Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Knowpedia (talk | contribs)
2,566 edits
Robdurbar (talk | contribs)
11,477 edits
The Appraisal Foundation, Robert C. Gorman, Robert J. Gorman
Line 118: Line 118:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giraffe cup}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giraffe cup}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrara Pan Candy Company}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrara Pan Candy Company}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Appraisal Foundation}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Gorman}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Gorman}}

Revision as of 00:04, 27 February 2007

< February 25 February 27 >

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 Shred. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Movie Age

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely original research. WikiNew 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently undecided but leaning to Delete - Claiming it to be a phenomenon without reliable sources is original research, and I hate that "top 20 comic book films" by Empire because we are choosing one site over many that have ranked these films. Otherwise, with no additional information to this page, it's really just an article form of a category that already exists.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be original research possibly based on a misunderstanding. References to "Comic Book Movie Age" are used to discuss our current "Comic Book Movie Age" not that now is the only one. I assume this is used to parallel the various ages of comics. So it isn't that we are in a "Comic Book Movie Age" there have been a number of which this is the most recent one. However the term doesn't seem enshrined like the actual comic book ages and seems to be used in a rough way. The rest of the entry is already largely covered in List of films based on comics and sub-entries. On the plus side there are the following: [1] [2] but that said the mian mentions at Google [3] [4] are mirrors of the original entry or where the original author added in links back to the entry. (Emperor 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. RobJ1981 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very, very weak keep There is a recent phenomenon in about the past 10 years of the production and popularity of many films based on comic books, and there is room on Wikipedia for a well-sourced article that recognizes this. However, the name "Comic Book Movie Age" seems to be made up wholesale, and the unsourced (WP:OR) article does not reflect anything but a list of recent films. I expect that mass improvements to this page will not be feasible in time to prevent deletion, but I would not object to recreation if another higher quality on the same subject were to surface in the future. ~CS 20:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism,fFan forums aren't references, 'fans think' isn't a reliable source, and a content fork to boot. ThuranX 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concept is OR, and from a "history-less" perspective at that. Which multiple, reliable, published secondary sources have declared this? Nil verifiability. MURGH disc. 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or otherwise merge to List of films based on comics. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to someplace. Someone want to complete this please. ViridaeTalk 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alotta Fagina

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

Delete. A minor character in the Austin Powers canon. While major characters like Austin, Evil, Nigel etc are notable enough for their own articles, characters like Alotta Fagina are just jokes and aren't that notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because for similar reasons in that they aren't notable enough for their own articles. They're minor characters who serve to tell a joke.

Random Task (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mustafa (Austin Powers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CyberGhostface 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is she (or any of them) notable enough to warrant her own article?--CyberGhostface 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we should make articles about my cats because its still true.--CyberGhostface 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, do your cats have funny names and have they appeared in movies? ;) EnsRedShirt 11:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are your cats verifiable from external sources? Can we demonstrate NPOV for your cats? --Richard Daly 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I can provide 'true' and 'verifiable' information about them. And, since Wikipedia aims to sum the world's knowledge, I don't see why my cats should be left it. And yes my cats do have funny names...Cocoa and Thumbelina, to be exact. However, I am being fecetious as you might guess. A cat with a funny name is no more deserving of a wiki article than a running gag with a funny name.--CyberGhostface 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References added

  • Keep This seems notable as it has become a joke beyond the movie itself. As of now there are references to 4 independent sources, which discuss the name most specifically asa parody of Pussy Galore from the James Bond series. Alotta the trivia could be trimmed, but the topic is notable. --Kevin Murray 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of those sources only have passing references to the Alotta character. The first two are just comparision lists, of which Alotta is one of many. The latter two are generic Powers reviews which just happen to mention Fagina. Psychonaut makes refence to a lack of "any independent sources on the character which give more than a passing reference" earlier, and it applies here.--CyberGhostface 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that these are all passing references. Several discuss the parody of Pussy Galore, which is to me the most notable part of this article. The others confirm that this is not original research by an editor who watched the movie. This isn't an important topic, but keeping it is not an egregious foul. --Kevin Murray 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two are just lists comparing similar names, of which Alotta Fagina is one of them. The third article has one sentence that reads "In dated and unapologetically sexist '60s-style, Austin Powers can't claim Pussy Galore, but does boast Alotta Fagina, a cleavage-heaving role assumed by Fabiana Udenio". Ebert's review states "And, of course, those who remember Bond's adventures with Pussy Galore will be amused by his female antagonist this time, the sinister Alotta Fagina (Fabina Udenio)." So for both of those articles she's only mentioned briefly in passing.--CyberGhostface 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also took a look at the references and have to say that they are about as passing as one can get. They amount to about two sentences that deal directly with this character. Why a brief mention of Alotta in the main Powers article with reference to her parody of Pussy Galore is not enough I can't understand. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect-Merge into Austin Powers article and redirect these pages.
  • Keep - I tend to think that these characters are notable enough for an encyclopedia that includes popular culture. - Richardcavell 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:FICT, "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."--CyberGhostface 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that would start is an edit war between the people who wanted to keep the article by itself and those who favored the merge. And didn't you nominate all the Saw character articles for deletion when they could have been merged instead?--CyberGhostface 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't. The more fancruftier sections like trivia and quotes will probably go but the main article itself is no more than a paragraph long and probably won't be trimmed.--CyberGhostface 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete --Wizardman 05:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Stephenson

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

A non notable person (if real) and a likely hoax. Joanne Samuel was in Mad Max but she has her own article on WP, and there is no indication on WP or elsewhere that Grace Stephenson was her real name [[5]] or that she is deceased. Contested PROD and CSD, and AFD tag has been deleted too. Slp1 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Denni. BryanG(talk) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B n W Recordz

B n W Recordz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page appears to be about a non-notable record label and one of the non-notable rappers on the label Carolfrog 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:45Z

Debra Lynne McCabe

Debra Lynne McCabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Debra McCabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Doesn't seem to be that notable of an actress. Is only one sentence long and is missing important information. CyberGhostface 00:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was that my main reason. But so far her biggest role is hanging naked for five minutes in a horror film. She's not that notable.--CyberGhostface 00:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do you support its deletion or not?--CyberGhostface 02:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peasant's Quest

Seems to fail WP:WEB - according to [6] the only sites that have any information on this are like gamefaqs and "homestar runner wiki". Non-notable flash game. frothT 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:45Z

Plomox

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

Non-notable. Fictional drug that appeared in the TV show Scrubs. Barely worth merging into the Scrubs article as the character connected with Plomox (Julie Keaton) only appeared in 3 episodes. Croxley 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete for now. If Mai Time is ever created than of course she can be included there.--Wizardman 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Apanui

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

Article is little more than a short self-description of someone who is a TV show host (perhaps) in New Zealand and a red link to the name of that show. This is too little informational context for even a stub article entry. If "Mai Time" had an article (it doesn't), then this sort of information would belong there instead. Bumm13 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Mai Time if created. Hotmann 05:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've updated with some sources. Ziggurat 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mai Time (after creating it) — the show itself seems to be more notable (judging from the titles of the articles added as sources). IMDb verifies the show's existence,"*". and that of "Fiona Apanui" as a "presenter" in "unknown seasons." Other than that, no notability information on Fiona Apanui seems to be available. I would say delete, with no prejudice as to creation of a sourced article about Mai Time, or merge with Mai Time if created prior to deletion. Carolfrog 01:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Person not-notable. The show doesn't seem notable either. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 02:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand. Notable does not mean widely known. A program in Maori cannot be very popular outside New Zealand Alf photoman 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the article Mai Time is cult TV. If that was true, we shouldn't be having this discussion. I can't say merge with an article that doesn't exist. Kripto 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Kekkaishi. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:46Z

Yellow Tanabe

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

Articles contains no references and fails to meet the WP:BIO standards Ozgod 01:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:33Z

The Ball Pit

The Ball Pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:4g3i3io.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Battle of the Sexes: Crossing the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Article about an online message board with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:BOLLOCKS and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual/internet guide. Húsönd 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:32Z

Fred C. Beyer High School

Fred C. Beyer High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Californian high school. Does not appear to meet the guidelines on Wikipedia:Schools. Almost nothing links to it. Also, has suffered a ridiculous amount of vandalism, presumably by its students; it would save a lot of trouble all round if it were deleted. Terraxos 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete: probable use of sock puppets, SPAs, WP:OR, lack of reliable sources.... Cbrown1023 talk 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus; renom in two weeks if no WP:RS added. Cbrown1023 talk 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing puppets trick

Dancing puppets trick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bad case of original research. Entire article appears to be based on personal observations of this street scam. Particularly bad is the Locations section, which is just a list of places and dates where various editors claim to have seen this happen. Croxley 01:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've seen this in various tourist traps. It's almost part of the standard repertoire of street scams and illusionism. - Richardcavell 01:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete — surely some reporter somewhere has done a human-interest story on this? If we can't find any verifiable sources, though, then it's the rubbish bin for this one. Carolfrog 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If we could get some sources we would be in better shape, but as it stands it is complete OR, probably true but OR nonetheless. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above; seems valid but fails minimal WP:ATT standards. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found a paywalled one: [7] The Google News Archive result text (not shown here) reads, Glued to the top of the cardboard cutout was another magnet, and they must ... stand up and "dance" in rhythm to music the vendor played on his boom box --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but complete rewrite with citations needed. Jcuk 20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rambling POV article is non-encyclopedic in tone and completely original research. Inkpaduta 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for adding citations and cleanup. A mere lack of citations and a problem with "how to" writing do not make an otherwise well-written article into deletion fodder. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - needs citations to published sources; lack of sources not automatically fatal when article still has a chance to be improved. Let this one run its course: put up a warning for citations and verifiability, wait, and renominate if none appear after a while. My own cursory search failed to turn up sources, but I'm not so arrogant as to think that means none exist. Argyrios 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR unless references/sources can be found by the end of this debate. WMMartin 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is all OR as the article stands. If the article is sourced and cleaned up I will reconsider. Nuttah68 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve per Dhartung and Argyrios. I've looked around and found some more mention of this: see the Nov. 14 entry here (pic), and the citation of the wikipedia article at the bottom of this tourism page. This website is linked to on the talk page. This seems to be real, so I think it should be kept - however, it definitely needs reliable sources. Maybe there are some in other languages? Dhartung, do you have a direct link to the archived version of that article? Esn 22:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article that uses Wikipedia as its source in the first place cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia, and does nothing to demonstrate that this article is describing a real, properly documented, phenomenon. Uncle G 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an article, it's a tourist website which advises tourists about something that they may see and links to the wikipedia article to provide more information. That seems to suggest that the article as it now stands does, in fact, come fairly close to reality. I agree with you that reliable sources are needed here; Dhartung's paywalled article seems to be just such a source, but of course it doesn't seem to be available... Esn 10:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve. As the original creator, I think this is a decent article documenting a real phenomenon that isn't documented anywhere except for small fragments of information. I'm fully aware this to some extent makes it original research but this is by no means unique to this article. Many articles about curiosity topics like this don't fit within the framework of other websites and thus end up being Wikipedia articles. By necessity, they do contain some original research. My impression is that many users of Wikipedia enjoy Wikipedia exactly because of the presence of such articles. The article has been here for 1½ years and I've found it referenced from other non-Wikipedia-related articles on the net. Many other users have contributed to the article including a video clip which was removed by another user. I also think it is worth noting that 'Croxley' - who is the one that nominated this article for deletion - joined Wikipedia on February 15th 2007 and so far haven't contributed any content to Wikipedia. He seems, however, to have made it his mission in life to put articles up for deletion. While I think it is good some people are keeping Wikipedia clean I have little respect for people who don't contribute content but who don't mind taking down well-written articles just because they don't fit a narrow interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.189.200 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2007
  • Keep and Improve This article seems be the only detailed description on the net, so I think we shouldn't be overzealous and delete it because of a few flaws.Woodward 21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another mention: http://www.bootsnall.com/travelstories/europe/nov02trouble.shtml. I hope everyone can agree (based on the links that have been posted) that the trick exists. I've seen it year after year since I was a kid and I've heard many people mention it. I think it's notable and worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus, deleting the article is not the solution. Rather people should focus on improving it. The main problem seems to be references. Apparently no authorative online media has covered it yet or that it is at least hard to find. Does that mean it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia? No. I think the article should be cut down and be less instructive and references added where possible even though it might have to be some in passing references. Hopefully, in time people will find more references. Deleting the article seems to be totally unfounded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.189.200 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 March 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:31Z

Market Street Milk Shake

Market Street Milk Shake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. Article gives the impression that this term is an obscure neologism, and Google appears to support that. Croxley 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rory Emerald

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. However, Speaking of Animals, Unusual Occupations, and Popular Science Historic Film Series are copyright violations, so I am deleting them. Mangojuicetalk 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shields Pictures

Note to next admin: I'm a bit worried about potential copyright infringement. do we have evidence of this use with permission? However, at the least, one of the two duplicates needs changed to a redirect. Adam Cuerden talk 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

This AfD covers articles entered in an apparent PR spamming. They're all directly copied (with permission, it appears) from various pages at [8]. Shields Pictures itself doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The site lists only these three movies as its products, and it's hard to find anything relevant information about the company without tripping over pictures of Brooke Shields.[9]

I've already reverted the blatant advertising at the Jerry Fairbanks [10] article. Some other content was woven into the Popular Science article. Mikeblas 01:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their spammy, marketing content:

Shields Pictures, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shields Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Speaking of Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unusual Occupations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Popular Science Historic Film Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Mikeblas 01:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep with the condition of cleanup. These articles appear to be notable with and somewhat outside of the link of Fairbanks and Paramount. Some of it may appear to be advertising but it seems that these organizations are real and somewhat noteworthy. Willie Stark "Believe in Me!" 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they won Academy Awards! What more do you have to do to be notable in film? Some of the articles need to be trimmed and de-PR'ed, though. - Richardcavell 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The "films" are mostly shorts. I've been trying to verify that they've won anything, as there are no specific references in the article. (You'll note that the Sheilds Films articles, in particular, shotgun links with no specific target.) I can't figure out if individual shorts have won awards, or if the collection has. Either way, Shields Pictures didn't produce the films; they just bought the rights to them. -- Mikeblas 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Indeed, it turns out that only Who's Who in Animal Land and Speaking of Animals and their Families won anything. These are shorts of less than ten minutes, each; the articles are about the series. If we believe winning poularity contests is a sign of notability, then we probably should be left with only the "Popular Science Film Series" article and nothing else. In particular, since Shields Pictures was completely uninvolved in the production of the pieces and fails WP:CORP badly, it should go. -- Mikeblas 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into one which probably should be Shields Pictures.DGG 03:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge I'm with DGG on that but I know I wouldn't want to do it. If I did it, I'd cut the info back to the most basic and important handful of facts. Currently, they're a morass of spammish details intended to be promotional, IMO. PigmanTalk to me 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry for starting on such a bad foot. I rewrote most of the text so that it is neutral in tone and unique to Wikipedia (an administrator helped clarify Wikipedia's copyright concerns to me, fully understandable). I have also done the same on "Popular Science Historic Film Series," "Unusual Occupations" and "Shields Picture, Inc." (some work on the "Jerry Fairbanks" article as well). I also did my best to cleanup the inventory lists and random links (as requested) on all three film series, and added many facts and dates. I have also I have done my best to de-PR them as well, and am now getting some help from the Wikipedia adoption program. Please let me know what else I can do to make these strong Wikipedia Articles. Once I get the OK, I'd like to add some photos (a 1943 picture of Bob Hope presenting Jerry Fairbanks with one of his Academy Awards, a photo of the Coat of Arms/Shield MGM prop from the 1952 film "The Bad and the Beautiful" that is referenced in the Shields Pictures, Inc. article, and a photo or two from each of the film libraries. Should I get approval of these pictures before I add them? Thanks for the help, CCBear 23:39, 4 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallenburg Set

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

Not notable by any standard of which I'm aware, except for the assertion of use in an unspecified video (which kept me from a speedy nomination). No sources provided. RJASE1 Talk 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep as original nomination was on based on a reverted revision of the article, and upon WP:SNOW as not even the nominator has argued to delete. —Doug Bell talk 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy dog story

Shaggy dog story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Laundry list of examples of joke. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Google search proves type of joke exists but does not return any results conferring enough notability to warrant its own page. Merge to Joke under type of jokes. —Ocatecir Talk 02:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:30Z

D.P. Ward, contemporary painter

D.P. Ward, contemporary painter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No relevant Google hits to person's name other than this one, which appears to be a site that anyone who paints can be listed on. I suspect that it is a vanity/spam article. Bumm13 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was a mess resulting in no consensus. Individual nominations might be better, potential merges or redirecting is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command

List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command was nominated for deletion but received no attention other than a suggestion to merge into this article. As I don't see how either list is encyclopaedic I'm relisting and expanding the nomination to include this list as well. Delete. Verification with reference to reliable sources is non-negotiable regardless of opinion here. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

to which the above seems to apply equally. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination for List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command

Non-notable stub as it is now, replicates only some of the information available at List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command Buckshot06 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Continued nomination below

Please let me add some context to this set of pages. Some should not be deleted, as they are subpages of Strategic Air Command wings, which user:R. E. Mixer spent a great deal of time and effort on (he formerly served with SAC and has written books on the subject) while others are mistaken repeat pages and can be safely culled. List of USAF Bomb Wings (P) Provisional assigneed to Strategic Air Command, List of USAF Strategic Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command, and List of USAF Air Refueling Wings (P) Provisional assigned to Strategic Air Command can all be safely deleted, as they replicate single portions of List of USAF Provisional Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command, which is notable itself. List of USAF Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command and List of USAF Strategic Aerospace and Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command can also both be deleted, because they deal with a single year`s history where the 321st Strategic Missile Wing was redesignated the 321st Missile Wing in 1990-91, but the main page for intercontinental missile (ICBM) wings, the List of USAF Strategic Missile Wings assigned to Strategic Air Command should not be deleted as it deals with all these organisations` history for nearly fifty years.

Buckshot06 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the verification for these articles, even before we consider any of that? --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Mixer served inside this organisation, and wrote three books on it - see the bibliography on Strategic Air Command of about six months ago under M. On the web it is not complete, but do a google search for USAF lineage and you will get official sites replicating most of this. I am remote from my primary/secondary sources, but Air Force magazine, the magazine of the Air Force Association, does a yearly issue with the entire wiring diagram for the USAF. I've seen numerous 1990s (and earlier copies), mainly in New Zealand, but it will be able to be accessed elsewhere. Finally if you want a web general background look at the USAF organisation page at globalsecurity.org and at the Federation of American Scientists, FAS. Buckshot06 16:12, 10 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, Coredesat 03:06, 9 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, Coredesat 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • questions Following Buckshot06's comments: Does this have to be a (big, confusing) AfD? Could not someone BE BOLD and aggregate the information in a minimal number of pages and turn the others into redirects? If that works to the satisfaction of Buckshot06 & R. E. Mixer, then is there a problem? Cannot R. E. Mixer's books serve as reliable sources? Pete.Hurd 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy close as malformed, confusing AFD. Obviously, with three listings having now occured and few/any comments (which, I assume, is due to it's complexity), this needs to be represented in an understandable form. /Blaxthos 09:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am proceeding in line with user Pete Hurd's suggestions. Buckshot06 17:21, 15 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. Majorly (o rly?) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Beginnings to Go: In My Stroller

Sesame Beginnings to Go: In My Stroller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Other than being yet another Sesame Street-themed product, the book in no way asserts encyclopedic notability; it is merely another picture book designed for very young children. Bumm13 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, along with all other pages in the category Sesame Beginnings books, then delete the empty category. timrem 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upstate New York's Statehood Movement

Upstate New York's Statehood Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. As mentioned on the talk page, there's little to no evidence that this is anything other than idle chatter. VT hawkeyetalk to me 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Define an encylopedia article. There are lots of articles like this on Wikipedia. This article has to to with an active movement, so therefore it should be kept.

Mrld 21:20, 3 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:28Z

Hassan Mead

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

Not notable, likely an autobiographical article. Cacophony 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, high school athletes aren't generally notable yet timrem 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Denni. BryanG(talk) 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmela Anthony

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

This article is about an non-existent person it was made as a joke using Carmelo Anthony's information and changing some instances of him being male to female, the photo in the userbox is Beyonce who doesn't even play basketball -Dark Dragon Flame 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obvious nonsense. I've already added that template. timrem 04:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:28Z

Dragon Ball Z Controller with 3-in-1 TV Games

Dragon Ball Z Controller with 3-in-1 TV Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only Google hits (all 15 of them) are commercial links to purchase the product; closest thing to a reference are reviews at Amazon.com; item likely cannot be researched using traditional sources (books, periodicals, etc.) Bumm13 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect all to Kill Switch...Klick. Mangojuicetalk 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D.A. Sebasstian

D.A. Sebasstian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I previously speedily deleted this as A7, but it now asserts notability. These are articles about a musician, his band, and his record label. However, none appear to be notable per WP:MUSIC. Searching for all of these bring up forum posts and download pages, but nothing that would satisfy the notability guideline.

Also nominating:

--Coredesat 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion? I have posted updates to a page a previous author had posted on Wikipedia years ago for one of my recording projects Kill Switch...Klick. Now it is being considered for deletion. This is odd.

I added two complimentary pages about my discography outside of Kill Switch...Klick and my Label and Film Company. These are also being considered for deletion. I was not using these as Vanity Pages. My own websites get thousands of visitors a day. I doubt anyone could get "more famous" from a listing on Wikipedia, I just want the facts about myself to be accurate. If people post about me on WIki I would apprectiate that. DIY. D.A.

  • Weak keep at least Kill Switch...Klick as the reputable Allmusic profile describes them, "Originally the solo project of composer/singer d.A. Sebasstian, Seattle's Kill Switch Klick became one of the Northwest's leading industrial crossover bands."[12] (Allmusic also confirms some of the production credits.[13]) It might be best to merge all this into a single Sebasstian bio if we can get stronger notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Print citculation is 300,000 in the Chicago and Mid West. The article also explains my progression from musician to film maker. I also have the MTV pay stubs (through ASCAP) for material on the Made Show if need be, as well as an archive of Kill Switch...Klick press including cover mention on Outburn Magazine, full pages in A.P., The Stranger, The Rocket, Seattle Times, etc. Most of this was pre-internet. The reason to keep the pages separate, is- they are separate entities. I constructed the D.A. Sebasstian page, as Discography, Writting Credits for national magazines and Film Creds. These are a separate things from Kill Switch...Klick and people who want to know who the band is/was may or may not be interested in the Surf & Twang music I'm making now nor the articles I write for Ol' Skool Magazine or CK Deluxe. I have also progressed into a film maker. The film Hot Rod girls Save The World is getting a huge underground buzz and is due out in mid 2007. It seems jumbled to have all this under one heading. D.A. Sebasstian --Sebasstian 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sebasstian you may want to take a look at WP:COI. Also instead of blanketing this page with your achievements, you might want to add some references to the actual article. Please see WP:RS for what is and is not a reliable source. As it stands now the article does not assert notability per WP:N or WP:BIO. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which article are you talking about? Just the D.A. Sebasstian page? WP:COI can not not apply (especially self promotion) to the Kill Switch...Klick page as I only added the D.A. Sebasstian and Go-Kustom pages. I did not start the Kill Switch...Klick page. I do not know who did. All I have done to the KsK page is correct mis-information and since it is about me I am the verification. Also the D.A. Sebasstian page is only a list. What needs to be verified?

--Sebasstian 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not referring to the articles themselves but to the AfD debate. AfDs are specifically mentioned under COI. Verifaction cannot come from the subject that is why I would like to see some external sources that deal with these topics. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last article for D.A. Sebasstian (explained above)-

http://www.maximumink.com/articles.php?articleId=714

Press archives (all from hard copy that can be provided- not all available) http://www.go-kustom.com/kskpress01.html

In print for Go-Kustom with current iTunes links. http://www.go-kustom.com/catalog.html

D.A. Sebasstian movie links http://www.go-kustom.com/hotrodgirlssavetheworld.html

What else do you need?

  • What I see here are three links to your own web page. The only source that comes close to being acceptable is the first one from maximumink, but it in and of itself does not assert notability because it doesn't really contain enough info to create three articles let alone one. In order for a subject to meet WP:N there must be sufficient external sources to write an article on the subject. You may well be on the rise and soon there may be sufficient info to justify the article but for now it doesn't appear to be the case. Finally it may not be Wikipedia policy but personally I feel that if the only person arguing to keep an article is the subject than they probably are not notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links to my web pages are archives of previously non-web material (print magazines). I offered to mail you hard copies. I save this stuff for my kids. Did you look at the links? This is riduculous. --Sebasstian 04:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW how long has the Kill Switch...Klick article been up? Who originally created it? I had never heard of Wikipedia until a year or so ago- I was Googling Kill Switch...Klick to quell rumors that we broke up- and Wiki came up. I checked the page and there was quite a few bit of mis-information. I found that I could correct the info. Later I heard a piece on NPR about the Wiki experiments in Encylopedic information and it made sense. Why wasn't the Kill Switch...Klick article put up for deletion a year ago? Why didn't anyone delete it a year ago? It's virtually the same, except for a few corrections. --Sebasstian 04:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finally I submit these Wiki pages as comparison to what I did with the Kill Switch...Klick & D.A. Sebasstian articles- Spahn Ranch (band), Matt Green, Athan Maroulis. Same level of band notariety. Same levels of individual notoriety. Those pages stand. I've spent way too much time on this. I've got to finish editing my film.

--Sebasstian 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this link and look at the numbers. http://uncutvideo.aol.com/users/dasebasstian/0a5ef121dcedf7bbe330dbc3c043c0e9?index=2 --Sebasstian 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contributing to the debate on AfD is new to me, so please try to coach if possible. Dark Gravity
  • I may be missing something here on why someone is trying to delete this article, but KSK's music reached me on the opposite side of the country about twelve years ago, and it remains important enough of an influnece that I not only replaced what recordings I owned after they were stolen, but I accquired more! How can you argue for the deletion of such a noteworthy industrial act?

Dark Gravity 08:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an excerpt of a letter back to a concerned individual I just received about the deleting of the Kill Switch...Klick article on Wikipedia-

“Thanks bro. I try. I tried arguing with Wiki about it. Doesn't look good. They said because I amended the page (for some info corrections) that it's a conflict of interest or "COI." I had added a D.A. Sebasstian page (as a CD and writers list- I also write for CK Deluxe and Ol Skool Rodz Magazines once in awhile) and one for my label (Go-Kustom Rekords) with the intent of taking that info off of the KsK pages, keeping the KsK page purely about the band, and not me or the label. Makes sense to me, but not to Wiki. They say that all the pages should be condensed or deleted. If they condense the three pages- my understanding is they will nix the Kill Switch...Klick page and put it all under my name. I don't want this as KsK has/had other members and has a life of it's own- plus there are many links back to that page from other "industrial and electronic" Wiki pages. I tried forwarding links from my web site, where I had archived the print media (as proof that all three entities - KsK, D.A. Sebasstian & Go-Kustom Rekords had separate magazine and newspaper articles, but they said that was not acceptable because I had collected them on my site (another COI). These articles were in magazines that do not put their content on the web. I also offered to send hard copies for review. They would not address that...“ --Sebasstian 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, heres the deal. Editing minor details on your bio page is not too big a deal. The COI lies somewhat in the comments on this deletion discussion, but the real problem is your creation of pages related to your other projects, like Go Kustom Films, and Ol Skool Rodz. I definitely see that KsK is a notable act. However I have yet to see how we can source a biographical article about you. It is not a problem to source it from printed material, magazines and books can be cited just like webpages, however I caution against writing an autobiography on Wikipedia, some one will come along and do it eventually if you are notable enough. I know that you did not start the article on yourself but you have argued to protect it from deletion. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to merge any relevant info from the D.A Sebasstian article into the KsK article as sourcing the D.A article may be difficult. If I could make a friendly suggestion, I would stick to editing and creating articles about subjects you are interested in but not directly related to. Your Kustom Kulture page is a great start. In any case don't take any of this personally. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel- Honestly I am not taking it personally. Ive been in the media business since the 1980's so I have a thick skin. I've made my money and made my mark and been lucky enough to have complete artistic freedom. My whole argument is to make an information flow relevent to the Article's subject title. Something that Wiki sometiems lacks (but obviously strives for). I saw the Kill Switch...Klick Article becoming an "achivements of D.A. Sebasstian Article." I didn't think that was fair to Mike Ditmore and Jeremy Moss and others who have worked in KsK. After the other two pages were established (Go-Kustom Rekords and D.A. Sebasstian) I had planned on editing out the Go-Kustom Rekords info and D.A. Sebasstian info and keep it about the band. To me it was a design issue. The links I had provided on my site were for the D.A. Sebasstian citations in Seattle Magazine, Fangoria Magazine, Hemmings Motor News, etc. National press. If as an editing decision- you guys decided to condense, I would rather you just delete the D.A. Sebasstian Article and Go-Kustom Rekords. There is already too much info about me in the KsK Article. It has become convoluted. Also I would not delete the Ol' Skool Rodz or CK Deluxe pages. You can go down to any (and I mean any) store and buy those magazines. They are a Godsend to Kustom Kulture and a true resource. The fact that I have written an article or two in the magazines does not make it a COI. I gain nothing by their inclusion on WIki. --Sebasstian 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool I think we are in agreement. I think it would be best to actually redirect D.A Sebasstian and Go Kustom records to KsK that way if some one searches for you they end up finding something. The magazines are fine to keep too. I think I will probably nominate Go Kustom Films for deletion and see what the community says though. Good working with you. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that it should remain as is. All the info is current and for the most part acurate. I don't feel there is a conflict of interest at all. You have a person who has projects that have bled into each other. Hope you can work it out.

Actually the conflict of interest is very clear. D.A created an article about himself, it is very hard to write objectively about oneself and even if some is able to people who read the article and see who created it will suspect an attempt at self promotion. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To chime in- Daniel the D.A. Sebasstian page is only a list. So no real writing was involved as a COI. One of the ways to avert a COI is by Disclosure- and I have been very forth wright. Personally I would say 90 percent (unverified number) of ALL musicians Articles On Wiki are created by The Band, Artists, Record Label or Publiscists on Wiki. I'm sure fans add to the pages or add articles on older obscure bands all the time, but the level of information on most is beyond what the average fan could ever know. I have read dozens of Band Articles that look exactly like press releases. BTW If you delete the pages and do a redirect (as you stated above- and yes I could live with that) and then a fan or interested party tries putting the D.A. page back up again, will it stand or be deleted? I am an extremely honest person (verifiable) and would not try this under an anonymous log in. However word is getting out about this and quite a few people are very pissed (very verifiable). Also if anyone makes a comment please sign you name. --Sebasstian 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other things is- is it possible to ammend the COI guidelines? Who would I talk to about this?--Sebasstian 23:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I don't see any pissed off people, why should they be upset? If they want to help out and improve these pages they are welcome to. I would also have to disagree with you, I would say that only a small portion of musician articles are created with direct COI. Fans or just editors create most of them (as is the case with KsK). This can be verified by looking at the page history. Most of the music articles that have COI problems are about bands with limited or in some cases no exposure. It is true that there are some articles that read like press releases, but this is a problem not a reason to let this section of pages have COI. If you want to change COI policy you can discuss at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm hearing it from friends and associates who think the who COI policy is silly. I don't want to post their e-mails without permission, and yes they are upset. I also know several bands with Wiki pages that (after talking to them about this) told me they put their own Articles up. I do not want to name names as you'll pull their pages. In my own instance it may have been Cleopatra Records (or one of their street team members) who originally put up the KsK artcile- I really don't know. I hope your not ignorant to what label's street teams do? They get free promo (CD's, stickers, concert tickets) from the label to saturate the web with press releases and info. They look for every opportiunity possible. If they list on Wiki that is a definite COI (under your current guidlines) as they are paid by the label. That is a very very common practice with almost ALL mid-sized indie and up labels. Many labels also pay publicists to do the exact same thing. I remember getting a publicists e-mail with a list of all the websites he posts to...it is incredible. All for $200! I'm sure Wiki is on alot of lists. My understanding of a COI is if the person or company benefits from the process. On Public Access TV we had a COI policy that forbade us from putting up commercials for local companies. It was a very fine line. If for example you did a feature on a local company and you posted their website at the end of the interview, and people could buy things on the website, are you using Public Access in a commercial way. The SCAN solution was that the purchased products had to be at least two klicks away from the websites entry point. Now understand that Seattle Public Access has a huge viewer base, second only to NYC with 500,000 regular & consistant viewers a month (statistic provided by SCAN). My TV Show featured many car builders, pin-ups and bands, some of which were on my label. THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED A COI. The bands probably benefited from the exposure, as did the label (in small ways). We also played music videos provided to us from Mute Records, Metal Blade Records, Beggars Banquet, etc. Given the viewer base and amount of e-mails we received we esimated 10-20 thousand watched our show each week. Were these music videos really TV Commercials? Yes and no. In the same way if a label posts on Wiki about a band they signed, is it a COI? I would say over all no- not unless there was an MP3 player embeded in the Wiki Article with a "Buy This Here" button next to it. I really think if an artist, poet, band, writer, film maker, politician, activist, scientist with a decent body of work or achievments wants to post an Autobigraphical Article on Wiki- as long as it doesn't contain things like "the best band ever" (unless from review etc.) it should stand. The horses mouth is the best source.

--Sebasstian 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on the COI issue. This isn't the forum to argue about it anyway. In regards to the AfD, I hope that we have come to a compromise: redirect D.A. Sebasstian and Go-Kustom Rekords to the Kill Switch...Klick page some of the content could be merged as well. I think this should work well as KsK is clearly pretty notable, but I am unsure if we could source a biographical article or one about Go-Kustom records. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said I can live with a redirect. The listing is not such a big deal (as long as it's accurate). What's bothering me (and others) is Wiki policy as far as COI. I am an arts advocate and want to make sure that Wiki policy is effective to listing the arts. Do what you will with my pages, but I will not be satisfied until a change in policy occurs. It's a matter of principle. I hope you understand- who are the senior policy makers on Wiki? Is it strictly consensus?

--Sebasstian 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is a guideline and is based entirely on user consensus. If you want to change it I suggest bringing it up on the talk page for that article. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If your looking for notoriety for Go-Kustom, try typing the word "Kustom" in Google. I think it comes up in the top 10-13. Given all the kustom kulture and car websites with the word "kustom" in them, that is mind boggling (or googling). --Sebasstian 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we come up 10 on Google out of over 2,000,000 entries! Is that note worthy or not worthy? --Sebasstian 01:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google result don't mean too much. All that is needed to meet WP:N is sources from which to write the article. We have articles on pretty obscure stuff that might be tough to even find on google, but they have had books or articles written about them. Go-Kustom might be notable, but right now no sources are listed in the article. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kill Switch...Klick; redirect the others with some merge of contents per Daniel. I think it's a pretty good solution given the concerns regarding notability and COI. As a side comment, Wikipedia is far from static, so if there are new developments (like the movie) or third party editors with sources, the Sebasstian article can be recreated.--Kubigula (talk) 17:21, 5 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. – Steel 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletrius

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

Doesn't meet WP:WEB Samw 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/AfD. John Reaves (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Coral Springs High School. —dgiestc 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marching Colts

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

contested PROD for high school marching band. merge & redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permian High School Band Cornell Rockey 04:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per the nominator, but kudos for the good article Computerjoe's talk 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article on the high school after condensing. If there were multiple reliable sources independent of the subject which had this band as a primary subject, then I could favor keeping the article, but the sources are lacking with respect to WP:RS and WP:N. Also the article goes into way too much detail. We do not need to know what songs were in their 1998 marching show, for instance. The article is several times longer than seems appropriate. Inkpaduta 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced The article appears to have no independent published references at all. It should have multiple (more than one) reliable independent published articles about the band to be kept as a seperate article. Delete for now, and consider recreating if and when proper sources can be found. To maintain the writing, one of the authors might want to consider copying the article to their user space for now (so the article isn't entirely lost). Dugwiki 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Special education. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:27Z

Sped

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

As per the first AfD back in 2005, this is an unsourced dicdef, which violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As such, and just like the result of the original AfD, I'd recommend deleting the content and placing a {{wi}} tag to link to wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Since that debate was forever ago, it seems like it's appropriate to revisit. Perhaps someone is aware of some verifiable use that would expand the article beyond a mere definition? -- Scientizzle 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Grandmasterka[15]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus aquanaut

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

Does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. worthawholebean talkcontribs 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:27Z

Pokemon online

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

A game that exists only in beta form. No assertion of notability. No external sites link to the project page. [16]. It's not even clear if copyright for the Pokemon franchise has been obtained. Prod, contested by author, without explanation. eaolson 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and putting my money on Pokemons? Huh? by 2020 AlfPhotoman 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending future possible references I think I can sum this up as "The Pokemon franchise as a whole is extremely notable, but this game currently isn't". The article has extremely limited references (I'm not even sure either of the provided references is independent of the game itself) and looks to be mainly speculation and promotion for a game at a fairly early stage of development. Delete the article for now, and recreate if and when some reliable, independent published articles about the game are cited. (P.S. I'll take Al-Bargit's bet, though, that the Pokemon franchise won't be remembered by 2020. Heck, Mario's been around for over 25 years and they're still making major products with his likeness.) Dugwiki 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, keep Pokemon but not this. AntiVan 07:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The website is in my favourites, but I see nothing in WP:WEB saying that a website is notable if it is in Cream147's favourites. This game could very well become notable in the future, and I fully encourage the recreation of this article if it does, but at the moment, the game's in Beta, and that article is a blatent ad. I'd be tempted to put {{Db-spam}} on it to be honest. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while i have high hopes for this game, it certainly isn't notable, and the fact that the main contributor has admitted to the fact that they are an admin for the site causes this to fail not only WP:N, but also WP:COI. I think a nice note needs to be left on Dhavok89 (talk · contribs)'s talk page saying that when they go full-release, and someone else decides that the game has made a notable impact on the gaming world, then Pokémon online (typo intentional) will be safe - it already has notability as the first Pokemon MMORPG but even NetBattle is currently more well-known than this game. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 06:05, 2 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, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 02:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westerbury

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

Meets none of the WP:CORP requirements. worthawholebean talkcontribs 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the closest thing to a notability claim is "The company also plans to step outside the conventional way of business involving clothing into a more creative aspect and has tossed around ideas of doing short films and photography" which falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL anyway. --Dweller 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:25Z

Dirty Projectors

Dirty Projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Dirty Projectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
David Longstreth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:Dirty Projectors-Longstreth.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Should be deleted per WP:MUSIC, non-notable band Joebengo 05:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, why are you bothering to show that you are abstaining from discussion?--155.144.251.120 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Irishguy[17]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew allan taylor

Matthew allan taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not Notable / Vanity BankingBum 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBusiness

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

Does not assert notability, possible G11 (Advertisement)? Also does not have any citations. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also WP:COI as writen almost exclusively by DBusiness user.. --Selket Talk 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in the process of adding citations as we speak. I am in control of exclusive content from this publication that is relevant to many existing Wikipedia pages, and could prove valuable in adding quality content to the site. The so-called 'link farms' was a list of a half dozen other magazine publications owned by the same company, and was placed under the external link category as to not confuse site visitors of its relevance. Before considering this for deletion, consider the 'Forbes' Wiki for deletion, as it's overview section is literally overflowing with outbound links directly to the various Forbes websites.--Dbusiness' Talk 22:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of jargon that gets thrown around in these deletion discussions. I'm sorry if it can seem confusing Link farms are a problem in any article but an article will not be deleted because it contains a link farm. It will be deleted if the subject of the article does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:NN) or if it is autobiographical (WP:AB), which includes articles on a corporation written by or for the corporation or its representatives, or if the author's of the article have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). G11 referes to criteria for speedy deletion, general criterion 11, "Blatant advertising," and includes, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." Forbes lists are well established and recognized by readers of in English language countries around the world. To keep this page from being deleted for notability, you should add to the page references (see WP:RS) to demonstrate that this publication is sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia. --Selket Talk 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 05:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Steel 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Jimmy Urine

Little Jimmy Urine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First of all, I would like to mention that this article has been pointed out to me by Kneale. Before you post your recommendations in this discussion, please send some kind words to him, who seems to have left Wikipedia without warning.

I am copying some of my own comments to above user here:

Jimmy Urine is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. He violates WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.

After a brief google search on "Little Jimmy Urine", you can see that the web pages already violate WP:RS, since some of those pages are interviews and reviews, sources that are biased in favor of Little Jimmy Urine, thus violating WP:NPOV. Also, a quote from WP:MUSIC states:

  • "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble."

Clearly, the Little Jimmy Urine article cannot be supported by such web sites, since the interviews involve Jimmy Urine talking about himself, giving us biased information for the article in question.

The guideline on notability requires that:

  • "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."

I did a broader google search on "Jimmy Urine". Do you see how only 3 web pages on "Jimmy Urine" appear? Afterwards, a search on "Mindless Self Indulgence" continues. This tells me that Jimmy Urine is only notable because of his role in Mindless Self Indulgence. If he has any notability outside of MSI, then that might warrant an article. In addition, I did a search on my school's Proquest Platinum database, and there was only 1 periodical that mentioned Jimmy Urine's name, and in passing. That's the trouble with this Wikipedia article. Sources on this guy only mention him in passing. The main subject is MSI.

Look at this version (current during the time I post this message), and you will see that the article is not backed up by sources. It could potentially be filled with WP:OR. The article does not WP:CITE any reliabe sources (RS) (or any sources for that matter).

The article also violates WP:LIVING and WP:V.

the article should be merged with the mindless self indulgence article

Therefore, I request that this article be deleted. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - easily meets the requirements set by WP:MUSIC: Mindless Self Indulgence has performed in numerous national and international tours, released four albums on a major record label, been featured in rotation both on radio and television, etc. Jimmy Urine, in particular, is the driving force of the ensemble, responsible for writing and arranging almost all of their music. He is also responsible for releasing a record under the monicker of The Left Rights. This gets right to the issue of sourcing concerns, which are constrictive and flawed. There are numerous non-trivial publications that concern Mindless Self Indulgence, but more importantly their cultural impact[18] and unique musical arrangement[19] - both of these aspects are spearheaded by and directly attributed to Jimmy Urine. Further, as the nominator noted, there are numerous interviews with the performer. However, unlike the nominator implied, these interviews include both primary source information and secondary source analysis.[20] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequately referenced. If satisfactory references can be found by the end of this debate I'll change my opinion, but frankly I doubt these will be available. Wouldn't mind seeing his stage show - I've always had a soft spot for mindless self-indulgence ! WMMartin 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anetode's good research. Mangojuicetalk 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell talk 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)

Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Discussion on whether to delete

Proceedual nomination for deletion as begun by an IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by this entry. If I understand right, an anonymous editor has nominated this article for deletion, but has indicated no grounds for the proposal. It is hard to see why an article on a topic harped upon on several Web sites should be excluded from Wikipedia. Lima 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:V, some rumor on a few websites isn't encyclopedic. -- Kendrick7talk 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At last a reason is proposed. However, the websites present the oath not as a rumour, but as a fact. Just look up the sites mentioned in the article. It is also published, as fact, in at least one fairly widely read book. One of the websites is that of the somewhat important Society of St. Pius X. Another, to which Wikipedia does not allow links (but whose name includes "fisheaters"), no longer gives the oath as an undoubted fact, but it still says: "You should be familiar with the above form of the oath because it is often seen in traditionalist circles." "Often seen in traditionalist circles" - surely a very good reason why Wikipedia should speak of it. Lima 09:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there does seem to have been a Papal oath at some point in time of little notability; but this article seems largely devoted to a Traditionalist Catholic conspiracy theory, no? Possibly this article could be renamed to reflect this, but I don't think articles should generally start out X does not exist, but.... -- Kendrick7talk 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earliest reference I can find to the text of the oath given comes from Dowling, John (1845). The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the Present Time (fourth ed.). E. Walker. p. 140. Put forths an extremely anti-Catholic POV, and should be dismissed as entirely dubious; for example Book VIII, chapter 1 opens with According to the Scriptural marks of the predicted Romish Apostasy, the Babylonish Harlot of the Apocalypse, is the following and starts going on about how the Pope is the anti-Christ.[21] -- Kendrick7talk 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does not start out with "The Papal Oath does not exist." It starts by saying the Papal Oath is an oath (in fact a concrete existing oath, whose concrete existing text is quoted) that some (many, to judge by the number of times the text is quoted) Traditionalist Catholics firmly believe was until recently taken by all Popes at their coronation.
    The article thus treats of an existing text and an existing belief. There are articles on other people's beliefs, e.g. Apostolic Succession, Papal Infallibility, "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" etc.
    Kendrick's idea of moving the article to another title might be a good one. But what title? "Traditionalist Catholics' Belief in a Papal Coronation Oath Used from Agatho to Paul VI"? On the whole I prefer the present title.
    Interesting the reference to the 1845 book. Does that book speak of the Liber Diurnus profession of faith published in 1680, or of the quite different text that today's traditionalist Catholics believe in and that the Wikipedia article is about? (In view of the ignorance of Latin displayed by the author of the oath the article is about, how could it have been written by any educated person of 1845?) Does that book say that the text it speaks of, whether or not it was the oath the Wikipedia article deals with, was used in nineteenth-century papal coronations? Unfortunately, Kendrick only gives a link to and quotes from a text (by the same author) that makes no mention whatever of any oath by any Pope. Lima 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Papal Oath (Traditional Catholicism) would be OK, or perhaps some shorter version could just be merged into Traditional Catholicism. I'm still concerned this falls under WP:HOAX. You can find the passage cited above on google books. In Dowling's version, it is the Pope who forces all his bishops, in his specific example Saint Boniface, to take the oath over the grave of Saint Peter. It isn't perfectly aligned with the text at Papal_oath#The_text_of_the_alleged_oath, but it's strikingly similiar. Go have a look if you are able. -- Kendrick7talk 22:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article concerns a real Papal Oath apparently used until the 11th century. The story/legend that this oath was used until recently seems notable by its presence on numerous sites, and discussing an urban legend as urban legend is fine with WP:HOAX. However, as currently written this part of the article has the appearances of original research, even if it is accurate. It lists a number of sources which treat the story/legend as fact, then criticizes them, but gives no sources repeating these criticisms, or even sources which state that it is an urban legend. Compare The Franklin Prophecy which lists sources directly arguing against authenticity. It would be nice if at least one source could be cited which actually states these other sources are repeating a legend. (Disclosure: I seem to have edited this article once.) Gimmetrow 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, split and disambig OK, I'm crossing out my original vote. If there was a real WP:V oath, that's what the article should be about. Or we can split and disambig between the historical and the quasi-historical theories of the Traditionalists. -- Kendrick7talk 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying a quote from the link. The latin text in the article seems to be the "solemn oath at their accession" mentioned here, given its specific mention of the sixth ecumenical council. However, there may not be a whole lot more to say about it other than the modern story/legend. Gimmetrow 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      An œcumenical Council, universally acknowledged in the East and in the West, held in Constantinople, 680, condemned and excommunicated Honorius, 'the former Pope of Old Rome,' as a heretic, who with the help of the old serpent had scattered deadly error.... The succeeding Popes down to the eleventh century, in a solemn oath at their accession, endorsed the sixth œcumenical Council, and pronounced 'an eternal anathema' on the authors of the Monothelite heresy, together with Pope Honorius, because he had given aid and comfort to the perverse doctrines of the heretics. The Popes themselves, therefore, for more than three centuries, publicly recognized, first, that an œcumenical Council may condemn a Pope for open heresy, and, secondly, that Pope Honorius was justly condemned for heresy. (From Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1877)
    • Looking further at the Dowling passage, it seems to be talking about an oath of allegiance made to a Pope by someone else (there, Pope Gregory II and Saint Boniface). This article is supposedly about an oath the Pope makes at his own accession - attributed to Pope Agatho and the sixth ecumenical council. Gimmetrow 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even after reading all the above, I do not see why Papal Oath - or "Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholics)" or "Papal Coronation Oath (Traditionalist Catholics)" - should be treated any differently from Sirianism or Međugorje or ...
As for "original research", surely ungainsayable statements are permissible. Do we need to quote a source for a statement like "two is more than one"? By the way, I have noticed that a recent (9 February 2007) contributor to a blog has written: "In response to Traditio in Radice's call for additional information on the papal coronation oath, we have done a little here in Rome. From an initial survey of the 'Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum' as it appears in Migne's Patrologia Latina, it would appear that the information given at Wikipedia, concerning it is more or less correct. I will try to see if I can find some of the more accurate versions of the document; otherwise I will simply send the text as it is found in PL." Would that count as a source, were one needed? But this source will, I suppose, soon disappear from the Internet.
Something is "original research" if the argument is published first on WP. Can any source be cited that is aware of the story/legend of the traditionalists and says it is a legend? Gimmetrow 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the Papal Oath - not the profession of faith that at least one Pope sent to the representative at Ravenna of the Constantinopolitan emperor to ask for recognition of his election as Pope (and for how long did Ravenna and Rome remain under the emperor's power? certainly not "until the 11th century") - is that it was in part a "translation" from the Liber Diurnus text by someone with a very limited knowledge of Latin with just a few wishful-thinking additions.
There is no evidence that even the Liber Diurnus text (much less the "Papal Oath") was ever used as part of a papal coronation ceremony. Lima 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)" per above, and focus on the Trad. Cath. theory about the Papal Oath. There appears to be very little outside of the Trad. Cath. POV to substantiate this. That said, it needs to be re-written with a little less disdain towards those who hold to the theory. -- Pastordavid 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason to rename this with some arbitrary parenthetic disambiguation. The Liber Diurnus text is real. The article should be about that, and about the notable stories/legends of its use. Gimmetrow 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with a rewrite to cut down on the (apparently original) arguments. The source quoted section goes into much too bizarre detail about a typo. Only one of the 6 sites listed has "1005". By the way, the IQnaut site is a mirror of an old version of this wiki page. (This article has reversed since it was created.) Most of the arguments in the "Authenticity of the text" (regarding "Thy", successors of Christ, revealed, "Vicar of Peter", etc.) section should probably have some citations. (I'm not saying the arguments are inaccurate.) Likewise the "Alleged use in coronation ceremonies" section. Obviously, making the case for a negative is difficult, but some of this stuff needs citations. Gimmetrow 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no more about the Liber Diurnus, which has its own article: Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, than Sirianism is about Cardinal Giuseppe Siri.
Since there seems to be a consensus to keep the article, it is time to revise it. I have made an attempt. Lima 08:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (the above discussion is interesting, but does not provide enough to determine consensus.) —Doug Bell talk 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of discussion

  • Comment I've gone ahead and made the disambig, though I'm not a Latin or Church scholar, and I'm somewhat unclear how Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum relates to all this. -- Kendrick7talk 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, why do we need a disambiguation again? This article isn't about the Liber Diurnus, but about one text in it. I see the article structured like:
    • Intro: There is this old text which some sources say may have been used as an oath before the 11th century.
    • Text: Give latin text from Liber Diurnus / Migne. (or links to wikisource if appropriate)
    • Popular story: There is this story/legend that this text was used until recently.
      • The English "translation" and original source, footnoting some organizations that repeat this text
      • The criticisms of this story/legend
    I really don't see the point disambiguating this. Gimmetrow 06:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gimmetrow. "Papal Oath" does not "refer to" the Liber Diurnus. There is no need for a page to say that "a papal oath" can mean an oath taken by a Pope. Popes must have taken many different oaths in the course of the centuries. None of those oaths, not even the profession of faith that one or two Popes seem to have taken when Constantinopolitan emperors ruled Rome, can be referred to as the Papal Oath. I have reverted the disambiguation change. I have not reverted the move from "Papal Oath" to "Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)" - by the way, shouldn't it be "... (Traditionalist Catholics)"? But shouldn't we first settle the question "Delete or not delete" before taking any action whatever? Is anyone at all now in favour of deleting? Lima 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Popes must have taken many different oaths in the course of the centuries" Cite??? As Jesus said oaths were from the devil, this is kind of important, don't you think? -- Kendrick7talk 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google "pope swore" and you'll find a number of cases. So, again, why single out as "the" Papal Oath a text in an obscure source about one particular oath that formed part of a communication from one newly elected Pope, or at most a very few newly elected Popes, to the Imperial Exarch at Ravenna? According to Exarchate of Ravenna, the last such Exarch was killed in 751, long before the eleventh century!
There is no oath whatever that can be called the Papal Oath apart from the one in the urban legend spread by traditionalist Catholics in writing (paper and Internet) and by word of mouth. The text of this "Papal Oath" is obviously loosely based on the text in the letter to the Imperial Exarch, both because of the similarity of some of its expressions and because the letter that the (one?) Pope sent to the Exarch mentions his predecessor Agatho, and this mention has been completely distorted to mean that it was Agatho who took the oath!
[The Liber Diurnus text mentions "Constantino piae memoriae", which shows that the Pope who wrote to the Exarch, giving him the text of his profession of faith, was elected after the death of Emperor Constantine IV in September 685; so the Pope in question was probably Conon (686-687) or Sergius I (687-701). (This comment is not mine: it is in one of the notes in the Patrologia Latina volume.) At latest, the Pope who wrote can only have been John VI (701-705), John VII (705-707), Sissinius (January-February 708), Constantine (708-715), Gregory II (715-731), Gregory III (731-741) or Zachary (741-752).] Lima 11:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that Kendrick has restored his disambiguation page on the grounds that "Papal Oath shouldn't redirect to a myth." What else is there to direct to? All of the oaths that Popes have taken over the centuries? Or just one arbirarily selected oath from those that were really taken? Which one? There is really nothing whatever to direct to as "the Papal Oath" except the "myth" (in the non-technical sense) or urban legend. There never was anything else, even among the oaths that Popes did take, that could be referred to, with capitals, as the Papal Oath.
I do not believe in edit wars. Let someone else deal with this. Lima 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look first you say Google "pope swore" and you'll find a number of cases then you say There is really nothing whatever to direct to as "the Papal Oath" except the "myth" (in the non-technical sense) or urban legend which leaves me befuddled; these two statements contradict themselves. If there are a number of such oaths or purported oaths, Papal Oath should be a disambig, plain and simple. That would indeed seem to be the case. -- Kendrick7talk 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems obvious to me: "papal oaths" are many; "the Papal Oath" (singular, with definite article, and capitalized) is only one thing, and that thing cannot be confused with anything else. Lima 19:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... I don't know. I only recently linked to the Church in an article the other day, which bizarrely directed to an 80s Australian rock band, which I only half-heartedly fixed. An accident of capitalization seems an odd way to go, when your capitalized version is an obscure theory of some small Christian sect. So Papal oath does to disambig, then a dab link back to it from Papal Oath would satisfy you? -- Kendrick7talk 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems plain silly to devote a disambiguation page to saying that a papal oath is ... wait for it ... an oath by a Pope, and that "the Papal Oath" (a quite widespread urban legend) is something different. But this discussion is no better than an edit war. I leave the matter to others. Lima 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely doubtful as to how "widespread" this belief is. Its unclear that there has even been a Vatican response to this claim, for example. -- Kendrick7talk 21:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep What business of ours' is it to judge what oath any or all popes may or may not have taken? How can we possibly be expected to reach a verdict--by our own theological judgement? by our own interpretation of the church-historical sources? This article is a sourced discussion of the claimed material, and a discussion of the controversy concerning it--just what a WP article ought to be. Since it is one of the distinctive doctrines of a very N church, what more is there to say. Deletion would be pushing the POV that there is no such thing. I do know a very little about the sources & have my own interpretation of the controversy, but I am not a RS, and neither is anyone else in this discussion--unless they may happen to have published discussions of it, in which case they should add the cites to the article, not the AfD. DGG 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article on a notable topic, even as a legend it is still notable enough for an article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm all in favor of keeping this. I just prefer a disambig to separate fact from fiction. -- Kendrick7talk 06:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said above, it seems no one at all wants to delete the article, which is one of the 149 in the Urban Legends category. The others in that category do not need a disambig page to say that, for instance, "Hairy hands" can refer to hairy hands, "The Licked Hand" can refer to a licked hand, "The Hook" can refer to a hook, "Hundredth Monkey" to a hundredth monkey ... But someone thinks we do need to be told that "Papal Oath" can refer to a papal oath. Lima 07:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But none of those have completely disparate factual and apparently fictional examples. There's also something to be said for the fact that, unlike the examples you cite, the Pope is, most days, a living person, and giving the appearance of casting dispersions about him or her should bring in the principles of WP:LIVING. -- Kendrick7talk 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC) I was unaware that Agatho or any of the other Popes down to Paul VI, the ones that are said to have taken the Papal Oath, are alive. Or that the Papal Oath is more fictional than the other urban legends. Or is it that it is more factual than the others? After all, the legends do exist, they are real, even if what they recount is fiction. Lima 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it appears the actions proposed by this AfD have already taken place -- namely the dab page and the rename. I think that those changes, along with the edits to the article by Lima, have made this into a very good article. -- Pastordavid 18:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • please clarify which page we are discussing. The current Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)? And is the question whether to rename it just Papal Oath? The current p. under the current name seems just right. To claim it is THE Papal Oath is very clearly POV, based on that p, and our discussion, and many other WP pages. DGG 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD is not improving things. Now we have two articles. One article is a stub with incorrect information - does the citation really assert this was used "from the fifth through eleventh centuries"? The other article discusses a story, which I do think is an urban legend, yet still lacks a single citation to anyone who actually says the story is an urban legend. At this point, they should both be deleted. Gimmetrow 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'comment I appreciate the clarification. Now that I know which article it is , I would say strong keep as there is no doubt that such a belief exists. To what extent it is based on fact should be discussed on the article talk page. Personally, I don;t see how we can actually judge something like that--we just report the opinions. Whether the people who hold the opinions may possibly be confused themselves is --fortunately--not something we have to decide. DGG 06:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick has gone too far, making unilateral changes in complete disregard of others, indeed against the opposition of others and without the support of even one other person. Now he has gone further: inventing pages that claim that "the Papal Oath" can mean various other things. Can he quote a single source outside of Wikipedia that says the profession of faith found in the Liber Diurnus is called "the Papal Oath"? ...

I trust I do have support for moving the article this discussion is about to "The Papal Oath". This is unambiguous: no papal oath other than the one attributed to the Popes from Agatho to Paul VI is known as "the Papal Oath". It is NPOV, while "Papal Oath (Traditionalist Catholic)" contradicts the POV of those Traditionalist Catholics who claim that the text in question is not just a Traditionalist Catholic Papal Oath, but a genuine oath actually taken by the Popes.

The question of keeping or not keeping the article has been settled long ago, and there was no real need to continue that discussion. The discussion now is on the name of the article that we are keeping. Do we support the move to "The Papal Oath"?

  1. Support Lima 07:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AFD isn't the right place to discuss a move, Lima. All the sources I'm using are freely available on google books; this link should answering your question above, that indeed I can quote a single source outside of Wikipedia that says the profession of faith found in the Liber Diurnus is called "the Papal Oath". -- Kendrick7talk 08:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kendrick is right in saying that according to the strict rules there is a proper procedure for proposing possibly controversial moves. Kendrick chose not to follow that procedure, and we have been discussing here the unilateral action he took in breach of those rules. Why should we not continue the discussion, and find out for certain what support if any Kendrick has for his POV renaming of the article? If Kendrick prefers, let him revert all the changes and return to the status quo ante, and then we can put into operation the normal method of deciding whether to move an article. Lima 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I cannot find in the Liber Diurnus text the words that Schaff seems to attribute to it: "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy ..." (a heresy that cannot have still been considered new in the eleventh century). But I leave consideration of that till later, in order to concentrate on the question of the name of the article we are discussing. Lima 09:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have acted in accordance with WP:DISAMBIG. Your argument that the phrase "papal oath" with certain capitalizations or prefaced by "the" can only possibly refer to one of the four papal oaths lack verifiability and is counterexampled by my link above and WP:NAMING. -- Kendrick7talk 08:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I substantially agree with Lima. The article discussing the story/legend should be at "Papal Oath" where it started. If that means the article needs to expand to mention that there have been other "papal oaths", so be it; that should only add a paragraph or so of verifiable material. If any disambiguation was necessary, it should have happened at Papal Oath (disambiguation), per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic. The Schaff book is a non-Catholic source arguing against papal infallibility, but it seems to cite the Rozière text, if that helps. I would still really like to see the article have at least one citation to a reliable source, aware of the story/legend, that says it is a legend. Material counts as original research if it "introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." Gimmetrow 12:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish you were able to cite even one reliable source to show it is a well known legend, let alone a legend period. Otherwise, I don't think you can claim Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic applies. Just because it is well known to you, doesn't mean it is well known to the average reader. -- Kendrick7talk 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even bothered to read the article which is being discussed? It cites a book, and used to cite a rather large number of websites. But fine, if it is not a "well known" legend, then the article should be deleted, so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the absurd disambiguation you've adopted. Gimmetrow 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My reasoning was that they are 4 different Papal oaths, involving different Popes, different text, even different millenia. -- Kendrick7talk 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support MOVE per Lima mv to Papal Oath. Dominick (TALK) 19:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all back to a common title, Papal oath. This article gives vastly undue weight to a bit of conspiracycruft reverse-engineered by trads (and probably most especially by sedevacantists) as a way of supporting their pre-existing beliefs. The sources for the supposed oath having been used to any great extent appear highly dubious and partisan, the Vatican's view appears to be that this is a negligible bit of historical colour. WP:NPOV#Undue weight and POV fork apply. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This all started out so simple. There was one article, it had some issues. At this point Kendrick7's actions have sidetracked this discussion far away from the point at hand. I hope this entire discussion is closed without prejudice, the article can be moved back to where it started (which requires an admin now...) and the AfD can be restarted at a later date if anyone wishes. The article originally being discussed still does not cite a single source which is aware of the store/legend and calls it a legend, and so has problems with WP:OR that need addressing. Gimmetrow 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the article appears to be refed in fact the notes are very thin, and the only published source appears to be a self-published book. The whole thing lopks like a very fishy attempt to gain credibility for something that is self-evidently bogus. NBeale 11:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel certain that no Traditionalist Catholic, whether they believe the Papal Oath is real or not, would accept Kendrick7's characterization of it as the Traditionalist Catholic Papal Oath! He seems to have failed to win the support here of even one editor for his unilateral move of the article away from "Papal Oath" to a POV title. Yet he has now gone and retouched I do not know how many other articles to make them fit his unsupported personal idea. Is this a proper way to act on Wikipedia? Can anyone give an authoritative ruling on this? I wonder if his action can be classified as vandalism. Lima 05:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lima, it's called WP:BOLD. I'm not sure what's POV about the title but I'm open to ideas. -- Kendrick7talk 06:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD says: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles (emphasis in original). It does not say: "Be bold in altering titles of articles even when it is clear that the alteration is opposed." Lima 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And isn't it clear that that those who believe the Papal Oath is genuine would object to it being called the Traditionalist Catholic Papal Oath, rather than just the Papal Oath? And isn't it clear that traditionalist Catholics who do not believe the Papal Oath is genuine would object to the attribution to all traditionalist Catholics without distinction what they consider to be an invention? Lima 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said I am open to ideas for how to distinguish by title this Papal Oath from the others. You keep complaining about the name I picked but you aren't offering a new suggestion. -- Kendrick7talk 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several new articles by Kendrick7

I didn't derive those first two from the third. I suppose the 4 different Papal oaths, could be merged into one article, though since each has little in common with the others (besides the obvious), that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. -- Kendrick7talk 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what if there are different papal oaths? There have been different popes too, not just one person, but that doesn't mean that Pope should be nothing more than a disambiguation page. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, there are different articles on different Popes. -- Kendrick7talk 04:23, 1 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.--Wizardman 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golgotha (computer game)

Golgotha (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A rambling article about a non-notable video game that was never finished or released. —ptk✰fgs 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grissom/Sara Romance

Grissom/Sara Romance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft Vicarious 06:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest Possible Delete fanfic doesn't belong on Wikipedia, period. JuJube 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiki is not a collection of subplots of a TV series. Ohconfucius 09:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per everyone else. Who cares? Moreschi Request a recording? 10:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete CSI has been for a long time the number one show on American television and GSR is the first and only canonical relationship portrayed in it. It has caused much debate among fans and attention from the media. Moreover, having read the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page, it does not break any of the guidelines or rules that wikipedia use. All CSI communities and discussions talk about GSR, either for or against, and if they don't it's because the topic has been banned because it's so controversial. It is definitely relevant to the subject matter. Here it says that if you expect something to be in a real encyclopedia then it should be in wiki. If I were reading an encyclopedia that had a CSI entry but nothing about GSR, I'd think it would definitely be lacking. It is not a fanfic at all. It's canon CSI and there's no disputing that. It does, however, need a clean-up. The list needs to be edited so that someone who wasn't already in on what the quotes mean would understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermit789 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete far too minor and speculative, verges on original research and violates WP:FICT.-- danntm T C 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfic can belong on Wikipedia if it passess WP:Notability -- multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. This, however, is not fanfic. It's canon CSI (as noted above), but it still does not pass WP:N (the only sources I could find were fanfic websites and/or blogs). -- Black Falcon 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as rather OR-ish and non-notable outside of the individual characters. Merge anything important or relevant to the related character articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Abstain I dont know about it, so I wont comment on it. Cman 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. (And Cman, stop wasting our time. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question becomes whether this particular subplot of the series has any real world independently published articles about it. If the article contains ONLY plot elements, then it doesn't meet WP:NOT#IINFO's requirement that plot summaries include verifiable analysis or real world context. Now all that being said, I vaguely remember one or two TV mags having cover pictures and stories specifically about this fictional romance. If the article can cite some of those published articles, it would go a long way toward vindicating keeping it as a separate article. Dugwiki 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. Relevent to CSI because the affair is official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.16.48 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to CSI: Crime Scene Investigation per WP:FICT. Such a merger would be possible if the "timeline" from this article is deleted, as it should be. The "timeline" apparently consists of cryptic references to every scene in every episode in which the characters might be perceived as flirting with each other, which is both far too much detail for an encyclopedia article and also completely incomprehensible to non-viewers of this series. For example, among the entries is "2x03: Pickle scene." Once the timeline is gone, it will be easier to merge the remainder. As a second choice, and if necessary to avoid a "no consensus" result, my next recommendation would be to delete this article entirely. --Metropolitan90 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my recommendation to delete per Ohconfucius, to avoid a "no consensus" result and because the timeline is just too embarrassing to allow to stick around. By "embarrassing", I mean that keeping a record of how they "exchange a flirty smile when Sara matches the paper to the printer" and Grissom "helps Sara with chess" makes the article look like a junior high school student's diary of a crush. --Metropolitan90 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE Significant pop culture fan following of a slowly developed relationship on the program. (For example, currently there are >1800 videos dedicated to this relationship on YouTube.) This is not fan fic, it is an explicitly demonstrated part of the program's canon. As previously mentioned, there have been magazine articles on this precise topic (including Galaxie Magazine July 2005 and TV Guide September 14, 2006's cover story). First choice is keep the article with a revised or eliminated timeline. Second choice, merge the two articles. Any article on the series which excluded mention of the only relationship between two major characters on the show would be incomplete and would misrepresent the nature of the show as being solely work-place focused.Abcadog 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article merely details the sexual tension present between Grissom and Sara in the TV series, and has nothing to do with fan fiction. Although the article could use some cleanup, AFD is not the cleanup department. The facts presented are verifiable as they are part of a published work (a tv series). For a similar article that is written better and, more importantly, is accepted by the community, see Kirk/Spock. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply, there are policies and guidelines though for handling articles about plot lines in fiction. WP:FICT and WP:NOT#IINFO both specify that for plot summaries, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Thus while a plot summary can be a valid part of an article on a topic, it should not be the only aspect of the article. In addition, articles should also meet WP:V and WP:N standards which require multiple, independent, verifiable published references for verification and to establish proper notability of the subject of the article in question. In this case, the article hasn't yet provided those references.
Now mind you, I think it might be possible to correct those issues and save the article. The reason is because I think that there have been reliable independent real-word articles published specifically about this fictional romance. So if a few of those sources are cited in the article, and the article presents some real-world analysis of the romance (aside from just listing plot details) then it would I think satisfy all the requirements of WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:V. Dugwiki 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Disavian's comment above that "Although the article could use some cleanup, AFD is not the cleanup department." Why delete the article if all that would be needed to fix it up are some outside sources? Here's a start:
  • Television love stories have gone down the tube, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), February 14, 2002 Thursday Final Edition, Arts & Life; Pg. E8, 440 words, NOEL HOLSTON
  • TELEVISION; Heart to heart; Checking in with prime-time's top valentines, The Boston Herald, February 14, 2007 Wednesday, ALL EDITIONS, THE EDGE; Pg. 033, 448 words, By AMY AMATANGELO
  • TELEVISION; Small screen, big love; The TV couples we can't live without, The Boston Herald, October 15, 2006 Sunday, ALL EDITIONS, THE EDGE; Pg. 027, 563 words, By AMY AMATANGELO
  • No. 1 'CSI' in underdog role, Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), July 19, 2006 Wednesday, Final Edition, SPOTLIGHT; Pg. 2D, 776 words, Dusty Saunders, Rocky Mountain News, HOLLYWOOD
  • Scene of the crime - George Eads on why there's no stopping the CSI juggernaut - Curious George, The Daily Telegraph (Australia), June 7, 2006 Wednesday, 7 days connect Edition, FEATURES; 7 Days / Seven Days; Pg. 7, 944 words, SARRAH LE MARQUAND
  • TELEVISION; What makes a star shine? It takes more than ratings, The Boston Herald, December 18, 2005 Sunday, ALL EDITIONS, THE EDGE; Pg. 037, 615 words, By AMY AMATANGELO
  • Science, acting make CSI a hit, Windsor Star (Ontario), November 20, 2003 Thursday Final Edition, ENTERTAINMENT; Pg. C7, 539 words, Noel Holston Newsday
--Amanojyaku 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cited sources do excellently well to establish the notability of CSI itself, and of a general article about television romance, but this would be a better fit under such an article and does not require its own. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Having now read the Kirk/Spock article (which is apparently well accepted and non-controversial) I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion as the topics are quite comparable. If anything, CSI has now been on the air for four years longer than Star Trek was, and the relationship between the two characters is actually show canon, and not just a fan phenomenon. (I did not know the origin of the term "slash" and was very interested to learn it, btw.) Both shows have had a significant impact on popular culture, and each features a relationship (either among the fan following or within the context of the series) between two of the lead characters which has developed a life of its own and for which there is a widely used descriptive term. If the Star Trek article, which I found interesting and informative, is appropriate on Wikipedia, then so should be the article on GSR. I've made some fairly significant edits to the material, in particular replacing the timeline with a narrative of the relationship. Abcadog 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:18, 5 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. Herostratus 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speak (artist)

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

I've been watching this page for a while. A google seach for "speak no more war hungary" only returns a youtube page, the sources quoted are a Hungarian myspace-type page and youtube. Can anyone confirm this is legitimate and/or notable ? Travelbird 06:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the source quoted is not a "myspace-type" page at all, but a Hungarian celebrity page which includes information about Tom Deak, that is featured in the article such as his name and birthday, and information about the song, and that it was a sell-published release. The other source are from a forum post, by a hungarian, but is relied upon for only a few facts in the article, such as his unemployment and bankruptcy. the information is cited as alleged and according to some sources, and is not stated as blanket fact. I don't see why an extrnal link to the ytube viral video is inapprioprate either. also, The page is obviosly being worked on, and is not yet complete. secondly, your major complaint seems to be the sources, this seems strange to me considering thousands of wikipedia articles which lack any kind of source, but ar not immediatly or ever put up for deletion. If your questioning whether the subject is legitmate, I think this viral video star deserves a wikipedia entry, should we also delete zladko's page also? I seriosly question the legitmacy of this deletion request. Opetyan— Opetyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I second Opetyan's comments. The call for deletion is unjustified, especially for such an incipient article. If this article is considered up for deletion, you would also have to explain why most other viral phenomenon pages on wikipedia (like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlad) are still up. The fact that the formally obscure video originated in Hungary doesn't help you out much on a google search. If anything, this article should be marked for clean up; the notion of deletion is just silly. Rikoozik — Rikoozik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, I am the creator of this article. That is not an argument against, and I hope you are not implying its use as such. And yes, I haven't done much aside from this, but I want this article to be as complete as it can possibly be from the small amount of information available online. And I'm hoping that now that the page exists, someone from Hungary is able to add more information as the majority of the information is in Hungarian.Rikoozik

a effort seems to have been made to try and discredit the legitmacy of the article by critizing me and also Rikoozik. stating we are a single purpose user, etc. while I don't know about Rizoozik, I have personally annonymously been contributing to wikipedia for a few years already, and decided to become a memeber specifically because of this article. I look forward to contributing to other articles in the future, and don't indent to push any agenda, as suggested. back to dealing with the article, and not user critisism, I remember seeing a speak the hungarian rapper article as a requested article. Opetyan

  • Reluctant delete Unless some genuine reliable sources are found, but I hope they are - this is so great (in a bad way) more people need to see it. I've been laughing through most of the article. And then there's the description of his music video: "Shots of him sitting on the Porsche are interspersed throughout, as well as scenes of war and and people dying". Oh, the irony. Now that's art! Croxley 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to DeleteI really can't understand why this deletion dicussion is still an issue.I don't understand why hungarian celebrity pages don't count as a reliable source. In comparison the entire Ali G ariticle sites only 2 sources. Tomas Deak and Varga Miklus are legitmate hungarian personalites/celebrities made popular by this viral video. I really don't know what is wrong here, I didn't think I would find myself having to defend Speak Opetyan
  • Delete, poorly sourced. Opetyan and Rikoozik, your efforts would be best spent in presenting reliable sources such as Hungarian newspapers or magazines that have written about him. It is also legitimate and routine to point out that Rikoozik (or yourself) have an interest primarily in this one article.--Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out exactly which parts of the article you are having issues with? I'll take a look at it again tonight and see how best to clean it up. Rikoozik

I have already answered allegations that I am a single purpose user with a hidden agenda, that is not true, and shouldn't be used as a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the article. I don't know why this was brought up again. I want to point out that there are hundreds of wikipedia articles with little or no sources, and they are all not up for deletion, but marked with "citiation needed" or "reference needed". It least give Rikozzik and myself some time to come up with what newspaper or magazine articles, if hungarian celebrity websites are not considered a credible source (for some reason). again, I find myself in a very funny situation having to defend Speak. P.S aren't photographes primary sources? their used in the article to show his name is "Tom Deak" Opetyan

  • Note!, there are websites other then ytube and digg, and they (ytube and Digg) are cited only to show its viral video statis. www.Index.hu for instance is a hungarian news portal, and is the most popular "newspaper" in the country. www.velvet.hu is its gossip/celeberty sister site, where a majority of the information on Speak, so far, comes from. Other information about Speak and the video come from intrepreting or describing the video itself, which as far as I'm considered, is a primary source? I would go as far as to say, this is probably one of the most heavily referenced viral video web pages on wikipedia. Opetyan 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to Delete The allegations as to the triviality of the sources has been demonstrated by Opetuan to be unfounded. Note that this article is only a few days old and is still being worked on. It needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. The former is being done; the latter is completely unnecessary. Please point out specific issues you have with the article on the talk page, and I'll address them. Rikoozik 03:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The link to an interview on www.index.hu is an improvement, that site does appear to be a legitimate news site. If he's a star in Hungary, are there other Hungarian sites that mention him? There's no doubt this guy exists, and is a viral phenomenon. I can find hundreds of sites in English discussing him, unfortunately they are all blogs. There must be people who speak Hungarian here (that aren't involved in this article) who can check these references? Croxley 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Abstain, as I cannot read the Hungarian sources and therefore cannot comment on their reliability or if they're trivial, but I've removed the lyrics. They should not be reinserted unless someone can show that the artist has released them under GFDL or to the public domain (Creative Commons licenses which don't forbid commercial use are also generally OK), but I can find nothing to indicate that such a release has taken place. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you decide to remove a section of the article, you want to post this in the dicussion section? 68.122.222.190 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The main problem of this article is WP:notability The article itself states that "Speak is virtually unknown to the wider hungarian public, he had no media apperance yet besides the internet." I don't see that this passes basic notability guidelines. Based upon the sockpuppetry in the above discussion, I strongly suspect that this article is self-promotion. Travelbird 10:31, 8 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:22Z

At the Throne of Judgment

At the Throne of Judgment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
At The Throne of Judgment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
At the throne of judgment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
File:At the throne of judgment.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

The article does not meet the requirements of WP:BAND. speedy tag was removed. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bankrupts

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

Bumping from speedy; this is a really bad idea for listcruft. But not patent nonsense. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I could restrict it to a list of dead people as a compromise but since there is a legal status involved I just don't see the point. However, if the consensus is to delete this list I will move this list to the BBC website. I can still link to the wikipedia or answers.com entries from there anyway. I worked on the category and I thought that was the best option because bankruptcy is a legal fact not hearsay, not prurient and can be categorised.

Categorisation would seem to me best research tool.

I was overruled and people suggested it be listified. I find the subject fascinating - far more than a list of billionaires (and I have growing sympathy with the person who created "people who have been pied" - I wish I hadn't voted to delete it now!) There is pathos, redemption, revenge and hubris in these stories. The articles on wikipedia don't always reflect this aspect of a person's life and i would either like to flesh this out within the articles or do some pen pictures on this list which deal with it (rather than the artistic or other career of the subject). Johnnybriggs 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I demand that all the tall women be measured immediately! And while Genghis Khan is on the list of short men I doubt there is evidence he was 155cm tall. No such problem with bankruptcy. Government primary documentation should be available for most and biographies the rest. The fault if any lies with the wikipedia article rather than the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.192.65 (talk) 09:03, 2 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Vue Airfield

Belle Vue Airfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article about a private airfield, which seems to be little more than a long piece of grass, and seems to be one of many similar airfields in existance. I don't know much about private airfields but I would venture that this is not notable. Also, the creator of this article, Haz kk (talk · contribs), also created Atlantic International Airways (AfD discussion), which was deleted as unverifiable (possible hoax). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 07:56Z

  • Keep Firstly Atlantic Internation Airways is a fictious airline from the film Passenger 57 and referenced in other articles in WP - So that wasn't a hoax article, but a badly defined article (perhaps it should have been a redirect, rather that delete?) I take the view that a real geographical place is worthy of retaining in WP - especially as there is probably a long history related to WW2 for this particular airfield given it's geographical area. The article is referenced, and quite frankly, there's probably a million other articles of similar notability which should be also deleted if this is. My favourite articles for deletion are most of those "famous for 15 minutes" musicians and bands.
Sorry Quarl, I felt like a moan - please don't take it personal. --Richhoncho 11:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richhoncho, regarding Atlantic International Airways: The thought had crossed my mind that it might be an in-universe fictional airline, but I doubted it because the details didn't seem congruous with something from a film or other fictional work. For example, it has extensive fleet manifest with model numbers and plane counts as well as merger & acquisition history, names of founders, libel lawsuit, alliances with real-world airlines... in fact, the article talks about easyJet, which was founded in 1995, so that article can't be about the 1992 film Passenger 57. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 11:43Z
Back to the article at hand, I agree that real geographical places are worthy -- but only to a point. Do we keep articles on all streets? Of course not, we have to draw the line somewhere. As to non-notable bands - I agree non-notable bands should be deleted, and the existance of articles on non-notable bands doesn't mean we should have articles on non-notable airfields. See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. I checked the website listed as a reference before nominating -- it essentially just says that the airfield exists along with 10 or 20 others in that city, which makes me think that worldwide there are countless of these. I searched and didn't find anything notable currently or historically about this airfield, so if you found anything, please say so. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 11:43Z
Comment If I had better information about the airfield I would have added it already - far more practical than discussing hypotheticals at the AfD. I would assume because of the location this airfield, and probably most of the other airfields in Devon, was established for the D-Day landings and would have relevant history accordingly. If there was a logical place for a redirect for the article, thats what i would vote for - in the meantime it seems more appropriate to keep. As for the Atlantic airline, I only checked this morning for my own peace of mind before wading in here.--Richhoncho 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCInterface

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

Borderline advertisement, although not too gushing. Created by someone from the company that makes it. As I wade through the Google results for SCInterface, they mostly seem to be the company's own promotional material. (And some of them are other uses of the name "SCInterface.") Anyone familiar with game server technology want to comment on the notability of this product? FreplySpang 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of the marketing fluff should be out of there. Netarus
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohconfucius seems to have not read the article at all. SCSI and SCInterface have no relation. The above comment seems to reference a canned message with no justification. not particularly noteworthy or notable needs to have justification. The product has existed since 2003 and manages 1000s of game servers to date. Netarus
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Airport Interchange

Newark Airport Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article title is a neologism, a google search for "Newark Airport Interchange" yields 14 unique results, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Most of the article is original research; any material that would be salvageable for merge is already in the articles on the respective highways. And for the icing on the cake, not that it matters, but the original author and only major contributor is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet/vandal. NORTH talk 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you said. I never said that the article was about a neologism. There are two separate problems with the article as it is currently written: (1) The article title is a neologism - which isn't cause for deletion, but something that needs to be changed if its kept, and (2) most of it seems to be original research.
As an aside, this article is not about Interchange 14 on the New Jersey Turnpike. It's about the interchange just west of there between I-78, US 1/9, etc. -- NORTH talk 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, perhaps the confusion on whether or not Turnpike Exit 14 is included indicates that WP:NEO does apply. To quote the article itself, "Interstate 95/ Turnpike may not be involved." (emphasis added) By the same logic that would include the Turnpike - that the ramps all feed into each other, and there's no clear boundary between the two interchanges - we should include where the Airport entrance actually interchanges with US 1/9 south of I-78, but then those ramps weave in and out of the ramps to Route 81 south of the airport, and Route 81 is just a whole big mess of ramps that are indistinguishable from each other all the way to Turnpike Exit 13A. But 13A is by definition a totally separate interchage from 14...
Basically what I'm saying is maybe this article is about a neologism that's poorly defined. It's true that the "complex" shares many things in common with notable interchanges, like the East Los Angeles Interchange, but IMHO it's missing the two most important things: a name, and defined boundaries. The first link NE2 cites calls it a "complex project", but doesn't necessarily mean that it's meant to be viewed as a single interchange complex. -- NORTH talk 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NJDOT does call it a "confluence" in that court case, and includes the Turnpike. Someone with New York Times access could check [26]. And I suspect, but can't be sure, that there is a common name for this - "the airport", as in "I-78 is backed up to the airport". --NE2 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that "the airport" would refer to the airport, not any specific roadway junction near the airport. The word "confluence" to me indicates merely that a bunch of roads are flowing into each other, but doesn't necessarily indicate that they're flowing together in a single complex, and does nothing to define boundaries.
Surely if this interchange had a valid name and defined boundaries, there would be a better source than a decades-old court case that doesn't even mention I-78 (although likely only because it wasn't completed at the time). -- NORTH talk 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You better god dam keep it! I 512theking, created this article. listen to my little brother JohnnyAlbert10, I like this article and if you guys delete it i will vandalize wikipedia like i did in the good old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.5.154 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep The article explicitly claims notability and is certainly one of the most complex in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the nomination, I said nothing about the interchange not being notable, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. -- NORTH talk 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles are retained based on satisfying criteria of notability. The fact that this is not mentioned in your nomination might well have been indicative of an apparent failure to understand that fact, which is why I stated so in my explanation. Your response makes it clear that you have indeed ignored issues of notability. The rationalization for deletion is simply not valid, and no reference to the existence (or non-existence) of other crap was made. Creating running arguments with each person differing in opinion is not going to help your case, not that it matters. If you have an issue with the title, propose an alternative name for the article and let's discuss it. Until then, let this AfD run its course. Alansohn 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patently false, there are many other reasons to delete an article, namely the two I did mention in my nomination: original research and neologisms. My reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was in response to JohnnyAlbert10 saying, "Besides, they're other interchange articles that exist."
If someone can tell me verifiably using a reliable source what ramps are and aren't part of the Newark Airport Interchange, then I'll have no problem keeping it after we prune out some of the OR. Until then, the information can be more than adequately covered in the articles on the individual routes. -- NORTH talk 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your tenacity, but I remain utterly unconvinced. Covering this information separately in articles for Interstate 78 in New Jersey, U.S. Route 1/9, New Jersey Route 21, New Jersey Route 22, Interstate 95 in New Jersey and the New Jersey Turnpike creates massive confusion and multiple maintenance of information that logically belongs in one place. If your issue is still the title of the article, I encourage you to proffer some alternatives, which I would be more than happy to consider. Alansohn 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what information? According to the only semi-reliable source that's been offered, Exit 14 on the Turnpike is part of the interchange, if not the interchange itself, which makes everything in the current version of the article factually incorrect. -- NORTH talk 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Notability is not the only criteria for deletion or keep. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed. --Holderca1 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that none of the other criteria are being raised or are irrelevant. WP:NEO, used as the primary justification for deletion, addresses "words and terms that have recently been coined", which is simply not relevant here. The term has been used on multiple occasions, as nominator acknowledges. The term has been used in multiple newspaper articles (see here), with sources going back some 50 years. It has also been used in several captions in a book on the New Jersey Turnpike (see here). Again, if there is an issue with the title, let's hear some ideas and rename it if we can reach consensus. If there are problems with the article, let's work on fixing them. Other than that, the nomination does not fly, and I stand behind my vote. Alansohn 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Original research has been raised and is relevant. --Holderca1 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • All that's been done is that a claim of WP:OR has been raised. I'm hard pressed to see anything in this article other than verifiable facts. Let's see what the issues are, rather than just make a claim without any support whatsoever. Alansohn 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article doesn't cite its sources. The article has been up for deletion since Monday and no one has put in the sources as now. If you have something to verify these verifiable facts, please put it in the article. I think we would all be hard pressed to take your word for it. Which come to think of it, is exactly what original research is. --Holderca1 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your blatant personal attack and failure to assume good faith are utterly uncalled for, and will not be tolerated. The straight-line diagrams used as sources have been added. All of the information can be reviewed and verified to your collective satisfaction. Alansohn 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Huh? What personal attack and on who? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please quote what you believe to be a personal attack. Whose good faith have I failed to assume? I am assuming you are referring to 512theking since he wrote the article? Well, he still has a responsibility to cite his sources, WP:OR is policy and trumps WP:AGF which is a guideline. As far as making a claim of violating WP:OR and not supporting it. I don't have to support it. It has to be proven that it isn't original research, from WP:OR: "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." --Holderca1 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The SLDs verify only that the routes mentioned all flow to a single point. They don't verify that those routes form the "Newark Airport Interchange", which according to NE2's sources, they don't, since the NAI is Exit 14 on the Turnpike – and according to the article, the Turnpike isn't part of the NAI. They also don't verify that the main use is to access the Airport (which seems like common sense, but if Exit 14 is part of it, maybe the main use is to access the Holland Tunnel instead?) and to access the ports (which definitely isn't common sense). The sentence about the many lanes, twists, curves, etc., being a "problem for motorists" besides being unencyclopedic, is original research.
                  As I said before, the only source we have so far about the interchange (not SLDs of the individual routes) contradicts the article regarding the inclusion of the turnpike. The only thing left after removing the original research is a single sentence about each highway that belongs in the individual highway article – and in most cases that sentence is already there. -- NORTH talk 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You can repeat it as many times as you want: The sources support the existence of a "Newark Airport Interchange" going back fifty years, which you insist violates WP:NEO. The content is based on material available in public sources that supports all of the statements made in the article. Despite the fact that all the necessary sources have been added to the article, not one of the skeptics has stated which material constitutes original research. Repetition does not make it so. Whatever arguments have been made have been rather poor and don't stand up. You have not made your case to me, or to anyone else, and I stand by my original vote. Give it up already. Can the harassment finally stop? Alansohn 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (indent reset) Those sources support the existance of an interchange, not one of them calls it the Newark Airport Interchange. I consider the nearly the entire article original research. North tagged the article where citations are needed. --Holderca1 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So let me get this straight: We hear a complaint above that "The article has been up for deletion since Monday and no one has put in the sources as now." Now, a full business week after creating the AfD, we're finally seeing the claims of original research? Please attack someone else. You have not made your case. Alansohn 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read at the very top, it was in the original nomination on Feb. 26th. --Holderca1 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So was the WP:NEO, which is clearly false, as well. Making the claim does not make it so. Alansohn 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sources from 50 years ago supporting the existence of an NAI are talking about Turnpike Exit 14, a completely different interchange. Thus using it to describe I-78 Exits 57-58 is a neologism.
          You claim that "not one of the skeptics has stated which material constitutes original research." Interestingly, that's immediately underneath where I specify which statements are OR, and right after I tagged those statements in the article. Now that you've removed those statements, maybe you can see that all that's left is a single sentence about each individual highway. And since the term is a neologism, those sentences are best placed in the articles on the individual highways.
          And by the way, changing the words "Newark Ports" to "Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal" does not make that statement not OR.
          Also by the way, absolutely no one has attacked you. Please keep cool. -- NORTH talk 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So now we have acknowledgment that we have a fifty-year old source, but the article is not what it's really about. So much for WP:NEO. As I stated "Now, a full business week after creating the AfD, we're finally seeing the claims of original research?" You waited, day after day after day, and after repeated requests you finally marked the article with your claims of WP:OR, all of which have been addressed. The statement that you insisted was [{WP:OR]] "The main usages of the interchange is to provide access to Newark Liberty International Airport and the Newark Ports" was changed to "The interchange provide access to Newark Liberty International Airport and the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal." I'm not sure what it is about the amended version that "does not make that statement not OR". I'm not sure what the source is of this tag team effort, but I have been convinced to change my vote from Keep to Strong Keep. You have made tour case; I have made mine. Over and out. Alansohn 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Repeating something I said above, "If someone can tell me verifiably using a reliable source what ramps are and aren't part of the Newark Airport Interchange, then I'll have no problem keeping it after we prune out some of the OR. Until then, the information can be more than adequately covered in the articles on the individual routes." That hasn't happened yet. I agree to disagree, the closing admin can decide whether WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR have been met. -- NORTH talk 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the record, I have voted neither to keep or delete this article, I just simply made a comment. This article still fails WP:CITE. --Holderca1 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all sources cited are primary, therefore fails WP:ATT (which is policy), stating that primary sources are only acceptable if they are not the main or sole basis of the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and falls under the purview of WP:NJSCR and WP:NJ. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I've said before, notability isn't really the issue here. Also, falling under the purview of a wikiproject isn't a good keep rationale, especially since I (the nominator) started one of those projects. -- NORTH talk 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, here's a suggestion, instead of deleting it why not just find out the real name of the interchange because my brother (512theking) made the name up. Then, cleanup the article and you have a nice informational interchange article becuase if you guys delete it, it would be a big waste. Think about it. -- JohnnyAlbert10 Time to talk · My Help 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A neologism created by a persistent vandal and sockpuppeter. No reliable sources and pretty much original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The WP:NEO argument has been long demolished; the sources go back over 50 years using the term, including a dozen or two uses in The New York Times, three of which are included in the article as references. The article needs to be addressed based on its content, not its long lost creator who hasn't touched the article in over two months, and the article has been extensively expanded since his departure from the scene. The original research issues have been addressed as raised, and the last artifact of tagged WP:OR has been removed. Four reliable references, five sources, no outstanding issues; are you sure we're talking about the same article? Alansohn 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite the partial rewrite, portions of the article (particularly #Routes involved) still refer explictly to I-78 Exit 57-58 excluding the Turnpike, which makes the WP:NEO claim still valid, since all those sources are using the term to describe explicitly NJTP Exit 14. I've tagged an additional two sentences as WP:OR. (Does it provide access to the Marine Terminal? I thought it was 13A that's signed Port Elizabeth. And is the Turnpike a mile east of the interchange or not?) -- NORTH talk 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As fast as you have tagged WP:OR issues, they have been rewritten or removed. As we've discussed on our talk pages, the article as written left much to be desired. But I think that we're well past the WP:NEO argument. It's clear that the term exists and has been used -- and documented -- for several decades. When the Newark Airport Interchange was created, there was no I-78, and there was direct access from the Turnpike to 1&9. Now that I-78 exists, what happened to the interchange that it no longer exists? Alansohn 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Edit conflict -- But is this a term that NJDOT uses? (The PDFs won't open here due to corrupt program but I can view the straight line diagrams later to see if that is the case.) For instance, with the Kennedy Interchange in Kentucky, there have been references by KYTC towards its naming -- however, I can't find a NJDOT doc that uses it yet. I guess my weak case for OR stems from this -- "The interchange is one of the largest and most complex interchanges in New Jersey." -- however, that isn't really much OR as just an uncited or unverifiable statement, so I'll retract my OR comment above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Why would the NJDOT be the arbiter of the term's validity? The fact that there are multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support its use -- and I could pile on a dozen more -- backs up the use of the term in the title. Alansohn 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sources that support its use for NJTP Exit 14, which originally this article was specifically not about, and the article now is still talking about a complex much larger than just that interchange. -- NORTH talk 07:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree that the exclusion of the Turnpike from the interchange as described in the original text of the article was a major mistake. This mistake has been long corrected. As constructed, the Newark Airport Interchange connected the Turnpike to US 1&9 and on to the airport, with NJ 21 and US 22 intersecting as well. Nothing has changed since 1952, other than adding I-78 into the mix as the connector between the Turnpike and US 1&9. The sources more than adequately document that the term exists; WP:NEO is irrelevant. Are you now arguing that 1) the Newark Airport Interchange never existed, 2) it existed once, but doesn't exist now that I-78 was constructed, or 3) it exists, but it only refers to Exit 14 of the Turnpike. Alansohn 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I've made explicitly clear several times, most recently with my bold type above, #3. This is also what NE2 said the day this AfD opened. -- NORTH talk 07:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • If it only refers to Exit 14 of the Turnpike, how does it interchange with Newark Airport? The sources included describe improvements to the interchange negotiated between the Port Authority (operator of Newark Airport) and the Turnpike Authority. Alansohn 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Where are the sources from NJDOT that explicitly state that the interchange along Interstate 78 is the 'Newark Airport Interchange'? Or that it is the 'largest' interchange or one of the most 'complex'? It's not a NJTPK interchange, its one thats maintained by NJDOT... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Wikipedia requires sources. Reliable and verifiable sources regarding the interchange are provided. What does what the NJDOT calls or does not call it have to do with the notability of the article? Statements regarding relative size and complexity of the interchange had been removed well before your reply was written. Please remember that the article is not static. Alansohn 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge/redirect to Newark Liberty International Airport as a last resort. Doesn't really matter. —freak(talk) 01:25, Mar. 7, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Abeg92contribs 19:58, 8 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound Factory (bar)

The Sound Factory (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN Nick Catalano contrib talk 08:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This is a legendary nightclub; "this grand and remarkable club took on the status of myth, and joined the ranks of dance music’s most important places. Producers made records specifically for the Factory’s dancefloor, etc" [27]. There was no reason to even nominate this article, it just needs some improvement. Croxley 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending further references Based on the sole reference provided I'm willing to give the article some benefit of the doubt that, given a little time, it can be expanded with additional verifiable sources and information about the club. So my guess is to keep it for now, and if it hasn't significantly changed or expanded or it appears to be a one-source article then reconsider deletion in a couple months. Dugwiki 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found another source about the club here, though this story paints a much less rosy picture of the place.--Kubigula (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Kub, that looks like it might be a second good reference for the article (it's a reprint of a published article about the place). Assuming some of the information from that source can be incorporated into the article, it would strengthen the claim to notability and also help clean up any potential bias in the current version (having only one reference might be leading to some biased language currently). Dugwiki 22:30, 6 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, repost, not significantly different from first version. NawlinWiki 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20ID

20ID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ATT only other sources I could find were sponsor press pages and article cites no sources. Non-notable. Notability attempts to be established by showing a bucket load of online league wins but no "pro" wins. BJTalk 09:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - the topic has not been published in peer-reviewed journals and does not appear to have any support beyond that of its creator. Richardcavell 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sol Calendar

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

Delete: proposed calendar with no sign of verifiable references from reliable sources --Pak21 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete - The subject of this article does not appear to have any widespread notability or support beyond that given by its creator. If it appears in academic literature then we might reconsider. - Richardcavell 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The 30x11 Calendar

The 30x11 Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - all these calendars are not verifiable, are not the subject of any noteworthy academic debate, and have no support beyond that of their creators. - Richardcavell 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar

Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Reality TV Winners

List of Reality TV Winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The list is a loose association of reality show winners by program. Even if the list was expanded to include all winners of all reality TV series (not just "the most popular, big budget, ongoing North American Reality TV series" as of this writing), I don't see how that would be valuable. An example: how would a winner of Survivor compare with a winner of Project Runway? In comparison, a list of all game show winners would really appear as being loosely associated; although a list with a limited criterion, as with American game show winnings records, would have some meaning. There is also an existing Category:Reality show winners, but I am not necessarily nominating for that reason. Tinlinkin 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply, the requirement that every person on a list has to be notable for the list itself to be notable is incorrect, nor I believe do you find it in any guidelines or policies. A list can be notable as a whole without every individual entry on the list being notable. For example, many notable movies include non-notable actors, but their cast list as a whole is a notable item worth inclusion either in their article or as a subarticle depending on the space. Dugwiki 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's flaw isn't notability, as I mentioned above. It's that it is attempting to collect into a single list a wide variety of otherwise basically unrelated people. It has selected four game shows, apparently arbitraily as a result of the original author's opinion, and lists the names of the winners with no attempt to explain exactly what these people have in common that justifies being on the same list. It's a bit like trying to make a "List of Sitcom Stars" by listing the regular cast of Friends, Cheers, I Love Lucy and Taxi. Sure, all those shows are popular and notable and the cast lists are notable individually, but they have nothing in common so why should they appear in the same article? I probably wouldn't have a problem with the individual lists appearing as subsections of their related game show articles, though, or even as subarticles for those game show articles if the lists are large (provided everything is properly referenced). Dugwiki 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate list. Resolute 06:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate list and directory. Otto4711 14:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify, I think the correct part of policy to quote here would be WP:NOT#DIR, since this could be considered a "List or repositories of loosely associated topics". This wouldn't fall under WP:NOT#IINFO since that section doesn't deal with "almanac tables" or "trivia" or "directories". Dugwiki 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete albeit I wouldn't really consider these people non-notables. Usedup 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Otherwise why stop with reality TV shows? Why not a list of ALL GAMESHOW WINNERS EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD EVER On the other hand , perhaps not. A1octopus 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia rocks! I started adding names and links to this page as a way to kill time while at my workplace. (Yeah, I know, the boss could have caught me and given me the boot, but what are you gonna do!?!) The fact is I had never intended on adding much more because I don't have a lot of free time outside work. For the most part, I just wanted to familiarize myself with how wiki pages are edited. The fact that this has generated into any type of discussion is awesome. Sure, I guess I’ll agree with deletion because it doesn't include every reality show ever conceived. Doesn't matter much to me. Although in all honesty, most of the other trashy TV winners out there don't warrant much mention. Besides, I personally like how having a limited list provides a quick access to the history of each show's relevant season, and it helps viewers reminisce about who won, and when. Well, there's my 2 cents. Maybe if the boss goes on vacation I will try to add more shows.... BBlze1 02:39, 4 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. Majorly (o rly?) 12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz magazine

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

disputed PROD for NN-magazine delete Cornell Rockey 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's also multiple city wide magazines in the Netherlands and depending on the size of the city, they could easily be considered notable. Add to that, that this mag has a well-known person attached, and I'm having trouble understanding the nomination. What is your reasoning for calling this particular mag non-notable? - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a local listing, not even a newspaper. One notable contributor does not make a publication notable. Cornell Rockey 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rlevse 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Johnson (organist)

Trent Johnson (organist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

failure to meet notability guidelines Mjp202 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete lots of claims to notability but no evidence. Of the recordings Trent Johnson claims to be on, the first and third list him as playing on a few tracks on the album as a session musician. The second recording listed musters a whole three GHits when searched in conjunction with the 'record label' (Multimedium website, one of the three, is about an artist). If some reliable sources backing up the claims and showing notability can produced I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:02, 1 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:21Z

Global Village (event)

Global Village (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Global village.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
Global Village Event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Global village (Event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Not notable enough for an article, was only 1 evening event. Don't see anywhere it should be merged into either. Scott 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of Sesame Street

Crew of Sesame Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate, directory-like list of crew members (without actors) that reads like it's from IMDB. Tinlinkin 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although completely unsourced an unverifiable through sources other than the credit runs at the end of Sesame Street (and others) episodes, our list blows IMDB's outta da water!. Delete as unsourced and externally unverifiable. -- saberwyn 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm puzzled by the above statement. If the actual on-screen credits of the television series aren't sufficient for verification, may I ask what is? It's not as if there are "multiple third-party sources" listing the names of the people working on this show. And if there are, guess what, the names come off the on-screen credits. Or are you suggesting such articles are simply impossible to do under Wikipedia's WP:V rules and should not be attempted? No opinion on this particular article, I'm just curious. 23skidoo 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking back, I'm puzzled myself. What I think I mean to say is that outside of the credits lists and places where the credit lists are transcribed, I believe that nobody independant of the subject has chosen to write about the crew of SS and related shows. Therefore, the Wikipedia:Notability of the article is questionable. Also, the list can be sourced, but it cannot be verified, unless attribution indicating the individual episodes person X worked on is provided. Also, for the list to be completed, somebody would have to sit down, watch, and transcribe every single episode's credits. To me, the article as it stands does not meet any of the list purpouse guidelines, as it provides minimal information with ninimal context, no navigational assistance, and minimal framework for development of individual articles (although I do concede that a significant rewrite may address the first or third purposes). After sitting here for an hour trying to justify my above claim, I give up. I can't justify my stance beyond "Nobody that could be considered a reliable source has written about the Crew of Sesame Street, so why should we?" -- saberwyn 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Croxley 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending proper references The cast and crew list for a notable film or television series is vital to an informed discussion of the work. No article about a film or television series should fail to include a cast and crew list. For some long running series the cast/crew list becomes so large that incorporating the entire text in the main article becomes unwieldy, and in such a case it is perfectly appropriate to split that information off as a linked subpage of some sort. "Not a directory" is irrelevant when it comes to listing the cast and crew of a notable work of media.
So I have no problem with a cast and crew list for a long running series being split off into its own article, provided it has proper referencing. The references are important, though, because without reference references editors can check we have no way of knowing whether this list is accurate. Therefore I'm ok with keeping a list article for the regular cast and crew of Seseme Street, but only provided we referencing for it that editorial consensus can agree is accurate. Dugwiki 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was led to this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crew of Square One TV, which I also nominated and in which no objections were raised. A big problem I have with that now-deleted article and with the currently nominated article (or fork of Sesame Street as you could see it) is context. Why is the crew and the list of the crew members notable? I do not doubt that Sesame Street is notable and successful, and the most responsible people involved in its production should be mentioned somewhere—but should all people of varying responsibility be necessarily listed in Wikipedia? Is listing any film, television, or any media production crew appropriate in Wikipedia? I will not give a direct answer to that question, as others have stronger feelings than I do, but I would say I have not encountered another article that solely discusses a production crew of any film, television. or other media work. Some editors would think that such a list, although true, looks indiscriminate, and I tend to agree with that.
    • This article, as with most of the other articles in Template:Sesame Street under the "Characters" and "Production" groupings. suffer from a lack of references and sources. The only source that would support all of these articles is the TV series itself, and it would definitely be a challenge to find secondary sources in order to sastisfy the sentence in Wikipedia:Attribution that says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." That said, I welcome any improvement that would make the topic notable. Tinlinkin 04:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to reply quickly, Tin, you incorrectly cited WP:NOT#IINFO as dealing with a cast/crew list. In fact, that section of policy is very specific on what it covers, and this isn't part of it. (It's a common misconception that WP:NOT#IINFO covers "trivia" or "alamanac listings", which isn't the case. See the talk page on WP:NOT for more discussion on that topic.) Rather, the section of policy that a list of people could fall under is "Wikipedia is not a directory".
      • That being said, the bottom line for films and television series is that the regular cast/crew list is crucial because it is the only way to properly cite and attribute the collaborative artists who create the work. Any serious article about an art work has to properly attribute the work's creators. Now you can debate whether or not guest stars should be included in the main article, or which crew members are minor enough participants that they don't have to be included. But for sure the regular cast and major crew on the project need to be listed, and if that list is large enough it probably ought to be split into its own subarticle to keep the main article easier to read. Dugwiki 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't know WP:NOT#INFO has to fall into one of the stated examples. But I digress. Maybe it doesn't fit in WP:NOT#INFO after all. I still have the problem with context, though (how should I assert there is a story or notability behind the job titles and beyond the link to the main article), however the problem's clearing up slightly with the subsequent comments. Selecting which positions are the most notable will help here. Tinlinkin 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given above. Highly notable shows like Sesame Street have a lot more notable material associated with them, and this needs to be split off into sub-articles because of length reasons. If it's too long, shorten it. Article flaws have to be much worse than "too long" before its time to delete the entire article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I concur, the subject matter of the list is certainly notable enough. However, requires more sourced reputable citations. Smee 13:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't been very active here of late, but I've done a lot of work on Muppet Wiki, where our sole focus is on everything and anything relevant to the Muppets. And you know what? Even we, obsessed Muppet Sesame fans/historians as we are, felt these kinds of huge lists are excessive and not at all useful. Take a look at some of what's in there: production secretaries, accountants, transportation coordinator, boom operators, stagehands, and the like. I don't think a Wikipedia article on something like Citizen Kane even would/should be that exhaustive in just listing names (and it isn't), so why such a list here? The above are all necessary people to the production of the show, sure, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic; I say this as a film credits junkie myself, with lists and word docs for my own research, but an enormous credit list in and of itself, even if it can be verified, isn't especially useful in a format like Wikipedia. What *is* useful is either selective inclusion of the most crucial crew members, the original creators, or a text paragraph, sourced and with quotes if possible, about exactly how or why the specific people shaped the program, or any unique aspects to production as a whole; an article on Fantasia, for example, has a longer credits list than other films, but a) it's an animated feature, where the technical artists and crew are instrumental to a greater extent than, say, stagehands, and b) even then, it's not a full credit transcription, just the key storyboard artists and animators who shaped each segment. Part of the problem is Sesame Street has been on the air *38* years. Which is a long time, with a lot of change-overs. The current list is a mixture of anonymous contributions and actual direct transcriptions from credits, but so many names are without specifics on years, and it's also rife with misspellings of names. For myself, if it were up to me, Id's say delete as a list; merge the more notable aspects, maybe the key producers, directors, and writers, or better yet, actually write something about them. Add a paragraph summing up these key crew members, in a way that's both encyclopedic and interesting (production stage manager Chat O'Brien, for example, was also a semi-regular as fruit vendor Mr. Macintosh, and was with the show for more than 20 years). -- Aleal 21:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a work in practice. It has a considerable history of authorship and provides material for a potential good article in the future. SmokeyJoe 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Sesame Street is obvioulsy notable and why shouldn't we record this info. But, I gotta wonder if there would be a better way to go about this. I would rather read a short history of the production of Sesame Street rather than have only a list. Are there sources to the creator to do that? -MrFizyx 04:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a difference between an article about the crew of Sesame Street and a list of the crew of Sesame Street. The page is currently the latter. As it is now, the page is just as good as having the title List of crew of Sesame Street, and I probably would have taken that to AfD. A link to the main article via {{main}} technically adds nothing: the notability of this topic needs to be stated clearly within this article. Now, an article about the production of the show and the awards given to the crew and anything else related (specifically per Aleal and MrFizyx) is worth reading. Whether the title of that article should be "Crew of Sesame Street" is another story. Tinlinkin 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference of opinion is stemming from you seeing it as a completely seperate article from the main article, when in fact I think it's a subarticle intended to split off an otherwise large list section from the main article to make the main article more readable. It can be acceptable to divide a main article into smaller subarticles if the information in the subarticles is important to the main article but the size of the undivided main article is unwieldy. In this case, the cast/major crew list of a television series is a fairly important piece of information. So it's a question of style whether that list should be included in the main article entirely or split off into its own subarticle.
By the way, a possible alternative method for handling extremely long cast lists is to move the entire list to Wikisource and provide a transwiki link from the main article. I could see an argument that the cast/crew list for a show could fall under the realm of Wikisource, since it's basically a data set intended to supplement an article rather than act as an encylopedic topic on its own. Dugwiki 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think its more than that, the list seems to be hit or miss as to whether it is covering only the most recent cast or has years associated with the individuals. Also, I hate to belittle the contributions of hair stylist and stagehands, but... Just what will one find useful in this list of names? -MrFizyx 16:12, 6 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. — CharlotteWebb 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Alan Wolf

Crackpot without independent sources, most known for his appearances in a few films, most notably What the bleep do we know. He is already discussed in the articles on the films, which, since the films have sufficient reliable and reputable sources written about them, satisfy NPOV. However, there aren't sufficient sources to have an NPOV article on Wolf, and as can be seen, the article currently uses only his website and the WTBDWK website as sources. For a person whose views on physics fundamentally conflict with those of the scientific community, as explained in the WTBDWK article, these sources are not sufficient. Philosophus T 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) -- see response below[reply]

    • Comment The nomination claims his views on physics "fundamentally conflict with those of the scientific community" but in fact per [28] his book "Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Non-Scientists" is on a very select recommended list provided by Fermilab, a major U.S. government high energy physics research lab of 26 books on quantum physics for "regular people", right there next to Gell-Mann, Hawking, Feynman, Teller, Lederman, etc., and their only complaint is the writing is bland and stuffy. Not exactly the indices of total crackpotness. So maybe "some" of his views are contrary to the views of many in the physics community would be more accurate and less of a POV personal attack on the author. Inkpaduta 22:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - his crackpotness is to me a red herring. History is replete with notable loons and weirdos. The article gives solid claims for notability. It's irrelevant if every single person on the planet disagrees with what he says. If he gets enough publicity and airtime, he's notable. --Dweller 09:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you propose to make the article satisfy WP:NPOV or WP:V? We currently don't have any reputable independent sources, and we certainly don't have any sources that allow us to make the article have a neutral point of view. I assert that given the currently extant sources, it is impossible for the article to abide by fundamental Wikipedia policy. Most articles on notable crackpots that I have worked on (Time Cube, BDORT, Masaru Emoto, Christopher Michael Langan, and so on) have had independent sources about them that have allowed a neutral point of view, and most articles on crackpots without such sources that I have worked on (Aetherometry, Anti-relativity, Modern Galilean Relativity, Bios theory, Sorce theory, Karl Schappeller, and so on) have been deleted. Even for the articles that are kept, they are usually focused on the ideas of the person rather than the actual person (BDORT was moved from Yoshiaki Omura, and so on). --Philosophus T 10:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to discuss. Under which deletion criteria are you arguing this should be deleted? --Dweller 10:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actual nonverifiability and the impossibility of satisfying fundamental policy. This has been used before; for example, it was used as the justification for the Aetherometry deletion. It is a verifiability problem, which is the basis of non-notability deletions — even though the subject may have some presence on the internet and be known to some people, they are not notable enough to have independent sources about them. In this case, it is likely due to all of the sources being about the film, rather than the specific individual in the film. For that reason, I am somewhat inclined to redirect the article to WTBDWK, even though that redirect would be rather unintuitive. --Philosophus T 10:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, the least reason for deletion is being at odds with the rest of the scientific community, that is precisely where his notability is derived from. I find it a bigger problem that the article seems to lack secondary sources, therefore a big problem with WP:V Alf photoman 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep due to the sources found by Inkpaduta AlfPhotoman 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dweller, unless I missed a [[WP:CRACKPOT]]-type guideline someplace.  ;-) Whatever one may think of his ideas, Wolf fulfills WP:BIO; he has authored a number of popular books that haven't been published by vanity presses[29] and his media appearances should be easy to verify. I see no reason why the article can't be improved (at the moment, it's virtually a stub). Jim Butler(talk) 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual in question has been the non-trivial subject of at least one reliable, published sourcee (http://www.wie.org/bios/fred-alan-wolf.asp, originally provided by User:Jim Butler)--there may be more, but I didn't look. In addition, he has published 10 or so books. The article, as it currently stands, is largely verified and/or relatively easily verifiable (see the link). If reliable, published sources consider him a "crackpot" (though I would advise the use of a more neutral term or phrase such as "disagree with him"), then by all means note them so that they can be incorporated into the article. That the article is likely to become the subject of NPOV disputes in the future is not a reason to delete it now or later. -- Black Falcon 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment to the nom: The exact wording you use on the article's talk page is: "The article is quite biased in its presentation as it leaves out the fact that his ideas have been rejected by the majority of the mainstream scientific community, that his status as a theoretical physicist is highly controversial, and so on." If sources can be found for this they should be most definitely be incorporated. However, to delete this article on that premise in the absence of such sources amounts to original research. -- Black Falcon 19:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While his theories may be "crackpot", the man is probably notable enough for an article. An article on his theories would need much better sourcing. I admit I'm not pleased with the level of sources in the article now but I'm fairly sure good WP:RS sources for the man's work and accomplishments can be found. PigmanTalk to me 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now has several independent reliable sources to notability. He is a noted science writer, and has a PhD in physics from a noted university. He haswritten many books published by mainstream publishers such as Harper. His book "Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists" won the National Book Award as science paperback for 1980 from the National Book Foundation. "Fred Alan Wolf" gets 120,000 Google hits. Disagreeing with the theoretical physics establishment is by no means a basis for deleting an article. The AFD process is not a forum for deciding the truth of scientific views but only of noting whether they have multiple independent sources. His many appearances on science programs and his book award are sufficient. His notability is further attested by his books. He may be a crank in the views of some, but clearly he is notable. Inkpaduta 21:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My reasoning does did conform with policy, though admittedly in a non-obvious fashion, and I've listed several other AfDs as precedent above. In general, these sorts of articles are difficult to deal with policy-wise: it is possible to have a subject which is notable enough to have some sympathetic, partially reliable sources about it, or, in many cases, have many minor mentions in reliable sources , and yet be absurdly difficult or essentially impossible to write about while following verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research simultaneously. My personal threshold for this, which I believe stemmed from the arguments Aetherometry article a few years ago, is that for articles where the subject is clearly contentious and conflicts with mainstream science, the subject probably shouldn't have an article if no one has bothered to disagree with the subject in a reliable source. Nearly all notable crackpots and such satisfy this, as I mentioned above. As far as I could tell, after asking in the Pseudoscience Wikiproject and the talk page for the article, and searching around myself, Wolf didn't satisfy this criterion. It still appears that he doesn't, but the article has become more problematic — the article satisfies V reasonably well now, but making it satisfy NPOV will be difficult. In the end, this may end up like the Christopher Michael Langan article, and it may take us quite a while to find appropriate sources for NPOVing. There are also some other issues in this sort of case: for example, as the subject is portrayed in a scientific light, we really should have sources that satisfy the Appropriate Sources principle of the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision. But I can't currently call for the deletion of the article any longer given the new sources (nominating an abandoned article for AfD is a pointy yet effective way of improving the article). --Philosophus T 11:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Philosophus, I'm trying to understand your comment that subjects like Wolf are "essentially impossible to write about while following verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research simultaneously", and I'm just not grokking it. I'm sympathetic to your desire not to portray Wolf as representing some sort of majority or consensus view among physicists. But really, what is the big deal about people dicking around with metaphysics? It happens all the time. Surely wikilinking to physics and metaphysics a/o philosophy is enough to clarify matters for the curious but science-naive reader. Have we come to the point where it's OR to label something as metaphysics, or to say that Academies of Sciences aren't in the business of endorsing metaphysical views? regards, Jim Butler(talk) 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure I follow Philosophus's reasoning either. It sounds like you are giving two reasons: (1)The article is hard to police for NPOV and (2) No real scientist has gotten in a big enough huff over this crackpot to write an article explaining why his theories aren't science. Reason #1 is not deletion criteria. Policing a hard-to-police article is done every day at Wikipedia. Reason #2 is not going to be especially relevant in many cases. A lot of fringe science stuff is so kooky that no real scientist wants to treat it as important enough to even deserve a debunking article; for example, you'll never find a National Geographic article that debunks Flat Earth theories. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a theory that the moon is made of cheese (a typical example of clear pseudoscience). Suppose the theory is mentioned in quite a few reliable sources, possibly in a somewhat humorous or passing manner, but enough that it is verifiable and thus suitable for inclusion per WP:V. How can an NPOV article be written about the topic? It clearly conflicts with obvious evidence, but pointing that out would be original research. My point is that it is possible for more obscure pseudoscientific topics to have every reliable source be biased. This was the case, for example, with CTMU. It was certainly verifiable, and mentioned in many reliable sources because of its connection with Christopher Michael Langan. But there were no scientific sources, and the sources that existed were all sympathetic or mentioned the theory briefly while talking about Langan for other reasons. The article was deleted; otherwise, we would have been in a situation where to follow NOR and the letter of NPOV would have meant writing about the theory as if it were wonderful, without any criticisms. In this case, the situation is somewhat similar, though I misjudged the topic, due to my inability to find more independent sources. It is also likely that it will be possible to use WTBDWK sources as material for keeping a serious point of view in the article. I must say that I am quite surprised at the questioning of this reasoning, considering that it has been used many times before. --Philosophus T 05:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get the problem. In your analogy, it would be easy to refer to a plethora of scientific sources that deal with the theoretical structure of the moon, as well as the factual geological work that's been done on moon rock. --Dweller 10:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, you just write the article as "so-and-so says such-and-such." It's possible to write a pseudoscientific article in the same tone that is used when describing the contents of a novel: without writing as if everything that has been printed on a page is literally true. No original research required. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:48, 1 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 - At time of nomination, lacked sources, but three independent reliable sources have been added establishing notability in their market. —dgiestc 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Smiley Morning Show

The Smiley Morning Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio show - lacks multiple features in independent reliable sources. Google turns up 40 unique hits [30] amoung them a NUVO's Best of Indy 2003 - #1 in "Best morning radio show", [31] but other results are trivial mentions of the show. Searching for "Smiley Morning Show" nets 179 unique results but without more relevance. [32] Awyong J. M. Salleh 15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Within the last 24 hours, additional links and independant sources have been added to this entry. Given the regularity of the show being named "Best Morning Radio Show" in the 12th largest city in the United States, it seems to in fact be a notable radio show and is of interest to those in the large listening area (along with those listening in simulcast via the internet). Bouse 01:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 'best morning radio show' poll was taken by readers of a magazine; I can't consider that a reliable source. All of the other links point to nuvo.net, the website of the host's employer. We need multiple independent sources. Veinor (talk to me) 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suppose by the "readers of a magazine" theory we should discredited anything Rolling Stone says about music. Magazine sources are independent and reliable.Bouse 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said that the magazine itself was unreliable. I was saying that, often times, magazine-conducted polls tend to be biased in front of the group with the most vocal proponents. Besides, are you honestly comparing "Indianapolis Woman" to Rolling Stone? And in any case, we have no idea what the sample size of the 'best morning radio show' is. Best out of the state? county? city? It doesn't really say. Veinor (talk to me) 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that the magazine in question is based in Indianapolis, the sample size seems obvious- Indianapolis. And with a value judgment such as "best," you have to rely on polls; how else do you judge value? Speaking of judging value, who's to say that one magazine is better or more reliable than another? Sure, with a larger magazine such as Rolling Stone, the circulation size is bigger; however, their target audience is bigger to match. Local newspapers are quite reliable to local citizens. David 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Veinor- untrue. Nuvo.net is not the employer of the host. The host's employer is Entercom Communications, Inc., d/b/a WZPL Indianapolis. David Smiley receives no pay from Nuvo, a high-circulation society newspaper in the Indianapolis area. David 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Misread it; still want to delete it though. We only have two sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veinor (talk • contribs).
      • Many articles start out completely unsourced. They will come.

Three more IP addresses on the article's talk page seem to be "Keep" votes. Would these count? (Is there a WP policy against it?) David 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The Smiley Morning Show is notable primarily in the Indianapolis metropolitan area but is also known worldwide due to its available as a stream on the station website. The morning show has won numerous awards, both from local newspapers such as Nuvo and industry organizations. Schultmc 17:05, 1 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. As a rationale was requested, the arguments that this is simply a directory or definition were appropriately addressed, and it was shown that this is a viable subject for a sourced encyclopedia article, and can include information beyond that which would be appropriate for a dictionary. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:WINAD. This is the last given name list remaining on Wikipedia. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a particular country (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted, please see the list of discussions below.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As I stated a few weeks ago on Dmcdevit's talk page: "Whilst the etymologies and meanings for the individual given names would belong to Wiktionary, I believe that the compiled list itself does not. The article serves a valid encyclopedic function by giving light to the naming diversity across different national and cultural contexts. Kindly also refer to the earlier vote for deletion for the same article." CounterFX 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CounterFX. While I agree with the transwiki'ing of name lists from individual countries, this one is neither useless nor indiscriminate. The comparisons of a single compiled global list are not at all the same matter as etymologies and its presence improves the encyclopedia. --Kizor 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was never claimed that the article was useless or indiscriminate, but that it is better suited for a dictionary. Note that all of the given name lists were lists of "most popular" names; they also had a limited scope. None of them included any possible given name, which could have been endless, only the documented popular ones. This is nothing more than the same principle applied on a limited scale for more countries. The reasons for this being unencyclopedic and more worthy of a dictionary still stand: it is a list of words based on word usage (geographical distribution) without any prose about the meaning, in an encyclopedia which prohibits name definition articles, so that links from the names would be unhelpful.
  • Keep. This isn't a static list of given names by national origin, or a list of names with etymological meanings, so it isn't appropriate for a dictionary. In my opinion, it's currently a very long stub, but more detailed encyclopaedic content about international naming trends could be added in the future in order to supplement the tables. -Severa (!!!) 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just a list of names that exist in a country or among a particular group. It is a rather well-sourced (albeit incomplete) and dynamic list of names by country and/or region. I will not comment on the list's appropriateness for Wiktionary, but will assert that it is definitely appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see the distinction. You're committing the fallacy of arguing that sources have anything to do with whether something belongs in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, it seems. Wiktionary would strongly disagree with that (wikt:WT:RFV). How is this any more encyclopedic than the rest? Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main point was not sourcing (that's just a plus). My point was that it is not just a (static) listing of names. It is a (dynamic) list that supplements the article given name by providing information about the commonality and geographic distribution of names--such information would never be found in a dictionary. -- Black Falcon 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there is no essential difference between this list and all the others. You say dictionaries don't cover the geographic distribution of words, but encyclopedias do? You have that exactly backwards: dictionaries specify word usage, like regional usages. Note Wiktionary's wikt:Category:Regional_templates, which create, for example, the "(Irish English)" you'll see before entries like wikt:feck. Note also wikt:Category:Scottish_surnames, wikt:Category:English_surnames, wikt:Category:Russian_surnames, etc. Rather, such information should not be found in an encyclopedia, which is about the concept words indicate, not their usage - geographical, popularity, or otherwise - alone. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. I fail to see why this is not a suitable supplement to given name, but the exact same Wikipedia article is. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a world of difference. The examples you have noted are all limited to one country. The category for Russian names, for instance, identifies only the origin of the names without saying anything about the geographic distribution and/or concentration of those names. Dictionaries do not cover this type of information: they cover the meanings of names, their origins, and not much else. wikt:Category:Scottish_surnames identifies names of Scottish origin, but says nothing about the fact that there are plenty of individuals with this name outside of Scotland. And why should it? That is not within the scope of a dictionary. A dictionary should limit itself to identifying words, defining them, and specifying how they originated. The geographic distribution of names (which is tied in to migration patterns, the political histories of regions, etc.) is beyond the scope of a dictionary. That sort of information belongs in an encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think so. Regional political upheavals and migration pattersn are encyclopedic content. The general spread of words and names as a result of those migration patterns is also encyclopedic content. But information about specific words and names is dictionary content. The distinction that WP:WINAD draws doesn't have anything to do with the scope of an article or items in a list--it has to do with the subject of the article or of the items in a list. If the subject is a word or name, or if the items in the list are words or names, that's dictionary content. And the more that can be said about the words or names, the better--but it still goes in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. Pan Dan 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The subject here is obviously not a "specific word or name". It is the frequency of given names across the world. The subject here is not names, but their frequency. This is not a static list. Any of the names on this list could be removed as soon as updated data arrives. Your point is inapplicable as it misjudges the subject of the list. -- Black Falcon 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, it doesn't. The subject of the list is not the general concept of name frequency. If it were, it would be titled Onomastic trends and would not be in list form. I imagine that such an article would be possible to write; it would include observations and extrapolations that outside sources have made by looking at data about specific names like the data that is in this list. But the list itself is a collection of information about the frequency of specific names, hence it is about specific names. Pan Dan 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • First, your last statement is logically fallacious: "the list itself is a collection of information about the frequency of specific names, hence it is about specific names." No, as you justed admitted, it's about frequency. Second, I never claimed that the subject wsa the "general concept of name frequency". It's not about the general concept (though I suppose it could be altered to that purpose); it's about the actual frequency. Third, this is not a list of the frequency of any "specific names" (even if you count 200+ as specific) as it is a dynamic list that changes from year to year. How can it be about particular names when those names may be justifiably removed one year and re-added the next? -- Black Falcon 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Let me address your first & second points taken together. I raised the notion of "general concept of name frequency" to make a contrast between the kind of material suited for Wikipedia and the kind of material suited for Wiktionary. Information about frequencies of specific names is information about those specific names -- i.e. Wiktionary material -- as opposed to information about the "general concept of name frequency," which is Wikipedia material. On your third point, this really shouldn't be a dynamic list on either Wiktionary or Wikipedia; it should classify the information by year. But that's not relevant to the question of whether it should go on Wiktionary or Wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It is highly relevant. All the other "List of ... names" were just that: static lists of names that exist, and should have been deleted. This list is entirely different. This article does not convey information about a specific set of names; rather, it conveys information about a specific set of countries. The article presents descriptive information about a characteristic of individual countries. The individual names are of secondary (or even tertiary) importance and relevance as they are replacable. This article is actually mistitled (not a reason for deletion, by the way). It is not a list of names, but rather a list of countries. -- Black Falcon 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-referenced and not just a list of word or definitions. Agree with above keep recommendations: while the names by country article were justifiably transwikied, this article is actually appropriate for Wikipedia. --Canley 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no one has claimed that it's not a word list, though some claim it can be encyclopedic still. But there is no denying that it is a list of words; there is nearly no prose to speak of. Have you read the article? Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I claimed it was not a word list! I'm guessing this was just a typo? Of course, I've read it. What I haven't read is a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says an article must contain prose, please feel free to point me to one. --Canley 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I don't see why the reasons given for deleting it apply, while I see good reasons given above for keeping it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a specific rationale. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most popular given names are a highly notable topic, and I've seen entire websites devoted to the topic, as well as mentions of it in geneology books. Notable topics about which much could potentially be said belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Plus, I do not see any merit, or any basis in Wikipedia policy, in the argument about deleting this list of names just because many other lists of names have been deleted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A dictionary is the proper place for the definition and usage of words. For lists of names by category, and for showing how the frequency of name usage evolves, I think an encyclopedia is much more suited. –Shoaler (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shoaler. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shoaler. Just because it does not explain meaning is no reason to not be included in an encyclopedia; we have many other lists that do not explain meaning either (lists of films, etc.) This article is interesting and fairly well-referenced. Esn 22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shoaler. This is a great, useful, worthy, valuable list. It's about specific names. Things about specific names go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Pan Dan 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. WP:WINAD does not require that all "things about names go in Wiktionary", and the idea that everything about names go into a dictionary is dangerously schematic. There is a branch of linguistics about names (onomastics). This particular article may be about names, but as several above have implied the synthetic effect of this list places it outside of anything that I've met in any dictionary. While I'm happy enough to banish most lists of names, this one strikes me as compellingly encyclopedic and very un-dictionary-like. semper fictilis 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't express myself well and have amended my comment. Of course I don't think that material about names as a general category should go in Wiktionary. See my above response to Black Falcon. But things about specific names go in Wiktionary. The list under consideration here is about specific names, not onomastics. Pan Dan 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't know where it might fall on current policy, but as I just came to Wikipedia looking for this precise information, I would have been surprised had it not been here, and would not have thought to look in Wiktionary. --jwandersTalk 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recent discussions have given rise to one very valid point - what about converting the list from a single, dynamic, continually-updated list into a set of static lists by year, such as List of most popular given names in 2006, List of most popular given names in 2007, and so forth? This is already being done for the lists of the United States. This way, results from previous years would not need to be lost whenever a new publication is released. Anyway, maybe it would be better to discuss this matter after the Afd is closed. CounterFX 22:16, 2 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. Rlevse 02:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of funny animals in media

List of funny animals in media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ill-defined, POV, unencyclopaedic and ummaintainable list. Fails against many parts of WP:NOT Nuttah68 10:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - don't you mean delete? -- Whpq 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Delete. Computerjoe's talk 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently POV list with no well defined inclusion criteria. -- Whpq 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'Funny' is not well-defined. I also have to wonder whether people would be included; after all, some people consider them to be animals (AfD is not the place to start a debate on that, so don't). Keep Neutral; apparently, this is a technical term. Of course, we'd want to restrict it to non-human animals, then. Veinor (talk to me) 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that: (A) all mammals are animals; and (B) all humans are mammals; therefore: (C) all humans are animals. -- Black Falcon 20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, I just enjoy people's reactions (in person, not online) when they "discover" (ruffled feathers and all) that biologically humans are animals (this is not directed to you of course--not that I'm not saying you're not a human and animal; wait... ah, never mind, I hope you get my point ). My comment was more in jest rather than a serious attempt to logically establish a biological fact, which is really a pointless exercise because the word "animal" has multiple meanings. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I please inquire as to how exactly they do that? Do they, like this list, separate by the studio which produced it? No. Just like the category, this list can be edited to include only entries with existing articles. Were the category ever to be completed (like this list), it too would have tens of thousands of entries, so that is not a real distinction. Also, why should delete an article now for a problem that may or may not arise in the future?
One of your comments puzzles me. You write that this list operates "without regard to the medium in which it appears". Really? What about the sections titled "Comic books", "Comic strips", "Feature Films", "Video games", and so on?
There is something else that bothers me. You write that "the extensive categorization scheme that has developed for anthropomorphic animals ... better serves Wikipedia than a list". Better serves Wikipedia? Exactly what does that mean. Is the purpose of Wikipedia simply to exist? Or is it to be a resource for people around the world to use? For if it's the latter, I fail to understand the rationale behind your comment. Not everyone finds categories easier to use than lists, and I'm sure you know that. So, in sum, I fail to see what reason there could be for desiring the elimination of the article. -- Black Falcon 04:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animated_feature_films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_action_films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stop-motion_films

lets include the rest of the Films by genre list. The Funny animal list is supposed to serve the same purpose as the examples listed.

Anthropomorphism is define as giving human qualites to a non-human object, its just too broad. I am open to other ideas... Possiblyyourbestfriend 14:20, 2 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 by TexasAndroid[33]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

720 Degrees Debian

720 Degrees Debian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to only be a INSTALL doc for installing Debian on a Jornada. :: ZJH (T C E) 11:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right just delete this for now and i'll contact Debian Ports,HpcFactor and Handhelds.org and ask them to do a Distro review, then i'll repost the Info assuming these are reliable sources for you,I will also ask kristoffer@jlime.com the Current Jornada Linux Kernel Maintainer at www.jlime.com to do a review of the Jornada Linux Kernel running on 720 Degrees Debian but he mabey a bit biased towards his own distro :P

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paletten

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

I'm unable to find any English sources about this publication, and the original author now seems intent on either blanking the article or filling it with nonsense. --Onorem 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of screen capture software

List of screen capture software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a product guide, nor the yellow pages. Both pages suffer from lack of sourcing, tend to attract excessive external links, and are basically promotion for a variety of brands, many of which are not particularly notable. >Radiant< 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of screen recording software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete both, though I'll probably get accused again of being partial in a revert war over external links in pages that I haven't even edited. Such lists might be borderline useful, if there were more bluelinks, which in this case there are not. These pages aren't encyclopedic articles themselves, nor are they particularly related to any other articles, they are mere collections, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies. Femto 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these thriving link farms of non-notable software. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links and it is not meant to be used as a vehicle for advertising or promotion. I've tried and failed in cleaning up the external links in this list. A troublesome main actor in this dispute has stated: "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." [36] I then attempted negotiating a compromise solution that could resolve this dispute to which the response was "No deals with you." Deletion was not my preferred path but at this point in time I feel it is the best and only solution. (Requestion 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • The guideline WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming says "adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." Both of these software lists serve no other purpose than to be vessels for link spam. (Requestion 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • It should be mentioned that the Village Pump (policy) has commented on this particular dispute. See [37] for reference. The pump archive will be deleted in two weeks so here is a brief summary: User:Urod took the "deletions of external links" dispute to the pump, several policy makers commented that WP:EL and WP:NOT#DIR are the relevant guidelines, Urod and I were both scolded, and the closing comment was "As far as I see it, this policy issue is resolved; the feud is to be taken elsewhere." (Requestion 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Do Not Delete In response to the advertisement allegations: This article is not complete (see ToDo List), but is a work in progress on a dynamic subject that is difficult to define and categorize (help is welcome). This list of screen recording software should not be misinterpreted as an advertisement due to pricing, prices are included because cost is significant when evaluating software. They were removed once before from another page, and put back because some found them useful... see the Screencast Discussion page. Furthermore; it took quite a bit of time & energy to research & compile the pricing data and software links. When looking at other Comparison pages, prices apparently can be included and are helpful when comparing features and making evaluation decisions... Price data is prevalent in many other 'Comparison' articles like Comparison of video editing software & Comparison of instant messaging clients. Hopefully a 'Comparison of Screen Recording Software' article can be written soon that obsoletes some of the (price) information on this 'List' page. Please advise or help write a 'Comparison of Screen Recording Software' article (I'm not great with tables), but don't delete this work based on some editor in chief, soup-nazi mentality. Please remove the Marked for Deletion banner, 'Articles that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion' Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If the article is deleted, I will find it hard to contribute my time & research to wikipedia in the future. Awildman 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC) - Duplicate vote: User:Awildman has cast a second vote below. (Requestion 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)) My mistake, it was a comment. (Requestion 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:List_of_screen_recording_software#Pricing_Information

  • Delete, a list where everything of a kind is listed is not very encyclopedic when the only inclusion criteria is being. Second, a list of this type becomes unmaintainable after a short period of time AlfPhotoman 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm T C 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and notable information, which could not be replaced with a category because most of the software is redlinked and will never be notable enough for individual articles. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, this is interesting. You say that the information is notable, yet it will never have articles because it's not notable. That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Also, see WP:USEFUL. >Radiant< 10:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dude, come on. Merging minor articles into a list is a long standing action. List of Star Trek races for one where most races are deemed not notable enough to have their own articles. I fail to see how this article is any different in these terms and I really fail to see how it's an oxymoron. Cburnett 14:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment List of Star Trek races are an aspect of fiction in a notable work of fiction; they have their own guidelines. This isn't comparable. I'm not sure how you can keep an article with eternal redlinks without having it become a linkfarm. ColourBurst 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that the List of Star Trek races is not comparable to these two Lists of Software. The Star Trek lists have content, are informative, and they lack any promotional external links. These two lists up for AfD are different; they have no content and their sole purpose is to be promotional. I've found that keeping external links out of software lists requires a lot of diligence. The big problem here is that one user in particular has taken an oath to be disruptive when they said "Remove it if you can! I will not let you to remove external links." Unfortunately a happy medium is not possible when dealing with such individuals. (Requestion 17:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
            • I wrote this, but I also wrote that I am going to respect any decision of Arbitration Commitee (besides, I am neutral about removing prices). --Urod 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment for another example, think of all the minor relatives of celebrities. Such people are rarely notable enough for their own articles, but they can be mentioned on the celebrity's article. There's a big leap between "item is notable enough for its own article" and "item is notable enough to be mentioned briefly in an article along with a bunch of other stuff that also doesn't deserve individual articles". Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write new article. Yeah... Where is the article defining what screen recording/capture is ? (Forgive me if I missed the link).Although obvious to many computer users ... to the novice the distinctions can be confusing. These links could then be incorporated into that definition page ? DJbarney
  • Screen_recording redirects to Screencast and many see it as an integral part of the Podcasting Project. Also if anyone cared they'd review the Talk:Screencast pages for some history as to how this List came about. I don't see how this List can be deleted, when Lists of Software are becoming a predominate category in WP. Many are not as well developed as this one. We simply need guidance & templates as to how to create these Lists and Comparison pages properly (no one wants to see them become link-spam & propaganda). It would be a shame to delete them all! Being an IT & trying to keep track of software tools & development is one of the main reasons I use WP... I find these Lists and Comparison pages most useful. As time allows, I would prefer to continue to work on this & add stubs to wiki articles describing some of the significant software like FFMPEG and Istanbul_software, which doesn't have a page yet. I don't think it is a black & white issue (delete or keep), the Lists exist and are a necessary part of the process to create more in depth articles. There is a methodology to creating an article on a category of software like Screencasting. This is how it is evolving:
  • Define, List features and what the product is used for. Video editing software
  • Describe the process for creating a product, provide access to HOWTOs & Examples. Video editing software
  • List tools for creating a product. List_of_video_editing_software
  • Compare the tools. Comparison_of_video_editing_software
It was never the intention of this article to create a 'link-farm', rather a source of reference for organizing & defining what is Screen Recording software (similar to Video editing software) & how it can be used to create computer based Tutorials, Screencasts, Netcasts, Podcasts, CBTs... (rather hot topics), which are evolving rapidly. Unfortunately sites like tucows and freshmeat don't have collaborative wikis or the ability to categorize items the way some of the software lists have evolved on WP. So is there a recommended way to create a List of software with references and 'blue' links, short of creating a WP entry for each item? I'm still learning & some 'good' examples would help. Awildman 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In Urod's preferred form, it's an unencyclopedic link farm, in Requestion's preferred form, a sea of red. The link farm is the more useful form, but WP is not the appropriate place for it. —David Eppstein 08:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. As Awildman states, I do believe such lists are useful to gather more information regarding different subjects. Prices could (and should?) be removed, but since it's a list of software I would suggest linking to the home pages. (On a sidenote, I've just added links to the freeware version of these programs, since I naturally thought they should be there. After reading this discussion I'm not sure I did the right thing. But I, for one, would like these links to be there) Holroy 03:41, 5 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, misspelled dictionary definition. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nachshub

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

No content bar a dictionary type definition Agathoclea 12:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akadémi Basong

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

Non-notable. Google search for Basong [43] is limited while a majority of them are unrelated to the subject. A more restrictive search [44] should reveal the non-notability of subject. Delete Awayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy __earth (Talk) 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Kick off Survivor. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caryn Groedel

Caryn Groedel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Previously survived as a bundled nomination of various survivor contestants over 5 months ago which ended as a no consensus-train wreck. Some of them has since been renominated on individual cases, and some has been deleted on the consensus that they were not notable outside the the game show. (e.g [45], [46] &[47])

I will re-nominate this NN Survivor contestant who hasnt done anything since leaving the show. Lack of notable secondary references outside game show, A quick google search (minus Wikipedia results) turns up around 1,000 results but most are forum posts from the Survivor game show, plus a few on her official website. I'm sure we dont create pages on losing game show contestants on shows such as Jeopardy or Deal or No Deal because they've been on a game show. (well except for the obvious notable celebrities on the special editions). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:BIO; other than the biography on Jewish Women International, no coverage in third-party sources is cited to establish notability. Being on a reality show doesn't inherently confer notability. Delete unless more sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bio that is rather unnoticed and a reality show contestants (is any of them going to remembered in two years anyway ?) and hardly any hard sources, with a living person it leaves no choice Alf photoman 17:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete losing a reality show is not notable in itself and te article makes no other claim to notability. Nuttah68 10:32, 1 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Ivanenko

Alexei_Ivanenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Delete. The guy is just another spokesperson for terrorists (they're called "freedom fighters" or "separatists" in the West). Dissemination of what is considered an anti-Russian propaganda, I'd say. KNewman 12:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - nominator seems to be influenced by POV; "dissemination of anti-Russian propaganda" is not a valid reason for deletion under WP policy. I'm not sure, however, whether the links constitute evidence of coverage in independent sources (per WP:BIO), as most of the sites seem to be linked to the subject of the article. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as nominated I feel that we should not give in to POV nominations... on the other side the article has a serious problem with WP:V and somebody should work on it before it is nominated for that Alf photoman 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. Delete as violation of WP:BIO, WP:BLP & WP:V. Sources proving his notability (in whatever language) are badly needed. If they can be found, and fulfill WP:BIO, I think my vote will be "Keep". It's interesting, though, that although the nomination was created in bad faith, the article might've been created in bad faith as well (as can be seen by its inclusion on the controversial Siberian wikipedia, which has many Russophobic contributors). Esn 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is perfectly understandable for people to write articles about those who share their politics, and if the article is objective and NPOV, that's how we build; there is no POV in this article To me, that does not count as bad faith in the author. If the article is marginal , the evident bad faith of the nom should induce us to feel appropriately towards attempts at suppression. DGG 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep no reason given for deletion  ⇒ bsnowball  19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:BLP. The nomination provides no reason(s) for deletion. Even if everything the nom says is true, being a spokesman for terrorists and engaging in anti-Russian propganda seems to hint that the subject of the article is notable. However, the article (or at least the version I'm viewing) is quite strange. For instance, who does the "us" in the fourth and sixth sentences refer to? I would suggest notifying the author of the article, User:Messir, of WP:COI (writing "us" seems an indication of personal involvement in the issue). Also, the new additions (beyond the second sentence) are confusing. For instance, the article says "The main concept of his philosophy is quranic term "kufr", which interpreteded as ideology.", but "kufr" actually means "unbeliever", not "ideology". Another part describes the individual as an "elf-muslim" (claimed to be a self-description), with a reference to Tolkien, which I couldn't decipher. Unless this is sourced, I would say delete as a violation of WP:BLP. -- Black Falcon 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't hard to find angry Russophobic writers on the internet - that alone does not establish or even suggest notability. Currently, this article doesn't seem to fulfill WP:BIO (perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a better fit in this case). More importantly, it doesn't fulfill WP:V. Esn 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree and that's why I'm leaning toward deletion of the article as it is in violation of WP:BLP. Also, I'm not insisting that the individual is indeed notable, but am just expressing my opinion that the nominator's method of nominating the article for deletion is counterproductive overall and even to his goal (to get the article deleted). -- Black Falcon 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gentlemen, let me explain myself. I nominated the article for deletion because this Ivanenko character's "works" are only being published at the Kavkaz Center website, which is a terrorist media platform, run by the Chechen rebels themselves and the guys who support them. Even though I personally support the freedom of press, I don't think I can tolerate anti-Russian slander in Wikipedia (or links to such sites). But as always, majority here decides everything, even if people can't read Russian at all and have no idea what this Ivanenko is writing about. KNewman 06:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it much matters what he's writing. The question is whether he himself is notable and whether the article about him should be kept. I am of the opinion that the article should be deleted as violating WP:BLP. The statement that he works for/with Kavkaz Center is true and verified (see [48]). However, other parts of the article, such as about his "philosophy", are not verified and thus violate WP:BLP. Moreover, the subject of the articles does not seem to meet WP:N (as far as I could tell from a review of available English-language sources; there may be others in Turkish or Russian). However, your approach to the nomination was inappropriate and, I believe, the reason for most of the "keep" votes. -- Black Falcon 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Black Falcon - there were many valid grounds you could've picked to delete the article, but you picked the one that would be least persuasive to editors unfamiliar with the subject. I've changed my vote to "Delete", because the article as it is now violates a whole bunch of guidelines and it doesn't seem likely to fulfill them anytime soon. If it does, my vote will change again; I'm basing my decision strictly on whether the article fulfills wikipedia guidelines or not. Please also realize that just because a person or ideology promote slander does NOT mean that they should not be in wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral mechanism, so that if this person's views are widely denounced people can read about that within the article and make their own judgements - we have articles on subjects such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which do just that. Esn 07:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete regardless of politics and POV issues, the article provides no sources to back up any claims per WP:BIO and a search on Google [49] (in English admittedly) implies that independent sources may not exist. If reliable sources can be provided I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:38, 1 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; inconclusive as to whether this need to be merged or not, but no one aside the nom is asking for deletion. The need to merge, if any, should be talked through on article talk page(s), but not in this venue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain in a vat

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

This article is identical to at least other 4 articles on the philosophical paradigm of simulated reality. only this one not even trying to add anything new, written in a child like way and repeat even it self. it could link to the Dream_argument or evil demon. yet I believe it is completely redundant.

  • keep Having read several philosophical books, I can say that most philosophers address this experiment separately from the problem of the dream argument or the evil demon. Remember, this argument is a 20th-century philosophical argument - one developed in a field distinct from Simulated reality or the other articles cited above. Note that the concept is novel enough for inclusion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is certainly more restrictive than Wikipedia is. Simfish 07:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does not matter how you name the philosophical musing on the problem, it's a matter of fashion really, I can bring up other enyclopedias where they were more fond of the dream argument. they are basically the same phenomenon. --Procrastinating@talk2me 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge or redirect. If the nominator's only concern is that the article is redundant, why are we on AfD? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Mentioned on the "Today" programme this morning. Lewis Wolbert hadn't heard of it, but I shouldn't be surprised if he turned to this article in brushing up for the debate this evening. Brain in a vat is related to but different from Simulated reality, evil demon, dream_argument and similar topics. Plus it features in my novel (as do other simulation arguments) pmcray
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged with Cornell Green (offensive tackle). NawlinWiki 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell D. Green

Cornell D. Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cornell D. Green does not appear to exist, at least according to ESPN and google. I suppose I could be wrong... Grung0r 12:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:19Z

Finola Hackett

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

DELETE --

Not very notable. The notability of National Spelling Bee winners is debatable, but definitely not 2nd place spellers. See ongoing discussion @ Samir Patel under Articles for deletion. Onyx the hero 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more references, neither of which is a local paper. A cursory search on LexisNexis reveals more than 20 more sources, many of which are specifically about Hackett. — brighterorange (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Strong Keep per the comments of Brighterorange. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until there is a consensus about National Spelling Bee contestants, I'd have to say she's not notable. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong keep per the arguments first AFD (please link these when renominating). It received a lot of "strong keep" votes there! 2nd place in a contest of this importance is notable. Passes WP:BIO; she has competed at the "highest level" in the Scripps National, itself a "competitive activit[y] that [is itself] considered notable". (Also she won another smaller national Spelling Bee!) On top of that, the article has multiple non-trivial sources specifically about her, so what is the problem? — brighterorange (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do check out the very similar Samir Patel AFD; another 2nd place Scripps finish with a number of sources. — brighterorange (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not the winner, so no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with brighterorange that this article was keeper in previous AfD nomination and she has won a national spelling bee and the article has verifiable nontrivial references. Warfieldian 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a contest winner is not a requirement to be notable for Wikipedia purposes. The requirement for notability purposes would be that she has been the subject of multiple, independently written articles from reliable publishers. In this case, the article appears to cite three or four independent articles about the subject, and thus she would be notable (assuming the references check out). Notability is about references and sourcing, not about winning or losing. Dugwiki 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, hey guys, the Vancouver Sun, The Sacramento BEE ARE reliable sources. These sources are independent of the subject. If at all this just is another case showing that Notability(People) is just to inclusive. According to the rules she's in AlfPhotoman 00:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Do we keep the 2nd place finisher in events the Olympics, or only the first? In fact, we have a large category for the many articles.The importance of everything is judged by the standard of its own field. DGG 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that this is a bad faith nomination as Samir Patel's, another spelling be contestant, article is nominated for deletion. That page was created by Onyx the hero. This page as survived an AFD already. <3Clamster 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meats notability by having verifiable secondary sources. AntiVan 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insanely strong keep Jesus f***ing Christ, do we have to go through this again? Thank heavens most of the people above me realize the notability of this person. First, as Clamster notes, this is almost certainly a bad faith nom. Second, she easily passes WP:BIO not just for the multiple articles from reliable sources that focus (sometimes exclusively) on her, but because she won a well-known national championship twice and came in second in the most well-regarded event of its type in the world. -- Kicking222 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focaljet

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

I'm not sure about our guidelines for web forums - it claims 24,000 members, which is a lot. Montchav 11:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid[50]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KIPS

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

Redirect to Kawasaki, or is this non-notable? Montchav 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khachkar destruction

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

This article is a POV fork for Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - How is it a POV fork? this article describes the destruction of Khachkars, those images are clear proof, this is located there but it is different, silliness. Artaxiad 12:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This issue is addressed in Nakhichevan and Julfa articles, this is a POV fork. Grandmaster 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you not yourself the nom? -- Black Falcon 08:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am. This is my first nomination, am I not allowed to vote? Grandmaster 08:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are, of course--although technically AfD is not a vote ;) . The nomination itself counts as a "delete" and many nominators add a bolded "delete" following their nominations (for visual clarity, to make additional comments, or to specify that they support deletion instead of redirecting or merging, for instace). I was just trying to clarify whether you were the actual nominator or just the first to comment. In retrospect, I could simply have checked the edit history to confirm that you created the AfD. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or significantly ammend. For example, this POV page does not include the important article from a leading Armenian HETQ magazine - [51] about Armenians' destroying their own khachkars and cultural heritage -- and since the Hetq story compares this to khachkar (cross-stones or head-stones, common to Armenians and Caucasian Albanians of the region) destruction in Naxcivan, it was relevant.

What is interesting, there are more admissions of khachkars being destroyed by Armenians themselves, especially around their capital of Yerevan -- for example, at this specialized khachkar website - [52]

"Endangered Khachkars in Armenia and Artsakh It is particularly tragic that khachkars are also endangered in Armenia and Artsakh. They are disappearing, being damaged or moved. Most endangered are the old khachkar fields located near today’s graveyards, where khachkars are being eradicated for the creation of new burial space. The “crown of thorns” belongs to the khachkar field in Arinch near Yerevan. The situation is threatening in Noratus as well, where new burials are encroaching upon the khachkar field from at least three sides. The old graveyard of Areni is in almost the same situation. The movement of khachkars voluntarily by different individuals is a widespread practice. In some cases this is done to allegedly create a new holy place, for example, the case of Karmir Dalakner of Gegharquniq region where the khachkar was brought from Karvachar. Another case of moved khachkars is due to the decoration of new offices and especially entertainment establishments, as for example in the Vank village in Karabakh. The third and the most condemning practice is when khachkars are merely disappearing to decorate individual yards and houses. Khachkars are being damaged also by believers, worshipers and casual visitors, who light candles on them or write their names on them or engage in rituals that are damaging the carvings." See gallery of photos here - [53]

Moreover, the destruction of cultural heritage (or Cultural Genocide, as some Armenians dubbed it) in Armenia, like elsewhere, has reached dangerous proportions and led to many protests both in press and in streets -- [54], [55], [56], and [57]

Hence, if the Armenian and pro-Armenian view on destruction of khachkars by allegedly Azerbaijanis and allegedly in Naxcivan is to be included, then a contrarian view should be included too -- not just Azerbaijan's denial of wrongdoing by the government, but Armenians' own admission of breaking, destroying and otherwise mishandling their own khachkars on their own territory. --AdilBaguirov 13:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if the article is about destruction of khackars in general, it should include info on such destruction in Armenia, if it is to be limited to Nakhichevan, it is POV fork. Grandmaster 13:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject should be dealt in pages related to Nagorno-Karabakh War and in complex with other issues, for example, the destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage on occupied Azerbaijani territories. Thus the balance approach will be provided for. Moreover, issue of Khachkar has been already addressed on some other pages.--Dacy69 16:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as I saw all references are to armenian sources and one iranian source, which uses the word Arran instead our official and OURS name Azerbaijan thus showing that it is completely biased and prejudiced. And coming to the video, It is not completely evident that those people are Azerbaijanis, it can be a constructed scene and imitation, how many times we have met such fake videos? I have watched that film from youtube, it must be viewed by a professional video master in order to be examined. I think this dispute should be solved by so simple procedure, Armenian MFa should ask any Internatioanl organisation and that organisation should conduct an official investigation with the Azeri and Armenian MFAs and if they can find any proof that that destruction was done , then please. Elsanaturk 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Grandmaster you don't get a vote first of all, second these are all Turks so obviously they would want this deleted.Artaxiad 19:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you will keep your word here is an English source, now change your vote, [58] Artaxiad 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Artaxiad, personal attacks are unacceptable, and ethnic attacks are no exception. Please don't do that ever again. Picaroon 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be deleted because it is very informative including the pictures and it is also fully sourced. The only reason that this article was listed for deletion by user Grandmaster is because currently there is a conflict between Armenian-Azerbaijani users and lot of edit waring in many Armenian-Azerbaijani related pages. This is a type of retaliation agains Armenian users and Armenian related articles, which I think is not the right thing to do by retaliating each other. ROOB323 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per all. I am surprised this article did not exist already. This is certainly a very important event as it is Ethnocide committed by a government. It was and still is big news in the Armenian world and 3rd party groups have condemned it. Denying this article is like denying the event, which was captured on video by an Armenian. - Fedayee 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though it seems that almost all those who have asked for it to be deleted are doing so for very questionable motives (to say the least), it does not get around the fact that the article duplicates what is already on the page for Julfa and adds nothing new to the subject. Moreover, the article's title is meaningless since it is too general to apply to just the destruction at Julfa, and too object specific to apply to the wider destruction of Armenian cultural artifacts. Meowy 23:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event in Julfa was one of top five news in Armenian community. It deserves its own article. Khachkar/Church destruction is one of the major events during and after Nagorno-Karabakh war. It's considered as cultural genocide. Vartanm 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another redunant piece of false Armenian propaganda. The whole idea is based on a video with very low resolution, where it's barely visible who people are and what they're doing, leave it alone whether those were really Azerbaijani soldiers or not was never proven by credible evidence. It's an unfounded accusation, especially in light of Khojaly Massacre, clearly a crime against humanity, 15th anniversary of which is actually today, a crime which Armenian side still denies. Atabek 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
News of the existance of this discussion is doing the rounds on various Azeri and Armenian message boards - so I expect there will be much more of the above type of comments that entirely miss the point. The destruction of the Julfa grveyard is an accepted fact that has been fully documented. The issue here is whether the "Khachkar destruction" page is suitable to be an entry in wikipedia. Meowy 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vartanm. -- Davo88 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep when an article is objected to as 'another false piece of [X] propaganda' I see it as an admission of N in the article, and of bias in the objector. I think possibly some additional sources should be added to the article about possible destruction by other groups, if there are such sources, and the article should perhaps cite specific reported events, but that's for the talk page. Attempts at suppression on political grounds tend to backfire if seen by those outside the controversy.DGG 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read all other articles on the same topic? How come it is a supression of info, if this info was described in a number of articles about the region? Grandmaster 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've recommended, that if we are to keep this article, then it should be expanded to include not only all the counter-claims (by the other side), but the significant evidence and pictures of Armenians themselves engaged in destruction of their historic heritage. Otherwise, it is obviously POV. Moreover, perhaps this article can become more comprehensive, and become "Destruction of cultural and historic heritage in South Caucasus", where we can include all the claims and counter-claims of Georgians -- such as 19th century Ilya Chavchavadze book about Armenians mishandling Georgian Churches and graves. I think there are some more evidence from Soviet academics about Urartu heritage being physically "rebranded" by some ultra-nationalists. All this would make a better quality article as would give a full picture to the readers. --AdilBaguirov 07:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, I'm inclined to change my vote now. Grandmaster 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment/word of caution: a Destruction of cultural and historic heritage in South Caucasus might be overly broad (in terms of groups involved, the timespan, and also the range of objects included in "heritage"). However, I recognize that to be an issue up to the discretion of those editors who are actually involved in writing the article(s). -- Black Falcon 08:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think narrowing the scope of the issue to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan would minimize the potential for future POV disputes. -- Black Falcon 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that if we make a separate article on this, it should cover all instances of such destruction, not limiting it to a certain area. We have articles that reflect the controversy on Julfa cemetery, however other instances of such destruction received no coverage so far. This article may fill the void. Grandmaster 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The issue has received multiple international coverage and is the subject of a dispute between two countries. I think that easily qualifies its notability as a separate article. Armenia says it happened, Azerbaijan says it didn't, and a variety of international organisations/observers have confirmed and/or questioned its occurrence (for the most part, the incident has been confirmed). The article should reflect this controversy so that there are no POV issues. Based on their comments, a number of editors seem to be personally motivated either for or against this article. If there is POV in the article, clean it up. But the fact that this issue has received so much attention and controversy means that it qualifies as having its own article (aside from a notice in Nakhichevan). Content disputes should be addressed on the talk page, not at AfD. -- Black Falcon 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is not going to be about what allegedly happened in Nakhichevan, but about any destruction, be that in Azerbaijan, Armenia or elsewhere, as the title is very general. As for Nakhichevan, if this article is to be kept, then I think we should remove duplicate info from the article about Julfa, because what is the point in having the same information pasted in many articles? Grandmaster 07:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You raise good points, which I admit I had not considered. However, I believe both issues can be addressed without deleting this article. The first issue can be easily solved through a page-move, such as moving the page to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan. As for your second point, a certain degree of duplication across articles is necessary. For instance, the History of Germany article should obviously discuss World War II, Adolf Hitler, and even Angela Merkel. The destruction of the khackhars (or to take a wholly neutral view, the dispute regarding the destruction of khackars) is an important part of the Julfa's history. I do agree, however, that the section in the article about Julfa should be reduced in length if the "Khachkar destruction" article exists/is kept. Articles should cross-reference each other, but they should not replicate large portions of one another. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your response. Right now I'm inclined to keep the article under its current name and split it into sections about various instances of real or alleged khachkar destruction. I think that might be the best way to deal with this issue. But I still have not made up my mind yet. Grandmaster 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per norm --Rayis 12:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I suggest that we rename this to Status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan. That way the article will be more objective and at the same time it won't be covering just the khachkar issue in Julfa. -- Aivazovsky 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article was never created with the intention of mentioning the destruction of any cultural monuments in Armenia. However, you took a liberal interpretation of its title to your advantage and made this an issue. It's just become one big mess.
I personally think that the creation of this entire article was irresponsible in light of the RfA mediation currently being worked out between Armenian and Azeri editors. -- Aivazovsky 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created as a POV fork, however it can be actually a good place to present information on various aspects of this issue, which were purged from articles on Nakhichevan and Julfa. I agree that this article should not have been creaed at this time, same as purging wikipedia of Azerbaijan related images and many other actions of a certain person. But what's done is done. Grandmaster 13:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Purging wikipedia of Azerbaijan related images?" I think that as a first step towards working out our differences we shouldn't use such strong words. We need to replace suspicion with trust.
I still say that the best move for this article would be to rename it to Status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan. -- Aivazovsky 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Status of Armenian cultural monuments in South Caucasus?
How about Status of Armenian cultural monuments including Turkey, Iran and Georgia. This way the article wont focus only on Azerbaijan. Vartanm 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still say that we should just move it to Status of Armenian cultural monuments in Nakhichevan and be done with it. -- Aivazovsky 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not a POV fork, if anything it's more favorable towards the Azerbaijan postion than the article it's claimed to be a fork of. Article is sourced. Nominator in his 13:50 post has stated a goal of purging wikipedia of edits he disagrees with. Edward321 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say anything like that? Can you please provide the exact quote? Thanks. Grandmaster 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThe article describes intentional destruction with purposeful aim of destruction of a nations heritage - cultural genocide. The destruction of 19th century Yerevan is done with the AIM of development and through corruption, etc ... Example of neglect and corruption rather than attempt by Armenians to eradicate their own history. Destruction might be comprable to what happened in grand central station. (Hetoum 07:50, 8 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 g1, nonsense neologism, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloams

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

Total and utter nonsense -- SockpuppetSamuelson

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, only because there's no article that we can merge it to.--Wizardman 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Rose Cohen

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

This minor character in The O.C. only appeared briefly in one episode and I believe is not notable enough to warrant her own article. She can be mentioned in the Cohen family articles, but I feel that this character is not notable enough for an article of her own. Too little has happened in regards to this character and she has had very little impact on the series. Sillygostly 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Support Comedy

Tech Support Comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB in all aspects, inside joke filled page, etc. ElbridgeGerry 00:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn. I've spoken with the TSC community, and after this cleanup, the article looks much better. Although directories aren't strictly "sources", this site's been in plenty of "best of" lists. - ElbridgeGerry 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP but RENAME to Dannielynn Marshall Stern paternity case. The situation is notable, the person is not. Herostratus 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannielynn Marshall Stern

Dannielynn Marshall Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, moving to AFD instead. No opinion. AecisBrievenbus 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith#Paternity. There is nothing said in this article that couldn't be said at that section.--Isotope23 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article cites references which demonstrate multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, therefore establishing notability per WP:BIO. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per walton. --Selket Talk 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Walton and WP:BIO Alf photoman 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How can WP:BIO possibly be applied to a 5 month year old infant, who hasn’t had any life of her own? There is nothing substantial in the story about her as person, but only about the involved adults. Moreover, many of the quoted sources (TV transcripts, interviews) where people raise their claims are primary sources in the sense of close to the situation. I would invoke here the clause Presumption in favor of privacy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, who suggest for non-public persons that the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. (Which means for me also no redirect and rather not consider carefully where to mentioning the babys name in other articles.)--Tikiwont 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I suspect the "spread of titillating claims about people's lives" has already been achieved by the substantial media coverage on this issue, which means Wikipedia is not the "primary vehicle"; therefore this article is not in violation of WP:BLP per se. WP:BIO doesn't specifically exclude infants, nor does it say that the sources must contain substantial coverage about "her as person"; it only says that the coverage must be "non-trivial", i.e. more than a passing mention. If the whole source - and there are six or seven separate sources cited - is about her paternity, then IMHO this counts as non-trivial coverage. As to "not mentioning the baby's name in other articles", that would count as censorship of established information, which would be in violation of WP:NOT. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You may suspect correctly about the news of the different claims spreading in any case. I referecned to WP:BLP not because I see it violated, but since I would want to stay on the side of caution with respect to an evolving story, instead of having a 'biography' that only consists of paternity claims. In this sense I would also want to clarify my comment about the rather not mentioning of the name which I don't want to censor as it should be e.g in the Smith article and is present anyway in the referenced sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs)
If you want to you can call a monkey a sub-evolved man, makes no difference, guidelines are rules too, no matter if you like it or not AlfPhotoman 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:16Z

List of real names of professional wrestlers

List of real names of professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Professional wrestlers real names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Article appears to be unnecessary listcruft (being as real names are on every single wrestler article). Also, the article itself says it may may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness as there are too many wrestlers to reasonably add to this article This creates certainty of endless cruft if article was maintained. Any cross-referencing impossible as gimmick names are listed seperately. The article, in addition, lists no references. Suriel1981 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote WP:LC - The list is [potentially] unlimited, the underlying principle is non-notable and the list is unencyclopaedic as such information is readily available at, and only suited to fansites. This is akin to having a list of characters from numerous films alongside the names of the actors who played them. Suriel1981 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straid Lazed

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

Notability. Sounds like someone's garage band EvilOverlordX 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have left message notifying the creator as per civility guidelines. Suriel1981 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid[59]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Redlich

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

NN actress. This was proded and the tag was removed with no improvement. Possibly vanity. Article makes no claims of notability. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy (King Kong) (2nd nomination)

Jimmy (King Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously nominated for deletion on January 13, and the result of the discussion was "no consensus." I believe that this character is insufficiently notable to have its own page. Delete and then semi-redirect (i.e., having a link to King Kong from Jimmy). --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep and cleanup. Shimeru 08:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CustomerVision BizWiki

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

Advertisment. Reads like promotional copy, no assertiion of sufficient notability. There was a previous article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CustomerVision on this company that was deleted, unsure if this is an improvement on that or not. ArglebargleIV 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very similar to entries for companies that are CustomerVision's peers such as Socialtext, Jot and Atlassian. Not including CustomerVision in articles such Corporate Wikis would be an omission. This is validated by third party sources such as the only comprehensive review of corporate wikis (conducted by Network World) in which CustomerVision was rated higher than Socialtext.

There are many links to independent resources for CustomerVision and awards. Recently within articles on leading enterprise wiki companies with such qualified researchers as Forrester, Gilbane and JupiterResearch. With customers that vary in size from Fortune 50 to non-profits, CustomerVision BizWiki is a leader in understanding the enterprise market space (look at the case studies, as evidence off their site).

The entry is not intended to be promotional but is designed to assert sufficient notability.

Links: Forrester [60] New Communications review [61] Tech News Radio [62] Jupiter Research [63] Intranet Journal [64] eWeek [65]

This discussion was started over five days ago. Is it considered closed at this point?


Bkeairns 02:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)...article was not properly tagged with an afd tag on first nom.Rlevse 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I believe I originally tagged the article properly, but the tag was removed by a later editor. -- ArglebargleIV 18:18, 8 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 Gnangarra 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Railpage Australia

New or anonymous users who wish to contribute evidence to this discussion, please feel free to comment on the talk page which is not protected. John Vandenberg 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Railpage Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB for lack of multiple reliable substantial third-party coverage. Currently protected apparently due to editwarring about whether a reference to a site administrator having allegedly commited a crime should be included. That text (see history) contains a reference to a newspaper story about that person's arrest; however the website is only mentioned in passing there. Sandstein 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI Disagree. The site has been quoted in a number of major metropolitan newspapers (check the talk page for references), and has been frequented by high-profile politicians, as well as a number of journalists. It is quoted and referenced in a number of print magazines and video media such as Newsrail. Furthermore, they serve as a portal and hosting service for a significant number of volunteer and tourist operations including a number that are supported by Federal Government. The site is also referenced a number of times for tourist information on various state government tourism websites. Also, a number of wikipedia articles take data from railpage, as well as link to it. Are these third-party sources?
See also: http://www.arts.nsw.gov.au/Links/Links/mseums%20and%20galleries.htm, http://www.aboutseniors.com.au/HobbiesOutdoor.html, http://www.abc.net.au/goldfields/stories/s952896.htm, http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1553161.htm, http://www.rctcc.org/links.html. Also, check out groups - it's mentioned heaps of times.
203.82.183.148 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being quoted is not sufficient. Please remember the criteria for notability: "being the subject (and not mentioned in passing) of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". A quote in an article, etc that mentions Railpage in a single sentence or paragraph does not constitute being the subject of that article, and hence you can't use these mentions (or quotes) to demonstrate notability. Therefore delete
It has been quoted many times in major daily newspapers (see one example on the talk page) but not every Australian newspaper puts every article online. Google News Archive is not the be all and end all of the world's news. This search shows 895 Australian government web pages linking to Railpage. It is an EdNA Evaluated Page approved as a school resource (this is not just a link and every site approved by EdNA as a school resource has to be evaluated). The Australian Bureau of Statistics has used it as a secondary source[66]. Jim Betts, the Victorian Director of Public Transport, contributed to the site in an official capacity. 72.55.140.16 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note that this is this anon's second vote. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of the above sources are coverage about the website, as far as I can tell. They merely link to the website as a source for train-related information. However, we are not a web directory. WP:WEB requires that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published work" (my emphasis). Sandstein 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a non-notable vanity page. Get rid of it. 202.248.48.251 08:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Note that the content of the site is being used as the subject of these works, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics one (used as a secondary source), and the many newspaper articles it has been referenced in (the content, not the fact that the site exists). It has been considered notable by WIPO in an arbitration case here. I recall the site being discussed and reviewed a couple of times on ABC radio, however their transcripts don't stay online long enough for me to link it. Now bear in mind also that the site represents specific interest, and thus is reviewed and profiled often in Railway magaziners (print form, not online). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.28.90.133 (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC).— 203.28.90.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Railpage was also noted in the Fairfax (Print) Press with several quotes from it's administrator in an article about Railfandom. Among it was: "Morgan is one of the administrators of Railpage.com.au, Australia's biggest online rail community that dates back to the dawn of the internet in 1992." ... "There are many more than a few. With up to 20 new members a day, Railpage has 10,000 registered users and boasts more than 500,000 posted articles." among other mentions. It was considered first on the list of notable Rail websites in Australia.
203.28.90.133 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the criteria for notability lies along the lines of being the subject (and not mentioned in passing) of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. If the website does satisfy this criteria, please let me know. — 211.30.155.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:41 27 February 2007 (UTC).
Bear in mind we're talking GUIDELINES for notability. But still, look at the opening lines of Notability(Web) "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples". The Railpage Australia article describes the nature, appearance, and services the website offers. It goes further to detail some of the site's achievements (which can be added to by the looks here), it looks at the site's impact on the Railfan community, and touches on its historical significance (which can also be added to looking at the talk page). This article clearly is in the spirit of Notability(Web). It has been shown that the site is of significance due to its historical significance of internet in Australia. It has also been proven to be used as sources for major news outlets as well as government and a variety of print and radio media. Contributors also remember a number of print articles (which are unfortunately no longer available online) where the site itself was the subject. So, we see that content from the site is being used in reliable, well-known third-party publications - which makes it fit Criteria 3 of Notability.
203.28.90.133 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The site is sufficiently notable, as has been explained above. Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think that you can make such a blatant mis-statement and get away with it? To be "quoted" or "mentioned" in a seniors site or a site of railway links does not constitute notability: note the criteria for notability - "being the subject (and not mentioned in passing) of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.". Please point to non-trivial, reliable published sources in which Railpage is the subject of an article, and not simply mentioned in a single line or paragraph. Your fondness for contributing things that are patently false is well-known, please refrain from this passion of yours in this case.
Would you mind restricting your discussion to the article and not to me? As for blatant mis-statements, I'd consider your accusation of me have a "fondness for contributing things that are patently false" is one such statement, and constitutes vilification. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Incidentally, I find it odd that the article has a Deletion notice that invites editors to improve the article (clearly with the intention of avoiding deletion) whilst the article is locked and not able to be improved. The article is not well done and not well referenced, but there seems to be an impetus now to improve it, yet it has been proposed for deletion without the opportunity to improve it. Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Railpage mafia are really grasping at straws. The "published works" they keep bringing up are trivial and irrelevant. It is an insiginficant site run by children. — 59.106.21.65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:38 27 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. I agree with a previous comment on grounds of the website being discussed not being notable (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)
Particularly not when the anti- editors have not being willing to discuss the contents. Philip J. Rayment 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly fails WP:NPOV!!!!!! Tezza1 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not the place to advertise, and this article doesn't read like an advertisement. Notability(Web) says: "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance", which this article clearly does. If there are ciation problems, these are soemthing that need to be edited to fix (citations provided), not have the article deleted. In future, please refrain from trying to suggest NPOV violation when YOU don't like the site in question. Your campaign of vandalism of the article does little to improve your character. Your suggestions on the James Morgan section were irrelevant and poorly considered - and despite two administrators and countless others telling you so, you continued to persist with this petty smear campaign. I suggest that it may be time for you to take a step back from the article, for it is you that refuses to come to consensus, and you who is intent on defacing the article.
        • Have a nice day.
      • 203.28.90.133 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With a website the size of this one, it is very difficult to find "third party" sources that are not directly involved (as I am). It appears that the push for deletion is coming from a (?)small group of former or disaffected members. The simple truth is that Railpage is the first stop for almost everyone seeking information about Australian railways, and this is reason enough for keeping the entry live.Latrodectus 14:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Correction, I think one arbitrator disagreed with the subject, the other approached it from a neutral point of view and locked discussion with the subject material in place.

The incident was newsworthy being printed in an article in the Herald Sun. His actions were never properly explained, and there were calls for him to be removed at the time. crawford+busted

I'll again use the comparision, if an leading individual of a company that featured an article here on Wikipedia was accused or convicted of a crime associated with his role at the company, the company of course would not condone the crime, but mention of that accused actions (even if found not guilty) if it was recorded in the mainstream printed media and the boards subsequent refusal to sack or reprimand the individual or publicly distance itself would surely rate a mention within that wikipedia article on that company.

Even if some people find mentioning his name objectional, It is my opinion that there should be some mention of this "small" "social controversy". Wikipedia has allowed mention the mention of "controversies" elsewhere - see Post-match "handbag incident". Super_14_Final.

I fear there will never be any consensus to any proposed changes even if there is only just a passing mention in the article of the "incident".

I did propose Arbitration, however others have proposed for reasons already indicated (uncited material, etc) that the article is a candiate for deletion.

Tezza1 20:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...a crime associated with his role at the company...
That's one problem. There's been no evidence tendered here to show that his alleged crime had anything to do with his role with Railpage.
His actions were never properly explained...
I presume that his actions were explained to the court, and I further presume that you are claiming that his actions were never properly explained on, say, Railpage. But you've never properly explained why they should be.
Philip J. Rayment 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At this point I have semiprotected this AfD due to the influx of unhelpful comments by new and anonymous users. Sandstein 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the site is one of the world's biggest rail enthusiast websites and the biggest in Australia, I should think; it has been up and running a long time as well. I did a Factiva search and it came up with only a couple of useful links, but RP has been involved in the production of a national rail map, etc; it hosts and helps run the websites of a number of notable rail heritage groups. It's even being quoted on rail incidents - an article in the West Australian newspaper about a prang between two railcars in TransPerth's depot quoted Railpage as a reliable source! The original versions of the page were quite bad and needed sourcing, but when I asked the contributors they did so and would probably be happy to source the page again if needed. The incident in question with the Railpage moderator was mentioned on Rove Live. JROBBO 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its history as an early Australian website makes it notable, and the reliable sources that have beeb provide do count, and more are being brought to this Afd. For example, the abc article is talking about the St Kilda Tramway Museum, which is hosted online by Railpage at [67]. The article needs to move from a focus about the equipment to being about the "society", its history and relevance to the community; e.g. list its activities like previous meets. Also, from what I read on the aus.rail newsgroup, it seems like there have been server issues, so if reliable sources can be found, or it can be phrased carefully, I think it is worth mentioning. John Vandenberg 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not of themselves good sources. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would allow these as sources to support the claims being made. What sources are otherwise going to exist? I did check the Wayback machine, it didn't help but that absence of support did not mean it did not exist.--Golden Wattle talk 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - disagree. Multiple independent sources (two major daily newspapers and two government departments) have been cited on the talk page. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (and I say this as a enthuiast in PT) as nominator in the original AfD, I withdrawn the first one it as it did seem borderline notable after a quick research in google. But since then, it seems to fail the reliable sources test, and there are some events (eg the server issues) that doesnt really need mentioning unless if can be verified and sourced --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - disagree. Multiple independent sources (two major daily newspapers and two government departments) have been cited on the talk page. The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - disagree. As was mentioned above, multiple independent sources have been cited on the talk page. This includes at least two Australian government department (Geoscience Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics) using Railpage as a secondary source (not just mere links). The Null Device 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - disagree. As was mentioned above, multiple independent sources (at least two major daily newspapers) have been cited on the talk page. Part of the problem is some of the early newspaper reviews of the site content are not available online. The Null Device
Comment. 4 citations on Google Scholar.[68] Thin Arthur 09:40, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montego DDL Control Panel

Montego DDL Control Panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no article for the Turtle Beach Montego DDL sound card, but there's an article about its control panel? I'd say merge, but there's nothing to merge with yet, so by itself it's not notable enough (as with almost any other HW control panel application) for a Wikipedia article. --Vossanova o< 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 03:13, 9 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 Transwiki -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the wind up"

"the wind up" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clearly a neologism, no notability. Violates WP:NEO and WP:NOTE. Sr13 (T|C) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion...changing nomination. Clearly a dicdef, fails WP:WINAD. Sr13 (T|C) 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InSORS

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

Only one article links here, looks like just a simple press writeup. --Vossanova o< 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - only link is to their own site; no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - In my opinion, this is an odd edge case. If you google InSORS, you'll get in excess of 40 thousand hits, all of which are talking about the company. If you check the links out, they usually contain just an off-hand reference or paragraph about the software. Examples: University of Nevada, University of Surrey. But no-one's saying much about the company itself. They're just mentioning that, yes, they use the software for video teleconferencing and yes, they like it. I think rational argument can be made either way, but I'm siding with keep. Chris Croy 00:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see much in the traditional media (except for one article in the Chicago Sun Times [69]), but they have gotten a lot of coverage in industry publications... for example, GridToday and Ziff Davis's CEO Insight. Due to the nature of wikipedia there is a systematic bias against any field not within the liberal arts or pop-culture. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:12, 4 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:15Z

Steve Newman - pianist

Steve Newman - pianist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable autobiographical musician article. Fails WP:MUSIC Selket Talk 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Nottage

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

WP:NN radio announcer (fails WP:BIO). Only one of the four references below mentions Nottage. The one reference only trivially mentions him. WP:PROD contested. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete things for being unsourced. Only if it is not possible to source them. I see the article has now been sourced, but you might have tried a simple google yourself.--Docg 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could have, but that some people run after others trying to find sources just ends in everybody putting up stories and the bucket brigade putting out the fires, I prefer that articles are put up i.a.w. the guidelines. And the article may be sourced but I still don't see it meeting WP:BIO AlfPhotoman 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is not a deletion criteria. And I've no idea what i.a.w. means?--Docg 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in accordance with AlfPhotoman 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lipid hypothesis

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

Term only used by opponents of the well-accepted medical concept that cholesterol plays an important role in the development of atherosclerosis. Should not have its own page. If suitable for merge at all, we could try The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, which represents these "critics". JFW | T@lk 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • neutral There is a fair amount of discussion, and reputable minority opinion can be found. This article doesn't add much , though, and a proper one can be re-created. DGG 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This debate should be mentioned as part of the general discussion of the role of cholesterol in disease. To use the terminology of the opposition as a starting point one ends up with a piece of POV from beginning to end. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick search for "lipid hypothesis" on PubMed brings up 70+ scientific publications and reviews, including a mention that the lipid hypothesis was proposed over 100 years ago, so surely there's some content that could be contributed here, both from a historical standpoint as well as scientific discussion. - tameeria 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it has practically ceased being a hypothesis. The average cardiovascular paper treats it as established fact. Only the opponents still refer to it as a theory (compare "theory of evolution", which is really only called a "theory" by its opponents). The average animal study uses ApoE knockout mice, giving them very high cholesterol levels and accelerated atherosclerosis. The premise that underlies this is not questioned anymore. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because it has ceased being a hypothesis doesn't mean though that it never existed. A search on "lipid hypothesis" brings up 16,000 Google hits with the thincs page being the top hit. A couple of the pages I've clicked through are full of factual errors and misinformation. I think having a page explaining the "lipid hypothesis" and the surrounding controversy in a NPOV manner would be beneficial for those seeking unbiased information on the topic. It certainly has some interest in a historical sense and as a case study of testing a scientific hypothesis and the type of criticism medical research might have to overcome even in the modern world. - tameeria 21:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my example. Those who still call it a "hypothesis" are the dissenters. Their viewpoints should be examined in the larger context of how and why cholesterol might cause disease. A dedicated article is not indicated. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I've rewritten it to be about the term in neutral fashion. I agree with MastCell that we shouldn't present the dominant scientific view as an unproven conjecture. We can, however, report facts about opinions, including the fact that the dominant view is considered by some to be an unproven conjecture. This term has enough currency that some people might encounter it and want to know what it means. As with other such nonneutral terms, however (see Chickenhawk (politics) for an example), our article needs to characterize the term as stemming from a particular POV. We should not implicitly accept that POV, as the previous version did. JamesMLane t c 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The dissenters need to be mentioned as part of a bigger picture, in the context of the cholesterol or hypercholesterolaemia articles. The expansion you made simply emphasises the point as made by the opponents, and actually just proves my point (that the three premises attacked by THINCS and their friends need to be examined together with the enormous mounds of evidence in favour of the "hypothesis"). JFW | T@lk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: An article about one aspect of one viewpoint will, to some extent, emphasize that viewpoint. For example, we have a separate article on Young Earth creationism. It states that mainstream science rejects creationism but doesn't go into detail about the evidence favoring evolution. Noting the rejection by mainstream science conforms to the policy of WP:NPOV that we state facts about opinions. In my rewrite of Lipid hypothesis, I stated that the opinion underlying the use of the phrase is not the generally accepted one. Perhaps that point should be amplified? I don't think this article is the best place to put the whole discussion of the enormous mounds of evidence, but the article might be augmented by a citation to a source saying what you say (and what I believe to be true), namely that this phrase is the terminology of the opposition and that the scientific consensus is to the contrary. JamesMLane t c 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So call it "criticism of the lipid hypothesis". That actually covers the content. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Now I'm confused about your position. If it became an article on "Criticism of the lipid hypothesis", then it would logically have to expand on the criticism, present the evidence cited by the skeptics, etc. Going that route would mean that it would indeed turn into a POV fork. It would become the THINCS version of the cholesterol article. I think it's better to keep the article but limit it to being about the term, not the concept. I included the quotation to illustrate the POV of those who use the term, not to start a full-blown discussion of the pros and cons. The latest rewrite by tameeria has a lot of useful information about the pros and cons, but I don't think this article is the right place for that. It's better for this article to stick to the two main points about the term "lipid hypothesis": which hypothesis is meant, and the use of the term by THINCS et al. to convey a POV. Most of the rewritten version should be moved somewhere else, possibly Hypercholesterolemia. Exception: This citation added by tameeria is a good one to fill the gap I mentioned above, namely a confirmation of what the current scientific consensus is. JamesMLane t c 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not against handling the minority position in one or both of those articles. Many readers, though, will already be familiar with the general subject matter; all they need to know is what hypothesis about lipids is being referred to with this specific phrase. An article that simply tells them that, with wikilinks to the other articles you mention, is more useful than a redirect. The previous version was something of a POV fork, but I believe the rewrite is NPOV. It doesn't address the same subject from a different viewpoint, but instead neutrally addresses one narrow aspect of the whole subject, namely this particular phrase. JamesMLane t c 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMRadio for RealPlayer

HMRadio for RealPlayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing links here, looks like advertising. --Vossanova o< 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Schmidt (Air National Guard)

Notable event, yes, but I question the notability of this individual. Furthermore, this seems like an attack piece rather than an encyclopedia article. kingboyk 19:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - the two external references show that this individual has been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, which establishes notability per WP:BIO (although more sources are ideally needed). I'm also not comfortable with the description of any page which presents negative coverage of an individual as an "attack page" (see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Massoud Tofangsazan (2nd nomination)). Although this article may need to be NPOV'd, any article which cites sources and consists of verifiable fact is, ipso facto, not an attack page. CSD G10 is designed to provide a quick way of removing libellous and patently untrue attacks (e.g. "John Q. Doe is an imbecile") and doesn't apply to cases like this. Walton Vivat Regina! 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would prefer to merge this and the associated articles Marc Léger, Ainsworth Dyer, Richard Green (soldier), Nathan Lloyd Smith, William Umbach, and even arguably Bruce Carlson (General) and Charles Gittins to Tarnak Farm incident (should be Farsm). That said, most of this article should probably be excised as it is (or should be) present at the latter article. Weak keep and cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Googled and found over 9000 hits for this individual, including several stories inthe New York Times of which I added 2. These multiple reliable and independent sources support notability and verifiability of this individuals notability springing from what was a much discussed international incident of friendly fire during a war. Any facts in the article must be well sourced, such as the results of military proceedings. A good article consistent with Wikipolicies on coverage of living persons is quite possible. As for the article being an attac on the officer, see Res ipsa loquitur. That said, I would not object to a merger of the several articles into one well written article on the incident, just as the Panay incident does not have articles for all the attackers and attacked in that peacetime attack. Inkpaduta 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, weak mostly due to the lack of sources, references and citations. Article needs work to be up to par AlfPhotoman 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is adequately sourced and seems fair. --Eastmain 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He along with Umbach are the principle parties to this event, and so the article is justified. It makes sense to merge articles on the victims into the main article, but the killers have a claim to notoriety. This is not BLP, as the case was adjudicated. DGG 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources added and the already existing sources that establish notability. As for being an "attack page", the article is actually very fair in its presentation of the material (presenting both accusations against the individual and his defence of his action). -- Black Falcon 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I'd support merging it as well, if only to make it easier for the casual reader hoping to learn about the incident. - Mocko13 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Cleanup/Merge? Certainly is notable event but I share the nominator's reservations about the tone of the page. Perhaps merge this and all similar into something like "People involved in friendly fire incidents during the War on Terror" or suchlike. A1octopus 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:12Z

Ken Petersen

Ken Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:CDcover300x304.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Ken 200x200.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Vanity article. Author/subject claims to have worked with John Lennon, but I can't find any independent confirmation with Google of this association with Lennon, nor of its notability. (For instance, it's possible he did work with Lennon, but only as a session musician, which would not make him notable.) Would appreciate opinions of Wikipedians with expertise in pop music. Psychonaut 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katanas in fiction

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of not only a katana, but of any sword or sword-like weapon that in the opinion of an editor resembles a katana or may have been inspired by a katana. No sources to back up the inclusion of any of the items. Note that the content was split from Katana initially and so should not be merged back to that article per the desires of the editors who maintain that page. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture. Otto4711 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the other articles wiki-linked here, this obviously can't all be "original research." If you think it needs references, shouldn't you just tag it {{unreferenced|article}} rather than nominating it for deletion? My understanding is that AfD is intended for articles that you think should be entirely deleted, not for trying to draw attention to articles that you think should be improved. Crypticfirefly 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reviewing your problem articles link, I find the very first item in the chart talks about how AFD should be used for articles which are not suitable for WIkipedia because they violate WP:NOT. Since I believe this article violates WP:NOT and stated so in the nomination, I am puzzled at your suggestion that I have acted inappropriately by nominating it. I wonder, based on this comment, other comments in this AFD and other comments in other AFDs if you are failing to assume good faith in regards to my actions. Otto4711 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a perfectly legitimate article. It is NOT an "indiscriminate list" as described in the nomination. This just needs more references, and the list at the end should be pared down. Crypticfirefly 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable topic and a well-written article with no significant policy problems. Please stop using "All X in popular culture articles should be deleted" as a criteria for AfDing articles. It is not Wikipedia policy. If a certain "X in popular culture article" actually shouldn't exist because of some Wikipedia policy, please cite that policy instead of your own opinions. Personal likes and dislikes have nothing to do with AfDs. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do and did cite the policies and guidelines that I believe require this article be deleted. Unsure why you're wanting to make this about what I supposedly like and don't like since I don't make WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, especially considering the number of times you resort to such non-policy arguments as "useful" or "could be cleaned up so keep it." If you disagree with my belief about how policy applies to this article, then refute the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 February 2007

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Er, I didn't say that AFD is for hashing out what's wrong with an article. AFD is for determining (or hashing out, which is a synonym for determining) whether an article meets or fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nor have I ever said that "List of" articles automatically violate policy. Please don't misrepresent me. Thank you. Otto4711 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if that assessment of your recent debating style hurt your feelings, but I'm afraid that I agree with it too. All too much of your "reasoning" when arguing to delete these many articles has seemed according to your personal feelings rather than Wikipedia policy, and your personal feelings do seem to be heavily against "list" and "popular culture" articles. Plus, you do bring up a lot of flaws in articles that are not deletion criteria. A film list with a few erroneously listed films does not need to be deleted for that reason alone, nor does an article need to be deleted simply because the introductory paragraph is an abomination of bad grammar and unsourced assumptions. Please try not to bring up everything that is wrong with an article during an AfD; try to stick to problems that actually meet (or come close to meeting) deletion criteria. AfD is not the right place to discuss fixing an article unless the flaws are inherently something close to deletable level. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has nothing to do with "hurting my feelings." I did not say one word about my "feelings" and I have to wonder if your bringing "feelings" into this is an honest misreading of my comments or another in your long string of questionable comments in response to these recent AFDs. It has everything to do with not misrepresenting my words. Why you are bringing up the idea of deleting articles because of such things as bad grammar is a mystery, because I did not suggest that this article be deleted for bad grammar or for any other reasons of style. I nominated this article for exactly the reasons I stated, so it would probably be more helpful, not to mention refreshingly honest on your part, to respond to the things I actually wrote instead of responding to phantom allegations that were never made. Otto4711 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your recent mass AfD of many articles, aimed especially at "list" and "pop culture" list-like articles, you've mostly (but not entirely) argued according to small flaws and also used emotionally-charged language and personal opinions in many cases instead of using actual reasons from Wikipedia:Deletion policy that an article should be deleted. In saying that I hoped I wasn't hurting your feelings, I was trying to be polite, that was just a polite opening sentence because you already seemed quite worked up and I knew I'd go on to say some things that would sound less than flattering. It has nothing to do with my later statement that you keep bringing up criteria that are not deletion criteria, but rather wanting to delete articles according to your own personal feelings and interests. Trying to conflate those statements together makes it seem as if you aren't really paying attention when you read (something I'm beginning more and more to suspect is true of you) or that you're insistent on trying to obfuscate my points. As to the fact that you seem to be anti-list, your own statements on many of these AfDs support that, as does the fact that nearly everything you nominated was a list. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you here again, two questions. (1) Can you point out any instances in which you've voted in favor of keeping a list? (if you're afraid I'll miss your reply, you can drop a note on my talk page) and (2) If you want to continue calling me a liar instead of addressing the points I've brought up, will you please put your future accusations on my talk page? It really clutters up these AfDs. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in the recent mass AFD of many articles, I pointed to WP:NOT and in some cases noted WP:FICT. I'm not sure why exactly you continue to try to misrepresent these nominations. As for your false claim that I am not citing actual deletion policy, I refer you to the chart at the policy page you linked entitled Problem articles where deletion may be needed. If you look at the very first box it states quite clearly that for articles in violation of WP:NOT and WP:OR the solution is to prod them or AFD them. I have acted entirely in line with Wikipedia policy, including the deletion policy, and for you to say otherwise is untrue. As for whether I'm paying attention, I'm not the one who voted on the athletes in film article without realizing what the article actually was. As for trying to obfuscate your points, I find that accusation laughable in the face of your repoeated distortions and untruths. As for whether I've voted in favor of keeping a list, the three-part answer is 1) whether I have or not is irrelevant, 2) yes I have and 3) not only have I voted in favor of lists, I've even created some. As for calling you on your lies, no, I'll continue to do so where you lie. Otto4711 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not claiming that you never cite Wikipedia deletion criteria policy. You usually have some sort of nod to deletion criteria policy in the canned phrase that you typically used on most of these mass AfD nominations, but then (except on those articles where the policy concern cited really applied) you typically have a flood of editors who agree that the policy you've cited simply doesn't apply to that article, at which point you tend to bring up every little flaw the article has or could have in the future, flaws that are not deletion criteria themselves, and then you try to argue that the article should be deleted on the basis of those flaws. The most obvious point raised in Wikipedia deletion policy is that normal editing concerns are not deletion criteria. That's why I keep telling you to stick to deletion criteria and use Wikipedia deletion policy instead of your personal dislikes. You should also note that I don't use emotionally-charged language such as "liar" to apply to you, despite that you keep seriously misunderstanding what I've said even when I've been quite plain. Instead, I point out the flaws in your tactics, and I sometimes call you "impatient" or "hasty" instead of saying that you are trying to cause trouble on purpose. Thus, I tend to describe you in good faith terms, as if you have done various things through accident, or through a genuine misunderstanding. In asking you to resrict the name-calling to my talk page, I was trying to keep all these AfD debates from being flamed. You can attempt to illustrate flaws in my arguments without resorting to such strong language. Please, if you cannot stay civil, I may eventually start assuming Wikipedia:Bad faith on your part, as some others have already been leaning towards, but I'd rather not do that. If you think that it's so obvious that I've described you as doing something you're not, you can let others judge on their own (your statements above are plain for all to see) or you can use less emotionally-loaded language such as "Mermaid from the Baltic Sea is not describing my actions as I see them, in fact I think that what I did was ....". Please do stop it with the name-calling. The term "liar" is especially offensive. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if being called on your statements hurts your feelings. And I'm sorry if you choose to interpret nominating multiple articles with the same problems with the same or similar language as "canned responses." As for assuming bad faith, it's pretty clear from a number of your comments that you already do, which is fine by me because I know it's not true. And there is really no need for you to keep linking to the deletion policy. I have read it, and it says right on it in big ol' English words that the solution to articles which fail WP:NOT is to prod them or AFD them. I don't nominate articles by accident, I don't do it out of "misunderstanding," I do not make nominations based on what I do or don't "like" and I don't do it to solve editing problems. Your constant insistence that I do has gone past the point of being tiresome. Otto4711 22:02, 1 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional narcissists

List of fictional narcissists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - for all the same reasons that Category:Fictional narcissists was deleted. The list is hopelessly subjective and requires editors to impose their POV in deciding who to list and who not to. The introduction to the article is a great indicator of why it should be deleted: "This article comprises a list of fictional characters who may be consider[ed] to be narcissists." Considered by whom, under what criteria? The list is indiscriminate and constitutes an improper loose association based on a character trait that the members may or may not share in common according to the interpretation of any particular editor. And for good measure, no sources, reliable or otherwise. Otto4711 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that this version of the list is subjective, unverified, and so on. However, the concept of the list itself is not. It requires no POV or OR from editors if the requirement where that it list only characters who are described as narcissists by themselves, other fictional characters, their creators, reviewers, or in some other published, reliable source. I will withhold suggesting keeping or deletion until I can further consider the feasibility of creating such a list. I strongly disagree that psychological conditions among fictional characters (or among individuals) constitutes a loose association (any more than nationality, for instance). If the article is deleted, I strongly urge deletion to be without prejudice to future recreation. -- Black Falcon 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your sentiment here, but the problem I see with it is that we're not dealing with articles as they might be, or could be, or should be, but articles as they are. See for example the AFDs for Lothlórien Co-op. It was kept the first time largely on the strength of what the keepers said the article could become. Two months later, no one who argued to keep it had touched the article and the article was deleted and the people who wanted it kept the first time didn't even show up to defend it. More recently see the closing statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture which pretty clearly rejects the "can be cleaned up" argument as a reason for keeping. Otto4711 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Swastikas article is now at Deletion Review. WP:Deletion_Review#Swastikas_in_popular_culture DGG 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I must again strongly disagree. if we require immediate perfection of all articles, Wikipedia would quickly become a passing fad, as every new article (and almost all old ones) would be throttled like infants in a crib. -- Black Falcon 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the words "immediate perfection" anywhere in any statement that I've ever made regarding any article on Wikipedia ever. I would never demand immediate perfection from an article and your claiming that I did or would is a misrepresentation of my statements. What I am saying is that if an article is hopelessly flawed as is it should not be kept on the basis of "it can be worked on." (and please don't respond by saying that you don't agree this article is hopelessly flawed because I am speaking in general terms) Otto4711 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The let us speak in general terms. If we are dealing only with articles "as they are", that is the equivalent of requiring immediate quality (alright, perfection was an overstatement). We should not only consider how an article looks now, but what potential it has for improvement. -- Black Falcon 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I don't see why the reason given for deletion applies to this situation. Furthermore, if the article is flawed, that's what cleanup tags are for! Deletion is indeed for when the CONCEPT of the article is flawed, not for when the article itself has some bad entries. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As with nom, I just see the application of the concept "narcissist" to be dependent on one's own POV rendering it largely unverifiable. I don't really consider this to be encyclopaedic. I don't feel this article corresponds closely to the article on Narcissits. In fact, using the dictionary definition of "narcissism" I would be inclined to remove several "fictional narcissists" from this list. Suriel1981 10:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also How many names on that list is it possible to prove with (referencing) are narcissists? Suriel1981 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. Bucketsofg 02:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar George

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

Appears to fail the Wikipedia:Notability (music) tests. Psychonaut 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Not sure where this previous AfD is. – Steel 23:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other AfD appears to be here. – Steel 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventeen (Chrishan album)

Seventeen (Chrishan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreleased first album by an relatively unknown artist. If it comes out and is a hit, maybe. Richfife 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RD Reynolds

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

nn wrestling personality, had brief wrestling managing career, wrote 2 modestly selling (among wrestling fans, not mainstream) books, and has website WrestleCrap with current alexa of 142,115. The only independent review I can find outside of wrestling websites is from an NYC tabloid. See afd for Scott Keith for precedent, he is more published than RD. Booshakla 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Things that are notable within the "wrestling community" are not always notable for an encyclopedia. And I didn't say that the website wasn't notable (although it barely is), it's just that owning or being a webmaster of a site does not always promise notability. I find your comment to be lacking and we need to get the wrestlecruft out of here. He's just a nn indy manager who wrote a few low-selling books (in terms of book selling in general, not a few hundred wrestling fans) and has a barely notable website. Booshakla 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The I guess I should really make myself clear. I threw the website in as a bonus to emphasize that he is notable, but the book alone, in my opinion, makes him notable. The Death of WCW is brought up on numerous shows and publications that discuss pro wrestling as an example of how not to run a wrestling company. That fact makes it much more notable than anything Scott Keith has written, none of which have the same standing amongst those reporting on the workings of pro wrestling. Dave Meltzer is the most noteworthy of those who use it as an example. It is a significant enough piece of work, that it is VERY notable and as such the author is notable as well. I never said that he was very, or extremely notable, in fact I stated that he is barely notable under Wikipedia standards. However, someone who is barely notable is still notable. Stephen Day 04:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Booshakla, you state at the top that Reynolds' books are "modest selling" and in your comment above you state that they're "low-selling". Is there a factual basis for this? Suriel1981
  • Keep Author a book that is well recieved and sold pretty well, and founder/operator of one of the more well known wrestling sites. TJ Spyke 10:14, 6 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.
Keep. I'm really tired of Booshakla gunning after pages. 68.54.163.153 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a complete vanity page for a non-notable person outside a few wrestling fans. --EndlessDan 13:07, 13 September 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 speedy deleted under criterion A7 by Irishguy with reason (A7). Kyra~(talk) 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Len lambert

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

Has twice been prodded. Dubious notability. Autobiography / advert (evidence here). -- RHaworth 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. While only the nominator and one other user have expressly advocated deletion (a third user has all but done so), the fact that the calls of "Do Not Delete" are made by anons and there are no sources provided beyond a vague "interview about this" tips the balance BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Your Diddy?

Who's Your Diddy? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This sounds like a hoax to me, with no sources, and several "track names" critiquing what Mr. Combs has been up to (see "Name Change," "Press Rewind," "Back Then, but Right Now," and "Mase on My Dick") Strong delete. Tom Danson 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was confirmed yesterday by Terrence and Rocsi on BET's 106th and Park. It's real. Diddy is just poking fun at himself.

  • DO NOT DELETE per nom.

I saw Diddy give an interview about this on the red carpet.

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Apex, North Carolina. —dgiestc 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts mill

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

Non-notable neighborhood; it's not even an entire town. Seems to be too small to stand any chance of proving notability. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The user/s who've spent ages making the page would have been well-served spending ages establishing notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Park Rangers

Kew Park Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable football (soccer) club; WP:CORP states that only clubs in the top ten levels of the English football league system are considered inherently notable. No other grounds for notability have been stated in the article.

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

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Sowing

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

Appears to be a non-notable sowing method: 202 ghits, most of which do not actually refer to the practice. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise new scientific concepts. Part Deux 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, thanks for providing more sources, but 'Speedy keep' would imply an erroneous or bad faith nomination for the deletion this article submitted by Advance Sowers. As I tried to indicate above, I am open to revise my opinion, but would put a great emphasis on sources independent from the inventor and more than mentioning of a case study. And when the one independent review says, that "cs15 uses what he calls 'advance sowing'", we do not seem to have a common definition or a mulitple use of the same sowing method. --Tikiwont 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome...I've added three more and could easily keep going. I did not intend to imply a bad faith nomination, but I do believe this is an erroneous nomination. There is a single inventor for this process, but the references to him and the method are numerous and non-trivial, including the ABC and several government publications. In addition, reference to this method spans over a decade...not simply an 'interesting case study.' The google hits are clearly referring to the same technique and many also refer directly to the farmer who invented the technique. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, time spans in agriculture are long and it would have been useful if the nominated article had already inlcuded a clearer common understanding of the term which I've now tried to add msyelf. Anyway, with the latest sources we have two independent ones and I have no problem with keeping the article. --Tikiwont 09:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think we could debate about whether most of the sources are sufficiently reliable for an encyclopedia. However, the case study is a solid source and I think there is a decent case for meeting the notability guidelines. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But this doesn't mean it might not be better served as a re-direct later on. Having Gsearched the term "dry sowing" (which is all the article claims it is) I find quite a few more references, especially in reference to Africa. (Not that I see many fields these days!) --Richhoncho 13:54, 7 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashurst Wood F.C.

Ashurst Wood F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-league English football club that falls several levels below currently accepted criteria (i.e. playing at Level 10 or above) for notability fchd 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Roots to Fruits

From the Roots to Fruits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced and unverified speculation. Can find no indication on the news archives for the Black Eyed Peas website of an upcoming album, let alone one by this title. The only source provided is this article on Billboard.com, which only verifies the first paragraph of the article, and is the only verifiable source cited in the article. Some of it is written as outright speculation, and at least a quarter of the article is about stuff unrelated to the article.

  • Delete unless sourced and verified, until such a time as a sourced and verifiable article can be written. As a second option, strip out everything that cannot be verified by reliable, third-party sources (forum postings do not count, methinks) and rename OR merge until the title is revealed in a reliable, third-party source. -- saberwyn 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Note the alternative version of the article at From Roots to Fruits. I don't have time to do the research right now to see if either of these should exist, but at the very least we should merge and eliminate one of them. -MrFizyx 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources verifying the information in the article, including the album name. This article seems to be a collection of "buzz" and rumours making the rounds, rather than an actual encyclopedia article. Vassyana 07:21, 8 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 withdrawn, appears notable. Part Deux 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armet Armoured Vehicles Incorporated

Armet Armoured Vehicles Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corp: only 200 ghits by my count (I know that's not a reason, but it doesn't appear notable anyway) Part Deux 23:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emo Rap

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

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Canadian Tag Team Championship

NWA Canadian Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally tagged for speedy deletion, but declined by Proto. Tagger requested that this be sent to AfD if speedy was declined, so here we are. I cast no vote. – Steel 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:11Z

Giraffe cup

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

No hits on Google for any of the main subjects of the article (except Royal Tarlair). The youtube video looks like a fake and the whole article appears to be a hoax. Sorry if I'm spoiling someone's fun, but... Smalljim 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-03 07:10Z

Ferrara Pan Candy Company

Ferrara Pan Candy Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is an advertisement for a non-notable unsourced company. Masterpedia 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Rlevse 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Appraisal Foundation

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

law group, listed for a speedy. I doubt its notable, but I don't know enough about law to be sure. Delete unless sources are added proving notable Robdurbar 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Happens Now? I'm new at this and I created this article. I've noticed that Robdurbar was an ADMINISTRATOR for Wikipedia (since August 2006) has logged off (or posted a notice on his TALK page) that as of yesterday (March 3, 2007) he's no longer active with Wikipedia. So, what happens now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 March 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 Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Gorman

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

Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The principal claims to N is that he is a member of the board of governors of the Chicago Board of Realtors, and President of the Illinois chapter of the American Guild of Appraisers. This is very weak. Had he been president of the Chicago B of R, or held national office in a less well-known group, then he would be notable. Alas, this just functions as advertising for his law firm. I agree that this would be inapprpriate for a speedy, because N is at least claimed. DGG 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that I considered them borderline for speedy , hence tagging them for another admin to make a second opinion rather than just deleting myself :) Anyway, I don't believe this fellow is notable - delete. --kingboyk 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I only cited his 1968 service on the Board of Governors to illustrate that, before he was even 25 years old, others had noticed his sharp intellect and abilities. This is more of a sidebar than anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as accomplishment is not notability. This is just a successful Realtor (er, REALTOR®), doing stuff in realty organizations. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete®. He's just another somewhat accomplished person, one of millions. Not encyclopedic, of no value to researchers, conflict of interest and vanity. Herostratus 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please forgive me, but I'm brand new at writing articles for insertion. Yes, RC is a very accomplished appraiser, but his "importance" lies in his volunteer efforts in which he has served as a key player in the legislation of real estate appraisers on the state and national levels to protect the 'good of the general public' since the mid-1980s - which started with the federal bailout of S&Ls in the late 1980s (cost taxpayers billions of dollars)and the current mortgage fraud activities (also costing billions of dollars). Unfortunately, there's very little info in Wikipedia (at this time) that I can cross-link to regarding the appraisal profession and the banking industry, such as "The Appraisal Foundation" and the "Appraisal Institute" (two articles that I have recently entered). Any advice would be greatly appraciated. Frommeyer 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is precisely why conflict of interest is a problem; someone close to the subject may have an inflated view of the subject's importance. If Gorman was important and a "key player", then secondary sources will have written about him, saying "Gorman was a key player" and so forth. Obviously the bailout and fraud were themselves important, but appraisal was one small part of those important stories, and legislation changes were a yet smaller part, and if Gorman was not a notable -- i.e. noted in secondary sources -- instigator, it really doesn't suggest that his importance in this small part of a larger story has been as critical as you imagine. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Dhartung and I agree 110%. QUESTION #1 - Do trade magazines and journals qualify as valid secondary sources? QUESTION #2 - If so, how would I properly cite a printed copy (especialy for older documents that are not online) for editors and fact checkers to verify? For example, how would I cite the "ABC story" published in the "XYZ Plublication" on "such and such date" that reports about RJ? Frommeyer 12:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curiosity Question. I'm not going to delete it, but can any of you tell who recently added the "i am gay" at the very beginningof the article? Again, I'm brand new at making entries to Wikipedia (started 4 days ago). Does this type of thing happen offen? Who cleans this garbage up? General Question Is the original author of a Wikipedia article charged with the responsibility of monitoring the article once it is finally approved? Just real curious......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Herostratus, even though I did a lot of cleanup on the article. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It seems as though there are enough sources, and Frommeyer is right, for the most part. I would like to see more in the article about what exactly makes him notable, and more developed refeerences. Grandmasterka 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Gorman

Robert J. Gorman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has been listed as a speedy, but I didn't think it quite fitted into that. To be honest with you, I don't know enough about law or otherwise to be sure enough that he isn't notable to speedy delete, if you see what I mean. Also, its worth noting that this is one of many articles written about the same family by the same user. So, nominating for deletion but I can be convinced otherwise. Robdurbar 23:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep RJ is another matter than his son. RJ is a major civil rights attorney with a long reputation and participation in many historic events. The article is specifically given as a beginning, and should not be deleted unless it is clear that there will not be enough to prove N and V-- and we have at least 2 good ones here. His key cases have not yet been added, but they will--an indication of them can be seen in the obits cited., which are from reputable newspapers. DGG 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The case he won was before the Illinois Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. (This and this are all I found about it.) The case may have had repercussions in Illinois but this is a weak case for notability and no other major legal accomplishments are cited. Being with Ike at D-Day or marching on Washington are interesting sidebars to an article but not in themselves notable. There's potential here but I don't see it. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
will take some looking,then. we have a few days. I agree that it has to be the cases, unless something else should surface.DGG 06:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think DGG is 100% correct! I've yet to finish RJ's article, because I'm still learning how to cite references and sources that can be vefified by any fact checker. FYI - I am NOT an attorney, so I'm a little handicapped at citing legal references - but I'm in the process of learning. There's several important civil rights cases (most on a pro-bono basis) that RJ was involved with that I'm till trying to cite and document that clearly illustrates his importance. Frommeyer 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Help Please I fully understand the need for editors to check & verify facts. I have a link to a PDF file of a six (6) page feature article about the Roy Eaton case (he spent 16 years in prison for a crime he did not commit) that was in the Saturday Evening Post in 1956. Can I put a link to this article on the RJ page for you check? Right now, I suspect that it would / could / might be more appropreate within it's own "People vs Roy Eaton" article? Likewise, I suspect that the NBC's 1957 television documentary "Error in Judgement" requires its own seperate Wikipedia article that can be linked to from RJ's page? Your help and guidance would be most appreciated. Frommeyer 17:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person who wishes to include information in Wikipedia is responsible for backing up that information with reliable sources so that we can properly cite any assessments. If there are so many important civil rights cases in his career, then it should be an easy matter to find sources. --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question. Thanks Dhartung and I agree 110%. Would editors and fact checkers find this 6 page PDF file useful 1956 Reprint about the Roy Eaton story and case? Like the one-hour 1957 NBC documentary Error in Judgment, I suspect are both from a "human interest perpestive" written for mass consumption by the general public. Important Question - If you look at the 1956 copyright reprint permission at the very end of the PDF file, does this allow me to cite this file as a reference on the RJ page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frommeyer (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • In the strictest sense we shouldn't link to unauthorized reprints ("mirrors") of copyrighted works, but in practice it happens quite often. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about copyrights (but trying to learn). It seems like the copyright notice at the end of the 6-page reprint allows for it's use by anyone EXCEPT for three specific conditions (none of which this use in Wiki seems to violate). Any thoughts? Frommeyer 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • HELP - Citing Source Question. If I removed the link to the PDF and just cited the source (6-page story "The Case Of Prisoner No. 16688" by John Kobler, 1st published in the July 14, 1956 issue of Saturday Evening Post) would any Wiki editor or admin even bother to look it up "off line" since there seems to be no current reference to it anywhere on the internet that I could find? This is just info for my own education and future use in citing reference. Frommeyer 11:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curiosity Question. I'm not going to delete it, but can any of you tell who recently added the "i am gay" at the very beginningof the article? Again, I'm brand new at making entries to Wikipedia (started 4 days ago). Does this type of thing happen offen? The exact same entry was made on another article that I created. Who cleans this garbage up? General Question Is the original author of a Wikipedia article charged with the responsibility of monitoring the article once it is finally approved? Just real curious. Frommeyer 15:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see 'i am gay' on the article anywhere? Yeah, vandalsim of articles does happen. No, its not really anyone's responsibility to attend to an article, its the community's role as a whole. --Robdurbar 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither on this article nor on the Robert C. Gorman article, Frommeyer. There's nothing in the history of either article to indicate that such vandalism occurred. Color us confused. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I did a lot of cleanup on this article, which came to my attention due to copyvios in the original version. I was going to argue for a keep based on argument before the US Supreme Court. Now that I see the case was before the Illinois Supreme Court, I just took a look at the Chicago papers from 1956 and found out that Eaton was not released because of an appellate court decision. In actuality, the prosecuting attorney obtained a confession from one of the real criminals and then petitioned the trial court to have Eaton released. Gorman was involved, but it appears that the person primarily responsible for Eaton's release was the prosecutor. I feel even more strongly now that Gorman lacks sufficient notability. Perhaps the case of People v. Eaton is notable, having been the subject of a TV documentary, and it might be appropriate to include some detail of Gorman's biography there as Eaton's attorney, but I don't think a standalone article on Gorman is appropriate based on the lack of notability in his own right. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC) and revised by Butseriouslyfolks 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, for the article's sake that is, the SEP article indicates that the case itself was not argued before the Illinois Supreme Court (although the compensation case, that led to the new state law, may have been).--Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to a Chicago Daily Tribune article from 1960, Eaton received $48,000.00 through legislative enactment in 1957, paid $16,000.00 of it to Gorman (so much for the pro bono stories) and had spent the balance by 1960, when he was arrested for drunkenness and jailed because he didn't have the $23.00 in fines and court costs. Sad. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but probably inevitable. To clarify from what I understand, Gorman was asked to be an amicus curiae by the state judge in the case, in an era before Miranda and widespread public defenders, somewhat unusual. He then pursued a civil suit on Eaton's behalf which is where the settlement came from. In any event, I wish this were a bit more notable, because it is interesting.--Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABLE I do not wish to waste anyone's time, including my own. Unfortunately, this RJC is my very first entry for any topic in Wikipedia - and I'm still going thru a big learning curve. However, it clearly seems to be that Roy Eaton story and RJC's involment certainly meets the "primary criterion" for inclusion in Wiki, if nothing else. If a 6-page story in the Saturday Evening Post and a 1-hour NBC television documentary on the Armstrong Circle Theatre series (aired from 13 years, 1950 to 1963) aren't reliable secondary sources about this topic, then I am wrong. Perhaps I just don't understand the "rules of the road" as defined by Wikipedia itself (see below): Frommeyer 13:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability

Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice".[3] All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. These guidelines ensure that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about each topic.

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent. The table to the right lists further guidelines which have been accepted, or are being considered, to more precisely demonstrate the notability criteria.

  • Comment The problem is we have to be careful not to confound topics. Just because a person is involved in something notable does not make the person notable in his or her own right. The SEP article and TV special are about Roy Eaton's situation, with only passing mentions of Gorman because of his connection to Eaton. I think that Eaton is notable (and interesting, btw) and may merit a Wikipedia article. That does not mean that Eaton's attorney should have a self-standing article. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply That's true, but it seems that Gorman has has more than his 10 year involement (1946-1956) with Eaton before he was released from prison in 1956. Afterward, he won (as a seperate notable case) the 1st payment for a wrongful conviction case in Illinois in 1957. Then, during the 60s and 70s, I think his 95% success record in defending 19 of 20 conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War is notable. That's three seperate notable items that have been referenced so far. Frommeyer 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Robdurbar Left Wiki. If you look at his/her page, it appears that Robdurbar, who was an Administrator, has left the Wiki community on March 3rd. What happens now with this article. AND, what happens with my The Appraisal Foundation article which I totally re-wrote and referenced to the best of my ability. Will another Admin step in and take over automatically, or must someone in Wiki be notified? I'm just curious as to how this process works. Frommeyer 14:49, 5 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.
  1. ^ "notable". Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Random House, Inc. 2006.
  2. ^ "notable". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. 2000.
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary Online (2003), s.v. "notable". Oxford University Press
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_26&oldid=111203188"