it. We have 1. Unless article improved by end of AfD, delete it. Self-referential, to boot. SirFozzie 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- with all due respect, are you blind? Aaronbrick 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and quit navel-gazing. --Ali'i 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you people every time Wikinfo gets nominated for AfD? heh. --W.marsh 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - E kala mai ia'u. I'll be there next time. ;-) --Ali'i 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have recently received an e-mail from Mr. Kohs concerning my comment in this AFD. He wishes me to add two additional references to the article, but I will not release them yet, as I would be acting as a proxy for a banned user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically navel gazing. Nobody outside of Wikipedia ever heard of this company, there are no reliable sources. Corvus cornix 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are three reliable sources given in the article: the Associated Press, Chronicle of Higher Education, and Die Welt. Everyking 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above -Doc^g 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from article space & merge as a subpage of WP:COI ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think this is very much a case of COI -- it's COI of the editors on WP against a serious attempt to undermine the basis of WP. I share this COI--I think that the commercial writing of articles is a disgrace, and engaging in it appropriate for a community ban. But it's real, it's sourced, and it's notable. The prevention against such inherent COI is to recognize it and keep the articles that the COI would encourage us to delete. If we want to give ammunition to the enemies of WP, then deleting this article would be a good way to do it. It almost matches the attempt to deny the N of the Essjay controversy. .DGG 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, to speak only for myself I was among the first to call for Essjay's resignation when the scandal broke and have never opposed having an article about that scandal. That was real news. Please research more carefully before leveling such a serious allegation. Durova^Charge! 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sincere apology, for I certainly did not direct it at any particular person, but at the general course of the discussion.. It was a suggestion that just as we in the end recognized the need for the article about him, we should realize it about this,for the principle was similar. DGG 05:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No apology needed. When the Essjay article first appeared my opinion on the deletion discussion went from neutral, but strongly endorse letting the discussion run its course to this has become international news in dozens of separate outlets - if Essjay were unrelated to Wikipedia we'd have an unambiguous keep. This time I'm an involved party - or at least Mr. Kohs insists I am - because I stepped forward and investigated when his sockpuppet demanded an investigation. My take on this page is that he's a public relations professional who's had more than half a year to astroturf this story and doesn't have much to show for it, but I'll restrict my participation at this discussion to comments. Durova^Charge! 01:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~no reliable sources~~, self-referential, and there is a major conflict of interest involved. --Core desat 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll list them again: there are three reliable sources in the article, from the Associated Press, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Die Welt. It is plainly wrong to say there are no reliable sources, and I am concerned that as people claim this repeatedly in justifying their opinions, others are taking their word for it and not actually looking at the article. Everyking 05:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, still delete for the other two reasons. --Core desat 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, the Chronicle of Higher Education appears to be a news aggregation blog, which takes news stories from various sources, writes a summary, and links to the original article. In this case ([20]), the Associated Press story is explicitly credited and linked to, and much or all of the summary is based on it. I'm not sure it would be fair to call this an independent report. - David Oberst 05:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Chronicle of Higher Education -- like most magazines , it has a blog section as well, but the lead-off topics in "The Wired Campus" are from its staff writers, and have the authority of the newsmagazine. I would say that its use of an AP story as the base for an article authenticates the AP story yet further, and certainly adds to its visibility. DGG 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Even if you don't count that one, there's still two, a far cry from the none that some people are claiming. Everyking 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN navel gazing. Not everything what splashes through media is notable. Pavel Vozenilek 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and at best merge somewhere. Definitely not notable enough for an article of its own, but they could be discussed somewhere briefly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And more rambling while I'm at it: Basically, this company got famous by going the "let's do something novel and controversial that involves Wikipedia" route. Boom! Wikipedia reacted! The press was all over the case! And since the press was interested, it is by definition notable by Wikipedia standards! This is again yet another case of stuff that involves Wikipedia that somehow got an article and we could write an article based on the sources - but it's really not interesting in the great scheme of things so we shouldn't have an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This had no lasting significance to anything. Rossami (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by really desperate grasping at straws as excuses for reliable sources. This is worth all the wikidrama and breast-beating to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable on an objective level. JuJube 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. Appears to meet notability guidelines, though barely. If keeping the article was somehow harmful to the Wikipedia, I would argue to get rid of it, but I don't see it as harming anything, rather it would be more harmful if we got rid of it just because the subject is noxious. Herostratus 13:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't noxious, it's just negligible. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't enough independent information about the company for the article to ever be more than a stub. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes relevant content guidelines by a nose, and I see no benefit to the removal of this article. Yamaguchi先生 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it wasn't for our systemic bais as Wikipedia editors, this would be a CSD A7. I'm not really sure that anyone other than Wikipedians gave a crap about the incident and it all seems a bit too self-referential. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I dislike this company it actually passes WP:CORP notability, which IMO needs to be fixed. I'm a spam fighter and this sort of company is going to be an endless headache for us. Unfortunately deleting the article won't make the problem go away. (Requestion 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per WP:DENY. RFerreira 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY means removing any trace of a person editing. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AnonEMouse. --JJay 09:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Brent[edit]

This article features a boy and his band, neither of which are at all referenced, and neither of which seem at all notable enough for Wikipedia - see WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO BlackberryLaw 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notablity offered. Mwelch 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see it. Deiz talk 06:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers Pair of Dice[edit]

Non-notable webcomic group full of non-notable webcomics. No sources provided to confer notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be produced meeting WP:WEB --Haemo 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reputable third-party sources . --Dragonfiend 01:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Tingle. Nert Nert Nert. --Objection! 09:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.22.127 (talk • contribs)

Sorry about him, do not take it out on the site because of this random idiot. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as A7. Sarah 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Innes[edit]

Completely non-notable accident victim whose only claim to fame was dying in a ferry accident on Sydney Harbour; and see WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which this is rapidly becoming. Within a couple of weeks she will be completely forgotten. While I feel for the family involved, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site or memorial page site, and the incident is already well covered in the Sydney Ferries article and that is enough. I have already merged a separate article created about the accident. Delete JRG 09:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JRG 09:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--cj | talk 09:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails BIO. --Peta 09:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with other NN accident victims. There's always the chance this could be the subject of a groundbreaking civil lawsuit but for now there's no real importance attached. Sorry for getting in the middle of your nom, JRG, I misread the posting time.--Dhartung | Talk 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, getting killed, no matter how tragic the circumstances, doesn't automatically make you notable. Lankiveil 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- per all the reasonable reasons provided above. - Longhair\^talk 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think you are underresting the popularity of this young girl. Mayb enone of you now anything about figure skating? I guess not.--Matrix17 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't, there are guidelines for biographies on Wikipedia as Peta has already mentioned, and she does not meet those guidelines; and calling for the article to be deleted yourself doesn't make me any more confident. JRG 12:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't claim to be a notable figure skater. MLA 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly not notable. Have only won state championships in Queensland, afaik no national or international results worth mentioning. --Strangnet 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop this discussion - someone get rid of the article, and we should all move along... really. Petesmiles 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spam CSD G11. kingboyk 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beneton Movie GIF[edit]

Appears to violate WP:SPAM and WP:NOTE at least. Non-notable product by non-notable company. Also propose deleting the following two articles for the same reasons:

GDallimore (Talk) 10:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adverts for a non-notable company. --Zundark 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cottonwood Mall (Albuquerque, New Mexico)[edit]

A directory entry for a mall. No actual evidence of notability, references provided appear to be either directories, trivial, or not independent (e.g. press releases). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some evidence can be found as to why this is any more notable than any other big shopping mall. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep. I wrote this article -- in part because New Mexico was the only state with none of its malls listed on Wikipedia, and in part because I felt the mall was notable. I haven't been able to find any solid sources that prove the mall's the biggest in the state (strangely, their website makes no mention of it), but really, could so many independent sources all be wrong? Furthermore, I made some additions to the article, including the fact that it was built on land once owned by King Philip IV of Spain. Now how many other malls can make a claim like that? TenPoundHammer 13:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis doesn't look like a directory entry. Anyway some of the sources do seem to be press releases, but better mainstream newspaper sources seem to exist in spades [21]. No real problem, article just needs some improvement. --W.marsh 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, every ****ing one of those newspaper sources requires a subscription. TenPoundHammer 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Through that interface yes, but there are other news search engines. My public library, for example, offers one to anyone with a library card number. A college library is even better. It's better than nothing, but the information superhighway still has too many toll roads. --W.marsh 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally tagged this to be speedy deleted. Since then a lot more information has been introduced. I feel notability has been assessed since it shows it is the largest mall in the state of New Mexico. Also, the lawsuit provides historical context. Because of this, I say keep. --Адам12901 ^Talk 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bad faith nomination like the rest this editor has nominated--Matrix17 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article makes explicit claims of notability in terms of largest in NM, and provides ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a gross leasable area of over 1 million sqaure feet. Anything over 800,000 is considered a superregional mall per the industry definition. Notable on that basis, in adition to the sources cited. Edison 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't all of the southwest of the United States once belong to King Philip IV? If the Alameda Grant fact is the only notable fact about this mall, maybe an article should be created about the Alameda Grant. I don't think the "biggest mall in New Mexico' qualifies it for notability either: there are so few other malls in New Mexico, less than 10 all together. The other facts in the article are non-noteworthy also (large organizations get sued frequently, and lists of stores are uninteresting). Jaksmata 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The apparent justification for this article is the New Mexico has no other article about any of its malls. This has also been phrased more conventionally as "The biggest mall in New Mexico." Further, "When Cottonwood Mall opened in 1996, it was the first mall to open in Albuquerque in thirty years.[4][5] To this day, it is the newest shopping mall in New Mexico." Does the newest mall in a state automatically get an article? Each of them in succession, because N is permanent? DGG 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that New Mexico has no other mall articles was a justification, but it wasn't my only justification. I figured that it's notable since it's the biggest in New Mexico, AND the newest in the same, AND home to a co-op bookstore, AND on land once owned by King Philip IV. I've noticed that importance is quite often questioned with the mall articles, but being the inclusionist that I am, I'll give most malls the benefit of the doubt, this one being no exception. Maybe it's not important to the whole world, but one could argue the point that not even Mall of America is necessarily important to the whole damn world. I don't create pages on Wikipedia just to create them (at least, not anymore) -- I actually put considerable thought into a subject's notability first. I'm aware that notability is, at least sometimes, a matter of opinion; however, I hope that by stating my own opinion, that others may see my side of the issue. They may still vote for deletion, but if they do, c'est la vie. TenPoundHammer 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is correct that the whole state was included in the land grant, that argument doesn't help, and not all coop bookstores are N, though in an ideal world they would be. And, there were 29 other malls joining in the court case mentioned above. I am certainly not implying the article wasn't created in a reasonable way. for the largest mall in a state to have an article is not absurdly wrong, though I don't think it's right. I too will go by the consensus. (By the way, any info. on relative amounts of business in the various malls in the state? That might help show N more than square footage). DGG 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The land grant didn't include the entire state at all. As for the relative amount of business, I can't find anything on that. I've googled about 40,000 possible word combinations, yet nothing's yielded anything about profitability at ANY mall in New Mexico. TenPoundHammer 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, supermalls are notable, and this article does pass WP:A and other relevant content policies. Yamaguchi先生 03:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know where people are getting the idea that this is a "super mall" or a "superregional mall" – where did that standard come from? This is only an average sized mall, which can be verified by perusing through entries in List of shopping malls in the United States. I guess the real question is, "Is a mall notable just because it’s a mall?" That same list has many entries with less content and notability, but they're not up for deletion. Has this question come up before? I haven't seen any Wikipedia policies or guidelines on the subject of mall notability. Also, several of the people who have said "Keep" insist that the information is all verifiable - that has never been questioned. Jaksmata 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as malls of this size are notable. Why are we wasting time on this? I thought we settled on a guideline for malls ages ago. RFerreira 08:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough as said many times above. DCUnitedFan2011 16:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 01:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid[edit]

Note: The first two AfD nominations of this article were straw man nominations made by sockpuppets of now-banned editors.

Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains large amounts of OR. Jtrainor 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "Israeli apartheid" analogy has become the subject of extensive discussion since the release of Jimmy Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" last year. This is clearly a relevant subject. If the article is flawed, our solution should be to fix it. CJCurrie 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - entire books have been written on these allegations.--Urthogie 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not aware of any WP:SYNT or OR issues with the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is obviously having problems right now but that doesn't make the subject itself non-notable. I've heard the allegations mentioned in mainstream media quite a bit. Also, have you heard of Jimmy Carter? The Behnam 01:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - A bad faith nomination without a leg to stand on, as there is an abundance of sourced material in the article. The problem is POV-pushing, which in itself is not a reason for deletion. Tarc 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:Sandbox - This article must be made NPOV before being published to the public. As it is now it fail to meeet WP:NPOV for a year. I am not advocating a full delete just that it is removed from the main wikipedia name space and will be worked on (in a WP:Sandbox) until it reach a stable and NPOV version - At that point a stable version of the article can go back and be published to the public. Zeq 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, even those who support keeping this article complain about the POV pushing in the article - surly it violates many policies in it's present form including a violation of WP:SYNT. Zeq 05:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Legitimate subject, term used often, with plenty of reliable sources including South Africans and anti-apartheid figures themselves. POV is mostly from those editors who wish to deny the analogy, or hide or diminish the reliable sources/quotes/uses of the term in the article.Kritt 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I object to four nominations for deletion, and think the previous votes should be respected. --BozMo talk 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again. Far too much push-pull between the competing factions. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and discussion is well sourced to reliable sources. Mackan79 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep per this AfD and this AfD and this one too. When an article reaches its fourth nomination, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See note above; the first 2 nominations were straw man nominations. In fact, the first nomination was by a sockpuppet of the person who created this article, almost immediately after he created it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, for whatever it's worth, that the third nomination was terminated prematurely and in a disputed manner. I don't believe this article has ever had a valid AfD discussion, and now, because some people see this as a "fourth" nomination and oppose it on that basis, this one is tainted as well. Everything about this article, or associated with it, is now inherently corrupted and I don't think there is any way to fix it. 6SJ7 14:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huge amount of references backing up the statements, so the nominator will need to point out some examples as to why everything is SYNT or OR. If there is some SYNT or OR, we solve that by editing the article, not deleting it. Let's face it, the term "Israeli apartheid" is common, whether we like it or not, and whether we agree with the term or not. A quick search from my country of Norway produced this article (UN accuses Israel of Apartheid) from a mainstream newspaper (albeit one with a pro-Labor Party point of view). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle in this, its fourth nomination. I disagree with "pitch 'til you win" tactics where an article is nominated over and over for deletion, and urge the principle of Stare decisis. Edison 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find allegations of bad faith on my part rather disgusting considering I have never been involved with this article in any way before. The number of AfDs an article has survived has no bearing on it's validity for deletion in future AfDs-- I advise you to go ask around about the GNAA article, which survived -14- AfDs, but eventually was deleted anyways. Jtrainor 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV fork--Sefringle 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is presently a patchwork, but it covers a legitimate subject. Could use a more NPOV title. GregorB 19:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not per the above nom; rather per all of the many comments I have made on the talk page over the past year. I hesitate to participate in this AfD because it is clear that the snow is falling and, as I mentioned in a comment above, I think this process is inherently corrupted by the three "previous" AfD's that should not "count" because they were bogus. I also think it's interesting that of the "four" AfD's, none have been nominated by anyone who was really involved with the article, except for the first one which was basically a forgery by the person who started the article, using a sockpuppet. On the other hand, there is no way around the fact that I have said on the talk page, about 50 times, that the article should not exist, so in order to be consistent I must, again, support deletion. 6SJ7 03:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idiotic bad faith nomination. Subject is the subject of numerous works. If you don't like the content, edit it. Andyvphil 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deleting it would be a violation of the NPOV the zionists claim they care oh so much about. --Nyp 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ummmmmmm Jtrainor 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a very notable topic (as indicated by a lot of coverage over the years), which deserves a Wikpiedia article. If there are issues with its content, AfD is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.The subject has been defined, discussed, and debated by numerous prominent scholars and public figures, most recently a former president of the United States. There are many good reasons to delete certain articles; that the subject matter is provocative is not one of them.--G-Dett 16:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article is incomprehensible!!! The topic is a valid topic for a wikipedia entry. However, it looks like the article has been edited and re-edited in a tug of war that left the article in such a state that any decent copyeditor would reject it from any decent publication. It should be started again and written by an unbiased expert in a NPOV and not by a person looking to make political points on either side . -- msalinasphd 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, unfortunately the article has been in extra-heavy-edit mode the last two weeks after being essentially stable for months now. I would be happy wholesale reverting to this version, because I don't believe the new approach has been sucessful. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The version that Kendrick7 proposes is much better; cleaner and more balanced. It would be helpful if it is also limited for edition under Wikipedia:Protection policy because of the controversial nature of the topic. -- msalinasphd 15:20 EST, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Add my voice to the chorus. In the past two weeks the article has been rapidly transformed, many would say disfigured, by an ardent and irrepressible editor. He means well, but that is sadly beside the point.--G-Dett 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all the keep votes above.cs 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 find the SYNT/OR arguments compelling because of the wide variety of contexts in which "apartheid" is used within this article. While some of the sections feature well-sourced material, there is no evidence of any sources implying any connection or equivalency between many of the various sections. Setting up this equivalency is therefore novel synthesis. Shimeru 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations_of_apartheid[edit]

Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Contains quite a bit of OR. In addition, much of the article's content is duplicated elsewhere. Jtrainor 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you had said "nothing but OR", you might have had a point, but AFD isn't part of the cleanup process. "Contains quite a bit of OR"? {{sofixit}}. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calton.--Urthogie 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR collection of practically unrelated events under umbrella of a broad term, ignoring any context. Magnet for vandals and warriors. Unmaintainable, potential to grow w/o limit every time when someone somewhere says the work apartheid. Classical example of the problem with OR on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 07:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep not all WP:OR. Some of it is sourced.--Sefringle 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just looked at the Canada section, but unfortunately those concerns about the Indian reserves are well-known and at least that section is valid. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is important human rights issue. Most sections are valid.Biophys 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of allegations and accusations. Also in violation of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia. We should send a clear message to all those who would use Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their personal opinions, political ideologies, nationalist movements, etc etc. We have too much of this nonsense already here. Wikipedia is not a political conference. Khorshid 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely second Khorshid's assessment. If there are any individual concerns, the standard country structure allows "Human rights in X" articles, and they can be covered there. If there is any meaningful content, merge them under those articles. Such articles really leave the door open for all sorts of POV-pushing and OR. It is time that Wikipedia got more serious covering subjects - every country has "HR in X", develop fully anything that pertains to that country there. Baristarim 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We can make individual articles for countries with real allegations against them, but this 'hub' is completely unnecessary. The Behnam 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sandbox the salvageable material and merge to many articles What happened was this.
1. Now banned User:Homey and other leftist editors created Allegations of Israeli apartheid, a page that was reliant on a neologism to dissect an issue that was already well covered elsewhere. The article seems in my mind to be a violation of WP:POINT, inherently POV and an unhelpful propagandistic use of the term apartheid. Though the editors have done their best to neutralise it since.
2. Naturally, Israeli focussed editors were unimpressed, and scoured the net for other uses of the term in relation to other nations. And found them. Hence the creation of Allegations of apartheid by Israeli focussed editors, which placed Israel merely as one of many nations attacked by the pejorative. One of the countries most linked to the term was Cuba due to its tourist policies of the 90s (exclusive hotels etc), which also happened to be one of Homey's preferred nations.
3. Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba was carefully created by Israeli focussed editors, essentially as response to the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. This naturally ticked off unrelated Cuba focussed editors who believed that it was a violation of WP:POINT and the material should be merged into Tourism in Cuba. A merge resisted by the Israeli editors for reasons that are best explained in point 2.
4. Seeing as it had seemingly become acceptable standard practice to throw accusations around on article mainspace providing they were sourced, Cuba related editors went over to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and added a whole load of verifiable accusations to that page. And the knock on effect was that U.S. focussed editors have repeatedly demanded its removal in turn. Which they shouldn't be able to do because the standard had already been set by previous articles.

So, either we end this nonsense and merge all of these articles into neutrally titled pages that cover these issues in an encyclopedic manner, or we keep all of them them. At present I vote for unilateral disarmament, and call for editors to get back to creating good articles of the kind one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Here are the related articles/forks. If I have left any out, then please notify.

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Merge into politics/human rights of Sri Lanka etc
Allegations of State terrorism by United States. Merge into Cuba United States relations etc and the many related pages.
List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state delete, the term has no agreed definition and thus it is just a list of anything that comes to mind.
Allegations of apartheid delete
Allegations of Israeli apartheid merge into Human rights in Israel etc
Allegations of Islamic apartheid merge into Criticism of Islam, Sex segregation in Islam etc
Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba merge into Tourism in Cuba
Allegations of Brazilian apartheid delete, just useless.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zleitzen does give a fair history of the article, but I can't agree that this crime against humanity is just something to split off into various human rights in country X articles. Genocide gets its own article , as does Genocides in history, so I'm not sure why (little-a) apartheid (which could as easily be called Apartheids in history) shouldn't as well. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic to the extreme. If anything can be salvaged, move into the appropriate articles as suggested above, but honestly, this sort of thing is probably documented in such articles already. Editors should not have to waste their time with this tripe. There are far more articles out there that are in need of work and attention. metaspheres 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff (2nd nomination)[edit]

The reason provided by the user when it the AfD template was edited in by the user with an IP of 67.100.16.114 was Notability. Again, please note that I did not put the AfD up, I merely replaced the template with {{afdx}} because the user had used {{afd}}. Remy Suen 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've gone over this before. Flyff has recieved awards ~~and its article has certainly gotten enough vandalism to render it notable~~. I'm not sure that this was a serious AfD, either, considering that the nominator didn't bother to start a talk page or even give a reason on the template. --Niroht | Smoke signals 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources are found by the end of the AfD. At present, the article is entirely self-sourced (the developer's own website, etc.). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, a secondary-sourced article just needs an unsourced tag, not deletion. We don't delete articles just because someone uses second-person, I don't see how lack of references calls for deletion.--Niroht | Smoke signals 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To write that "its article has certainly gotten enough vandalism to render it notable" shows deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies including the WP:NOTE guideline. A Google search shows some game sites, player blogs, and a GameFaqs listing, but in the first couple of pages I didn't see any sources that appeared to meet the reliable sources policy. Neutral at this time because I haven't looked deeply into possible sources nor investigated how major are the awards won by Flyff, but so far I don't see multiple independent non-trivial coverage by reliable sources to meet the WP:ATT basic policy. Barno 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pick, shall we? Last I checked I was allowed to type according to my personality rather than yours. Let's also note that this is a Korean program, so of course it's going to get more publicity in Korea than here. --Niroht | Smoke signals 01:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it doesn't seem noteable simply because its origins and larger user base are in non-english speaking contries. Let's not delete something simply because english speakers haven't heard much about it. Tag it with sources needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kennethmaage (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep:

uh, why delete it exactly? its a popular mmo and lots of us have put alot of effort into making the article. its just the idiots who dont read the rules that stuff it up.

Keep. A rewrite should've been requested if there are problems with the content, the article itself is notable. Harg 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAgreeing with the above that there should be an article for the game. If there's something wrong with it, then edit it. Gregorz 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mae (Winx Club)[edit]

I have nominated this article for deletion citing as it violates guidelines listed on WP:NOT and WP:OR in that "Mae" is not a notable fan fiction character--Kevin586 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, possibly Speedy as nn web content. Just somebody's fanfiction character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - non-notable. Ale_Jrb ^talk 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the latest version says "go ahead and delete...I see what I did wrong now...", so that should qualify as G7/db-author as well as A7. Xtifr _tälk 13:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 07:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Schoenman[edit]

Article completely unreferenced, requests for citations meet a point-blank and rude refusal, citation tags repeatedly removed by another editor RolandR 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous. Article is copiously referenced. I removed citation tags all of once, because the nominator couldn't even trouble himself to identify statements that were disputed or otherwise needed citations (as this edit makes clear, he simply used a find-and-replace to place {{fact}} tags in front of every period, with the nonsensical result that he was demanding citations for both letters in the abbreviation "U.S."). --Michael Snow 00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article is not referenced. It merely contains a list of 14 New York Times articles, unavailable to most readers, and with no link between statements in the text and the relevant articles. This is not referencing, it is a reading list. If the author is too lazy to cite references properly and in a way that they can be used, the article should be deleted. RolandR 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are you seriously suggesting the NYT is not a usable source? It remains available in one form or another in libraries. DGG 01:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although inline citations are a much preferred referencing format, they are not the only method of referencing. This article is not just referenced but referenced with a highly reliable source (which I have reformatted for higher transparency). I agree to some extent with the nominator, in that a reference section at the end of an article really doesn't adequately show where each piece of information comes from, but in the absence of expressly changing policy, there is no deletion issue here.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But although you have given the URLs (thank you), the articles still cost $4.95 each, and there is no indication which relates to what statement. So to check and follow up something in the article could cost $70! This is simply not acceptable, and without accessible references the article is not worth keeping. RolandR 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That argument has no traction whatever and is not reflected in any policy that I know of. Books are less accessible than newspaper sources and are not deprecated because article readers must either purchase the book or visit a library (and not incidentally, any reputable library, at least in the U.S., has the New York Times on file). By your argument, the best sources are online and free only. We go by reliability of sources, not access of readers to those sources. I’m not saying that being easily accessible isn’t a good thing for sources, just that it can’t form an essential consideration for citation because many of the best sources are not online. Once again though, I agree with you that references are much better when they are systematically placed so any reader can see just which statements come from which references. That is not a topic that can be given its due discussion here.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Fuhghettaboutit; the citations are from a reliable source and nothing to suggest inaccuracy or POV. Even if the sources aren't acceptable the subject is notable enough that the article should be rewritten, not deleted. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a novel synthesis from published sources. Please cite the secondary sources which back the overall content of this article, rather than a series of press clippings from which it was compiled. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article really, really, really needs in-line citations. But that alone is not a reason to delete it. Michael Snow, you seem to be the primary researcher on this article. May we prevail upon you to just please in-line your citations to solve this problem? I don't see how synthesis is a problem. WP:NOR doesn't say you can't synthesize published sources. It says you can't synthesize published sources in order to advance a non-published argument. What non-published argument are you (Guy) claiming this article is advancing? Mwelch 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to discuss inline citations if people will do the simple courtesy of providing constructive feedback about what might be disputed or where specifically they are needed. I've already asked for that on the talk page and would love to discuss improvements to the article there. So far the effort has been directed more toward undermining and even, as here, deleting the content. It should not be surprising that this is not a productive approach. --Michael Snow 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment. I did glance at the talk page and didn't happen to catch a mention of in-line citations there, but I'll now admit my look was a very quick one so I might well have missed it. Apologies, if so. In any event, while I cannot speak for other editors, for my part, I'm not claiming that anything is "disputed", necessarily. It simply is very helpful for the reader to be able to tie which statement of fact in the article is tied to which source. As I indicated, I don't think the article needs to be deleted, regardless, but I do feel that if it is not too much trouble for you, in-line citations would substantially improve the article's quality. Mwelch 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably didn't miss it, but I think you were looking for something different than I meant. I'm referring to the discussion about references, where I asked what if anything was being disputed (constructive feedback on that topic, rather than inline citations per se, is the relevant antecedent in my comment above). I'm sure improvement is possible - I'd actually value having additional reliable sources much more highly than inlining the ones already there - but it's not like I'm pushing for featured article status, and it's certainly not seriously deficient in the way the "unreferenced" mantra suggests. --Michael Snow 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment. Agreed that "unreferenced" is unjustified for this article. I just changed the {{unreferenced}} template to {{nofootnote}}. Mwelch 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are provided. It is a great help if the creator of an article uses inline references to show which reference (and on what page) is the source for what part of the article, but lack of inline references per se is not a valid reason for deletion. Complaints about the cost of NY Times archives are completely invalid as a basis for deletion. I could just as well complain about the expense of travelling tyo some other city to consult an actual out of print print book, or the cost of buying a book. There is more to the world of scholarship than free online sources. Many public libraries allow full text access to the NY Times and other periodicals through Proquest. Edison 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question how how references should best be expressed in a matter for the article talk page, not here. WP has 3 current systems for citations, and all of them are acceptable--even though some (i.e. DGG) think they each have major disadvantages. The only fixed rule is to have them consistent within an article. Changing from one form to another is probably almost never worth the trouble--readers of WP will adjust to each of them. The rest of the world uses an even greater variety. DGG 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion here and on the article's talk page, I wish to withdraw the proposal to delete the article. It looks as though there is a consensus that the method of referencing this article, although strictly speaking within acceptable Wikipedia guidelines, is in practice less than helpful. I trust that the serious issues raised will be addressed, and that the referencing will be amended to make it more "user-friendly" and accessible. RolandR 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see a consensus to move, if you feel I've misread it let me know. I think a separate discussion on moving would yield clearer results. John Reaves (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism by United States of America[edit]

Delete Clear violation of WP:SYNT. Completely OR. Jtrainor 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep 72 references and the nominator can still say with a straight face it is original research? Bad faith nomination. Admin should close this AfD snowball keep, like the last nomination. 69.150.48.48 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep can an article be nominated five times without somebody misunderstanding WP:POINT? The fact it has survived four times before and people renominate every week we should not be having this discussion untill next year.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not because the alleged crimes, transgressions, and ethical lapses should be hidden or buried, but because the term "state terrorism" is so problematic conceptually and burdened by shrill polemics. Ironically, this article actually discredits the POV it is trying to promote. --Leifern 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agenda piece. WP:SYNT and OR. Dman727 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it should be Allegations of State terrorism as it was before. Some of the material is valuable, some poor synthesis. Obviously not "Completely Original research" as the numerous references show. But all this has been argued many times before.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, as per Zleitzen. Ford MF 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per above and prune anything that smacks of OR/POV, if any info falls into that category. 23skidoo 13:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly keep. USA is the only country that have been found guilty of state terrorism (Nicaragua v. United States). // Liftarn
- Comment. That may be true, but my personal objection is with the title of the article which states as a confirmed fact that all information in the article has been confirmed and that the US has been found guilty on all examples given. If someone wants to shrink this down to an article specifically dealing with occasions on which the country has been found guilty, that's one thing, but there are too many allegations here for it to be declared as fact in the title. No objection to the article itself except for the concern noted above, which is standard. 23skidoo 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America or Delete. Stating it is fact is very POV. Yaf 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Another bad faith AfD by the same person who wants to get rid of the Israeli apartheid article. A quick glimpse through the sources shows the NY Times, Asia Times, the Guardian, etc...all reliable sources. If there are actual instances of OR in the article, then it should be edited accordingly. Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. Tarc 15:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crap Is this an encyclopedia or a dumping ground for the work product of propaganda departments in dictatorships? You've just gotta love it when the article's opening attack is from the government of Cuba, the worst, longest-lasting human-rights-abuser in the Western Hemisphere is the source charging the oldest democracy in the hemisphere of terrorism. And please, don't end your tour of Nevernever Land without scrolling down to the bottom, where that paragon of human rights, Hugo Chavez is not only quoted, but has his words of wisdom bracketed by the Big Quotes We Wikipedians Use For Memorable Statements:

“

One has to ask whether there was transparency in the invasion of Iraq. The world knows President Bush lied openly about Iraq having chemical weapons, They keep on bombing cities, killing children, they have become a terrorist state.--Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, 2005.

”

And Noam Chomsky is cited for more enlightenment. There's a well-respected moral force if ever there was one. If the editors in Fidel's propaganda department want to take a break from their dirty work, they can create articles on allegations against the United States from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan and (this should be a fun one) Idi Amin's Uganda. These would meet the editors' standards of reliability just as well as the ones they're using for this article.

On second thought, let's not delete it at all. Let's use it for our Wikipedia front-page feature article.

On April 1. Noroton 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is POV pushing at its worst. I do believe that a page like this one can exist, but first it needs to be blown up and started anew. Pablothegreat85 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I moved the article to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. I still think the article should be deleted, but this way the title isn't inherently POV. Pablothegreat85 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, then keep. Especially I think we could lose the last two sections ("Application of United States Government's own definitions" & "Quotes"). Actually, the best section is the obne on Latin America. I understand how it can be seen article is trying to push a point (good move by Pablothegreat85 to put in "allegations"). Might it be better balance to include to the extent possible U.S. government responses to the alledged incidents? I think this article is well researched, and contains many reputable/non-shady souces. Finally, sacrasm is not appropriate in AfD debates. Jakerforever 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Sarcasm is a singularly appropriate response to editors who have created a travesty of an article by doing the exact opposite of what Wikipedia was created for. Instead of trying to inform people with an honest attempt at the truth, editors have taken charges from some of the worst beasts on the planet to lie about the enemy of those beasts. When you carry water for criminal dictators with blood on their hands, sarcasm should be the mildest of the responses you should receive. The editors who perpetrated this article lose all assumption of good faith because of their actions. Noroton 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. What I'm saying is that you can vote without giving a talking head editorial . It depresses me when things get uncivil on these talk pages. Let's all vote, state our reasons, and get on with our lives. Jakerforever 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Final response on this topic It depresses me when propaganda is pushed out into a Wikipedia article, and it alarms me when that is treated as if it were some sort of minor mishap. You may see something a little inappropriate in this kind of article. I see one of the worst possible things someone could do on Wikipedia: promote lies that end up promoting killers, which is what we all should know several of these regimes are. Some people can't get on with their lives because they've been killed. The regimes that kill them have a history of propagandizing in order to turn around charges of terrorism and human-rights violations on the countries properly accusing them. So there are more reasons for being responsible on Wikipedia than just avoiding libel or copyright suits. And I've been focusing on the article more than the editors. Sorry to trouble you with the troubles of the world. Noroton 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then I get the last word. Noroton, I voted to keep this article. What are you insinuating? That I am pushing propoganda? I resent statements such as "Sorry to trouble you with the troubles of the world." I consider myself quite the cosmopolitan, not that it's your business. Furthermore, you speak with an arrogancy that implies you know what is lies and what isn't. There are reputable sources listed. I think this article merely suggests that the U.S. is not preacher-sheets-innocent, and to claim otherwise is naive. The article was appropriately changed to "Allegations of ____". There can be statements in favor and those opposed. We can have a civil discourse on the topic! The latin american section topics in particular are not merely out-from-left-field conspiracy theories. Shouldn't we strive not to, what's the phrase, whitewash our history? Jakerforever 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want the last word, don't ask a question. I insinuated nothing about you (unless you contributed some of that crap in the article) other than that I didn't think you were taking seriously enough the atrociousness of what these editors are doing. If incivility depresses you, calling someone arrogant is a bad idea. I'm not sure allegations of U.S. human rights abuses in Latin America qualify as "terrorism" as defined in this article. I addressed your other comments below, before you made them. Noroton 02:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Restoring my post which was deleted by Jakerforever)*Keep: I'm unsure where the nom's concerns are founded. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! When I was trying to add my post I think you were editing at the same time...I was cycling through the back-buttons to get back to my post, and I think I may have have saved over this. No ill will intended! Jakerforever 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article can be improved, but the topic is valid and sourced. There are people living on earth(even in America) who do in fact accuse the U.S.A of state terrorism among other things. Wandalstouring 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find allegations of bad faith on my part to be rather irritating as I have never been involved with this article or with any of the previous AfDs before. Furthermore, the number of AfDs an article has survived have no bearing on it's suitability for deletion at a later date-- I suggest you ask someone who was involved with the GNAA article, which survived -14- AfDs, but still ended up deleted. Jtrainor 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and keep. Use the normal editing process to correct anything that lacks sources meeting WP:ATT. Edison 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move content, remove the article itself For one I'm suprised there is no mention of the IRA here, but then the USA never acknowledged their terrorist behaviour (900+ UK military deaths aside) but that's just my POV and I only say it to demonstrate a potential problem with this article: I do worry if some delete votes are coming as a result of pro USA feelings and some keep votes coming from anti-american forgien policy people, I know this is a dangerous thing to say (and am prepared to take the flak for it, and im not personally attacking anyone let me make it clear) but this article, as it stands, is a fueling station for a giant tanker of wiki-conflict in its current form. I think it needs to be handled differently, why would these points not be in articles about the relations between the USA and the country in question? The inclusion of this and this incident over this and this is open to POV as well (not just the wiki users, but everyones) In my (humble) opinion, this current format is open to much to dammage. SGGH 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 23skidoo illustrated one of my concerns perfectly above, pointing out that the title implies guilt for america in all cases. SGGH 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No, the subject of American support for the IRA deserves its own article (and maybe it has one, I haven't checked). But this is an article about "state" terrorism. Please see my next comment below.Noroton 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- allegations are so rare as to not deserve a page.--Urthogie 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Looks to be a POV/Allegations page. Tirronan 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this discriminate collection of information. A change of name may be justified. WP:SYNTH implies that some conclusion is being suggested not implied by the sources; if so, what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the argument is that the article implies the US is guilty in all examples shown SGGH 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I have strong objections to this article, I would support a responsible treatment of the subject using reliable sources and a neutral point of view. But (a) there's little hope of that, given the fact that the article has been allowed to devolve into the intellectual atrocity it is now; and (b) it would be better to build up an actual NPOV article from the ground up, using reliable sources rather than endless tinkering with this creaky mess.Noroton 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these sorts of articles are the reason that WP is not taken seriously. Clearly WP:SYNT violation, maybe the logical next article is Corporate terrorism by Wikipedia and cite the Siegenthaler case, various allegations of bigotry among editors, and other notable faux pas. Carlossuarez46 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without such articles, WP will not be taken seriously outside of the United States. An honest discussion of the way one country is viewed by those elsewhere is appropriate, with respect to any country at all. They're difficult to write, but that is no reason to omit them. I agree with Noroton that the article is a POV disgrace at present. If we omit articles with POV problems, this represents the abandonment of a basic idea of WP--that of being able to write in a NPOV by community consensus. DGG 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So outside the US only takes WP seriously when we have "POV disgrace" articles so long as the POV is to their liking. So we give foreigners what we think they want, even if they don't want it, and even if it's useless. Carlossuarez46 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may not agree with the authors, I may not even agree with the article at all, but it IS something that WP needs - to show ALL sides of an argument. Noam Chomsky may be a linguist-turned-political-expert, but there's more crackpot theories than are presented here, and most of them aren't as well thought out or referenced as this one. - NDCompuGeek 05:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The title is fine. If we have a single reliable source which says that the U.S. has been accused of state terrorism, or has committed state terrorism, let alone having many reliable sources, then the article title is fine. State terrorism in Guatemala and State terrorism in Sri Lanka both follow this title scheme, albeit since U.S. state terrorism does not generally occur within the U.S., the current title is more appropriate. The U.S. Federal Government deserves no more special treatment than any other. In short: I'm not a fascist, but I don't want the Fascism article to be deleted. Let the article stand. Erin Go Bragh^talk 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I'm glad you mentioned those two other state terrorism articles, because I changed their titles too. They are now Allegations of state terrorism in Guatemala and Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Pablothegreat85 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good for you, acting without consensus again. Your solo act of changing the title does not consensus or fact change, my dear. By the logic behind making changes like those, I should go and change The Moon to Allegations that a celestial body is orbitting Earth. We all know that the Moon is there (well, most of us). We have reliable sources telling us so. we also have our common sense. We also have reliable sources telling us that the U.S. has committed acts of state terrorism. We also have our common sense. It's just beating a dead horse to both changing the article titles like that. It serves no purpose. Erin Go Bragh^talk 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice straw man argument. The bottom line is that most of the acts listed on this page are disputed as to whether they are really examples of state terrorism. No rational person disputes the existence of the moon. Pablothegreat85 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in four languages (English, French, Italian, and some Asian language I don't recognize). It's survived 4 previous nominations. Get over it. Let it go. It needs to cleaned up, but the topic deserves coverage. Vert et Noir^talk 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not a solid argument. Read WP:CCC. It's good that we re-visit the validity of pages like this from time to time. Pablothegreat85 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment From time to time?!?! This is the fifth nomination!!!!! There's obviously an agenda at play here, people will keep nominating it until eventually, they catch people on holiday or whatever, and a perfectly good article gets deleted by a small group with an agenda, as happened to the GNAA article, and the other online Encyclopedia article (the wiki for those who do it for the lulz - and whos name I do not think you are even allowed to speak on this site) Cloveoil 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid topic, with plenty of reliable secondary sources to back up these allegations. Like it or not, the USA has planned and/or committed many acts that some people consider to be state terrorism: come on, tell me Operation Northwoods wasn't terrorism. And even crackpot allegations like the 9/11 conspiracy theories are still nevertheless notable allegations as long as they are sourced and covered in an NPOV manner. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is a highly anti-American POV article and a conspiracy theory. These things are not encyclopediac articles. It is also POV because I don't see a State terrorism by Iran article of one for many other known terrorist countries.--Sefringle 01:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In any case the title is wrong (allegations issue mentioned earlier). Just because there have been many people who have accused the US doesn't mean much really, Goebbels said: "If you repeat it many times, people will believe it" - not to mention the criticism against Wikipedia that "if you can get enough people, you can change the truth" - I mean, what the hell is this "Pentagon damaged not by Flight 77 but a cruise missile" doing in there? Are we going to have a serious encyclopedia or invite people to dump all sorts of conspiracy theories? Quotes by Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky? Are these people reliable, neutral or represent scholarly mainstream academic opinion? Most of the stuff listed in the article, serious ones like Gladio et al, already have their own articles and can be covered in other articles like Foreign relations of the US or Cold War or etc. Not to mention policy problems per undue weight, WP:WTA and most common name. Labelling of most of the content listed as "state terrorism" does not reflect academic concensus: as such undue weight definitely applies. I know what Gladio was, however, on hindsight most historians do not label it as "state terrorism". Even though this might not be the case for most of the contributors of the article, I do think that the article is showing some signs of Anti-Americanism. And the argument that "some people consider as state terrorism" is not a valid argument either: it doesn't matter if half the world believes it. Heck, most people in the world do not believe in Evolution, but the article is still there. This article, because of its title, has inherent POV issues. Baristarim 02:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CHALLENGE: A call to put your effort where your mouths are A significant number of the "Keep" proponents here say they don't want to delete the article because the subject deserves mention in the encyclopedia, but they say they think cleaning it of unreliable material is necessary. Despite the best intentions voiced in this discussion, the fact is, it's the FIFTH discussion on deleting this article and after the past four, the article is a mendacious mess and a perversion of Wikipedia principles. In the past (and currently in the case of List of people who went to heaven alive) I and other editors have achieved consensus in keeping articles by working on them to make them better. In the case of this article, doing so would probably involve facing down a number of editors who have made the article what it is today.

So here's a challenge. All of you who said the article should be changed, both among the "Keep" group and the "Delete" group, will you join me, for the seven days following the close of this discussion (if the conclusion is "Keep", and that's the way it looks like it's going for the fifth time) in doing the following:

Support removing as unreliable sources any regimes commonly recognized by international organizations as significant human rights abusers. (parts in italics just added in. Noroton 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Reviewing with an open mind any deletions or additions to the article and participating in a good number of discussions on the talk page that concern questions of fairness and reliable sourcing (relying your own best judgment, sense of fairness and what you believe to be Wikipedia rules in each case).
Removing material that you agree isn't reliably sourced after three days of having it identified with a ^{[citation needed]} tag. I know it's a relatively short period, but editors interested in the article should have it on their watch list and should know the article is under the gun by now, and I'm not going to ask for a pledge of more than a week of attention, so we should act relatively fast.

I'll help out by doing some research, questioning some parts of the article and suggesting rewrites and additions to other parts. Obviously, anybody else who wants to should be working on the article as well. I won't be voicing my disgust in any discussions on the talk page and I'll work toward consensus and a neutral article. If I can do that, can any of you pledge to help, or are your opinions about keeping this malformed article (even if you don't mean them that way), simply supporting a biased article?

A list of those who said, essentially, "Keep" but reform the article in some way (and I'm asking for every other contributor to this discussion to make the same pledge):

Zleitzen
23skidoo
Tarc
Jakerforever
Wandalstouring
Edison
DGG
NDCompuGeek
Vert et Noir

If five of these nine editors (and I'll be adding more to the list as others join the discussion and make the same point) will tell me they'll help to improve it and will participate in helping to form a consensus if there's a dispute, then I'll change my vote to "Keep" and help work on the article for a week after the discussion is closed. If, after attempting to improve the article, it is again overrun within months by egregious non-NPOV and bad-sourcing edits and yet again becomes a mess, I'll be nominating it for deletion discussion Number 6 and contacting each and every optimist on the list above to solicit support for removal. And we'd all have a convincing argument for removal at that point. Is this proposal fair? Is it not in the best traditions of Wikipedia? Is it not an attempt to come to consensus after five deletion nominations? Is it, on its face at least, not a good-faith effort to do the right thing? Noroton 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge to work on it for at least a week (if joined by at least five editors from the list above) Noroton 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you're going to do this, it might be a good idea to stub it and then build up towards a good article. Pablothegreat85 05:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The point is to do it with consensus, which I don't think would support that. Will you take the pledge, Pablothegreat? Noroton 05:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't one of the folks who voted to delete, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to have someone on your side also working to fix the article. If you would like me to help you, I would be happy to oblige. Pablothegreat85 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm asking that people on all sides of this discussion work on this article. I've just boldfaced that part of my post above to make that clear. Thanks!Noroton 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can like it of not but the USA has planned and committed many acts that might be considered terrorism: backed several assassinations of Fidel Castro, back up the Fulro terrorist organisation, back up the mujahideens in Afganistan and Pakistan and etc. --Saigon punkid 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same thing as said by User:Saigon_punkid Sukael \o/ 12:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone is concerned about the encyclopedic nature of the content in the Cuba section, here is how Encyclopedia Britannica handle some of the core allegations.

"The New York Times in July published a long interview with Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban-born, CIA-trained terrorist who had been convicted of bombing a Cuban airliner off Barbados in 1976 and had served nine years in a Venezuelan prison. In the interview he admitted to more recent attacks against Cuban property, claiming to have organized the 1997 bombings in Havana hotels and to have had his activities financed by the late Jorge Mas Canosa and other leaders of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF). The Interior Ministry announced that three Guatemalans and two Salvadoreans were to be put on trial for their part in the bombings. Described as mercenaries, they admitted to working under the direction of Carriles and Arnaldo Monzón Plasencia, also of CANF." (Encyclopedia Britannica)

The main difference is that the wiki article is framed as allegations from the Cuban government, due to the theme of the page being "allegations of..". These particular "allegations" are borne out by numerous verifiable sources, (CNN, NYTimes, BBC etc) admitted to by the perpetrators many times and regarded as fact by commentators and experts on the matter. So its difficult to see any problems there, if Britannica can report the claims, than so can we. Some of the later material in the article I'm not keen on, I don't think the quotes are necessary, nor the US's own definition. But other than that, notable allegations have been made in verifiable sources. That's pretty much the end of the issue. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment then Zleitzen, you should have no problems with the removal of unreliable sources such as the Cuban government, correct? And will you agree to help with improvements in the article as I've suggested in my challenge? Noroton 15:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might find a softer name, but the Roman state would have recognised what it was about. Midgley 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete – The very title gives away the inherent POV inasmuch as it asserts “guilty as charged”. If there was even a pretence of NPOV, the title would (still, as Zleitzen points out) be prefixed by “Allegations of ...” I doubt many of those voting “Keep” (and not “Keep and rename”) have not bothered reading the articles on “Terrorism” and “State terrorism” or they’d know that there is no such thing as a broadly acceptable definition of what constitutes “state terrorism” — much less one accepted in international law — against which any party could be held accountable. Moreover, if there were, the target would necessarily have to be against governmental regimes, not the nations themselves. NPOV would then, at the very least, require a title like “Allegations of state terrorism by the government of the United States of America” (or possibly a particular administration of that government).

I’m afraid, though, that a simple article renaming won’t restore this article to credibility. The reason is because it must rely almost exclusively on biased sources – and biased to a single “side’s” perspective. Frankly, I’m surprised that anyone has voted “Keep” following Leifern’s perfect summary of the reason for his vote to “Delete - not because the alleged crimes, transgressions, and ethical lapses should be hidden or buried, but because the term ‘state terrorism’ is so problematic conceptually and burdened by shrill polemics. Ironically, this article actually discredits the POV it is trying to promote.” Since “state terrorism” has no useful, broadly acceptable definition, it can only be employed as a pejorative. Furthermore, without such a definition, there is no basis upon which to include or exclude any particular accusation. Therefore, this article can only stand to serve as a collection of allegations against which there may be no objective defense — which is "useful" only to those that have an agenda. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (sorry for the long essay to follow) Thus far, most of the keeps are because (1) the article is well sourced, (2) US activities are occasionally called state terrorism, and (3) it is a useful collection of information. While these are all fine reasons to support an article, none are going to convince someone not to vote delete. Most of the delete votes are due to OR or NPOV. Baristarim's vote includes a mention of how this isn't "mainstream academic opinion." The OR issue is something that the article does need to get rid of, and it does hover on SYN as is. But to me, the NPOV/undue weight argument needs to be turned on its head, in this case. The people talking about US state terrorism are not going away, they are important in political affairs throughout the world. This article is about their platform. From creationism to the flat tax, articles in WP about non-mainstream ideas are capable of addressing the ideas in a serious way which is upfront about the relative discredit the ideas have in the mainstream, but that there is sizable group who share the idea. So to me, the article should embrace its NPOV-hood in a way that says, while this topic involves a certain POV, it is not mainstream POV in the US and much of the western academic world. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address what I'm suggesting for this article, let me address Leifern's comment. Liefern is, in my mind, fundamentally correct. But, in this case, the polemic value of the term 'state terrorism' is part of the article. To me, this article is a collection of the scholarship of people like Blum, Chomsky, and Gareau, who use charged language in their discussions of US activities. This is also true of the charged language by leaders such as Castro and Chavez, who use their opposition to America as part of their platform. In both cases, the charged language is linked to how the events are organized. So to discuss their ideas, one must admit the application of non-neutral language on a certain set of events in US foreign policy. In the individual events, there are a great many people interested in understanding what role the US had and why they did what they did. But in collecting these events, the goal is to show a pattern of behavior that establishes the US as a pariah in the minds of some audience (voters in Columbia, readers in Cambridge, etc). So to me, the first task is to rewrite the lead to express that the accusations of state terrorism against the US is not a case of people trying to uncover the truth (this is very important in the individual events), but rather a certain way of collecting a certain set of US activities for certain purposes. Then the article becomes an outline of the events that are collected in this way, who is including them as instances of US state terrorism, and why they are included.

Norton, I'm thinking the first step in improving the article is to get some consensus on the direction (my idea is certainly not the only one) of the article on the talk page, and to start a {{todo}} list there. I'd be happy to help out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Smmurphy, a Solomon amongst us... :) Jakerforever 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm Solomon, I have to have the sword ready. Norton is right when he says that he'd be ready to wade into the article, to bring it to NPOV, but it can't be done alone, and it will take some work (its a swordfight, not just a case of a baby cut in half). Certainly Solomon wouldn't have waited until the fifth nomination to act. In any case, I'm blushing at such a suggestion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy, your rationale above is a great outline of the reasons for having articles on "state terrorism" or "terrorism" or on American foreign policy issues — which no one has a problem with. The problem with this sort of article is twofold: First, it can only be built up from singularly biased sources (and few, if any, "neutral" ones), so it must be an inherently POV article; and second, since there is no consensus definition of what constitutes "state terrorism", and so the article's only purpose can be to list everything anybody who dislikes the "defendent" has ever used the term against the target. Moreover, this is true whether you have a list of accusations of "state terrorism" by the US, USSR, Cuba, Iran, Great Britain, Liechtenstein or whatever. This is true of accusations of "terrorism" as well, and currently usage of the term is deprecated as inherently POV; more neutral, but accurate terms (like "rebel", "insurgent") are employed instead — or one might cite a declaration by an entity to state that "So-and-so has declared that XYZ is a terrorist organization." Yet "terrorist" has a "firmer" definition than "state terrorism". Certainly if we consider a country to be a "living person", this would never get past WP:BLP. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sets this article apart from something like the post-WWII discussion of interventionist cases in United States non-interventionism is the use of the term terrorism. The US State Department Counterterrorism Office [22] publishes lists of acts that it calls terrorism [23]. We can thus feel pretty secure calling those events terrorist attacks, and have articles about those, even though many would not call them terrorist attacks. My idea of this article is to show what has been said about US acts of terrorism. This is encyclopedic in my mind because some important people (from Chomsky to Chavez) have used this as a major part of their platform (be it to get elected or to get their message out). If Ross Perot ran for US president again, imagine how long and crazy the article on flat tax would be. I think of this kinda in those terms, this is a major platform for selling a personality. It can be fixed, but it needn't be deleted. Sorry if I've repeated myself, let me know exactly where we aren't connecting, and I'll try again, if you like. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm against deletions of any topic of substance, even if the article, like this one, is blatantly agenda-driven. I'm also a realist--no amount of clean-up will keep out the agenda bias, which will be re-worded and put back in. You need look no farther than most of the "reasoning" above for keeping. The comments about polemics and charged language just above are dead-on. Nevertheless, a cyberspace encyclopedia offers the means of inclusiveness that paper encyclopedias could not: greater detail, greater diversity. I personally find it appalling that articles on any Harry Potter novel have greater depth and quality, so to speak, than articles on Oliver Twist--but there is a place for both. Even without a means of effectively enforcing "encyclopedic tone", I still vote to keep.--Buckboard 10:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Per verifiable information. --Ragib 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We've been here before... --Nyp 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason or necessity to delete a long-established well-referenced article. Wooyi 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As per Wooyi, The article is well referenced, the fact presented may be not proven, the title only says "Allegations", and not state terrorism by /of/in America. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think you need to reread the title. Feel free to change your opinion based on this new information. --Tbeatty 05:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a terrible mistake. I was reading Zleitzen's comments and got carried away.. Changing my opinion. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 09:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 09:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a notable topic, deserving an article here on Wikipedia. For issues with content, AfD is not the way to go. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep csloat 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Wooyi, thanks RaveenS 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look under egregious examples of NPOV, and you find this article. Could all the USA haters just Move On already? Lowellt 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keep votes above.cs 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC
Strong Keep I've been hitting this page for some months now; while i would wish that there were very many more instances listed, i have no problem with the current state of things. Let me restate that: I don't think the current article represents an accurate history, however that may be remedied in the next few months. As it is, there are no misrepresented facts and there are not skewed interpretations. Anyone who might suggest that this topic be deleted is either a dumbshit fascist or a dumbshit dupe. In either case, they have no place here in wikiepedia. Stone put to sky 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has had almost no involvement in WP this entire year[24]. His comments are incivil to an extreme and I see he is a likely sock account. I recommend a NPA block for at least a week.--MONGO 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I agree with this. I have left a notice to the user here about this. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anyone who wants to read this. I view the actions above as bullying. Thankyou. Cloveoil 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is important on this project. Stone’s comment above is inflammatory and uncalled for. I take it you think those remarks he made are OK? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a clear violation of WP:NPA. Also, I'm not sure what "wikiepedia' is. Why are you calling other people "dumbshits" when you have the inability to spell "Wikipedia" correctly? Also, your ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. Your name-calling doesn't address any arguments. Pablothegreat85 20:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Break into alleged and proven convicted. These items in both contexts are pieces of history that Wikipedia needs to have for people to research.Amxt 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has POV issues, especially with the title (i.e. the word allegations removed) implying fact. If it is kept due to the direction this AfD is heading, then this "False Flag" section to other articles need to be removed from it as it is too open to be manipulated to appear as factual as well. As word allegations disappeared from the title of this article, this section could very easily loose the word "allegations" as well "off the radar" very easily. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 23:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outrageous POV issues, simply a synthesis of nonsense designed to advocate a position...violates WP:NOT in many ways.--MONGO 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any event listed is bound to have its own article anyway. This is possibly a list but not an article. Because of the mulitple listings, this qualifies as a POV fork. --Tbeatty 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no way to make a real article out of this. We don't have articles on state terrorism by Cuba, state terrorism by France, or state terrorism by Egypt, and we never should if they'd turn out like this. Articles of this type are just platforms upon which to construct a conclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do. We have List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state where I believe this article grew from. This has Burma, Cambodia, China, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Colombia, France, United Kingdom, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. We also have Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, Terrorism in Syria (Formerly State terrorism in Syria). We also have numerous articles taken solely from US State department sources such as U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism, U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations etc etc. We also have articles such as Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba. None of these articles have faced afd. Yet this U.S. article is repeatedly challenged, despite having copious sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS. Tbeatty and others have a point that any event listed may have its own article anyway, likewise with the Allegations of apartheid articles. However, until there is unilateral deletions of all these articles, American exceptionalism based on en:Wikipedia's demographic should not triumph. The nominator of this article, Jtrainor, also went through the Allegations of apartheid articles and nominated them - or rather, he nominated Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Allegations of apartheid in Australia (which was deleted). Yet he conspicuously avoided nominating Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, Allegations of Islamic apartheid and Allegations of Brazillian apartheid, which illustrates the bias coming from this deletion process. Simply saying that this article is POV, and "a synthesis of nonsense", despite much of it coming from sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS and being no more POV than the encyclopedia britannica (see above), does not make it so. The calls for the deletion of a vast number of sourced statements seems to be based on personal incredulity concerning the well documented events regarding the U.S., rather than any efforts to improve these articles. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Had you checked my talk page instead of leaping slavering to the keyboard to malign me, you'd have read why I didn't nominate those other articles and why I havn't yet. Jtrainor 13:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While you make some good points, Zleitzen, my opinion that this should be deleted remains unchanged. That we have a bunch of other crappy articles is no reason to keep this one, and list of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state is just a list of some allegations, and is not nearly as focused or in depth as this page. Systemic bias works two ways- this page doesn't serve as a counterbalance to the sizeable American demographic editing the English wikipedia, it only serves to further overemphasize the the doings of the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both the article and the title. Plenty of sources and very notable. Potential to expand even further. Kaveh 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the arguments for deletion have been based on the idea that the sources are biased, but there is plenty of unbiased information to back these claims up. I think deletion is inappropriate; a bit like throwing out a draft because of some typos. If someone put some time into this article and heavily sourced it, there would be no problem. And besides, some of these sources are the most credible sources possible under the circumstances. We can't rely on US gov't documents, because they would (of course) deny any terrorist action. Anyways, with some cleanup and extra effort to research heavily as this is such a controversial topic, this article would be fine. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs
Keep There's nothing I can say which hasn't already been said. Cloveoil 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the article is determined to harbour POV, no matter to what extent, there is far too much raw information in there to sensibly advocate a complete scrap-and-start-again job. Far more sensible to work with the considerable resource already present, and for those who take issue to amend as they see fit. Surely it could be argued that any article at all in the State Terrorism series is guilty of POV to some extent? You've got to be sensible and realise that the judgment of what constitutes POV may have to relent in the slightest way as it is impossible to convey such a topic without managing to offend someone in one way or another. If a person can get shirty over a controversial topic, they shouldn't bother reading it. Objectivity can only go so far, and to ruthlessly edit this down or scrap it entirely is a pointless exercise because to maintain complete rigid objectivity would impoverise such a contentious, controversy-laden topic. It is by its very nature an instigator of debate, therefore the article must go to some lengths to explain why that is the case. Hence if this is not explained in the article, it is an article of poverty. The Geography Elite 07:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked people if they'd be willing to at least support eliminating the bias and hardly anyone has taken me up on the offer. For all the editors like The Geography Elite who suggest keeping and working on it, who will actually lift a finger to do it or support those who do when the inevitable partisans push back? Does anyone else smell rank hypocrisy here? I'm not saying The Geography Elite or any other particular editor is a hypocrite, just that that smell is pretty thick around here. I guess I must be paranoid. Everyone here has the goal of informing Wikipedia's readers with an unbiased article, right? And, ah, how come there's more interest in preserving than reforming the article from people who admit it's a mess? Noroton 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (self edit Noroton 14:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Given that your opening gambit was "Delete this crap", followed by various comments describing the universally reported claims as "the product of propaganda departments in dictatorships" and other such hyperbolic rhetoric, then it is hardly surprising that editors do not want to take up your offer of collaboration. The only hypocrisy I see stems from the demands here to delete this article about the U.S., but not the other numerous articles that carry similar claims against other nations sourced to the U.S. government. Virtually nothing you have argued above has any credibility at all and I doubt anyone got past your first couple of lines. The U.S. national archive, Encyclopedia Britannica, CNN, BBC, New York Times, etc have credibility and say the same things as this article. Perhaps they are in "Fidel's propaganda department" as well? -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nitpick; that first link is to the National Security Archive, a private collection at George Washington University in DC, not to the U.S. National Archives. csloat 17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - After reading comment above, I comletely agree with Zleitzen. I would request that Noroton refrain from further postings to this discussion until he or she could do so with maturity. This is reoccuring behavior - I believe I noted an uncivil posting by Noroton way back in my first posting to this discussion. Jakerforever 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In memory of all the innocent victims to a foreign policy that ran amock. Deletion of this article is pure POV pushing. Lixy 14:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanting to delete the article is POV pushing, but wishing to keep the article because you disagree with American foreign policy is not? Pablothegreat85 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reporting on an issue is not pov pushing. For example, just because illegal immigration exist, and just because Wikipedia has an article on it - doesn't mean that Wikipedia supports illegal immigration. Thusly (why the hell do I keep using that word - 3rd time today), if this article can be correctly cited using reliable sources - it should obviously be kept.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|⁽^{Can you help me with my signature?}⁾
Delete Not this again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "not this again" is not a very strong argument when arguing for the deletion of an article that has a history of four "Keep" results on AfD already..... Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a legitimate article on a legitimate issue. Certain users exerting their POV into such articles is not alone enough reason to delete them. Furthermore, I would also agree to a move back to "Allegations of State Terrorism..." as per Zleitzen.--Jersey Devil 02:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Wall[edit]

Not notable - has not played for either of his football league clubs and is now with Conference South side (have updated article to reflect this) WikiGull 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. Qwghlm 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per numerous precedents. Conference South fails even my inclusive player notability criteria! - fchd 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above comments Daemonic Kangaroo 05:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not national league football. Matthew_hk t c 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Bigmike 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, as per nomination Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caesarean delivery on maternal request[edit]

This appears to be a POV fork of cesarean section, anging the drum on behalf of the natural birth people (who are probably right about a lot of it, by the way, but that's immaterial). It contains some speculation, and if pruned will be not significantly bigger than the section already in cesarean section (under Elective). Some of the text here is generic to cesarean sections anyway (infant mortality rates, for example). Might need merging or smerging back, but probably redundant. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks pretty well-referenced to me. If there's a problem with tone, then edit. I don't see how the article merits deletion. Merging, maybe... but not deletion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as POV fork. If not merged, it should definitely be moved to Elective caesarean section. The term "caesarean delivery on maternal request" does not appear at all in Google Books, and is outnumbered in Google Scholar by "elective caesarean section" by approximately 6,000 to 3. The use of such an extreme minority term for the title of the article is suggestive as to its POV-fork nature. PubliusFL 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Cesarean delivery on maternal request is specific medical term for a more and more recognized and requested indication for a Cesarean section. As stated, a possibly sizable percentage of women undergo CDMR. The article provides the reference support, including the fact that the NIH brought together a consensus conference to wrestle with the matter. It is, of course, an elective CS, and people usually refer to it as such, but: not all elective sections are done on maternal request. The discussion in the Cesarean section article is witten with the distinct view that doctors like to do unnecessary CS for convenience and money. That may be the case in some situations, but that section needs more references and less POV, - further, this has really little to do with CDMR. So, Cesarean delivery on maternal request is a distinct medical term that actually avoids POV, makes it clear that this "elective CS" is not done because the physician or somebody else has an interest in it, and can be kept clear of the more murky elective CS discussion. Alternatively, it could be considered to move the "Elective CS" section out of the CS article, making it its own lemma, and within have two sections: CDMR and "elective CS for other reasons".Ekem 20:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article says "Caesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR)" is "also called an elective caesarean section." If it's really a "distinct medical term," the article should say so and point to reliable sources that demonstrate what the difference is. Based on a quick Google search using both terms, I can't find anyone who distinguishes between them. PubliusFL 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entry sentence modified accordingly.Ekem 11:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly Rename. I see Ekem's point - many people point the fingers only at doctors, not at parents. I would however suggest this be changed to "parental request", since some anecdotal testimony implies that CDMRs may occur because the father pressures the mother to go through major, possibly life-threatening surgery so his pleasure is not theoretically infinitesimally reduced. --Charlene 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don;t think its really equiv. to "Elective Caesarian section, which I think includes ones possibly preferable for medical reasons but not absolutely required. But I would rename it nonetheless, as the closest term, and then edit the article. DGG 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ekem Maustrauser 10:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisations campaigning against human trafficking[edit]

WP:NOT a link repository. kingboyk 12:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete functionally equivalent to a list of all groups that ave any kind of humanitarian mission. I can't think of any social welfare group that is not against human trafficking. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please note, the list is not a compilation of groups against human trafficking; It is actually linking to groups campaigning against trafficking. →Bobby← 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My above comment aside, the article in question is merely linking to a bunch of web pages. All info worthy of appearing in an encyclopedia already shows up on other pages. →Bobby← 14:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, farm. Pavel Vozenilek 07:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a link repository; the entire contents of the page consists of external links, save for the first sentence. Kyra_~(talk) 09:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per this clear indication that someone is using Wikipedia as a soapbox - or perhaps a snake oil box would be closer to the mark. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erinacine[edit]

As it says "little research has been conducted on erinacines to date". Most of it, apparently, by the author of this article, who has no other contributions. Some references, to be sure, but Google comes up close to blank and I don't see enough critical secondary review of this. Maybe it just needs aggressive cleanup, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete in lieu of more sourcing and more notability demonstrated per nom. Terpinoids themselves are notable, so it could be improved... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)'[reply]

Keep This article is notable--Matrix17 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see WP:POINT. --Strangnet 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is evidently not fulfilling WP:NOR since there is little research done on the substance itself as the article itself puts it. When there are de facto evidence and multiple scientific studies on Erinacine's effects, it's time to have an article written. --Strangnet 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Strangnet ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hericium erinaceus, the fungus from which erinacines are extracted, but trim down the content considerably. There is a small but notable research effort into extracts of this particular fungus due to alleged medicinal properties. The extracts include include erinacines and dozens of other compounds. I will add a short section to the fungus article as a first step. Irene Ringworm 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, alleged medicinal properties. That explains something in the OTRS exchanges which has been puzzling me, namely why someone wants the page locked "before the FDA get angry" or words to that effect. If the merge is done, I encourage you to redirect and we can speedy close this. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I just spotted this: [User:Biochemical Mind]. This is clearly the work of a kook, and needs to be gone. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rushdenshire[edit]

Clearly a neologism, no reliable sources to show notability or to allow verifiability. Prod removed without explanation or improvement of article Gwernol 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I have never heard this word used outside of the context of a single football chant from Rushden & Diamonds fans (itself a club on the very brink of non-notability). - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rushden are a professional club who played for a number of years in the Football League, by anyone's standards (especially those explicitly set out in WP:CORP) that is not "on the very brink of non-notability" ChrisTheDude 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, unsourcable. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post neologisms. But I think the best solution is to move it into userspace, i.e. userfying it for the creator. --sunstar net^talk 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casper Andersen[edit]

Non-notable subject. Vanity article. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and is totally non-notable. Could have been proded. Ale_Jrb ^talk 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. CSD A7. So tagged. Mwelch 03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving to User:Adam63/Adam Jones (political scientist). Cúchullain ^t/c 05:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jones (political scientist)[edit]

Entire article is WP:COI and WP:AUTO violation by Adam63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If the subject passed WP:NN the entire thing needs a rewrite anyway. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: COI noticeboard discussion — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~An associate professor~~ A research fellow's résumé with no reliable sources which might establish Wikipedia-calibre notability. — Athænara ✉ 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AUTO provides that biographies should not be written by their subject. "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by the community." EdJohnston 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Athaenara. Shame though because with a little work and adherence to policy it could be a good article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete, resume. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify. For all I know he may be, or become, notable; and if so we'll want this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as currently reduced. I do not think he is necessarily a notable academic. He is about to be an associate professor, but not at a research university, and associate professors are not all notable--and not all of his work appears to be scholarly. But I think he is notable as an author and an activist. The number of books are sufficient, and none of them are self published. If he were not an academic, but merely a non-academic writer who had published as much and received as good reviews, he would be included without question. But I understand the feeling that it could be deleted. I and others have already cut down much of the self-praise and puffery that contaminated the article. There is, as noticed, a good way to go. I have just reduced the article to an appropriate size, somewhat longer than a stub, and citing each item only once. COI means the material should not necessarily be taken at face value, of course, and further editing should be done. I think it has now been down, and I urge those who saw it before to revisit it. DGG 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted other comments here, looked at the article again, removed nearly a dozen duplicate and near-duplicate links to the subject's own websites, did some additional Wikifying, updated my post (he's a research fellow due to become an associate professor this summer), and couldn't change my vote. — Æ. ✉ 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Userfication of this autobio would be as appropriate as, and kinder than, deletion. Either way, it would be out of article space.) — Æ. ✉ 02:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it looks a lot better when I first saw it on COI/N. I still can't, however, vote keep. I remain unconvinced that the subject is currently notable and it still reads like a resume: the section titled "Biography" largely contains his various academic achievements and professorships; most of the information (as I understand), including the picture, is self-published on his website and the Gendercide website; in general, the subject is not noted, i.e. notable, but is instead self-published. Delete. --Iamunknown 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will change my vote if somebody ads references to independent sources. Adam, please avoid editing your own article, but feel free to post references to the talk page for us to review. Do you have ISBN numbers for those books? Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, you and anyone else may key those book titles into an Amazon search engine, and come up with the relevant ISBN data and related information. You may also consult the history page for a wide range of outside links attempting to demonstrate notability. DGG, please provide evidence to support your assertion that the University of British Columbia is not a research university. - Adam63 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Its a vanity page, it should go away RogueNinja 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity page. Tempshill 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the latest thinking, the word 'vanity' shouldn't be used in AfDs because it might be perceived as insulting. See WP:VANITY for such a caution. EdJohnston 01:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mailer diablo (CSD G11). →Bobby← 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum (training)[edit]

All the nominated articles are, essentially, a walled garden of non-notable vanispamcruftisement created by Fdmt (talk · contribs). Recommend a quantum deletion. MER-C 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all of them as blatant spam and complete bollocks. Developed from the best practices of leading multinational corporations, Quantum is a portfolio of over 20 transferable skills (such as presentation, writing, problem solving, team building, etc.) that help individuals accomplish work of higher quality in less time. Wow! Literacy is a "transferrable skill" that belongs in a "portfolio." I really need to update my résumé, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum delete this quantum network of spam articles. Resurgent insurgent 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse these quantum wavefunctions per CSD G11. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Company[edit]

Orphaned page for a year now. Nothing in the text to indicate why this group is notable in any way, and nothing to indicate what this group actually did other than that they foreclosed on some mortgages over a three year period. The name makes it pretty much impossible to search for any material from which to expand the article. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually this company gets 14 results on Google Scholar [25] and all seem to be related to this company specifically, and seem somewhat impressive (reputable journals and books). I'll see if I can expand the article from sources available over JSTOR... not really sure what the results will be. --W.marsh 14:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be expanded/sourced at all, I'll withdraw this AfD - I do think there's a reasonable chance that any organization from that period will be notable in some way - I was just finding too many false-positives to get any material to expand it from. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm really not sure it can be expanded at all, by me at least... looking at the references is pretty slow-going so far. This might be more suited to an actual historian. --W.marsh 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. the material in the article shows it notable in New York State history. Naturally, not much will be found on line, but one totally reliable printed source is present.

As March and Iridescenti observed, there should be more. Our reluctance to use non on-line sources is incompatible with producing a general encyclopedia. WP: the encyclopedia of the world since 1990. DGG 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The topic of this article is actually central to the formation of several New York State communities, and has roots extending throughout the foundation of the US. I have cleaned up the article, added several references and added several statements supporting the relevance of this article. - Freechild 16:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also de-orphanized the poor article. I'm afraid that many poorly written articles suffer the same treatment of this one; although they are of significance to the WP project, they are deleted because their case isn't made very well. - Freechild 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the cleanup I'd say this is now worth keeping. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. IrishGuy ^talk 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's tram stop[edit]

per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a travel guide

May I just say that I have only included pure tram stops, and not stops such as West Bromwich Central tram stop and Wednesbury Great Western Street tram stop (please see their respective talk pages which have previously been train stations (if indeed they have). Tram stops are not not notable than bus stops, and precident has been set with Nottingham Express Transit losing it's individual stop articles (the main article now looks very neat though) and Supertram and Metrolink have no individual stop articles - and Manchester's Metrolink stops are more like Midland Metro's, so in my opinion, neither need individual articles. They are unexpandable, offer no information, and conflict with Wikipedia is not a travel guide. So, there are my reasons, argue away! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Midland Metro stops are more akin to railway stations than bus stops. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Mabbett and all previous AfDs. Computerjoe 's talk 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since it is a pretty big operation to move a tram line, tram stops are a far more permanent fixture than bus stops, and closer to subway stations in terms of encyclopedic validity. I agree with Andy and Joe. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tram stops are npotable, as determined by previous afd debates. This has been debated before on several occasions. Nothing's changed. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previous afd's should not need to determine the outcome of this. These pages have still not expanded since them, which only shows they cannot be expanded without violating wikipedia is not a travel guide (believe me, I tried to expand Supertram articles myself). So you are indeed correct - nothing's changed, nor will it ever, delete. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andy Mabbett plus, the Midland Metro is more of a light rail system than a tram network. - Erebus555 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment template:Britishmetros would disagree with you. It is just a tram, using old heavy-rail infrastructure. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Most are just 2 sentence stubs with no references. Even the first one lacks reliable independent references satisfying [[WP:ATT] to show that they are more encyclopedic that any other bit of urban infrastructure. Edison 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Midland Metro. Wikipedia is not a directory, of tram stops or anything else. Where are the multiple non-trivial secondary sources of whihc these tram stops have each been primary subject? Surely a chapter on each in Trams Of The West Midlands? Nope. Not even books on trams devote more than a paragraph to individual stops, in my experience. These are not akin to railway stations, not even akin to halts on the old pre-grouping lines, they are much more like bus stops. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We've been through these articles AfDs twice before. Light rail stops are notable and consensus has demonstrated that. --Oakshade 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No it hasn't. Each previous AfD has resulted in no consensus to delete, which is not the same as consensus to keep L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tram, trolley, light-rail stops are noteworthy, they serve neighborhoods and can be expanded. Fg2 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not without violating wikipeda is not a travel guide and wikipedia is not a directory, and not with adding sources. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and combine into a list. Yes, we have considered them before, but in view of what I hope are increasing standards we should think again. I would support these articles if there were anything to be said. But they all are composed of only the following pieces of information: where they are, when they were built, what line they are on, and the stations that come before and after. This is perfect material for an article about the line, with the stations listed. DGG 02:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "they all are composed of only the following pieces of information [...]" - that's patently untrue. Andy Mabbett 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Handsworth Booth Street tram stop has some good info, for example. Neier 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This nomination seems even more inclined towards keep than the previous afd attempts. Can we use this to reach a consensus, for this and other similar light railway systems, that any currently open Metro or other light rail stop, consisting of a permanent structure, is equivalent to a heavy rail station, and just as notable? – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus has repeatedly stated that railway stations are inherently notable. RFerreira 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not railway stations. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Time to close this; and put it out of its misery? Andy Mabbett 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as nominator. These have not and will not be expanded (at least not without violating wikipedia is not a directory). They are the same as individual tram-stop articles on Supertram and Nottingham Express Transit which were deleted. There has never been consensus to keep, only no consensus to delete. I have no problem keeping the stops that were once rail stations, and expanding them, but these only say "x is a tram stop in y on the Midland Metro". L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "These [...] will not be expanded" When you've finished with your crystal ball, can I borrow it? Andy Mabbett 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awesomeness is not a criteria for keeping an article; WP:V is non negotiable.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Hide and Seek[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up while getting sloshed in the pub one night. An earlier version of the article[26] detailed the origins of the game in a small town pub. Weregerbil 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as said in the edit summery, as valid as most pub games. Removed most of the editorial bits & left it @ that.--Nate 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. "Wikipedia is not for things made up while getting sloshed in the pub one night" is not an actual section & verging on an insult "Wikipedia is not for things made up in the pub one night" would be more than adequate. --Nate 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. Can you please cite some reliable sources that mention this game and its rules? Unsourced, unverifiable infomation is subject to deletion. If there are other articles on pub games that have the same problem (i.e. those articles are as (in)valid as this one), please feel free to nominate them for deletion. The article on drinking games does have a bunch of stuff that smells... Thanks! Weregerbil 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I didn't write it, as is the case with many games of this sort documentation is not what its about. If it's going to be deleted it should be on grounds of notability, i.e. is it widely played or is it just own group, which is what WP:NFT is about. Also I was under the impression that WP:ATT applied to claims of facts first other wise a lot of useful & interesting info would be deleted. --Nate 14:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contains nothign that is not blindingly obvious from the title. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Either you have a section on Pub/drinking game or you don't. As for most games of this sort there is very little documentary evidence, just the existence of the rules. The game was presumably invented and played and as such the rules of it exist! The article libels no one and contains no factual errors. --Montpelier42 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC) User voted twice. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having an article on drinking games does not mean that every game someone makes up in a drunken stupor automatically becomes encyclopedic gold. Please see WP:NFT, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. A four-year-old can easily invent a dozen games an hour; "presumably existing" is not enough for an encyclopedia article. Weregerbil 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so should every article on children's games such as Hide and seek be deleted? there is lots of infomation not mentioned in the source. --Nate 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think Hide and seek should be deleted. That game is mentioned in a lot of mainstream sources. It wasn't made up a couple of weeks ago by a small group of bored people. Argumentation by WP:ALLORNOTHING is not helpful. If you have problems with sections of Hide and seek please feel free to discuss the issue in that article's talk page or use maintenance tags (I do not suggest disrupting that article in order to illustrate a point of course.) Weregerbil 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't care one way or the other on this particular game, the point about the almost universal lack of sources for drinking games due to their nature is a problem that needs a general discussion. The main reason I got involved was the phraseology of the nomination, which was derogatory & offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep 'If there are other articles on pub games that have the same problem (i.e. those articles are as (in)valid as this one), please feel free to nominate them for deletion' Damn right and here they are, all with out reference or citation ;Case race, Funneling, Bullshit, Matchbox, Roman Numerals, One Fat Hen, Captain Paf, Caps, Buffalo, Circle of Death, Hi-Lo, Horse Racing, Kings, Up the river, down the river, Kinito, Pounce!, Seven-Eleven Doubles, Tablero da Gucci, The Best Game Ever, Robopound, Land Mine, bouncing coin game, Flip Cup, Kong, Sink the Bismarck, Truth or Dare?, Battleship. Looks like you have a heavy work load a head of you. Or you just accept that the lack of citation is an issue with Drinking Games. I would imagine that they were all thought up 'while getting sloshed in the pub one night' surely that's in the nature of the things!?! Or is there some American bias here I notice that all the ones attributed to Princeton and Harvard are allowed to remain undeleted!--Montpelier42 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'll check on the articles you mentioned. But their existence is no reason to keep this article. -- Ben 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But surely all drinking games are in the category of 'Here is something that someone just made up' as I have already stated, by there very nature they are made up by drunken people in pubs. You have to consider the value of the whole drinking game article. If you are going to attempt to document or describe a phenomena such as Pub sports you kind of have to accept that they are just made up by people and played. Now that seems to contravene WP:NFT because it fits closely to the description but the sense of that article is more like 'Don't just include stuff that you have just made up to get it on Wikipedia'. My guess is this game was made up and people played it long before Wikipedia or even the world wide web existed and thus is a justifiable. --Montpelier42 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this particular one and keep any that are of actual notability -- and most of the ones that are, will have become so from their adaptation to other environs. I regret the characterization as being necessarily played or invented by the inebriated. Some of these very games will be played better by the relatively sober. This particular game seems invented for the purpose of justifying a pub crawl. Some others probably are, and some are for the purpose of encouraging drinking in one place, and some for more general purposes.DGG 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment DGG's point is a ridiculous argument. Drinking games are not made notable because you can also play them whilst sober! This discussion is really get a faint moral whiff about it. May I remind you all that it is the job of an encyclopedia to describe phenomena not judge them.--Montpelier42 08:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not attributable, verifiable, no reliable sources, appears to be original research. That's violating almost every policy Wikipedia has, and I may have overlooked some applications of WP:NOT as well. There are some bad arguments above on both sides, but ultimately, this needs evidence that it's a notable topic, documented by those good ol' reliable sources. Change my position to keep if (and only if) evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage by independent third-party reliable sources is provided before the end of AfD. Xtifr _tälk 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This almost looks like WP:HOAX but I'll give the creator benefit of the doubt. Suriel1981 22:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Ah well I'm off for a game of Pub Hide and Seek, anyone coming?--Montpelier42 08:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I'm still lost from the last game. Suriel1981 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V (as some may have noticed, I'm not the biggest fan of our many lengthy unsourced (drinking) games articles: this one isn't lenghty, but should still be deleted). Fram 08:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Montpelier 42 makes the only valid point. Remove all drinking games or accept that they are all developed and spread and modified and improved constantly by people in pubs. And the very purpose of them is to get drunk. I've played this game more or less exactly how it's described in the article and a great laugh it was too! And why does DGG think that a pub crawl needs justifying anyway? It is a pub crawl and should definitely be linked to the Pub Crawl page.Sandbed7 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)sandbed7[reply]
- Comment I think I'm missing something here... is Montpelier 42 saying anything other than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? -- Ben 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random, non-notable drinking game. No sources cited or references given. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just keep itYellowSnowRecords2 15:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources; no attempt to establish notability. If those can be provided, it could be kept -- maybe as it stands, or as a merge to drinking games, but the material would be keepable. As it is it's unsourced and seems unlikely to get sourced. Mike Christie (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Laamouz[edit]

Tags for lack of references, lack of notability, and wikification needed were removed; upon Googling, this name gets no other results at all, so I'm pretty sure it's 100% badly-written fiction. Propaniac 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unreferenced. Resurgent insurgent 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7-bio per lack of notability and references. Also suspicion of things-made-up-in-school-one-day or hoax. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix enterprises[edit]

prod removed without improvement or explanation. No references. Fails WP:CORP. ccwaters 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced spam. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of passing WP:CORP guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already redirected. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedist[edit]

Belongs in wiktionary, not in encyclopedia. Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Could be expanded to more than a dicdef — "The Encyclopedists" was the title of the Isaac Asimov short story that was later expanded into Foundation, for instance, and "Encyclopedist" is sometimes used as an honorific for early chroniclers such as Isidore of Seville and Denis Diderot - but at present none of that's here. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold Redirect - Since the none dicdef part of this article has already been covered under French Encyclopédistes, I have taken the liberty of redirecting the current namespace. If anyone feels I was rash in doing this please feel free to revert my changes. If nobody objects within the next day or so, I will close this AfD discussion. →Bobby← 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was right on spot. It could be delisted now. Pavel Vozenilek 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to vote redirect when I saw it here, and I'm happy to see its already been done. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, despite the best efforts of JzG to get it deleted. John Reaves (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XXL (band)[edit]

Speedied once as a mix of non-notable and attack, still no evidence of notability. The band's website is on a free web host, and that is the sole source. This is a directory entry in a directory of Eurovision entrants. Wikipedia is not a directory. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this user has put deletion tags on many articles and gotten critisim for that. And tha tthe band has been in Eurovision Song Contest 2001 singing for Macedonia is notability enough.Just because its short doesnt mean its not notable. The song they sanged in eurovision even have its own page, then why should the band who singed it its own page?.--Matrix17 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Admin tags articles for deletion shock, pictures at eleven". Where are the non-trivial independent secondary sources about this band? Guy (Help!) 09:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - There's a book reference and a couple of web-links in the "references" and "external links" sections. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:A. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Their song have even its on page 100% Te Ljubam 303 and JxG it just seem strange that the band singing the song should have one. am i not right?--Matrix17 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - IMO reaching the Eurovision final is unusual enough to confer notability in and of itself (aside from anything else, guaranteeing a place on the top-selling compilation album that follows each ESC) - although I'd support a cull of those bands knocked out in the semi-finals. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what non-trivial independent secondary sources are we supposed to expand it? Guy (Help!) 09:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion should be closed due to that JxG didnt even take the time to do the nomination properly.--Matrix17 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary notability criterion: have they been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the band? If yes, add references ot the article. If no, out it goes as failing policies on verifiability, original research, neutrality and not being a directory. Feel free to merge these invisible bands to a single article per Eurovision, and even leave a redirect behind. Eurovision is notable. Every band that has ever appeared in Eurovision, however... Guy (Help!) 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They're notable for the nature of their failure on the contest, kind of a Macedonian, oh, what's that engineering guy from Cal who sang so badly on Idol? I've seen unkind references to them and comments about them over the years in places like Italian Vogue (maybe Spanish Cosmo?) and French newspapers--not sure, but European magazines. There might be more information in Macedonian. They're a bit of a European in-joke. I don't know anything about them, really, but they are the sort of small bit of information people should be able to come to an web encyclopedia to find out what folks are talking about, as they are still mentioned years later, when other losers are not remembered. I feel fairly certain that with some digging from a good editor a credible small article could be made up. KP Botany 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reliable third party sources attributing claims of notability. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all i have added a article from the world leading news site on eurovision about the gorup. and second none of yourr cliams make any sense. The group has sources , they ahve been in eurovision, they already have a page about their own song in the contest. So whats the problem.--Matrix17 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're notable enough, if not for reasons they would like to be noted. Still, Guy's points on the attack portion must be heeded, and this must be removed until and unless there are credible sources. That many of us don't read Macedonian is no reason to delete the article. I'll see if I can get someone to work on the article, though. KP Botany 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an entrant in Eurovision is notable. Artw 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty of Eurovision entrants that, please!, are not notable enough for an entry in Wikipedia. There are plenty who never made another blip anywhere after the contest. KP Botany 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I disagree, any band which has been in Eurovision is notable enough for a short entry. Not that I'm familiar with the subject, but I expect we do have articles on every single American Idol contestant? Mackan 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is notable, and the article has room for improvement. Acalamari 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what non-trivial independent secondary sources are we supposed to improve it? Guy (Help!) 09:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The band played on Eurovision, which definitely helps fulfill WP:BAND. I'm sure there are plenty of articles about the band, so let's keep and expand this puppy! Rockstar915 05:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what non-trivial independent secondary sources are we supposed to expand it? Guy (Help!) 09:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the potential attack-status of the article, I've now cited John Kennedy O'Connor's book in which he makes the (tongue-in-cheek, I believe, given the way in which he talks about a number of other acts) suggestion that the dancing was worked on to the exclusion of the vocals. Obviously that's "sourced POV" at best, but at the very least it's now sourced. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge the song's article into this one. Strangnet 10:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why so, may I ask? It might be just me, being outside Europe, but in my experience it's actually the song with the greater claim on notability and not the performer/s. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The song is always a subset of the performer/artist. But, I'm not religious about it - so the other way around is fine by me. The two should become one in the end, imho. --Strangnet 10:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I'm a little bit surprised that this band fetched up with an article, since there's less than can be said about them than several other mid-table finishers over the years. Still, when in Rome. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: offcourse the song should be inserted in the Band article. not the opposit it doesnt make any sense, if you want t read about a group you dont search for a song you search on the group name.--Matrix17 11:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirections take care of any such confusions if they would arise. --Strangnet 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while it really should have at least one reliable source to confirm its notability, there are loads of articles like this which are not nominated for deletion, probably because more US users are familiar with them. Deleting this smells like US-centrism to me. It should however be noted that Matrix17 has canvassed this vfd on a bunch of user talkpages in a not entirely neutral manner, see [27]. Mackan 18:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that's keep, despite having no sources, on the basis that I (a Brit) am US-centric? Odd. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - There are now sources, so we can move beyond that stage of the debate and actually discuss them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That's never an argument for keep, that other articles are just as worthless. Please, User:Mackan start nominating "the loads of other articles just like this" if you feel they should be deleted, rather than voting to keep this one just because the others are not put up for deletion. This group should stay, because they do have an awkward sort of notoriety, mostly European, admitedly sad that Guy hasn't heard of them. But if there are articles more deserving of being deleted, please propose them for deletion instead of arguing because they exist other crap should be allowed to exist. Also, Matrix didn't canvas me, exactly who did he/she canvas? I notify folks if I know they are interested in an article, and the science folks have a bulletin board which announces science topics up for deletion. KP Botany 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hahaha you are really funny mackan, you say a bunch of people? Name and reference to atleast 2 other people then? and i havent canvassed that person she has an own mind my suggestion desnt make her opinion final. Dont do bad talk about other people.what you doing is just silly nonsense--Matrix17 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matrix 17, or Merge into the Eurovision 2000 article. Just H 02:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:V is not negotiable. No problem with recreation if reliable 3rd party sources are found.Cúchullain ^t/c 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends (group)[edit]

Some bands enter Eurovision, win, and are ABBA. Some enter, lose, and split up and are never heard of again. Guess which this is? Guy (Help!) 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - IMO reaching the Eurovision final is unusual enough to confer notability in and of itself (aside from anything else, guaranteeing a place on the top-selling compilation album that follows each ESC) - although I'd support a cull of those bands knocked out in the semi-finals. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So add the multiple non-trivial sources of which they have, as a notable band, been primary subject, and the article can be expanded form them. No problem. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep i think this is like the 20th article i have seen that have been nominated by the same person in bad faith. Just keep it.Its notable. And as usuall it isnt a proper nomination from the nominator.And hes reason for nomination isnt a good one either.--Matrix17 15:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless evidence of passing WP:MUSIC and WP:A are provided. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: bad faith delete add from Hackney. He has done this on numerous pages. just to annoy people.--Matrix17 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see no personal attacks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Matrix. We've gone over your (in)civility before, and you have links on your talk page that'll inform you about that. Check WP:AGF while you're at it. You have to stop taking things personally when there are administrative actions conducted on articles. --Strangnet 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes and as usuall you do your best to provoke. Maybe you should try to read the pages. and the discussions and then make your opinion.You just dont have an open mind. If someone nominated an article for deletion just because YOU had done it you would be so happy either.And that i actually provide articles for this wiki just slips you by constantly.always just picking on the bad things. And that the nominator havent done the nomination properly you dont complain about either. strange, or not! I stand be KEEP--Matrix17 15:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hackney ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none-hit wonder --Boongoman 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article on the Melodifestivalen (which the band had to win in order to appear at Eurovision in the first place, and winning that is no mean feat by any means, indeed I'd argue it's a "major competition" in line with WP:BAND) claims that the band was the first group from a reality show to win that event. I'm running into a brick wall with sources entirely in Swedish, but given the time period involved there's a reasonable chance that this was the first reality-show-winning group to compete at Eurovision as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. There's also the small fact that their song was officially plagiarised from an earlier entry. Whether this speaks to the notability of the band or to that of something else is up for debate, but it's certainly a factor somewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now added a link to europes largest Eurovison site that wrote and article on the band.--Matrix17 11:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This band is very well-known in Sweden and they had their own TV series a couple of years back, deleting this would definately be down to US-centricism. It also meets the Wikipedia requirements of notability for bands. Mackan 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I wouldn't classify this as "US-centricism"; the nominator isn't from the States...--Isotope23 19:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the nomination itself isn't down to "US-centrism", but the deletion of the article could still be. Still, sloppy usage of the word, maybe Anglo-centrism is more appropriate. Mackan 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Bubba hotep 13:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needham & Company[edit]

Considered speedy G11 (blatant corporate spam, also unsourced), but asserted notability made me go {{prod}} route. tag removed in good faith with comment to add sources. I may reconsider nomination if article is significantly improved, but as written, article is still IMO unacceptably unsourced and promotional. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam unless totally rewritten. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. (I'm the one who removed the deletion proposal.) Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Special note: advertising and promotion recommends three steps in sequence, with deletion being last: (1) clean up to make the point of view neutral; (2) delete remaining advertising content; (3) delete the article if there's nothing left. While I agree with Baccyak4H that there's a lot of advertising in it, I believe there'd be enough left after removing the advertising words to keep an article. Fg2 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree too that it needs third-party sources. Fg2 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable to me. It may well be self-promotion and so lack WP:NPOV, but that requires an edit not a delete. Peterkingiron 22:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article needs to assert notability under WP:CORP. The article still reads like an advert and does not offer any independent references. Vegaswikian 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite notable, have begun to add sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SLP113005 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2007— SLP113005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, a7 nonnotable and WP:NOT a free webhost. NawlinWiki 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics - Self Study[edit]

Transwiki to Wikibooks rxnd ( t | € | c ) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not "an open forum for Faculty and Staff of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , Department of Biostatistics, to come together and discuss important elements of creating the 2007 Self Study Report." rxnd, if you could explain the reason behind your proposed transwiki, I might be willing to change my position. Until then, I have tagged the article for speedy under A7 since the article certainly does not assert notability (and even goes so far as to declare itself unencyclopedic). →Bobby← 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwiki if they can make it into a Wikiversity-style "Self Study" wikibook. Regardless of that, it should be deleted in Wikipedia. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bentley (TV presenter)[edit]

Article could be classed as being pointless and unencyclopedic, i.e. the same as Top Gear Dog. It's not really relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project. It is also unsourced, and even if it was, would still add nothing to the subject. It is a very minor part which Bentley had with regards to Top Gear. Davesmith33 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been nominated for deletion merely as an attempt to causeWP:DISRUPT - see the page history for details. DrFrench 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the Article is pointless and unencyclopedic, it is no longer relevent to the Top Gear article and adds nothing to the Wiki Project. It is also unsourced. DrFrench also has some sort of agenda here in that he/she is constantly undoing other people's edits without first discussing them on the talk page. See their history to see that they have already been temporarily banned in the past for such actions. The reasons for the proposed deletion are clearly displayed above. Davesmith33 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a notable person. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it is a notable person" - In what way? The article is not sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesmith33 (talk • contribs) 11:28, March 30, 2007

Sources, please? Right now this looks eminently deletable. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, Here Guy. There is no way this is anything other than WP:FAN Davesmith33 17:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been an odd reference added to the article now, but they are pityful to say the least and aren't exactly adding anything to the article. Davesmith33 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning towards keep, mainly because I actually recognized the name and consider this article to have some potential for improvement (as opposed to, say, the TGD article) but after doing some Googling, I'm rather undecided. Based on this AfD's nom and the editing history of the article in question, I'm thinking ~~weak delete unless somebody familiar with Mr. Bentley's work steps up to do some major cleanup~~ keep. -- Seed 2.0 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, when you compare the quality of this article to say, for example, the Top Gear Dog one, the difference is vast and TGD was deleted for the quality of the article!!!!! Davesmith33 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing an article's quality to another article's is not a valid AfD criterion. Articles are judged on their own merits. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The lack of sources has now been addressed. 100% of it is sourced with reliable sources (well, assuming you take imdb as a reliable source, but that line is backed up with a second source anyway).--PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my vote changed to keep (see above). -- Seed 2.0 12:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Presenter of two terrestrial TV programmes, and producer of a former TV show. He therefore easily meets the criteria "appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions." from WP:N AlexJ 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the main source of the problem with this article has now been cleared up, I agree the deletion is no longer necessary. (Attn: DrFrench, that wasn't too difficult, was it?) Davesmith33 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do try and keep it WP:CIVIL Dave, and stop the WP:DISRUPT editing of all the articles related to Top Gear. You've just come back for a 24 hour block for it, nobody wants to see you blocked again. I've posted to your talk page in the past (as have others) that I have no personal gripe with you, but you seem take this all very personally. (PS as you were advised yesterday by Waggers, blanking of talk pages is not a 'good thing'. Just because you delete warnings doesn't mean they don't exist.) Chill out, reduce your wikistress and try to think of constructive ways you can improve these articles rather than constantly vandalising them. DrFrench 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest closing. The article is now completely sourced. Notability isn't an issue (producer of widely watch TV show, presenter of two other TV programmes). To the nominator, next time mark the article as {{unreferenced}}, leave a message on the talk page and drop a message at a few of the article's main contributors to request sources. If no sources are added within a reasonable time frame (a week or so), then consider an AfD. Creating an AfD first is just extra work when the only complaint is the lack of sources, especially when they were as easy to find as they were for Bentley's article. If we started creating AfDs for every article that was unsourced, AfD would be flooded with thousands of requests. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating an AfD first is just extra work" - but a last resort when responding to childish behaviour like that from across the channel. Davesmith33 18:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kateryna Leonchenkova[edit]

Non-notable individual. Lexicon (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending references. rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable individual and no external sources. HOWEVER if editor in question can produce an article that establishes notablity and sourcing, then it will be weak keep. Quatreryukami 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I bet "speaking to people about the dangers of wells" is great fun though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN as the text says. Pavel Vozenilek 07:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Vanity page, this individual is of no particular importance in Brampton, Ontario--I'm a resident, and the library's newspaper database scans as no results for the name. And the events are fictionalized. Brampton is on a flood plain & thusly unable to use well-water.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.146.252 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, unless someone shows that there are sources out there that I haven't found. Google and Google News know nothing about anyone named Kateryna Leonchenkova, or a Brampton Award for Civic Bravery, the article for which was created by the same user. That page links to Brampton's home page as a reference, but searching it for "bravery" comes up only with an award, not named that, that seems to have been a one-time thing and wasn't given to Kateryna Leonchenkova. I'd think both these page were just simple hoaxes and be unconditionally in favor of their deletion except for one thing: user Scott1313's other contributions all seem quite reasonable, making me think it less likely that he would create two pages that were complete fiction. Pinball22 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ruiz[edit]

Delete vanity article about non-notable blogger. AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Could possibly be CSD A7-bio. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost an a7/speedy but I guess it can't hurt to let the process run. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru 13:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin-Madison Steam Tunnel System[edit]

There is nothing notable about UW-Madison's steam tunnel system. Utility tunnel is more than sufficient to describe the function.n mi km 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per mi km. →Bobby← 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources seem to have written about this, 1 in article and [28] --W.marsh 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of those articles seem unrelated to the steam tunnels (nor indicate their significance). I'm not worried about verifiability/original research - it's trivial to prove that the tunnels exist and provide steam heating. My concern is that the tunnels are not notable in any way. Why do the UW-Madison steam tunnels deserve a seperate article? Why do they stand out? Looking at the summaries Google provides, the search you linked to doesn't seem to give any articles on the steam tunnels. mi km 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want get into subjective reasons like what I think this topic is important or unique "enough", I mean, that's not what inclusion is supposed to be about. Wikipedia is not paper, we have plenty of space for topics I personally find boring and unremarkable. The question is just whether enough reliable sources exist to write more than a directory-style entry, and that seems to be the case here ([29] if nothing else). I somehow suspect more information is available to people who actually know anything about this school, but I admit that's just a hunch. --W.marsh 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I admit the Wikipedia definition of "non-trivial" source is vague, but I'd like to see proof that at least one of these articles is about the steam tunnel system or at least gives some kind of a hefty chunk of information about them. If we've just got articles that say it's just a place where some cyanide was stashed, I doubt it's notable enough, and it should be actually put in the article by someone. Incidentally, W.marsh, if you stick double quotes (") around some of your search terms, you'll reduce the number of irrelevant hits.Noroton 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in this case... not every mention of this topic is guaranteed to say the exact phrase "steam tunnel". It's a difficult thing to search for. --W.marsh 18:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, but I was thinking "University of Wisconsin" in quotes, which gets me a bit over 200 articles instead of more than 700. [30] Sorry, this is probably something I should have brought up on your talk page. If you can just find that second article, I'll change to "Keep". Noroton 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Wisconsin-Madison. The reference that W.marsh gave at link 14 above is the university's promo website, not an independent source. The first article in the search at link 13 is a news item about an event (cyanide found stored) that happened to be in the tunnels; it doesn't really indicate that the tunnels are themselves notable. I lived in Madison for a half-year without attending the university, and I never noticed them mentioned, let alone featured, in the newspapers or TV news. This suggests that their significance is only among some of the people studying or working on that campus; see WP:LOCAL. Barno 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've looked through the first three pages of that Google search, and none of the hits appear to feature the tunnel system enough to show enough notability for an article. They're verifiable enough for a descriptive sentence and a sentence about the cyanide case in the parent article, but no more. Barno 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath[edit]

Despite numerous requests for secondary sources, none have been forthcoming since January. Without secondary sources, articles cannot comply with WP:NPOV and thus should be deleted or a best stubbed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article survived a previous AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath.

Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is unnotable to begin with plus article history shows that there is absolutely no hope in getting NPOV sources. - Sentinel 10:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ..No reliable secondary sources, self published primary source filled with extraordinary claims, subject unnotable. -Vritti 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Hamsacharya dan 22:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very weak keep. Article is finally near-neutral, though frankly anyone seeking news of the subject will be met with zero results on google. — Athænara ✉ 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.161 (talk • contribs)

Delete, No reliable sources. Notability questionable due to minimal results on Google. EdJohnston 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ≈ jossi ≈. --Fire Star 火星 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Anwar 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary nystagmus[edit]

As the message on the talk page admits, this is pure original research for a presumed medical condition. Lacks any reliable sources so is unverifiable Gwernol 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all. mi km 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is very little information about this "unofficial" condition, as the article expressly claims, then that is an admission that this is unverifiable with reliable sources. Adding to that the original research admission, noted in the nom, means this article has no place here.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous, without prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing and assertion of notability. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced articles about "unofficial medical conditions" do not belong in encyclopedias. (That said, silent movie comedian [[Ben Turpin} made a good living doing this trick for the cameras, looking like double Madeye Moody.) Edison 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliable sources means notability concerns under WP:ORG were not addressed. Shimeru 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIB Health Funds[edit]

Upon cleaning up and sorting out some stubs, I came across this article and cleaned it up a little, however after this I began to wonder whether the article was notable as all it is for is a company which sponsors another company, although only created a few days ago it stil does not satisfy WP:NN Telly addict 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources/notability info can be provided mi km 16:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have added a bit of source/notability info. NIB is a big non-profit health fund in Australia, not just a sponsor of a football team. Plus they are going to shake things up soon with controversial plans to demutualise. I suppose after this happens they may become a big evil corporation - then will they deserve a Wikipedia page? Who really decides these things? And does anyone know how to get rid of foot odour from sandals?WunNation 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WunNation's edit history shows it to be a single-purpose vandalism/trolling account. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References from the Sydney Morning Herald, notability seems sufficient.
Comment I note that this not-for-profit uses a .com.au domain instead of the more logical .org.au -- this has no bearing on the keep/delete debate, but it's a pet peeve of mine anyway. *Dan T.* 20:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references are now provided. I certainly would like to think they are notable, as they will pay my hospital bills if I become ill here.Jörg Vogt 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useless Comment It is funny how the vandal mentioned above wrote this real article. perhaps it could be deleted just to spite him. Just kidding!Jörg Vogt 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useless comment from a useless piece of shit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleksi Peltola (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unmaintainable and the material is better covered in Category:Time travel films and Time travel in fiction#Films. No improvement since the opening of the AfD.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about time travel[edit]

A somewhat listcruft list done quite badly with no links to it. Incomplete and just another list. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is unmaintainable and inherently WP:POV - how do we decide what a film is "about" and what constitutes "time travel" in this context? Also because this is a badly constructed article that likely will never be completed and too US/UK centric as written. Gwernol 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. This looks like a temp page that somehow escaped into article space. (It's even signed). I think a list of time-travel films is viable (and I disagree with some of Gwernol's rationale above. (How do we decide what a film is about? A synopsis of the film available either on Wiki or elseswhere covers that. And time travel is easily defined as ... time travel. Easy.) but in this case it really looks like a work-in-progress that got out into the wild prematurely. 23skidoo 18:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if it gets a lot of work done. One, the list is horribly incomplete (and would be extrememly difficult to complete), and the page needs formatting and links. Useight 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but completely rewrite. Add a couple templates to it which would make clear that the article must be improved. The topic, I think, is viable - but the article as it now stands has all kinds of problems. There is a category for time travel films (over here), so there are plenty of candidates. The list would be usefull if it arranges all time travel films in a special table (see List of computer-animated films for an example of what I mean) and adds "release date" and "country" fields (so that it would be possible to sort by release date and country, something which you can't currently do in the category). Also, it absolutely must be made international (not just American films) to avoid WP:BIAS. Esn 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In current form and title this article is ListCruft. List of films featuring time machines might just be acceptable as would List of films in which time travel occurs but the title (and therefore also the content) of this list is just too vague. A1octopus 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page as a source for anyone who wanted to be able to find USA made time travel films in one spot. I am new to trying to make a wiki page, so if you have any helpful information on how I can continue making this page (AND IT IS STILL UNFINISHED) please let me know. I would rather take the time to obey your rules then have this whole list deleted. I have been spending time trying to verify that my list will be complete and correct. The goal was to stop having to look at "Top 10 Time travel film" lists on google and actually have all of them in one place. Again, please tell me what to do to keep this page and follow any rules wikipedia has. Thank youChris F 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like the article can stay, but it needs claen-up. 1. It shouldn't be US-centric, Wikipedia is a world-wide site. 2. The "Films not included" part isn't of a standard article and needs to go. I can go ahead and start on some of it, and you can add the rest. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a) move and b) work up as a ~~de-merge~~ split of the section Time_travel_in_fiction#Films (I've added a template to that section with this suggestion). Suggest that the article be moved to List of films using time travel as a plot device or something that carries this meaning but is less wordy; most films are not about time travel but rather use time travel as a plot device. The section Time_travel_in_fiction#Films is already a list of such films, albeit incomplete and wordy - difficult to pull the title from the description. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Bubba hotep 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

209radio[edit]

Autobiographical article by staffers at this station. Which turns out to be an internet-only station, with very little external coverage (brief story in local paper is about it). Guy (Help!) 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable Internet radio station mi km 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is a Community Radio Station launching on FM later this year, stop adding nonsense about deleting this article. If you delete 209radio, you may aswell delete Resonance FM, etc. --Matthew W 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that you work / are affiliated with the station (per your userpage) indicates a conflict of interest. Because something will/might become notable doesn't mean that it deserves an article now. Nothing on the article gives any reason why it is notable. The bulk of the article is lists, which probably shouldn't be there in the first place. mi km 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lieu of more external sources demonstrating notability of this particular station. I urge admin who closes this AfD to consider WP:COI and WP:AUTO when reviewing the comments here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This page has been edited by a junior volunteer without any station management approval or knowledge. We concede that the page, as is, is badly formatted and the information is inappropriate. We will be overhauling this page over the next day or so and will include references to our notability. Matthew W will NOT be making any further changes to this page 209radio 13:48, 31 March 2007 (GMT)
- Please see WP:COI. Employees/volunteers of 209radio editing the 209radio article would be a conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 209radio You know what? Delete away boys; we don't care. Bill Thompson is right- Wiki's going to disappear up its own backside. Editing by pedants and jobsworths above and beyond any encyclopedic values. There is no-one outside of 209radio with the knowledge required to create a 209radio wiki page of worth. Plenty of other radio station pages created and progressed by their own station staff/group here on Wiki, you fools. Being on Wiki will have no positive impact on us, so shove it. 08:32, 02 April 2007 (GMT)
- Comment - The fact that nobody who doesn't work for 209radio could write an article suggests that 209radio is inherently non-notable and fails WP:V mi km 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and COI issues. User290radio sort of blanked the page, but until this AFD is closed, the article should stay with the AFD notice so I have reverted. -- Whpq 23:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 replace with redirect to Spacetime. WjBscribe 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Time Continuum[edit]

Delete: Essay/Original research (contested PROD) – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spacetime. Artw 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear OR. Either redirect per Artw or delete. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unabashed WP:OR as it goes so far as to state "My Theory ..." has no place on Wikipedia but a redirect makes logical sense. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spacetime. --Geniac 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and any other article that starts with the words "My theory...". Redirect is fine, but delete first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my theory is that this is 100% OR! --Haemo 03:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spacetime. JuJube 23:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not an implausible search term. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. --Pjacobi 09:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spacetime. Someguy1221 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Wasn't "space time continuum" a Start Trek expression? Deuar 21:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan M Davis[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person. "Young Mafia Family" gets 4 Google results. "Original Pouchon Connection" gets zero. Also nominating the article about his homey Shahid Hussain. Contested speedies. ... discospinster _talk 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per CSD A7-bio. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Oh, boy! "a series of mixtapes set to release in 2008." I can't wait! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Progress of the SARS outbreak. While the sources are good, I just don't think notability is established; this is basically a news item on what sounds like an interesting and decent guy. However, he can and should be mentioned at the SARS outbreak article.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Earl Salisbury[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability. The one source referenced seems to say little aside from the fact that he intended to become a Communist, though I'm not certain how that makes someone notable - nor does dying of SARS. A Google search turns up at best a couple of obituaries, aside from Wiki mirrors and the like. Anyway, in case it wasn't clear, nominating as this seems not to pass WP:BIO. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable beacuse it was covered by the media, and while I admit at the time of nomination that it didn't seem to pass WP:BIO, I think it's a lot more clear that it does now. McKay 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As Wikipedia is not a memorial. It's unfortunate as it seems that User:Mckaysalisbury, the creator, is probably the son identified in the article. It's a sad situation, but the article does fail to meet notability guidelines. This is not in any way a statement on the subject. Leebo ^T/C 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed from Delete to Weak Delete. The article has more sources now, but I still disapprove of all conflicts of interest. I am reluctant to approve of an article started, maintained, and primarily defended by the subject's son. Leebo ^T/C 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that I am *not* the son (Mickey) identified in the article. I think there are articles out there that make trivial mentionings of me, but let the record show that I am not claiming any semblance of notability for myself. McKay 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom, with tasteful distinction made per Leebo between topic and notability. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update per rewriting. I think this article is on the cusp of notability. Consider this an abstain, although if the article continues to improve I will note that. I reiterate the WP:COI concern in general, but admit I see no glaring evidence in the article proper, it's actually written quite well now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I'm his son, and the creator of the article. But I'd like to think I can still debate this objectively. If anyone feels I'm debating this unobjectively, please let me know what I'm doing wrong. Also note that I have cleaned up the page, removed all OR, and sourced virtually everything.
I think it's conclusively been shown that his death is notable, the numerous articles written surrounding his death can attest to that. There was extensive discussion about this on the talk page. Becuase he didn't contribute substantially to his field, some have said that he isn't notable. I think that the WP:BIO page has changed, because I'm not seeing that on there anymore. What I am seeing is the primary notability criterion: "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Which his death certainly satisfies, so I think the real question should be should this be an article about him, or about his death? WP:BIO under "general" has two criteria that seem to be met:
1. Wide name recognition
2. Multiple features in credible news media.
His name is recognized all across the country, particularly around Utah where the news coverage was heavier, but I had friends all across the country ask me if I was related to the James Salisbury that died. The plethora of news stories around his death permeated the US, because SARS was a big topic at the time. So clearly this criteria is met. The question still remains as to whether or not there should be an article about him, or just about his death. This is where the communist party link comes in. He had at least two newsworthy events in his life (I'd like to go back to get some of the things that he did while he was in college that were notable, but that's going to take a lot more work, *I* know that he did some things, but I don't have newspaper clippings handy, so right now those things, which are not currently covered in the article, are just OR.) So beacuse there are multiple, non-trivial mentionings, I think it's abundantly clear that the article about him should stay. McKay 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being up-front about your connection to the subject, that kind of disclosure is appreciated. In any case, I'm not sure that the additions do much to establish notability - the second and third sources mention him but aren't about him. The fourth is currently coming up with an error but I'd assume based on the title that again, the article isn't about him so much as it may mention him. Only the first article could qualify as potential proof of notability as he is the subject of the secondary source, the remainder are all incidental coverage. Whether it's enough to pass muster I leave up to consensus to determine, and I appreciate you work in trying to improve the article, but my opinion remains unchanged. I also agree with Leebo below, a more appropriate place for the info might be in another article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  You are correct in that some of the sources are not about him, but in none of those cases are they a trivial mentioning. There are literally thousands of articles that mention him and his death, and I haven't even gone past the first page of google hits(google(James Salisbury SARS). If you'd like, I can bring up several newspaper articles which aren't available online that are about him specifically. I figure these sources are better than printed one because of the WP:RS policy. I've added another few articles, if you still think that he's not notable enough. I'll continue.McKay 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it could be solved by merging some of the information into Progress of the SARS outbreak. That seems like the likely place to mention him if he isn't already mentioned. Leebo ^T/C 17:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I stand by my above contribution, I think this suggestion by Leebo is a very good one. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think he should be mentioned at that article (and I added him there), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't exist here too. McKay 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're probably already aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, so I won't harp on that, but these are my thoughts on disaster victims of various distinctions: Quite often the victims of disasters, or epidemics in this case, receive wide news coverage, but nearly all of it is linked directly with the event. Like you've said, his death is notable, but it's his death in the context of the outbreak that is notable. I feel that the best place to mention him is the Progress of the SARS outbreak article. His article doesn't really set his death into a particular context, other than that he died from SARS (a reader with no knowledge of the epidemic would be confused). Leebo ^T/C 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what about the other event in his life notable enough to be brought up to the news media? Also, while I understand your opinion, I don't see how we should look at the outbreak for this article. This article is about a biography, so shouldn't we use the established guideline of WP:BIO rather than your own ideas about which articles to delete? McKay 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, like I said above, if anyone thinks that my potential WP:COI is interfering with my neutrality, please state how I am doing so, so that I may correct my inappropriate actions. McKay 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the fact that you seem to be the lone proponent of keeping the article (at present), I would suggest that you disengage for a short time. The discussion will be ongoing for a week, during which time you can follow it's progress. By disengaging in this manner, you allow other potential supporters to step up and give their views. As it stands now, your continued advocacy seems to be campaigning. When this impression is combined with your admitted relation to the subject, a newcomer to the debate (such as myself) may begin to question your objectivity. I personally have not done enough research to voice an opinion for keep or delete, but I hope you consider my suggestion. →Bobby← 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, if anyone has any questions, I can be reached at my talk pag. McKay 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deaths from SARS are somewhat few in number, add to this that the subject is a Harvard-educated Mormon who wanted to join the ChiComms and this guys as unique as the come, and it's well referenced, establishing notability. A slight rewrite may be needed to move it off this obit-sounding memorial tone. -M^ask 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - responding to request from the article's author to clarify/update my position after the work he has put in to the article. I do have to commend him for cleaning the article up and making it look less like a memorial page, good job. I still, however, feel that the subject does not satisfy notability guidelines - most of the sources still seem to mention him in a secondary fashion as a SARS victim, as a point of reference in a larger topic. I do wish there were more people commenting on this debate so that a clearer consensus could be reached as to whether or not that satisfies notability concerns, but again it is my opinion at least that it does not. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current sources pass WP:BIO, albeit in a weak fashion. This is a case of when in doubt... RFerreira 08:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs more reliable sources (especially on the BDSM aspect), and the sources that are there should be formatted properly, but it does appear verifiable.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urethral sounding[edit]

Unsourced sexcruft, reads as original research. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm sure somebody, somewhere does this and gets their rocks off with it, that doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedia article, and it doesn't appear that there are reliable sources either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added by the end of the 5 day debate. Seems like there should be sources for it as a medical procedure at least. Edison 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's a rather nasty idea to my ears, but it's not at all obscure, it's perfectly easy to find all sorts of pages describing the practice of all different sorts. For one talking about it roughly neutrally and from a good source, go ask alice mentions it: http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/3516.html and so does savage love, and if your willing to risk websites much more graphic you shouldn't have any trouble finding all the information and brain scarring pictures you could ever hope for. I'm not too sure why it's being called a medical thing though. Owlofcreamcheese 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is indeed a medical procedure/device; search PubMed for "urethral sound" and "urethral sounding". (My favorite title: "Using stainless steel chopstick for self-performing urethral sounding in preventing recurrence of anterior urethral stricture.") Might be better merged with the one-sentence stub at sound (medical instrument), though. —Cel ithemis 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's absolutely a medical procedure, and a well-known one; it was in fact one of the most common operations back in the days before antibiotics. A man with a bladder or venereal infection could develop a stricture from scar tissue, and the only way to open the stricture up (to save the man's life) was with a sound. James Boswell is among the hundreds of notable men who are known to have undergone it. --Charlene 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Both a medical procedure, and a noteable kink, both of which are covered in the article. Google nets 581K hits. Both aspects should ideally be expanded and better sourced, however; owlofcreamcheese provided kink sources, and celithemis provided medical sources, so it's not a candidate for deletion IMO. I'd add BMEzine as kind of neither. Zuiram 23:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also added some sources and such, both as a medical procedure and as a kink, as well as adding an internal link for the tools and the kink, which satisfies Edison's "unless" criterion, making that a keep. It took all of 5 minutes with Google. Zuiram 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Testing hypotheses suggested by the data[edit]

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~This article is basically a how-to, and violates WP:NOR as well, which clashes with what Wikipedia is not. Orthologist 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Changed to Speedy Keep. With hindsight, I think that this article adresses a substantially independent topic and needs not redirect to any article.--Orthologist 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content is clearly inappropriate per nom, but a redirect of the title to either data snooping bias, data dredging (both in See also), or to selection bias makes sense. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is such a long and implausible redirect needed? It doesn't meet with standard redirect uses.--Orthologist 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect of a phrase that long goes against some Wikipolicy, then that is a good argument not to do it. Regardless, and certainly in lieu of that, the phrase itself actually is used in statistical parlance, and thus is not an arbitrary made-up-one-day phrase. Let's see what others say. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are right. I'm now convinced this should be made into a redirect, as I understand that it is a phrase like "correlation does not imply a causation".--Orthologist 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to update your nomination then? It might facilitate the process. Or you could wait and see what other input comes in. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Avi 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language Creation Conference[edit]

~~Non-notable conference on constructed languages, only refs cited are the conference's own pages (no independent sources)~~, ~~conflict of interest (User:Saizai runs the conference)~~ --Miskwito 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom --Miskwito 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to lack of other sources, but COI is not a reason to delete. Ab e g92contribs 22:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep; "independent" sources is not required AFAIK (just 'original' sources), and fwiw if you look at the 'press' page on the website you'll see other sources that refer to it, review it, etc; I didn't feel it appropriate to add that (as the pages for other ling conferences I looked at don't have that), but I don't object to doing so if it's felt to be necessary. COI also is not AFAIK relevant for a VfD; sure I run it, and made a page for it, but how is that relevant to the quality of the article itself? Further, it is notable in that is the ONLY conference on constructed languages; this is equivalent to any other niche area of linguistics. --Sai Emrys 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it's not a reason for deletion, sorry about that. I've struck it out above. I think if independent sources could be cited from the press page they definitely should be; I'd probably ask that this nomination be withdrawn if they were. --Miskwito 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoting WP:SOURCE: "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources.". So this really needs third party sources or to be deleted per wikipedia's verifiability criteria. Dewrad 09:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources:[31] [32] [33] [34]. It is also written about in a book (in press, coming out around the end of the year) by Sarah Higley.
~~Most of my misgivings have been addressed.~~ I still have concerns about the notability, ~~but not enough to warrant deletion right now.~~ ~~So I, like, retract my nomination. Or whatever. I don't know how that works...~~ --Miskwito 22:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the AfD discussion should continue. WP:COI is not a criterion for deletion, but it is a big red flag regarding notability. The policies and guidelines regarding attribution are a bit in flux at the moment, but we have always required independent non-self-published sourcing. Listservs and blog type sources are not enough. The conference may well be sufficiently sourceable and notable when the book is published, but WP is not a crystal ball. Sai - if the article is deleted, then you might consider keeping a copy in your user space to perhaps recreate after the book comes out. I would also recommend getting a non-affiliated editor to look at it first to avoid the COI issue.--Kubigula (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The book cited is not being self-published. Also, blog posts have been accepted before as sufficient sources... --Sai Emrys 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The book sounds like it would be an appropriate source, when it gets published. I meant that blogs and listservs are considered "self-published" sources as there is no editorial or peer review.--Kubigula (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to abstain for now in light of Kubigula's points. --Miskwito 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Constructed language for now. Once the book is published and/or if LCC2 attracts some media attention it might merit having an article on its own. But for now I think a mention in the main conlang article is more appropriate. PubliusFL 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to the merge suggestion above though). Who knows where it will go in the future, but for now it seems to be a very very small fan gathering. The "attendees" page on the official site lists a whopping 32 people, and the budget page says the event made $908. No offence, but I've had yard sales bigger than that. 60 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Sonjaaa 01:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think most academic conferences with an international attendance, held in regular succession and known by a common name are notable . They ll produce a publication, and are normally referred to by many outside references. DGG

Comment I would support merging with the main article in lieu of deletion. But I don't think that would be as good as having a separate page for it. --Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Villonovich[edit]

Completely made up, unsourced information. A google search shows no results for "Sergei Villonovich" ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Speedy delete per CSD A1, as well as (Just because I do not recognize latest game jargon doesn't mean article has no context. Removing speedy now that I see the context.) Delete as nonnotable and probably not a crystal ball. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete will likely become a notable game character, but at the moment all we have is speculation, and that's about it. Things like this should wait until the game is actually released. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the immortal words of Jim Jones: BAAALLIN'!!! ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete. Mike J FOX 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind for months to come there will be newspaper articles, previews in game magazines, and interviews with the developers. Deleting the article may be appropriate now, but considering the number of game characters from high-budget and well-known games with their own article, protecting the page to prevent re-creation would probably be inappropriate 58.108.235.216 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, it's not being AfD'd because the nominator thinks it's made up, but it's being deleted because it is speculation; no sources cite the name "Sergei Villonovich" as the protagonist's name, and, when the article is recreated, it will be with the correct name, and not this fan-fic crap. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiable info as of now. Lakers 05:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Probably could have been speedied as CSD G7 given blanking by author. WjBscribe 23:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Whig Party[edit]

Non-notable minor political party. Article has no independent sources, and I can't find any on Google, Google News, Google Scholar, or Google Books, except for the party being listed on Florida election official web sites. Anyone can register a political party in Florida (i.e. it doesn't require a petition or minimum number of members) so I don't see how the fact that the party is registered can in itself support the article. PubliusFL 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable party cruft ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment - The author has blanked the page probably because they want to get rid of it. Lakers 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Vassallo[edit]

Maltese football player with alleged appearances for U18 national side. No sources. This was deleted as prod and restored on request. There's a discussion going on about notability of football players, so this makes a good test case what the community thinks. My opinion is delete unless sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He played one appearances for top level of football [35] and a U-19 internationals. [36] -- Matthew_hk t c 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established by the article, which is aone line directory entry without sources. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. He has never played in a fully proffessional league and never for his weak senior national team. He does not satisfy at all the WP:BIO. Even some articles of international players who have never played in a fully proffessional league are considered notable (which I disagree), they have played for their senior's national team, this player hasn't yet even played for his senior squad. There is now a discussion about Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players, even those who agree strongly that internationals must be included, they don't support the inclusion of youth national teams. User:KRBN 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. It is also worth noting that his name does not appear in the current squad list on the Birkirkara F.C. page. And yet he is quoted as playing for them once this season. Tangerines 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable non-professional player - Malta U18s really doesn't cut it as a significant level of play. Qwghlm 19:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per KRBN. Punkmorten 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NYT source does not even mention MathNEWS (only profquote) and Goucher mentions only in passing, thereby failing "multiple and non trivial". Toronto Sun reference mentioned here would only count as one. Recreate if suitable MULTIPLE non-trivial references can be listed as sources. Avi 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MathNEWS[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG, and is non-notable. It also fails to cite sources and fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nomination. I might reconsider my opinion if it was shown that MathNEWS had at any point in its 30+ year history garnered some coverage or notice in other media, or had won awards, or had done SOMETHING besides being given out for free to math students. Skeezix1000 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No external sources sited, nor any assertion of notability, other than running for a few decades. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty cute, but fails WP:ATT. Student newspapers don't generally get articles, and this is a good deal less notable than a student newspaper IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, but you do realize that there are 185 entries in the categories Student newspapers published in the United States and 55 in Student newspapers published in Canada, so there is a notability line somewhere that allows inclusion of some student papers. mathNews has been profiled and reviewed in major Canadian newspapers, so I'd say it is notable enough for Wikipedia.Cas510 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. mathNews has garnered coverage in other media: The Toronto Sun (Half-page review of a mathNews issue. August 12, 1999, Page 6) and a profile in The Kitchener-Waterloo Record [37]. Cas510 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. Cite sources in the article. GreenJoe 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note A Google news archive search doesn't show a single press reference aside from a brief mention in an unrelated article: "(He) was Editor of a student publication, MathNews..." and a few references to "Mathnews" as a person's last name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, it needs to be _attributable_, and not being currently _attributed_ isn't justification for deletion. The notability is indeed attributable. You just need to go look up The Toronto Sun for August 12, 1999 and there's a big review of mathNews on Page 6. Just because there currently isn't a link on the Toronto Sun web site to that review doesn't mean it is not attributable. Also, if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, a subject doesn't lose notability over time. If it isn't in the news _today_ doesn't mean that it isn't notable, and, as I understand it, Google News only has news articles that are current. Cas510 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. While the default for Google News is to show only about a month or so back, the Archive search goes back more than 200 years... in fact one of the results on the page I linked above is from 1915. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. It need never have appeared on google News or any other website. It just had to be published in the printed newspaper.DGG 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google News search is limited to active web pages and is not an exhaustive general historical news index. Google News won't show any Toronto Sun articles dating from 1999 when using "Toronto Sun" and 1999 as search terms. The case of the article from 1915 was because that particular publisher was willing to post online archives for that year. Also, sources do not need to be on the Internet to be usable and reliable on WP e.g. WP:RS. Dl2000 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Don't get me wrong – MathNEWS is great – but I honestly don't think it's particularly notable. If someone is able to turn up some links to major media mentions (the Record doesn't count), I might reconsider. →smably 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A key to mathNEWS' notability is its profQUOTES feature which has had a minor, yet verifiably notable influence - it has resulted in the profquotes.com website [38] that has been reviewed by international media such as the New York Times. Some secondary references for this are now included in the article. Also, Google shows 1070 outside instances of the mathNEWS website URL [39] which favourably compares to the 1120 outside references for the URL of the general student paper at UW (Imprint (University of Waterloo Student Newspaper)) [40]. Deletion is not a first resort given the reasonable expectation that further supporting sources can be provided. And why is this less notable than List of Star Trek planets? Dl2000 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare it to that. You have to evaluate this article on its own merits. Prove in the article that profQuotes had international media attention. Cite sources. GreenJoe 04:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is OR that you are talking about (NOTE: Having written for mathNEWS before prevent me from stating course of action due to COI)SYSS Mouse 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research, which just means that there are no reliable sources cited to support the article's claims. –Pomte 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provisionally It looks like the article is sourced, but because it's not using (one of) the standard referencing syntax(es), it appears non-notable (via the primary notability criterion), so if those can be WP:CLEANUPped, then it should be kept. If cleaning up shows that the sources aren't really there. Then it will have to be deleteed. McKay 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-trivial mention in The Record (Waterloo Region). Noted by the Canadian Mathematical Society as a source for biographies of women mathematicians. A mathNEWS article was cited in a foreign article. Its humour has been documented by another university, and probably more if you look hard enough. –Pomte 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Brother (Sweden and Norway). The relevant info (i.e. that she won one year) is already there, and there's little else to keep.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lindgren[edit]

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

Person only known for participating and winning the sixth season of Big Brother in Sweden. Any other mention of her is based on the fact that she's done cosmetic surgery. Strangnet 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She is likely to be well known and have had independent media coverage. Epbr123 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are future probability, likelyhood or chance of fame and notability a factor to consider in biographical articles? --Strangnet 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, she has already had fame and notability. Epbr123 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:N - Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". And from WP:BIO - A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Please use Wikipedia guidelines in future. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said, as she is famous, she is likely to have had independent media coverage. Please follow WP:CIVIL in future. Epbr123 13:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was perfectly civil, I directed you to guidelines you tend to ignore when you choose, as evidenced by your many WP:POINT violating AfD nominations. If there's independent media coverage, please provide it rather than prevaricating. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. Epbr123 14:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if your opinion should be used we should have to delete all Reality show stars here on Wiki.--Matrix17 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability is asserted this person she was oen of the most written about poerson last year in the reality show genre in Sweden.If a reality show isnt notability then we have to delete all reality show personalities.--Matrix17 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, given her "huge" and "apparent" notability, it's really strange that not more information is available in the article of what she's actually achieved. Deleting all reality show participants that have failed to be notable before or after they participate should be given if you read WP:BIO. The tabloidal fame is artificial since they live in symbiosis with each other - without one the other chokes. --Strangnet 11:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless evidence of passing WP:BIO are provided. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:14, 31 March

2007 (UTC)
Comment: wow 7 minutes and then hackney comes and gives delete. what a surprise. No but seriously she is notable.She is also a model for Moore Magazine which make her notable.--Matrix17 11:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strangnets nomination isnt 100% truthfull she has done modeling and is a requested model she also lives in spain and is pregnant which i wrote but was deleted as "gossip"--Matrix17 11:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clarification left on user's talk page. --Strangnet 12:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some sources [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Can we speedy close this discussion now? Epbr123 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes we can close this dicsussion now.--90.225.121.21 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into relevant BB article. There's very little content worthy of an independent article. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. The fact that she has been pregnant and lives in Spain does not exactly add much to her notability. Also, Matrix17 has canvassed this vote on ~~a number of~~ one user page, ~~for example~~ here [52]. Mackan 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N - 'Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"'. Epbr123 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well this page has been on this wiki since december 2006 and has been edited a number of times, why is it suddenly not notable,i respect the decisions but i just find it funny --Matrix17 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mackan, name and reference one more i have as oyu called it "Canvassed",please i really want to see it. And i think all people have an own opinion, i dont think me suggesting a thing make that person do what i say, everyone has an own opinion.--Matrix17 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: Matrix17 -- Just because something has been on Wikipedia for a while does not necessarily make it notable. Sometimes articles fall through the cracks -- it happens. Please stop attacking other users and please stop telling people to vote for an article on their talk pages. AfDs are a discussion, not a majority vote. Rockstar915 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commént:Rockstar i was attacked so i attacked back to false accusations nothing more nothing less. And do you see a vote from the person i so called "Cancassed" no i dont see it. So i guess their is no issue.bye bye. And i sitll think jessica is notable. but anyway lets keep her.And just for the record just because i am not popular here doesnt make it right to come and falsly accuse me of stuff. --Matrix17 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Winner of Big Brother (any season, any country) is notable enough.--ZayZayEM 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm kidding of course, it's clearly keep.--Wizardman 03:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Deceit[edit]

I nominate this article deletion discussion for early closing because all issues seem to have been resolved. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~The article does not assert notability. Furthermore, the article is in violation of WP:OR. This reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.~~ Pablothegreat85 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I think we can make this article work. I believe the article can certainly assert notability as this book is notable. I also think the WP:OR can be taken care of through editing. Pablothegreat85 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:N in lieu of additional sources which assert its notability added to the one good one given. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
follow-up comment I tend to agree with Starblind and Tony Sidaway that this particular book's article has potential to be kept on account of notability. I intend to revisit it in a few days and before the discussion closes to see how the article has developed; in particular if editors research and add good sources. It would not surprise me if it is made keepable, but until then I stand by my above comment (feel free to leave a note on my Talk if someone improves the article). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update to weak keep and second closing request, noting withdrawal of nomination. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for Tom Roeser's comment. He's a conservative broadcaster, but a very highly qualified one, not just a rent-a-mouth. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems to be a fairly major book, and widely reviewed: a Google news search turns up plenty of newspaper reviews, including the Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times. Starblind 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has been reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Sun-Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and, in the United Kingdom, national daily newspaper The Independent. If a book garners that kind of attention, while it may not be a best-seller, it's not a candidate for deletion from Wikipedia. If there are content problems (the "original research" complaint above, for instance) then they can be solved by editing the article. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reviews are enough. Independent RSs writing about the book. Further discussion is besides the point. DGG 03:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and JUPE'd. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autosodomy[edit]

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

Why repress this article? It is a documented practice. 208.81.93.142 (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a neologism. There are no hits on pubmed (autofellatio has 4). Google hits seem to be predominantly for an "urban dictionary" (a site similar to Wikipedia in accepting public edits, but with no verification requirements). The external link is to a page depicting autofellatio.
The article has recently been speedy deleted several times, and recreated [53]. I proposed its deletion as a "neologism with minimal currency" yesterday and this was supported by one other person but the tag has been removed. Therefore I bring it here. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was one of those who previously requested it be speedied, and was in the process of creating this AfD myself before User:Tony Sidaway beat me to it. Pretty much as per nominee and anonymous IP on the article's talk page; the references are either unreliable or aren't what they're purported to be, and unlike pretty much any other kind of sexual behaviour, it gets virtually no Googlehits. --DeLarge 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, nonsense and above reasons Mikm 18:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt/protect. "Neologism" is putting it rather kindly. Andrew Lenahan 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Unsourced neologism. Urban dictionary can never be used as a source, let alone the only source. Leebo 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: in view of the continual recreations, I do agree that salting may be a good course of action here. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add special seasonings, does not pass muster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect, no reliable sources to establish existence, let alone notability. NawlinWiki 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - absurdity, in and of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs) ---03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh I knew there was something niggling me about this word. I just remembered what is was. When I was a young chap I used to like the works of Salvador Dali, and as it happens one of my favorites was this fetching nude titled "Young Virgin Autosodomized by Her Own Chastity." So it isn't such a neologism as one might think. However Dali was famous for his use of odd made-up words and quasi-joycean mixed-language sentences in his public utterances. Note here that the sense of autosodomy here is not that given in the article. The young lady here obviously has no penis with which to penetrate her rectum. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain and expand. It is sexist and homophobic to suppress information about this yogic practice.DavidYork71 05:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is deleting this homophobic or sexist? Unless you are able to provide sources, I don't see how this isn't nonsense. mi km 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's both because sodomy exists for partner-inclusive and traditional male-female sodomy, and also because autocunnilingus exists here to acknowledge a similar female-specific practice.DavidYork71 06:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as it is unsourced, and User:DavidYork71 is now actively inserting it (sorry, couldn't help it) on pages such as Yoga and Yoga as exercise which could be construed as pornographic vandalism. See: [54] [55] Buddhipriya 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Buddhipriya... this editor's behavior probably will need review in another forum as well. (→Netscott) 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I don't know all the ins of this process and don't intend to learn them, but I think this article should be deleted for reasons given above, and I am tempted to begin excising references to it in other articles (such as in Sodomy) wether or not it's deleted. I just checked and have discovered that most of these references have already been deleted.

Well it's unreasonable to have an article for every definition on urbandictionary.com. I notice there is no article for thesbian (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thesbian) even though there are a lot more people who seem to think it means something than for autosodomy. So I suggest that before user DavidYork continues trying to inform wikipedia users about the marvels of autosodomy, he first begin with all the words at the Urban dictionary which have more up-thumbs than it does.

Also the suggestion that the practice is 'yogic' is absurd as I mentioned on the talk page; all suggestions that it is yogic within wikipedia were originated by DavidYork very recently. 142.151.162.247 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JuJube 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Orderinchaos 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Axl 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied this, and i would still delete. jimfbleak 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Merbabu 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Satu Suro 23:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sodomy as parent article. Stop suppressing illustrative content and referring to this yoga as a 'purported' practice. It's proven and demonstrated .. for the few, the brave .. not for all.203.166.99.249 09:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remind those "brave" people that they're going to have to publish their exploits in reliable sources before we write an article about it. Leebo ^T/C 10:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an unsupported claim regarding the photograph that it is a yoga activity performed by a "yogi" but there is no documentation proving those assertions. The picture is taken from a porn site, not a Yoga Institute. The issue is not just about the sexual activity, but the claim of this being a yogic practice. Wikipedia:Pornography establishes precedents for removal of pornographic pictures. Buddhipriya 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not a yogic practice and the text fails any possible WP:RS test... DanielT5 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted, recreated, and renominated, which failed not due to any of the keep votes making sense, but because of the large number of them by people who seem to think that a Wikimedia project is notable. This website fails all three criteria of WP:WEB:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
All references in the article are from Wikimedia.

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
No Webbys or the like here.

The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
Wikimedia is well known, but it is not independent of Wikiversity.

Let me also refute the (rather weak) arguments from the previous nomination:

"Please. This will be used to create lesson for students." (unsigned)
We don't have an article on Excel gradebook templates, but those also can be used to, er, 'create lesson for students'.

":D This is a great idea." (User:AI, now banned); "good idea" (User:Vikings)
So is, as User:Weyes said, a combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker.

"This takes up very little space and may help someone find their way to the Wikibooks area." (User:DS1953); "It is not listed as a project on the front page. How would anyone know about the nascent project if there is no article about its development?" (User:Blainster)
See these three sections of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a directory; and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

"It seems like a serious project so why shouldn't it have its own entry." (unsigned)
My nephew's recent science fair was a serious project, too.

This fledgling project, while interesting, does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Delete and redirect to Wikibooks. ElbridgeGerry t c block 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we do delete the article, please consider that the main utility of these "project-related articles" is for Wikipedia/Wikimedia users - don't delete the page outright, but leave a cross-wiki redirect page to Wikiversity, or a meta page on the project, or something similar. Shimgray | talk | 19:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could redirect to a subsection in the Wikibooks article. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it is part of Wikimedia, and is an associate of Wikipedia (not just another group that happen to use MediaWiki, or any pages in Wikia), shows that despite being possibly non-notable among the world wide web, is a unique special cases. The purpose of Wikiversity can be seen as a unique fork for special interests, completely different from Wikibooks and Wikipedia. Also, it is completely different from Wikibooks (and hence the creation of wikiveristy). if you have to redirect, it will be to Wikimedia; redirecting to Wikibooks will only confuse people. Lastly, I am sure that as of now, any Wikimedia project related group (eg Jimbo wales and Wikibooks) for example are automatically excluded from normal judging criteria and is automatically demmed notable in Wikipedia. George Leung 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Furthermore, the first delete is due to nonexistence; But now that it is created with the blessing of wikimedia, it is clearly notable enough in Wikipedia, under a special cases circumstances.George Leung 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just do a Google Scholar search for mentions in notable publications. Chronicle of Higher Education ([56]) is enough? If not, there is also academic journal (Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, [57]), and conference paper (International Symposium On Wikis, [58]) mentioning this project.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We can safely assume that if it is a Wikimedia project, it is famous. Or it will be famous. Or something. Not based on any guidelines or anything, but I'd say that Wikimedia's projects should get some coverage - I'm not so sure on individual language editions, but the primary ones should be notable enough. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google has about 512,000 results for "Wikiversity". This is five times as many results as there is for, for example, crust punk, which has its own Wikipedia article. This is more than enough results to make this notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheguX (talk • contribs).

Another important note: WP:IAR.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs).

Keep I agree with the others who vote to keep it. --Remi 05:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. With over 500 links to the Wikiversity page from other Wikipedia articles, it is useful to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia community. Although Wikiversity was "incubated" at Wikibooks, it is better to leave this as its own page rather than re-direct it to Wikibooks. --JWSchmidt 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invoke WP:SNOW and close it 142.58.101.27 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds and Mind[edit]

Sounds and Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

At best, original research. At worst, a collection of grandmotherly advice, unreferenced and without proof. I've listed the problems I found in the content on the talk page of the article and requested the original contributer to offer suggestions to improve it, but 5 days have passed and there has been no response from anyone. Please do have a look. Thanks xC | ☎ 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing encyclopedic here. Lakers 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research or unattributed claims, possible self promotion for Bindu.B, aka Wizzywiz. If you look here, the original author requested deletion. Jaksmata 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Nominator is completely correct on this one. ~ Arjun 02:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to transcendental wiki of meditation, if it is ever invented. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael cairns[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this Michael Cairns is a real person. The original creator of the article has not responded to requests for verification. I am nominating this article for deletion because it looks like a hoax, it is unverifiable, and may be patent nonsense. Jaksmata 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possible self promotion. Lakers 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the above reasons. Creating editor has had plenty of time to respond to requests for any type of verification. janejellyroll 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic article. It needs more references, and major rewriting. Michael Cairns may not even exist. — Wenli 00:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 weakness of the sources and the inherent problem of having articles about things that have not been proven to actually exist were not convicingly addressed by those arguing that this article should be kept. As such those offering delete opinions are not only in the majority but make the more persuasive case. WjBscribe 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autocunnilingus[edit]

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

Kept twice, no consensus last time. What we have here is an article on a hypothetical sex act which has three references. Two of those are essentially the same. The first of those is an article mentioning in passing that the author has never heard of it actually happening, the second mentions in passing that the author has still not seen any evidence it has ever happened. The other reference is to a picture of Madonna in a yoga position which is something like what one might assume autocunnilingus might look like, but isn't actually autocunnilingus, and the article doesn't even mention it. In other words, it is completely made up and there are no actual references for its significance (or if there are, they are not in the article). Unlike autofellatio, which is a documented reality, the top references for this appear to be Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. Absent at least one credible academic reference, this needs to go. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per guy. This is just silly. Artw 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per absence any significant discussion in reliable sources. It has been sitting here for quite some time in this inadmissible state. Mukadderat 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no more hypothetical than autofellatio.-Paloma Walker 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: actually it is, as autocunnilingus has never been performed (at least, not proven) and autofellatio has been. Salaskan 15:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the articles. Artw 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a decent article about the non-existence of a sexual practice. --Haemo 03:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.' Whether it is hypothetical or not is totally irrelevant.if it is discussed as a fantasy or concept, it is every bit as valid a subject for an article as if it actually takes place. WP is not conducting a research study into the feasibility of reputed sexual practices. It shouldn't make the least bit of difference one way or the other. DGG 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete make this article as non-existent as the practice it documents. Resurgent insurgent 07:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-existent and discussed as a fantasy by 1 columnist. Also, media thirsty for any sensation are not the best indicator of notability in the real world. Pavel Vozenilek 07:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently sourced, well balanced prose. In wiki-fallacy: othercrapexists (numerous sex acts that are not as well written), why not this? —Ocatecir ^Talk 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very educational and well-illustrated Suriel1981 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP*Why delete something that educates people. It offers real terms for acts. Its simply education, if people were to delete the page about birth control, maybe somewhere an insightful girl could become pregnant becauuse people like you guys voted to delete the information. please keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.250.114 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC). — 69.241.250.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is very true! Please do not delete the article on Birth Control, we don't want to be responsible for a population explosion. And we can't deny flexible females the education to further their lifestyle. Suriel1981 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references confirm that this doesn't exist. Therefore, we shouldn't have an article about it: nor are there sufficient references to confer encyclopedic notability even in the absence of existence. Wikipedia is not for things that someone thought up for their sex column once. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the page is well documented, though not well referenced. Lack of evidence by the author doesnt mean that no one is engaged in this act, or this is totally hypothetical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiastid (talk • contribs) — Wikiastid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I propose that if anyone owns any pictures of the act being performed succesfully that they upload them to Wikimedia Commons and add them to the article. Purely to prove that the act is possible. Suriel1981 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several have produced images, but all have been questionable. Look at the talk page and article history. Even if someone did find a picture that wasn't obviously fake, we couldn't decide that it was real, we would need a reputable source saying so. NicM 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - the fact that it documents it as not known to be possible is itself information. It is a logical sister-page (ha) to autofellatio, which *is* possible; without it, autofellatio would need to incorporate its contents somehow. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that it is hypothetical is not a good reason to delete, but the lack of evidence that it is notable is. NicM 11:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per NicM, Guy, and WP:NOR. This is purely hypothetical and has not occurred yet. As soon as there's a reputable source which writes about how it is possible and how it was done, sure, add the article. And I'm sure the media and some prominent internet sites would write about it when someone really manages to perform autocunnilingus. Aside from the fact that it is just speculation, there's no significant source which writes about it except for a fantasising columnist. Add these two remarkable sentences at the beginning to masturbation and/or autofellatio please. Salaskan 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. lack of sources for quite long time despite two threats for deletion. `'mikka 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autodelete. What the RFerreira 08:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beme[edit]

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

Neologism coined about a month or so ago by a random blogger. Despite the claimed influence, this is nowhere near being on a par with Dawkins' concept yet. Most of the references are also evidently either bogus or misplaced (I'm not seeing the relevance in citing papers and books from the late 1950s to a word invented earlier this year for a concept which has emerged equally recently). Chris cheese whine 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable neologism.--Paloma Walker 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bemete Pavel Vozenilek 07:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JuJube 23:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbustoo 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan (South Park character)[edit]

Dan (South Park character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An upcoming character who the article author says Comedy Central has decided to create. I suggest we delete the article per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Verifiability. GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also New Student: Dan, which I guess I should add to this nomination. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly false as Comedy Central would not be responsible for any edits to South Park. This user is simply using the claim to justify his edits. Another example can be found here: [[59]] Tweeks Coffee 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no proof it is real. Comedy Central does own South Park (the same way FOX owns The Simpsons), but they do not create characters or anything like that. TJ Spyke 23:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just like Abusive Aussie Husband/Battered Southern Wife stereotype.ibeatmywife LULZZZZ 03:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. Tozoku 16:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's quite obviously a hoax - the guy refuses to give up any sources for his information, just saying "alright, don't believe me, but it's true". If you read the other sections of his talk page it's obvious that he's also been an unreliable source in other situations. Shivers _talk 17:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Clear cut case of "not a crystal ball". --Deskana (ya rly) 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, no nothing - if he actually exists, the article can be recreated. --Fredrick day 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, this is nonsense. Everyoneandeveryone 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete I, as the creator of the article am sorry, but why delete something true? And besides, I meant South Park studios, and me, Trey and Matt are currently working on the character, and working on changing Kyle's colours. Don't delte, there we go, explaination given. FictionH 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And explanation that made no reference to policies, and as such will be ignored by any closing administrator. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why would I create a hoax? I think you could trust a 37-year old, don't you think? FictionH 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(A) The world, (and history) is full of untrustworthy 37-year olds; (B) This is the Internet, and we can't tell how old you are, or anything about you, so why should we take your word for it? You could be 87 years old, or 12. Requiring that content be verifiable in reliable sources solves all of these problems, because then it doesn't matter who you are, just that the content can be double-checked by others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) Episodes are rarely planned out more than a week before it would air. This would include the introduction of any new characters or plot lines. B) Comedy Central, which you say you work for, has no creative input in South Park. CC does not see the episode until it is delivered to their office, generally early Wednesday morning. C) Regardless, this is not verifiable as well as speculative, so it should be removed. Tweeks Coffee 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You lousy son-of-a-Bitch,I am a close personal friend of Matt Stones and I have heard absolutely nothing about this.This imformation is very obviously false,first,you dont say WHERE you found this out,what episode,why Trey and Matt planned this,WHAT exactly is your function with South Park,or if this is even true,plus this "episodes" plot sounds remarkably similar to Hooked on Monkey Phonics and All about Mormons this type of episode isn't even South Park's style,maybe it was back in the pre-2000's Era but not now,plus even if it is true,there is no way you could have known such intricate details about such things as the dialogue,you even called Garrisson "Mr." and I had to change it to "Mrs.". and by the way,I do not know Stone I just claimed I did to teach you that Wikipedia is a web-option where any jackoff with a computer can post any crap they want,hell,this doesn't even fall under Wiki's non-crystal ball category,even that guy who said the Season Premiere last year would be about John Mark Karr had more sources than you did Ms.Fiction H. By the way this whole arcticle sounds too fan-fictiony to me,even your name implies you're a fan-fic writer,I wrote a fan-fic for school where the boys become the Fantastic Four,and since it was 2005 when I wrote it,I could have assumed T and P would do a parody episode,and posted a picture of Cartman as the Thing and said it would be an upcoming character,but did I? NO. besides Wikipedia hasn't announced new characters or changes or death ahead of time before,so why now? Im destroying your article right now and if you say thats web-vandalism then you're a hypocrite considering what you just pulled. Hail to the Jews!!!!. Malkulan God '07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.117 (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as soon as possible. --Boraphyll 04:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure, if your telling the truth about the whole South Park studios thing thats fair enough, but if your not and the whole thing is false and your lying, Im deffinetely for deletion--81.132.196.146 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)P.Skiddy[reply]
He wasn't familiar with South Park Studios until I mentioned it in one of my responses. He claims that he works for Comedy Central. Which brings up another question: He's said that where he lives, Kyle's colors are different (He's changed his story on this). If he does work for Comedy Central, then wouldn't he be living in the US where Comedy Central is located? Besides, I've seen episodes that air in other countries and the only difference is that the voices are dubbed.
I meant South Park studios, not Comedy Central. FictionH 17:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you mixed up where you work?Tweeks Coffee 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that. FictionH 18:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize how laughable that excuse is? If you actually worked at either one, there is no way you'd confuse the two. Comedy Central and South Park Studios are two entirely separate entities. They aren't even physically located near each other, either way it places you in California, where I know for a fact that Kyle's colors are not what you claimed they were where you lived. Tweeks Coffee 18:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should consider that I have a bad memory? FictionH 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to counter any of my other points? Tweeks Coffee 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no sources provided, notability not asserted. -Seinfreak37 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 5 days now, I'd definitely say that the NOs have it. Can we please delete this page now? Tweeks Coffee 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you want to delete it, I'm okay with it. FictionH 21:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Convert to disambig.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ctime[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion for the following reasons:

The article is incorrect and misleading.

The term ctime is not a commonly accepted programming term with the meaning described in the article.

The concepts it contains are adequately covered by several other articles, in particular, Unix time and time_t.

— Loadmaster 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Convert. I now think it would make more sense for "ctime" to be a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page, since it has two distinct usages in computer programming. — Loadmaster 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found two more possible meanings: 1) Microsoft's ATL/MFC CTime class, and 2) the CTime datatype in Haskell (which is the C time_t type). So I'm still leaning towards converting to a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation. — Loadmaster 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. I had wondered about "ctime" when I placed a disambiguation note on it a while back. Itd be a bitch to find sources for it, since ctime is by far and away mostly used to refer to either the c++ library, or perhaps some other functions (that I saw when i googled it) that are time related, but not used in-sentence or explained. The article has no sources, so find them or delete. Fresheneesz 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article states that "ctime" is a particular integer -- I've only known "ctime" to mean the C++ library, and the integer is actually called the Unix time. Since the article provides no sources for this usage of "ctime", I'm inclined to think it's incorrect. –Sommers ^(Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "ctime()" refers to the ISO C library function, which returns a string value, not an integer. The article discusses what is usually called the system time, Unix time, or time_t, all of which are covered in far better detail by their respective articles. The only other common meaning for "ctime" is the i-node change time in Unix-like filesystems. If this article were to be kept, that would probably be the only valid meaning of the term, making for a pretty trivial article. — Loadmaster 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: "ctime" is the library call for formatting the current date as a string, and also the metadata change time from the stat(2) syscall — but as pointed out above, the article primarily describes it as Unix time which is misleading. -- intgr 07:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation between stat (Unix) and time.h. -- intgr 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. (Such a disambig page could also be re-created after deletion.) –Sommers ^(Talk) 11:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps disambig or redirect. I've heard no valid reason for deletion. Incorrect, misleading, or non-standard contents is not a valid reason to delete. That covers the first two "reasons" for deletion. That the information is presented elsewhere is also not a reason to delete, though it may be a reason to disambiguate or redirect. Note that a google search for ctime turns up more than two million hits. This article should not be deleted. –RHolton ≡– 13:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only about 770 Google hits, if you follow the search to the last page. And it appears that all of the hits refer to the "ctime()" function. So, as I said above, if "ctime" were retained as its own separate article, it would be rather short. I think a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page makes more sense. — Loadmaster 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Past the fact that google hits mean almost nothing, ctime *does* exist, plentifully. The problem is that it is used to refer to time.h, not whatever the ctime article is about now. Obviously, if it were deleted, it would be a redirect to time.h, and if it were a disambiguation.. thats also a form of deletion - as in all the presumably incorrect information (all of it) on the page would be gone. Of course, a formal deletion isn't neccessary, just a change to a disambig or something. The history can be kept. Fresheneesz 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to DAB. Much of this duplicates UNIX time. Some is software library-related. DAB it. Shenme 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chiles Law Society[edit]

Jackie Chiles Law Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor local club; couple of news mentions, neither indicating genuine significance. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion, but it was reversed as notability was apparently asserted. That said, the group is a non-notable law society within a law school. The only references are from school newspapers, and Wikipedia is not a place for every school study group to be on. Rockstar915 04:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable in-school group. The name may eventually bring notoriety, but we ain't a crystal ball. --Dhartung | Talk 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting inspiration for a club name, but it's not notable enough. JuJube 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebi Vural[edit]

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

No-notability whatsoever presented. It is clear that these were written as some sort of a blog by these peoples themselves - we should remined people that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Baristarim 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Baristarim 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, the person might be notable, needs to be cleaned, though. Also, it seems to be copy of [60]. Let's wait some time to see whether there will be any improvements.deniz^T_C 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above.Person seems as notable, lets see further developments, sources and citations.Must.^T^C 07:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NOTE, fails WP:ATT. Otto4711 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note main author blanked page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deniz^T_C 06:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Must.^T ^C 11:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmet caglar[edit]

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

No-notability whatsoever presented. It is clear that these were written as some sort of a blog by these peoples themselves - we should remined people that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Baristarim 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Baristarim 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently the article was created by Ahmet Caglar himself. deniz^T_C 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. --Sable232 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article does not assert notability at all. Tagged as CSD A7. Mwelch 03:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat The Movie[edit]

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

Recreation of the deleted hoax article Cat the Movie (see log), made by a sockpuppet of the banned user Lyle123. No sources (obviously). I vote speedy delete (I didn't add it to the speedy deletion list because of a technicality - it's not the exact recreation of the old article since one letter is different, and it's created by a sockpuppet of a banned user rather than directly by a banned user. Esn 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Unreferenced hoax by a banned user. Enough said. --Sable232 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's banned, rather than indefinitely blocked, then it qualifies for a Speedy delete since stuff by sockpuppets of banned users are immediately deleted/reverted; otherwise, just regular Delete JuJube 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the difference between the two? I'm not sure which of them applies. Esn 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Banning is reserved for major problem users such as User:Willy on Wheels who are continually disruptive. You can also be banned from only certain articles. See WP:BAN. JuJube 06:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think CSD G4 still applies here anyway. --Sable232 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per reasons above; search engine results turn up zip as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic national handball team[edit]

Czech Republic national handball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Provides no valuable information, plus was recently vandalized -- dakern74 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It may be awful at the moment but the article has potential. They appeared at four World Handball Championships and are former World Champions. Epbr123 23:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we don't delete articles when they are vandalized, we fix them, which I have just done. This article does contain useful information and is about a clearly notable subject. Since the nominator has not provided any reasons to delete the article that are based in policy, and I can see none at the moment this should definitely be kept. Gwernol 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of information isn't a reason to delete, nor has it being vandalized mean anything except well, somebody should fix it. Did that. It's still a real national team, and so I'm satisfied it can be improved. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that it was Mister Manticore who fixed it, not me. He beat me to it in an edit conflict. Way to go, Mister Manticore. Gwernol 02:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just wish the original nominator had done the rather trivial fix originally. Just because you think a page ought to be deleted is no reason to ignore vandalism. FrozenPurpleCube 06:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Please never nominate an article for this reason again. We nominate articles for deletion based on an unnoteworthy topic, not based on the current state of the article. Esn 01:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable. --Carioca 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, geez. I'm just not sure the current one-sentence definition, which is basically the title of the article in reverse ("the national team is the team from the nation"), is worth anything. Keep it if you want, I don't care, but at the very least this needs a stub tag. If they are in fact noteworthy, then maybe someone can write something informative about said national team, instead of just the fact that one exists. Sorry to piss everybody off. -- dakern74 (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps you might want to read the suggestions for when deletion isn't needed? In any case, I do agree with the stub tag, and I'm looking for one now to tag it with.

Delete. This is as far from an useful article on národní házenkářský tým as it only could be. The "team logo" is an old, now unused logo of the umbrella organisation Czech Handball Federation (Cesky Hazenkarsky Svaz, [61]), not national team logo (see [62] from 2007 World Championship). Rules of the CHF require only dark and light sides of the dress (but perhaps internationally it is more strict - [63] proof it is not from 2007 World Championship). The article name resembles way too much the Czech specific form of handball: "national handball" (narodni hazena, umbrella organisation) and nothing inside gives a clue about a possibility for confusion. Reading the CHF site it shows that nothing like a stable entity called national team exists and that for international competitions they pick an individuals from what is available two weeks before an event (handball is not wildly popular in the Czech Republic).

Deleting this text would be better than keeping it, IMHO. I understand that I have just 1 vote but I am a Czech and know about the context. Pavel Vozenilek 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any votes actually, as AfD is not a vote. This means that the number of people saying something is less important than the reasoning behind it. Still, I don't see your arguments as reasons for deletion, but reasons for improvement. Fixing otherwise acceptable content is much better than deleting it any day in my book, since if the subject is important, it deserves to be covered. FrozenPurpleCube 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Pavel: Would you be willing to add that information to the article? It's better for it to be there, and it will improve it greatly. More sources would also be nice (even if they're in Czech). The important thing is that this information is there for people looking for info on the Czech national handball team. If what you say is all true, perhaps the article would make better sense under another name, but there's no doubt that the information should be easy to find for the reader. Anyway, any vote on a renaming is probably best discussed on the talk page itself, rather than in an AFD (see also: WP:MOVE). Esn 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The national team, even in a minor sport, should be notable. If it has information know know to be obsolete, then it should be edited to update it. What we have at present is a mere stub, but that measn it should be expanded, not deleted. Peterkingiron 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, its a national team for a known sport. DCUnitedFan2011 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideagora[edit]

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

Speedy deleted and recreated, but a different enough article the second time around that I didn't feel a speedy for recreation applied, so I nominated this for PROD as a neologism. The article creator de-prodded it and in the process essentially admitted this is a neologism. In my opinion this should be deleted as such. Isotope23 23:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism from marketing. Pavel Vozenilek 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. JuJube 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatrick[edit]

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

Seems like a pretty blatant neologism/thing made up one day (original "research" would be being kind, but the article engages in the "defence of necessity" that it "was introduced because the term double hat-trick was ambiguous"), but I'll refrain from speedying or PRODing this out of consideration of the possibility that this has become a notable term in the last four days -- despite no google news hits, and a mention in only one blog that I could find. Alai 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete judging from google, it seems to have been re-coined a few times rather than circulating as currency. jnestorius^(talk) 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references don't even contain the term. --Ybbor ^T SURVEY! 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "references" seem simply to be copied from hat-trick, where they were included to document use of "double hat-trick" for the same concept. Alai 02:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a term without any currency at the moment (all the reports I've read about the match talk about a double hat-trick and don't care about the possible ambiguity). If it happens several more times, the term might enter the realms of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very minor usage in online forms (230 Google hits, not all in this context) but absolutely no sign in anywhere reliable I can find (e.g. NewsBank). Tearlach 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Jones[edit]

David_R._Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article entry violates several Wikipedia guidelines involved autobiographies and notability.
1. To be sure that David Jones wrote this page, you'd only have to look at the page history and his Wikipedia user page. He makes no effort to hide the fact that he is the creator of his own Wikipedia page.
2. He commonly goes by "Choronzon Club" or variants on the Internet. This can be verified by Googling and viewing his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/choronzon_club
3. He seems to fancy these alleged "criticisms" in order to achieve some sort of Crowleyesque notoriety. This can be verified on his MySpace page, where he posts a link to said "Black Lodge" PDF.
4. His citations in other Wikipedia articles, such as on the OTO page were added by him!
5. Note the guideline listed on the Wikipedia page creation header: "Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend."
6. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, specifically sections 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.2. Also, please review guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

PS: Why are the people involved in this article all coming from a Qwest DSL address in Eugene, Oregon (where Mr. Jones is also currently based)? :) LevelSolve 18:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His "noted scholar" link points to a self-written autobiography, which laughably includes "Doctorate in Divinity from the Universal Life Church". Attention/notoriety-seeking, grand-standing person of no notable value. (Unintentionally) humorous, though. delete LevelSolve 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't look terribly notable. The referred publications all appear to be at fanzine level. Tearlach 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's a "noted scholar", noted by people of his own miniscule religion. I'm a "noted scholar" on strategy, noted by my own CounterStrike clan, with approximately the same number of members. I've written web pages, too, and I have friends who call me important for that. Keep him so I can type up a page on myself too! ...yeah, I kid. Delete of course. 78.48.70.152 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think any of the books are published by other than the many non-notable organizations he has started or been involved in. It's hard to judge N for some of the figures in similar groups, but DRJ is clearly NN. . DGG 23:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. — Athænara ✉ 02:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no reliable sources, violates WP:AUTO and WP:COI. EdJohnston 23:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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