Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 5 June 2007

< June 4	June 6 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

{subst:afd2|pg=Hicket|cat=|text=}} T Van Wormer 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Guff was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete[reply]

Guff

Dictdef for foreign language. Possible candidate to move to Wiktionary. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 07:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Delete: Extremely suspicious dictdef: "Guff" is a common AmEng word for "sass, disrespectful speech," and the citation in this article is to Madame Blavatsky's group. Geogre 15:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete In English, guff means nonsense, which describes this article. Wyss 18:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No Preference Guff is English. It comes from the Hebrew language as most english words originate from other languages. The description is accurate for English, but as mentioned above, perhaps does not cover all the ways the word is used. In "Madame Blavatsky's group" and quite possibly other groups, this is the meaning of the word. Knightt 19:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. dictdef. --MPerel 21:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no salting unless they are recreated again. Sr 13 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Push Up on Me

All songs for Rihanna's newest album have been given articles which is completely unnessary. Aside from the first (current) single and already-confirmed second single, there is no reason whatsoever to have an article for each album track, especially as these pages have almost zero information. - eo 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after nominating these, I've discovered that most of them were already deleted per AfD previously. Can we speedy delete and perhaps put a temporary block on their re-creation? - eo 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - yes, there is a CSD criterion. I'll do so. --Haemo 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - either speculation about being a possible single, or zero contexual information. Not all songs are notable. Encouraging salting "Hate That I Love You", which has been speedied and re-created several times. --Haemo 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the album article until such time as the track becomes indivdually notable. Otto4711 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all none are notable, and some have been recreated, as I nominated two of them for deletion: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Hate That I Love You and Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Sell Me Candy. I encourage salting them all as well (though "Hate That I Love You" has already been salted). Acalamari 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make fart noises ~ Infrangible 02:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will the fart noises make the articles go away? - eo 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination says it all, really. No need for an article on each song. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by means of uninanimous vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Creative Anachronism

Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. Seems to be mostly original research and all provided sources are from the organization itself. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons to keep an article that fails core policies. The Parsnip! 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Long-standing organization with lots and lots of news coverage. JavaTenor 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure: this user has never participated in an SCA event and thinks they're a little silly. :) JavaTenor 19:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Clearly notable international organization with widespread coverage, as JavaTenor points out. The article could stand to cite some relevant third-party sources; but deletion is unwarranted. Deor 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why isn't any of the news coverage in the article? It needs to be included to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. The Parsnip! 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Very popular and notable organization. Could use some cleaning up but very easily qualifies for an article. Dipics 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Deor. (Full COI disclosure: I'm a longtime member) --Finngall ^talk 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - extensively notable; AfD is for deletion, not clean-up. --Haemo 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All speedy keep "votes" are based on OR! If sources exist, introduce them. The article fails core policies. As quoted from WP:V "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The Parsnip! 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been clearly shown that multiple reliable sources exist, and could be added. Tag it for clean-up, don't delete it on such a basis. --Haemo 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you quoted says "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources", not "if the article cites no RTPS…". Deor 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. If no sources exist, delete the article. If (as is the case here) a large number of sources exist, {{sofixit}}. JavaTenor 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Piling on per above. Easily verifiable and highly notable. Tag for cleanup and let's get busy doing same. This is the organization that keeps User:Finngall off the streets for goshsakes... (COI disclosure: sister and longtime friend of SCA members) Katr67 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As above, as above, and as above (and disclosure: also a member). --Avery W. Krouse 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. A google search (yes, I know....) turns up 275,000+ results. These people have strong presences at various rennaisance faires throughout the world, let alone the US of A, is VERY well known within the reenactment communities (amongst a few others). I smell a WP:POINT, but I don't know what it is. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COI disclosure: I'm not a member, I just like the costumes. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MadROM

Contested prod. Article appears to make no assertion of notability or of reliable sources discussing this MUD. JavaTenor 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertions of notability, nor could any sources be found which might qualify this for inclusion. Aside from two edits by User:Dflax@yahoo.com and the original IP editor (both of which have a combined total of less than ten edits), all edits to the page have been automated or procedural clean up edits. As far as I can tell, it also meets the CSD categories for G11 (Blatant Advertising), A7 (Unremarkable web content). Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No assertion of notability. - Nabla 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide song

The subject does not seem to be notable, or infamous for anything, and I could find no sources for it. Of course there will be some songs about suicide just as there will be some songs about grief and we don't have Grief song. Tim Q. Wells 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article text can be boiled down to: A suicide song is a song about suicide. Here's two that pop into mind. - Richfife 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete - "A suicide song is a song about suicide. Here's two that pop into mind. They should also be deleted." --Haemo 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subject, lack of citations, also strikes me as a touch dic-def'y for a self-explanatory phrase. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The List of songs about suicide is up for deletion too, and it has the advantages of the list as well as the definitions here. IL-Kuma 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Gardner

An article on an utterly unnotable news story which was only kept because of the pointless Wikipedia navel gazing that happens on here, the same applies to the Essjay asininity. - hahnch e n 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the nominator is completely correct here - this guy isn't notable in any way, there are thousands of criminals out there and they're frankly not important enough to have an article. 86.137.121.170 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wicked-strong delete, hundreds of people misrepresent themselves AND hundreds of sick people molest teens. I say that this be deleted immediately. JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the previous "keep" result, doing this would probably open up a hurricane of piss. - hahnch e n 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as essjay does not state which specific criteria this fails. also, hurricane of piss is probably the funniest thing i've heard in a really really long time. Barsportsunlimited 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see any reason to delete this, given the presence of several reliable sources... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit light on importance, but the international media coverage indicates notability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep though possible remove some details. He was 18 at the time of the sex offense, and 22 at the time of the imposture, so he is not a minor. DGG 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is a notable part of Wikipedia history and has been covered by multiple non-trivial reliable sources. bbx 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of a scandal that recieved heavy media coverage. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move into a section with Wikipedia related articles (if we have something like that). It's a great example of the abuse of Wikipedia, which can teach a valuable lesson to editors. It is notable in this regard, but may be not outside the context of Wikipedia. I was participating in debates with others though, where the issue of people not double checking for themselves and believing what they read, at Wikipedia and elsewhere was a big part of the discussion. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TENNIS Magazine's 40 Greatest Players of the TENNIS Era

Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of things. This information, in and of itself, is not worth its own article on Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also might be a copyvio, btw. Tempshill 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a copyright violation. 86.137.121.170 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A list is not a copyright violation, but a report of what was in the magazine, unless we also use their formatting and other text. But I don't see the point, given that we have articles on all of them; if it is worthwhile, a category would be better DGG 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this most definitely is a copyright violation, as it is merely a repetition of the magazine's intellectual property. The production of the list was based solely on the opinions of the individuals involved in creating the list, it is not a factual list, but a compendium of opinion. Corvus cornix 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright violation. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not it's a copyvio - which despite a huge number of these types of articles appearing at AfD, no one has come up with a definitive answer for - it's not encyclopedic; one source's opinion on who or what is the "best" of something generally is not encyclopedic unless it's picked up in a bunch of other media, like Time's person of the year. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Letterle

Few films, no awards, references or information to assert notability. Does not meet requirements for WP:Notability Ozgod 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He played a few bit parts in a few low-interest films. Not notable. Yechiel Man 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lead in two feature films, one of which (Camp) has developed a cult following - qualifies as notable under People:Entertainers. There are certainly less notable people on Wikipedia. AUTiger » talk 17:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're gonna need to find reliable sources, which without sources doesn't meet WP:BLP. (→zel zany - fish) 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've updated the article, and there are now two interviews and two bio's. Daniel is in most of the online databases of actors, and there are plenty of Google News results, of which a few have actor interviews (e.g. [1]). John Vandenberg 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Palmer (climatologist)

This article is a bio of a semi-notable living person, and was blanked by the subject - see this edit from IP address 129.215.138.206. Note that that IP address corresponds to hostname elvis.geos.ed.ac.uk and that the subject has an official web page at http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~ppalmer/

I see that the relevant policy is inconclusive:

"When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is currently no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin."

but I would suggest deletion. — Alan^✉ 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Doesn't appear to be more notable than the average university professor. - Richfife 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the subject's apparent opinion, there is no evidence of notability presented in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it is appropriate to have the record for significant science workers , whether they are over-modest about it or not. He's a university lecturer, which is probably about midway between assistant professor and associate professor, and not necessarily notable . But he's written 32 peer-reviewed papers, and he citation counts for the highest at 72, 66, 62, h index=13. I can understand not keeping the article because of his apparent wishes--or was in just because the article placed him at Leeds and he's actually at Edinborough. I'd make a strong case if it had not appeared that he did not want to be included.DGG 01:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doesn't help that the person who wrote the article can't spell Edinburgh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fetish fetish

Is this worthy of a Wikipedia article? Voortle 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Fetish as it was before. Wildthing61476 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, stub, unlikely to ever grow into an article. Tempshill 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense or redirect back to Fetish. --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any sources, create redirect back to main article. --Nehrams2020 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources for this phenomenon; no need for redirect, as it's confusing. The Evil Spartan 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No redirect. Sounds hoaxy, like the old joke about being charged a "Tax Tax". - Richfife 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NFT. Although I have heard that fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish fetish is a grammatically complete sentence.--Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Little Caesar's private life is his own business. ~ Infrangible 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whip whip back into obscurity obscurity. Might be worth a redirect to Fetish. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; or dab with the movie. John Vandenberg 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

effophobia

More of a discussion than an actual article. Voortle 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism (er, protologism: Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms_by_topic#Fear_terms). JJL 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tempshill 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and give the author an F in "Elementary Policies and Procedures" --Finngall ^talk 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per JJL, WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:IINFO. I think the author gets an 'F' for violations of those policies and guidelines. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By their contributions, the author appears to be a prolific prankster ~ Infrangible 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; already listed in Wiktionary.[2]. John Vandenberg 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Cool Blue (first sentence only). And let's assume good faith and not attack the creator pleeeeease. --Horncomposer 09:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Sr 13 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fart detector

Sounds like a hoax to me. Voortle 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, nonsense article Lurker 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart alarm is your friend. Uncle G 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. JJL 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and disinfect as nonsense. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Tempshill 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Devlin

Run of the mill kidnapper and pedophile. This one is famous because the producers of CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews thought the story would get good ratings, which it did. However, there are many thousands of pedophiles, and Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor a registry of perverts. If this article is kept, it will be an endorsement of allowing Wikipedia content to be determined by the journalistic "ethics" (and I use the term loosely) and drive for ratings of people like Nancy Grace, Greta Van Sustern and Geraldo Rivera. Who's company do you want to keep? Thatcher131 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia's rules on notability are that if a subject is covered by reliable sources, which the three cited by the nominator are, despite any bias they may have, then there is no reason not to have an article on it. While I personally think this is too liberal in the case of crime articles (cf my comments on the recent flood of nominations of British murder articles), the standard I would replace it with is that it should have been covered in depth by sources with national scope, which is clearly the case here. JulesH 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would suggest, however, that the article is restructured to be an article about the case, rather than a bio of the suspect. JulesH 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Notoriety most certainly does not equal notability. Crime is a fickle beast, reports focus on the crime, not the perpetrator or the victim other than to enhance their coverage on the crime. The present train of thought would have every pedophile, murderer and rapist included. The reliability of newspapers to cover such crimes reliably and impartially is also cast into doubt and such POV issues with the sources will obviously impact on our ability to cover the subject neutrally. This chap was clearly not notable before the crime and isn't notable after it. Nick 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - I agree Wikipedia needs to move away from articles that use news reports as their sole sources. That is something that Wikinews already does and Wikipedia should not overlap as much as it does. Wikipedia needs to concentrate on a dispassionate, short, accurate statements on such matters. Our document on reliable sources needs to make clear that news sources are often NOT reliable, and often distort and misrepresent things. If we present just the news media viewpoint, NPOV is affected. Pointing out contradictory news reports is a possible improvement. Wikipedia coverage of events like the Virginia Tech massacre Hurricane Katrina, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and other topical news stories all suffer from recentism. Several years on from the latter two events, more reliable sources are slowly being used, and updates are being added, but when an existing article with an extensive edit history exists, there is an inertia against the extensive rewrites that are eventually needed. In cases like this, I suggest paring down the article to a stub, then watching to see if it improves. Carcharoth 17:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from Wikipedia:Recentism:
- "Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention. Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens, new articles are created on arguably flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled. Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are—but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists. What is recent is close, and what is close is hard to gain perspective on. Recentism is thus a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has both positive and negative aspects, as discussed below. Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, removed, or added. Certain articles may need to be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for community consideration; conversely, new articles may need to be created to balance Wikipedia's coverage. Wikipedians are reminded that sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews."
- Which seems to me to sum up how this article should be dealt with. Carcharoth 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to an article about the kidnapping. This person doesn't seem particularly notable, though some valid arguments could be made that the kidnapping/event was notable. AniMate 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There doesn't seem to currently be such an article, but this article contains much of the information that would be necessary to create one. Hence my suggestion above to rename and restructure it. JulesH 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this is an article about the kidnapping, and not really a bio. As such, it violates WIkipedia is not a newspaper, and also suffers from recentism, as Carcharoth points out. While this is also true of JonBenét Ramsey (a murder case article masquerading as a bio), JonBenét Ramsey has at least survived the test of time, and simply moving the article to a different title (JonBenét Ramsey murder case) would be a meaningless excercise. Here, I think, it is too recent to know whether the Horbeck-Ownby kidnapping and molestation case will survive the test of time, or whether it is a flash in the pan fueled by the ratings-driven 24-hour news channels. Thatcher131 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that moving the JonBenet article would be a pointless exercise, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened due to some ridiculous BLP claim. There are many cases in which an event is best presented as a biography such as Stephen Lawrence. An example of a pointless move can be seen here. - hahnch e n 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable case of kidnapping with international coverage (I heard about this in Europe). If you want to move the article, that's fine. - hahnch e n 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is ridiculous. Clearly a notable event, and worthy of an article. The man himself has been covered by the media, and become a notable criminal too. You may not like to hear about it, but we're not here to satisfy everyone's sensibilities, we're here to document human knowledge, and criminal activity is just as much a part of that as, say, the unpleasant bits of human physiology. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's time for wikipedia to stop being a newspaper. Fighting for Justice 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is absurd. More people know about this case than most other Wikipedia articles. John celona 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More people know about the also-ran contestants on any reality show than most other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't make them notable or other other articles not notable, however. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable and noted case; thus, by extension, Devlin is also both notable and noted. (JosephASpadaro 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete WP does not stand for WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite to cover the kidnapping event, specifically focusing on the four year search for Shawn Hornbeck (Ownby, as a kidnapping, is pretty unnotable). Calwatch 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To describe this person as "run of the mill" is subjective and irrelevant. As unfortunate as it may be, this predator is notable and warrants, not deserves, coverage by our project. We can do so in a neutral fashion given the abundance of reliable third party sources available. RFerreira 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but potentially rename; so many sources to make this notable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cultural weight is a valid reason to document the incident. Tfine80 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville Season 7

WP is not a crystal ball. Basically a summary of the end of season six, and total speculation on the next season. No bias against recreation in the Fall when the season actually starts, but for now this is total crystalballery. TexasAndroid 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the main article Smallville (TV series), a seventh season has been officially announced, so information on that announcement should be put here and the article kept as a placeholder for the series which is presumably now in pre-production at the least. However the speculation and fanboi comments in the article should be removed. Ben W Bell talk 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ben. Dalejenkins 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until more concrete facts are found on season 7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Mostly per Ben W Bell (talk · contribs), but this article really needs some expansion and addition of reputable sourced citations. Smee 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much the only concrete fact known about season seven at the moment is that it will happen; we don't even know when that will be. The only other factual part of the article is the brief recap of the end of the previous season, which is unnecessary. The rest of the article is a mix of speculation and "statements" lacking any citation. Should be deleted until more concrete information is available, at which point it can be recreated as a proper article with proper factual content. --Tailkinker 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Image Format

Neither of this page's supposed subjects is notable or seems likely to establish notability in the near future. Jamesmusik 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~- ~~This just survived an AfD less than a week ago. Can we give it a chance?~~(Changing vote to Delete after later explanations, and due to the fact that the first mention is proprietary, and the second explanation listed on the article is for a format that never saw the light of day -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)) -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has had the same problems ever since it was first deleted nearly a year ago. If no one has come forth with something establishing notability since then, I don't know how long we're supposed to wait. Jamesmusik 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first delete appears to have been a speedy G11 as advertising, right? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MagicISO part of the article still has no references other than adverts by the creator, so that still applies. The other file format is clearly non-notable and that has not been challenged on either the talk page or the previous AfD. Jamesmusik 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither file format is notable. The previous AfD was not allowed to complete — it was speedy closed in under 48 hours ~~with a reason claiming that the AfD w~~as a "content dispute" — incorrectly as far as I can tell, as lack of notability is not a content dispute. -- intgr ^#%@! 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the first nomination, the discussion on the talk page was on whether the article should have been about the proprietary filesystem format or the IETF standard; as a result, a nomination based on the notability of the second subject was actually a content dispute (on whether the article should have been more on the first or the second subject). That's why I closed the first AfD as a content dispute. I have not closed this one because this time notability of both subjects is questioned. Tizio 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, thanks for the explanation. -- intgr ^#%@! 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. Useless article. Dalejenkins 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – My vote on the first Afd was to keep and rework to be about the file format, providing that verifiable sources could be found. Well, they haven't been, and they don't look likely to appear any time soon. I agree that neither subject is notable. —GrimRevenant 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fully expect Uifan to recreate the page fairly quickly via one IP address or another. Does anyone think it be pre-emptively salted (if deleted, of course), or should we worry about that when it happens? —GrimRevenant 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say RPP if it happens. No sense in stuffing beans, right? -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 05:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already happened, over and over again — the only reason the page remained about the IETF standard for so long is that it was protected, see logs, history. -- intgr ^#%@! 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll defer to you on that recommendation. You seem to know more about the history of this subject and those closely involved. Delete and salt, since the challenge is to the subject's (im)possible future of notability. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Internet fax and replace with a dab page with history intact. Problems with spamy additions should be dealt with by preventative measures; not removing information. It is notable as it made it through the RFC process, and RFC 3250 uses the same mimetype. John Vandenberg 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UIF did not make it through the RFC process - it was abandoned fairly early on in the draft stages. 76.21.33.66 05:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have covered Nirvana songs

Delete - it is not notable simply that one artist sang another artist's song. If any of these are notable recorded covers, then they can be noted in an article for the song and/or in the discography of the cover artist. Otto4711 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - soon it'll be List of musicians who covered covers of Nirvana's songs. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --CPAScott 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:ILIKEIT. Tempshill 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, change to a category?. As per nom. Dalejenkins 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the songs themselves are notable and the covering artists are also notable then there should certainly be a note on the song's (or containing album's) article indicating who has covered it. But a whole article dedicated just to this is simply a loose collection of information. A1octopus 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was tagged for G7, non admin closure. Whs itc hy 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Bushman

author deleted prod because he BELIEVES that the guy played number 1 singles at Auburn. He doesn't state that in his article nor does he provide sources. It still lacks notability. Postcard Cathy 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the deletor of the prod, I'll abstain for now, but... ever consider tagging with a sources needed tag? Whsitchy 16:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add-on comment [3] says here he went to the NCAA tourny. Whs itc hy 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's nonsense with no context. Tempshill 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know The article came off of AfC, and I wasn't really sure about making it, I'll bring this up at the AfC project page. Whs itc hy 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G7. I can't find a way to save the page right now, sadly enough. Whs itc hy 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Garron

DRV overturned the prior AfD, in light of Runcorn-related sockpuppetry. This person is a non-notable actress, with only insignificant roles to her credit. Delete. Xoloz 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is some sort of notability there, however it's not enough to meet WP:BIO. Coming in 6th on a show and being part of an ensemble cast on a little know show isn't enough to justify keeping the article. Wildthing61476 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Tempshill 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments on the first AfD. She fails WP:BIO: she had a non-notable role in a large cast for her first show, and she was a contestant on the second show (and she didn't even come close to winning). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title contains one of the twelve months

Delete - another indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of having the name of a month in the title. Otto4711 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good heavens, I'm not sure I'm ever seen a more random intersection of criteria for a list. Next week, we might find List of songs written in Flint, Michigan on April 5, 1923, between 7:00 AM and 7:15 AM. Excessive granularity, no possible encyclopedic value. Xoloz 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. By the way, who really needs it? Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about sleep. Yawn. I'm just afraid that there's more to come - have you seen List of songs about the future? Just a suggestion: Maybe Music Wikia is the right place for these kinds of list. Wikipedia isn't. --B. Wolterding 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse is a List of songs about eating disorders. Tim Q. Wells 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a list. JJL 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tim Q. Wells 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No offense to whoever created this page, just nobody truly cares about songs having a month in their title. JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Whs itc hy 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent with all the other List of songs whose title contains some arbitrary element. Fails WP:NOT. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --JayJasper 21:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is less than 2 weeks old, it seems like as soon as an old indiscriminate song-title-list is deleted, someone creates a new one. Next week, List of songs whose title contains a day of the week. Masaruemoto

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishi (musician)

doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO GlassFET 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Tempshill 18:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, without a notable label, charted hit, etc.. Incidentally, I think her music is quite interesting! Hopefully she will meet the notability requirements someday. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like she may well meet notability in the future; not yet, I'm afraid. Closenplay 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Narratophilia

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

The result was speedy delete as (still) blatant advertising. Bad blatant advertising. Sandstein 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projected image digital

Non-notable company.Originally speedied as spam but most advertising references removed. Still non-notable though. Dipics 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Navou 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yarankash

No references or sources - most of the google hits are Wiki mirrors. Biography mostly contains his arrest information and execution. Ozgod 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet requirements for N in WP:BIO. Few hits on google and has no real impact on the course of history. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the governor who he killed would disagree with Plm209. Tempshill 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep the "non notable" votes above seem to be more like WP: Idontlikeit, and cite no specific wikipedia policy that the article violates. This man appears to be important to history, and has sources to back it up. I see no reason to delete this at all. Barsportsunlimited 19:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he, as a European, had in 2007 assassinated the mayor of Aleppo, (or the governor of Syria--I'm not sure which is closer), would he get an article? Probably he would. Then it is appropriate here, as notability is ot time-dependent. For one think, even if one believes in the thorough discredited 100 year rule, he cerainly passes) and is in the standard histories in a significant way. DGG 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a vote, but there are two sources given in the article. He could easily pass with a brief mention in the Zengi article (and Zengi is significant, although it may not be immediately obvious to most people), which is the way things were originally; then someone came along and wrote a little stub about him, and I expanded it. I don't know if the article can get much longer than it is now, but he is mentioned in primary and secondary crusade sources, so he is not totally insignficant. Adam Bishop 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has two references, including an edition of a primary source and a standard work on the crusades by Runciman. Why is the nominator claiming that there are "no references or sources"? Pharamond 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He killed a major political leader and you're saying that he doesn't meet notability? Keep. DS 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more important and reliably sourced that pokemon moves. John Vandenberg 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zornoza

Article fails to assert importance or notability. No major works, awards or coverage cited in article. Fails to meet the requirements for WP:Notability Ozgod 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy, as it makes no real assertion to notability. In fact the only thing that might be interpreted as notable is associate editor bit, but it's to a redlinked online publisher that likely would fail notability, itself. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Arkyan. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no meeting WP:BIO (first point — primary criterion). The Sunshine Man 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable. Tempshill 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Court of Administrative Appeals

The article's title appears to be about an organization while the article itself appears to be about a person. In addition, the image caption supposedly shows the person working inside a building but the image merely shows the building; there's no proof that that person is inside the building. Anthony Rupert 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very simple edit stops it being about a person. The image caption does not refer to a person, simply to the building. Article certainly needs expansion, it is marked as a stub, and has now been catted too, which will attract interested editors. DuncanHill 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the existence of this entity can be confirmed. I tried a Google search, and came up with exactly 1 hit, to a Wikipedia page. I am willing to accept the possibility that the court has a different official name and that's why I am not finding any information at all, but unless someone can demonstrate its existence by the end of this AfD I cannot support keeping this article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According the the Armenian Government website here [4] the highest court in Armenia is the Court of Cassation. Suspect this article, and the individual linked to it (who has no google hits), of being hoaxes. DuncanHill 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Potential hoax; the article itself is very weak at that anyhow. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this may be a hoax. Slobodan Borisovic Iwanief is not an Armenian name Lurker 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hoax. As others note the alleged justice's name isn't Armenian, no verifiable references to the alleged institution, article appears to be written as a (pretty thin) spoof on Armenia. Bigdaddy1981 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DuncanHill. Tempshill 18:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the initial afd incorrect. This article should be kept until someone with knowledge can say if it is or isn't a hoax. The article might be refferring to the building's name or reputation, rather than current application. DDB 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC) changed mind DDB 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's not really the way Verifiability works. Unless there's a source for the existence of this, the article ought to be deleted. I haven't had any more luck finding verification than Arkyan has. If someone finds a source before the end of the AfD period, great, we'll keep the article. If someone finds a source after the end of the AfD period, great, we can create a new article based on the source. But no source, no article. In the meanwhile, it would be great to have Court of Cassation (Armenia) not be a redlink-- Jonel | Speak 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So we know this sebbs guy, the article creator, doesn't exist? I'd support an afd if it was for an unverifiable article, however, the afd was for the apparent confusion regarding the article's purpose. If in fact this is known to be a hoax, and not presupposed by individuals who have no idea, then it should be speedy deleted .. right? DDB 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Oops, I just followed your verifiability link. I'll leave my high horse and change that to ""delete"" apologies for being slow DDB 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Armenia is a nation and I am sure it must have courts, probably including a court of appeal. The article is thus credible; whether it is right is a differnet question, on which I cannot judge. Rather too much of it is about the cheif justice, who has his own article (also credible, though somewhat bare). In dealing with a foreign country, you should not expect to find English language websites for everything you want. Don't delete it, just apply a couple more tags, in strengthen doubts about it. Peterkingiron 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Comment - On further consideration, I now wonder whether this is a hoax, in which case it should be deleted. The biographical detail on the alleged chief justice is very thin on detail as to where he worked while in USA, which ought to be more verifiable. Peterkingiron 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Vote changed to delete The more I look the more I am convinced this is a Hoax. I can find nothing on Google about the alleged Chief Justice except derived from WP. Furthermore, 'Lord' is an unlikely title in an ex-Soviet country. Peterkingiron 10:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfood pop group

Pop group that does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Though the group's members claim close involvement with various events that themselves may indeed be notable, there is nothing much to verify this (no mention beyond a namecheck on the sites given), and this does not necessarily confer notability on the group itself. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet Wp:MUSIC.--James, La gloria è a dio 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow...thats all...wow Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't be as bas as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Princess (1958 film) this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:BAND, tagged with {{db-band}}. The Sunshine Man 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:V and WP:OR are the key issues here and it's clear that the articles don't meet either. --Core desat 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl and Cirque du Freak (anime)

Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cirque du Freak (anime) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cirque du Freak: Dawn of a Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

View AfD

Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl was originally nominated for speedy deletion - with the following reason: google search reveals that the only mentions of the game at all are on Wikipedia. All edits made by a single user, blatantly false hoax article - which was changed to WP:PROD. Another user noted that the articles have been confirmed to be false (or an unverifiable rumor at best) here. Still, the author removed the deletion notice with no explanation. Delete, candidates for speedy deletion (as hoax/vandalism). - Mike Rosoft 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should be speedy. Reasons per nom. --Javit 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete, this AfD is a waste of time. --Ashenai 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Delete the game, keep or make a separate AfD for the anime. --Ashenai 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming is still speculative. Anime is still not notable as nonexistent. Delete for now. --Evb-wiki 14:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hold up here; the anime is forthcoming [5], the manga exists [6], but the Bloody Brawl video game seems to be only speculation. So argue notability perhaps for the anime page, but speedy delete is only warranted for the game. Tarc 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the anime, delete the game as future speculation. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the anime for now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment - Strong delete per nom. Also, for those saying keep the anime, the IMDB page is not for an anime adaptation. It is for a live-action adaptation for which there already is a verified wiki page, Cirque du Freak (film), so yes, the anime movie is a hoax. Also, I asked the author himself, and he confirmed that they are both hoaxes. -AtionSong 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and AtionSong above. Deor 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per AtionSong. The author of these articles, Manplush (talk · contribs), has a bit of a history creating hoax pages; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBGT for an example. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also suggest nominating The Cirque du Freak, an article about the supposed first episode of this anime, into this discussion as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seconded. -AtionSong 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the closing admin: please also consider Cirque du Freak: Dawn of a Prince, another hoax article created by User:Manplush into the deletion. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxes from Wikipedia with extreme prejudice. --John 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I believe the keep arguments are clearly stronger here, as Wikipedia is not paper, and we have precedent saying that this level of political achievement is reasonable. It's no surprise this is still a stub, but policy says that is okay. If this was an article about someone contemporary, that might be one thing, but the internet is not exactly bursting at the seams with information about Scotland's parliament in the 18th century, so this information would be difficult to replace. That said, the article is pretty short, and a merge may be attempted, following the usual WP:BRD process. Mango juice^talk 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Arbuthnot (politician)

This article has existed for over a year and hasn't expanded very much. A shire commisioner for the Parliament of Scotland was an appointment given to lower ranks of the gentry and peerage. I have looked high and low for anything on this person that doesn't come from the Arbuthnot family book and I can't find anything (I initially thought I had but the Commissioner Arbuthnot/t or Arbuthnot/t, Commissioner all referred to other people). Delete and summarize at Viscount of Arbuthnott if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and summarise per nom. Looks like another example of the encyclopædia being confused with a genealogical resource. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone unearths some further information , which may prove notability, as it is I see none. Giano 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of every name in someone's genealogy, when multiple reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of them can be found, as needed to write an encyclopedic article. Fails WP:A, WP:BIO. Edison 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because notability asserted per WP:BIO as a member of a national Parliament. Needs more sources, though, so I have tagged it with {{moresources}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it's a "secondary criterion"... to quote regarding politicians: "Note 5: This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." — so we're partially back to wanting to see other writing about him, and also the question is raised as to how much of a "major political office" he held in the parliament (meaning no offence to the Scots Parliament of course!) – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been there for a year and that's all everyone's managed to come up with. I've looked extensively myself and there is nothing there. It is entirely pointless to insist on having separate biographies for people when they are clearly so non notable that they are only mentioned in Burke's peerage and a family book. The information can easily be added to his father's page or the Viscount of Arbuthnott page. I should also point out the Arbuthnot family association only considers 13 Arbuthnots as actually "famous" and this Arbuthnot is not on the list [7] (amazingly I think the list was created by KittyBrewster). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gustav, have you checked only online, or in the libraries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huge numbers of older books (which are likely the only place he would be mentioned) are now indexed online at Google Books and Amazon- I've searched for all the phrases I can think of but none of them refer to him. Are there any specific books you think might mention him? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep If someone is willing to work on it, let them. I'm unaware of time restrictions on wiki .. can someone point me to where notable figure get deleted for not being attended to in a set time? DDB 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that argument is it can be made indefinitely - no one can rule out the possibility that something might be found however unlikely that is but I don't think that's a good reason to not redirect the article at the moment. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a member of the national legislature, which has so far always been accepted at AfD, and so it should, because such people will be in histories, even if kb is too negligent to look beyond the confines of her family's genealogy books. The rule is Verifiable, not verified. The commissioners were, according to the Parliament of Scotland article , "the third estate of burgh commissioners (representatives chosen by the royal burghs)" -- borough MPs in the UK, not what it might sound like as a minor election official. I think this disposes of the argument that it was not a significant political office.

Can't expect to find the same sourcing as in the 20th century, which is why we have the secondary criterion--it means he is N unless shown otherwise. (unlike the world in general, which goes the other way).DGG 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference found from Google books, which gets more content by the day. Provided the additional information, that he subsequently represent another consitituency. DGG 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it interesting that the reference you found says he represented Bervie up to 1707, even when he died in 1705. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note User:Kittybrewster has confirmed that the Alexander who represented Bervie was a different Alexander Arbuthnot. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It still does not assert notability, however. You can cite the fact that hes married, when he died, etc., but if it doesn't assert notability, then its moot. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a WP:RS for his parliamentary service is found, otherwise delete being an MP in Scotland seems to satisfy WP:N, however there's no RS for it cited. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about the equivalent of a Member of Parliament. The references added have made it a valid stub. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who wrote this and for reasons iterated above, I naturally !vote keep. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and summarise per nom - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are sources to tell more of his political involvement-Doc^g 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Sports Champions below. MER-C 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Carnival Champions

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mazaradi FOX

non notable. Entirely unsourced. Original research. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.⇒ KingTee ^{Denny Crane.} 04:29, 04 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are myspace and "Department of Correctional Services"! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. This guy looks like a winner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May "New York State,Department of Correctional Services" never be a source cited in my biography. ~ Infrangible 02:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, probably created by some G-Unit fan-boy. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep One of his works has been reviewed by a third party site. Link. Also, if he had been incarcerated for drug dealing, there is a chance that he may have appeared in a newspaper somewhere.--Kylohk 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now There's no doubt this guy is affiliated with notable people and he has been mentioned in sources such as Prefix mag and SOHH, but so far I don't think that makes the cut. It wouldn't be surprising if he becomes more notable in the future, perhaps after releasing an album that makes the Billboard charts, which in that case would probably warrant an article. And although the article cites little sources, KingTee's comment that the page has original research is just false. Spellcast 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - KingTee has actually been indefinitely blocked, if you look at his signature, the link to his talk page leads to Swatjester's talk page, and the whole nomination, he copied from the AfD for Nu Jerzey Devil. Notice how he didn't bother to change anything but the link to his user page. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also copied most of his user page from Geniac, and vandalized my user page, and also was suspected of using sock puppets to edit war on The Black Wall Street Records (which was later semi-protected). --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 17:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I didn't realise that. Anyway, the troll account was indefinitely blocked. Nevertheless, I think this nomination should continue as normal. Spellcast 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was an obvious redirect, so I boldly did. Non-admin closure. Charlie 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetopsia

The user most likely heard this term while watching House, as I did. However the correct term is Akinetopsia, therefore this article is pretty useless. - Imo eng 12:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect, please add a redirect: WP:R
- please - Imo eng 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Edison 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas C Hewitt

per WP:BIO - not notable. Contested prod. Javit 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also WP:SPAM (for more info, see . . . ) and probably WP:AUTO/WP:COI (authored by User:juneandtom). --Evb-wiki 13:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could find nothing (other than this Wikipedia article) in Google or Proquest. Sounds like he hangs around with noted musicians and works in the trade, but we need multiple reliable and independent sources to be cited in a bio article, not just the subjects own autobiographical account. Perhaps get a press agent and get some articles written in magazines which cover his type of music, then come back. Edison 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for me. Stop trying to ruin Wikipedia by deleting everything. If you don't like an article then don't view it but don't stop others who want it. Xanucia 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will only bother to point the above user in the direction of WP:NPA. Please read WP policies and guidelines on what should be kept and deleted. --Javit 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked Google web, news and books and the only results were false positives, as well as three online British newspapers without finding him (with of course the burden on the creator to provide sources present). Forget notability—for the moment the content is unverified, with failed searches implying it is unverifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Shelast

Recreated after prod. Original prod was "reality TV contestant and apparently struggling model. 63 unique Ghits, mostly wiki mirrors and CNTM related hits. Despite having come second, seems to have gone underground after the show". Same concerns exist: this losing contestant on a reality television show is not notable. She wasn't notable on the show, and hasn't done anything since the show to make herself notable among the other struggling models in a very saturated and competitive field. Mikeblas 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by nominator assertions --Javit 12:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like it was written by her mother. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V, WP:BIO. It's not a promising sign when a model has zero images on Google Image. Ravenswing 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I got halfway through the article and thought it was nonsense. JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game show contestants are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability. Resolute 23:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. John Vandenberg 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotard

Google search turns up one slang usage of this term (= "devotee of the Wankel rotary engine") but nothing that matches the sense given here. Most, if not all, hits for rotardation appear to be typos for retardation. This seems to be a hoax or joke article. Deor 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note. May be a disguised attack page as well. See the article history for the image of "R. Overton" added to, then quickly removed from, the page by User: Cute blond. Deor 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced OR. Looks like something made up at school one day. -- Mikeblas 12:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a joke... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What nonsense Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and all of the above. --Evb-wiki 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a joke Capmango 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. John Vandenberg 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koresh's Angels

Non-notable band, article fails to establish notability, provide any sources, and google returns 5 hits, of which 3 are from Wikipedia.[8] Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all criteria in WP:MUSIC. Appears to have been written by someone in or close to the band as references are made to family plans, etc. Plm209^{(talk to me • contribs)} 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an unremarkable band. Tagged. MER-C 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete --Javit 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete do I really have to explain this?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is why we have db tags, people. Closenplay 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabadi Martial Arts

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hyderabadi Martial Arts

I think the opening sentence in the History section says it all: "The history of hyderabadi martial arts is unknown to any one." I say let's have it stay that way and not introduce OR into Wikipedia. No sources are provided, and I see no possibility that this article will be redeemed anytime soon. Should sources crop up, it can always be recreated, preferably without appealing to mysterious and unnamed "masters". Ashenai 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN --Javit 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another joke. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NN, WP:V, WP:NFT and WP:BULLSHIT. I'd say the reason this article's history is "unknown to any one" is because it doesn't exist. It doesn't surprise me that the creator tried to link the External Links section to himself, and this article is his sole Wikipedia activity. RGTraynor 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suplex onto a Tulwar If the history isn't known and the art itself isn't discussed, this doesn't have any merit whatsoever. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient puddle

This is just a large Douglas Adams quote preceded by a simple summary of it. 'Sentient puddle' was a phrase used by Douglas Adams ten years ago, which doesn't seem to have entered any sort of wider usage since (the only sources given are from people directly quoting Adams and attributing the phrase to him) - it fails WP:NEO. The Douglas Adams article already has a section dedicated to the quote, covering the exact the same ground as the introductory paragraph, and the full quotation is already in Wikiquote. Delete. McGeddon 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't even know if it's notable enough to be in Wikiquote. - Myanw 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The section in his main article is just fine; if the extended information in this article were to be merged into that article, it would appear to carry undue weight in comparison to the rest of the article. --Charlene 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There actually isn't any extended information, apart from the analogy being quoted in full - the introductory paragraph is virtually identical to the section in the Adams article. --McGeddon 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'd disagree with the esteemed editor before and say this would be valid for WikiQuote, as well as perhaps a discussion of religion itself or an article on those who dispute the humanist principles (if that's the name of it), but it's not notable or substantial enough for its own article. Interesting to read, yes, but leaving its mention in the Adams article (or in religious discussion themes) would work better. IL-Kuma 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Although this is a rather amusing analogy, it really has no real notability and has achieved no notoriety in public discourse. Also, echo everything McGeddon said about this info being found elsewhere.--DoctorWorm 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles in PlanetSide

Unsourced game guide stuffed full of fair use images. Ample precedent exists for deletion, see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles. MER-C 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the pictures look great.:) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. It's certainly useful information, just not information that is currently acceptable on Wikipedia (as per WP:NOT). I'm not active in any PS wiki, but otherwise I'd do it myself. Ourai ^тʃ_с 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to a gaming Wiki The article can be found here --Cs california 07:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of other sites where you can do stuff like that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete This is an important reference section for thousands of current and potential Planetside subscribers. No other like it exists on the Web. The content and context certainly DOES fit Wikipedia's scope and purpose. Another similar section is needed: Weapons in PlanetSide. --Mark Rizo 00:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The information may certainly be valuable, but not necessarily here on Wikipedia. There are other sites out there (even some wikis, such as this one) that certainly can use this information. But Wikipedia is not for reference sections like these. Ourai ^тʃ_с 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. Just because it's useful doesn't mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 06:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should only be kept if individual vehicles have references in popular culture or non-trivial articles in magazines, etc per WP:V and WP:N. I'm sure it could be an important reference for gamers, however Wikipedia is not a game guide (as stated above, WP:NOT). Marasmusine 17:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information has not been published by any third party sources and could only be sourced to game guides, making it basically a game guide itself. No opposition to transwiki. Wickethewok 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice - A similar page has existed before. I had created the page PlanetSide Tanks and it was deleted. Next people added info about the PlanetSide vehicles to the main PlanetSide page. Until the info was split and moved to Vehicles in PlanetSide. I predict that this cycle of add-split-delete will repeat for as long as the game PlanetSide exists. Fvdham 13:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's like a weapons list, except with vehicles. WP is not a game guide. Axem Titanium 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring WP:USEFUL arguments. utcursch | talk 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (UK) ratings

Pointless, incomplete article that should be merged with Big Brother UK. No/few sources and not very noteable. Dalejenkins 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO #9. It's just a statistics dump. MER-C 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge why the need for a seperate article?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. Wikipedia is not the Nielsen company. --Charlene 11:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need for a seperate article. Jackrm 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete because it's comparing the 2006 and 2007 seasons and the 2007 season has only just started. All UK viewing figures come from the same source (BARB) and are certainly reliable. This is exactly the kind of thing that people visit Wikipedia for. Xanucia 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season articles. --musicpvm 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be kept because it contains information which is very useful for many people, and it warrants a new page. The table structure allows people to compare ratings in a much easier manner. 13:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encloypedia, useful to have all this information in one place & too much to be merged elsewhere. Kelso21 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does any other TV show have this kind of thing-no! This is useless. Who's gonna come on Wikipedia to find out how many people watched some crummy Brit Reality Show. 80.41.34.146
Delete Superficial opinions concerning the show aside, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Relevant aspects should be integrated in context in prose. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Many people are interested in the Big Brother show ratings due to its huge media coverage in the UK. Thus, this page is acceptable, and has many sutable sources to support the information. 87.194.48.235
Keep. Many people have a great interest in the ratings of BB, especially considering how ratings shot up surrounding the controversial CBB. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is pretty mixed on whether nobility is includable simply for being nobility from the debate here. That said, Viscount of Arbuthnott is not up for deletion. I see no remotely sensible reason presented why we should avoid having a redirect in place. And the keep comments seem to be defending the appropriateness of the material being on Wikipedia, not the appropriateness of a separate page in this instance. Merging is sensible. However, let me remind everyone that merging does not necessarily require a big debate, and this one was certainly a waste of time. Don't forget to be BOLD when appropriate. Mango juice^talk 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott

To all those people that think that having a separate article for each peer of England is a good idea- please note that there have been 16 of these not particularly notable people. That's just for this title of the thousands of other titles out there. Yes, hereditary peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords, but the question we should ask is did they actually do anything NOTABLE if and when they ever sat in there. Many did not. This person is not notable in their own right so Delete and summarize this person at Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. He got married twice and had children. That's the extent of his accomplishments according to the article! Clarityfiend 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE It turns out this person is peer of Scotland so they didn't even have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords (16 Scottish peers were selected each parliament until 1963 when all Scottish peers were allowed to sit). I would and will though still apply the same argument to English peers if they are non notable. This is not a peerage directory (and even Burke's Peerage doesn't have separate articles for each title holder!). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:He had a right to sit in parliament under the arrangements of the day for the UK parliament whereby those Scottish peers who expressed a desire to take up a seat went in a ballot to choose representative Peers for Scotland. They were elected by their Peers, not "selected". David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have waited for quite some time before posting this but actually there is no proof that he could have sat in the House of Lords and secondly, and more importantly, even if he could have the fact is that he didnt sit in the House of Lords and therefore Fails the politician criteria pf the notability policy. Unless you can come up with another reason that this person passes WP:N then it is not looking good for the Viscount.--Vintagekits 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Silly page. I have no objection to a page on the title Viscount Arbuthnot explaining how the title came about and when and where etc.; where all the holders could be listed with births and deaths etc., but to have a page for each non-notable holder giving information such as this is plainly ridiculous. Were the 14th Viscount Arbuthnot to discover a cure for cancer, become Prime Minister, play football for England or even become a serial killer that would be a different matter, but as it is lump them all together or delete.
Delete per Clarityfiend. If you really can't say anything more than who he married and fathered, he just is not notable. Resolute 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that since John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott had the right to sit in the British House of Lords, and since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we have had no reports that we are running out of server space, we can well afford to have an article for him. If someone cared to dig through paper records, besides just Google resources and family histories, the article could probably be fleshed out. Note that we have articles for every single member of the First Continental Congress, (and probably every U.S. congresssman) apparently based on some notion of inherent notability, however little there is to say about them, and they were opposite numbers in the world's political arena of the 18th century. An example is Isaac Low of whom less can be said than we have about John Arbuthnot. This is more than an "othercrapexists" argument, being based the WP:N provision "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Edison 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the two situations are comparable. I realise that some people have campaigned to have separate articles for each peer (Wikiproject Peerage people) but I really do believe that it is harmful to and reduces the quality of this project having thousands of articles on non notable peers. The mere fact someone "had the right" to sit in the House of Lords (but many didn't or hardly ever did) does not make them notable as a person unless we have evidence they actually did anything notable in there. If they didn't and and they didn't do anything else which would make someone notable for an encyclopedia then the person can be summarized on the relevant page for that aristocratic title. It is thoroughly pointless to have a separate article for a peer that gives you no further information than what you already know i.e. that they have the right to sit in the House of Lords as a peer. Note however that this person was a Scottish peer so he didn't actually have the right to sit in the House of Lords although 16 representative Scottish peers were appointed in each parliament. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The two situations are not comparable -- the members of the Congress were libertarians, striving for freedom; the English Hosue of Lords are self-perpetuating blots on the face of the world, whose extenction is close to be achieved. Wikipedia ought not to record those whose only contribution was "he lived, he sprogged, he died, he oppressed and exploited people" -- HenriLobineau 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That is the most disgraceful remark I have seen yet on Wikipedia, which should not become a vehicle for those with such overt political views. David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was about to (very reluctantly) concur with Edison on the WP:BIO criteria, but I stopped for a moment and considered this beautiful phrase: "... meeting one or more {criteria} does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Given the long odds that this fellow ever sat in the Lords and the complete lack of evidence that he ever did so, and given that there's no information here that couldn't have been picked off of Burke's, there's just not much of a reason to keep this. RGTraynor 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above I don't believe a source that says a peer took up their seat in the House of Lords is enough unless there is some further detail about what they did in there. If there isn't anything to say about what they did and they didn't do anything else of note then they are not a notable person in their own right (as opposed to being part of their peerage's history) and can be easily summarized on the relevant page for that peerage (no information is "lost"). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel

Then as a show of good faith why don't you nominate Isaac Low since there's no evidence he did anything of substance in congress? Then be bold and delete the text in WP:N which imputes notability to every member of a state or national legislature? Why do we have policies and ignore them based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Edison 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, no one's cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For another, we know for a certain fact that Low served in the Continental Congress, while odds are quite poor that Arbuthnot ever served in the House of Lords. For a third, the Low article was expandable, and I just did it; the external link found in the article gave biographical information beyond mere birth/marriage/death info. RGTraynor 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is really fair to compare a congress member and a British peer. Congressman must have shown some essence of notability or talent to have reached that position whereas a peer doesn't necessarily have to have any talent or notability whatsoever to sit in the House of Lords. If they can be shown to have done something of note while sitting in the House then perhaps they should have their own article, but if it just says Lord x married y and sat in the House of Lords there is no reason why that very small amount of information cannot go on the page of Lords x especially as people are much more likely to such search for Lord or Viscount Arbuthnott (as they are likely to be referred to as such in books) and so arrive at the main page for the peerage rather than search for "John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful connecting info. that fits well with the before/current/after navigation boxes used at the bottom of such articles. Sounds like a policy is needed for U.K. peers. JJL 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it useful? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a peerage directory or genealogical database. The person is highly unlikely to be searched for individually due his non individual notability. If they ever were searched for a person would likely type Lord or Viscount Arbuthnott and arrive at Viscount of Arbuthnott where the very little information on him can be easily placed. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 16 separate Viscounts of Arbuthnott linked from that page right now. Each of them has his own special bio. page. If this one is merged in, there will only be 15, with the limited info. for this one done in-line. I know there have been several Arbuthnott-related AfDs recently but viewing this one in isolation--which is how the nom. is making the argument; this one person is not notable--it seems like it would simply make for inconveniences in the layout of this page and the use of the succession box style. Further, to my mind, the info. that goes in a peerage/baronetage/knightage is reasonably encyclopedic, and this brief info. is of that sort. Each peer getting his own page makes (organizational) sense to me. JJL 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it is hardly a valid argument to state that because there are lots of other non notable articles it would be unfair/unbalanced or would somehow destroy a pages layout to delete this one. I fully intend to nominate all the other non notable Viscounts of Arbuthnott and other non notable peers for deletion so eventually Viscount of Arbuthnott will only have a few links remaining to the holders of the title who are notable in their own right. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that that would be an invalid argument, so I'm glad I didn't make an argument anything at all like it. As to deleting the others one-by-one, why not try to get a policy for this sort of thing? JJL 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well it sounded to me as if you were claiming a reason why it shouldn't be deleted is that this page Viscount of Arbuthnott will be made messy by having this holder's info. merged into it. This can easily solved by adding a short description of each holder next to their name. And I am not even sure it will be necessary to afd all the others as consensus has already been reached that non notable Baronets can indeed be redirected to their title page. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should stop being so blinded by the perceived glory and glamour of a title and take some tips from the Arbuthnot family themselves who are slightly less impressed by some of the Arbuthnots when it come to defining notability [9]. Giano 19:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems well sourced enough, and, as above, could probably be expanded with some effort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. notability is one thing - but the last thing this article is is well sourced.--Vintagekits 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it is it has adequate source material. David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - When you say "could probably be expanded with some effort" you seem to be assuming that Lords all do something notable enough to get into an encyclopedia- what draws you to that conclusion? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because they're Lords who were noted in numerous publications and records? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see two books listed already - that's an excellent start for a stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, the only two publications listed are family histories - i.e. publications written by experts on this family- yet the only information from them that can be gleaned on this person is who they married and when they died- I don't think that indicates tremendous notability. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So even though someone could be bothered to do a family history, that's not enough? I dunno. I probably wouldn't feel this way if they were, say, car mechanics and not Lords. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Wait a sec - I see from your page that you're a die hard inclusionist so possibly not worth my breath in arguing with you, but to say that because someone has had a family history published of their family means that they become notable for an encyclopedia is nonsense imo. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no, I didn't say that. As I said, if they were car mechanics rather than Lords, there might be a different discussion to be had. But the notability comes from the title, and is advanced by the attention the family has gotten. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well if you are saying that people who are Lords or that people who are related to Lords are automatically notable I still think you're wrong. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Following some correspondence, I'm retracting my keep commentary for now. The general idea still remains regarding notability, but I'm no longer in a confident space about this family in particular. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is English Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia. These are notable people even if you Americans haven't heard of them. Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia so let's stop deleting articles to save space and other stupid reasons like that. People come to Wikipedia because it's huge and contains lots of trivial information and lists which are impossible to find in many places. Let's build this encyclopedia not delete it! Xanucia 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What an intelligent remark. I had just about given up hope! David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you couldnt be more wrong. This IS NOT English wiki - this is the worldwde English LANGUAGE wiki - big fecking difference.--Vintagekits 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete He is not in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, even as a reference in an article. He was a Scottish Peer, and therefore not necessarily entitled to sit in Parliament. DGG 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, but definitely don't read this as a 'keep'. As the nom says, unless and until we have more than three bullets' worth of information about this apparently utterly non-notable character, there's no reason – practical or philosophical – why he (and his peers—hah!) can't be folded into the main Viscount of Arbuthnott article. Indeed, having this in a separate article makes this information more difficult to find, not easier. As we do with television series, create a list of episodes at the main article and only break out individual episodes when warranted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename properly, and then look again-- it's actually a Keep His name is usually spelled the same as his peerage, JOHN ARBUTHNOTT. with two t's at the end, and this is perhaps why there has been such difficulty in finding references for a Viscount.--I have not been surprised at not finding refs. for miscellaneous Baronets, but I was surprised not to find a viscount, a much higher title. KB's inadequate research once more comes close to jettisoning another member of his family. There is actually some more information available, if you spell the name right. As a start, there is a good account in Wood's Peerage of Scotland. I'm adding it to the article, as found in Google Books. DGG 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I really don't think the fact the he "received a legal education, then managed his father's estate and then undercharged for rents because he was a bit thick" makes him notable enough to have his own encyclopedia article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and any other peer for now. It is not a productive use of time to have a discussion such as this one for every single one of them. For the future, I think many of the less notable individual British peers (and baronets) could be merged into articles on the titles or families, and then perhaps broken out again once the biographies are expanded. Pharamond 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why for the future? Let's start now. There often is nothing noteworthy about an individual peer that can't be said in the main article for that peerage. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why for the future? Because this is a discussion about deletion. Let's keep this first and merge it afterwards. Same thing with all the other title-and-nothing-else or second-son-of-a-baronet major-generals and so on. Most of them are no more than a few lines and can easily be merged to a more notable father, brother or (as I suggested some time ago) to an article about the family. The Arbuthnots appear to have owned the same manor and been locally and regionally prominent in a certain part of Scotland for some eight or nine hundred years and the significance of the family almost certainly transcends the importance of most individual family members. But why does every single biography have to be taken to a deletion discussion first? Just merge them. In case more relevant information is added later, they can be easily unmerged without bureaucracy or trauma. Pharamond 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very short articles such as this one. >Radiant< 08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There are thousands of peers of this ilk we must draw the line somewhere. As this was a Scottish peerage he would not even have been eligble to sit in the House of lords.

Comment that was inserted by Couer-Sang who is a single purpose anti-Arbuthnot account. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable person for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.126.1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, June 6, 2007

Comment The only contribution by this person. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ever heard of dynamic IPs? I'm with BT broadband, and have a different IP everytime I log in. One of the comments above is by me (the 86.134.53.216 one), made a few days ago. Some people choose not to have log ins, not necessarily for nefarious reasons as perhaps you suspect here. I simply hit 'Wikipedia' on my favourites and get on with editing, without arseing around with signing in, remembering passwords etc. Also I don't want to talk to people particularly, so am not too fussed about checking for messages. That doesn't make my contributions any less valid than anyone else's. And I still think this ridiculous article on a totally non-notable person should be deleted. 86.134.72.105 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced and easily verifiable. - SimonP 12:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good god, if he didn't have a title we wouldn;'t be having this argument an he'd have been deleted ages ago. And how does solely possessing a hereditary title make one notable? People who have been awarded peerages, sure - as they've done something to earn it and are therefore notable. But this guy - nada. 86.134.53.216 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the point is we should regard the peerage as the encyclopedically notable entity (we have the page Viscount of Arbuthnott), but not the individuals who held the title unless they have actually done something that would make anyone else notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Genealogy entry untethered from any sort of accomplishment or multiple reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 12:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having looked a little further into him I can find nothing of any note that would mark him out for inclusion91.105.210.129 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The only contribution by this user. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ever heard of dynamic IPs? I'm with BT broadband, and have a different IP everytime I log in. One of the comments above is by me (the 86.134.53.216 one), made a few days ago. Some people choose not to have log ins, not necessarily for nefarious reasons as perhaps you suspect here. I simply hit 'Wikipedia' on my favourites and get on with editing, without arseing around with signing in, remembering passwords etc. Also I don't want to talk to people particularly, so am not too fussed about checking for messages. That doesn't make my contributions any less valid than anyone else's. And I still think this ridiculous article on a totally non-notable person should be deleted. 86.134.72.105 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and that way you can !vote as Sang-Coeur and as several different IP addresses. There are advantages in having an ID. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a general "Viscount of Arbuthnott" article. A title is itself notable... but the individuals who once held/currently hold them, may or may not be. We should have a main article on the Title, and only have seperate sub-articles for those who are notable for something more than just the title. Blueboar 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't want to make this a referendum on all peerages, but in this individual case, it does appear that multiple, independant sources exist which discuss him in a non-trivial manner. That the article is a stub now is irrelevent. It appears that baseline notability requirement has been met, in that sources for expanding the article to a non-stub state exist. That does not mean that every peerage will automatically be notable. All articles should be tested on a case-by-case basis. This one happens to pass. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but I don't know where you are basing the assertion that the sources listed are (i) Notable and (ii) Contain any information that is non trivial on this person- in fact I am certain that if there was anything non trivial in them they would have already been summarized in the article. They haven't because there isn't anything non trivial there (the sources are two family histories and one peerage directory). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good heavens! You're not "sorry" at all! For someone who has only been on Wikipedia since March you are certainly making your presence felt! David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in any way.--padraig3uk 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This almost equates with WP:EPISODE - unless a peer has done anything notable in their own right, with enough substantial and verifiable information to warrant an article, there's no reason to have them in Wikipedia. This is not Burke's or Debretts - Tiswas^(t) 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst we continue to accommodate pages like this one it's inappropriate to delete pages which are factually and historically worthwhile.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While that may not be your area of interest at least there appears to be a considerable amount to say about that subject whereas the only thing we can say about this person is they studied, looked after the family estate married and died which we may as well just copy into thousands of other Lords biographies as its probably accurate. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, apart from being of interest to those coming after who might be interested in either the family or region, this article is potentially also of interest in respect of the Clearances and the Potato Famine, which have continuing relevance with the recent passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. 'Absentee (or indifferent) landlords' are a stock figure of Scottish political demonology, so it is interesting to see a good one mentioned on the site.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notwithstanding nominator's Saganesque "thousands and thousands" rhetoric, I don't think the situation with the British peerage is out of control in terms of maintainability. I've proposed a solution similar to that which has been suggested here for baronets; however, I feel that the British peerages are sufficiently limited (in contradistinction to the baronetcies) and of sufficiently elevated status, that we're better served by complete, if short, articles on each of them than by trying to boil them into lists. In my opinion, anyway, WP:NOTPAPER carries with it an expectation of completeness: we can afford to create and maintain separate articles on members of the nobility (British nobility, anyway, where 1 title = 1 person), the upper echelons of various religious hierarchies, certain political offices, and so on, even if the incumbent was not particularly accomplished. I think peers are both sufficiently important in general and sufficiently small a group (in relative terms) that keeping individual articles for them is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Choess 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment,We could have them... but do we need them? User:Princess Tiswas has made an excellent analogy between Peerages and their constituant members, and TV shows and their respective episodes. Many episodes of TV shows are in no way encycopedically notable but the TV show as a whole probably is as are perhaps a few "famous episodes". Obviously some TV shows may be so popular that many episodes are deemed "famous". Equally, some peerages have more notable members than others- in these cases we can break out separate articles for the notable members as we do for the notable episodes. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, A Viscount is not the upper echelons of the peerage - if we were talking about a King, Queen, Prince, Princess or even a Duke then you might have a point - but this is a Viscount!--Vintagekits 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gustav, the point of my linking to my proposal in re baronets was to establish that a) I am perfectly familiar with the process of condensation you describe and b) have endorsed it under some circumstances, so that my argument against it in this case is based neither upon ignorance nor general opposition to that process. I simply think that for certain well-defined sets of persons, as I've described above, membership in the set should be sufficient to warrant an article. The downside, of course, is that some articles on non-notable people may have to be kept and maintained. That said, I think lifting the general rule that peers are considered notable will open the gates to numerous challenges by ignorant cranks and ideological ax-grinders, and that the resulting ill-will, destruction of stubs with promise, burnout of peerage contributors on wikilawyering, etc. will cause a great deal more damage to the encyclopedia than the presence and need for maintenance of such articles as this. Choess 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choess, these can be perfectly easily be expanded out from the main article on the Peerage when there is enough notable info there to justify a separate article. For a large number of articles there is really hardly anything notable to say about each one which cannot perfectly easily be said next to the person's name in the main article for that peerage. This is not some great ideological battle, it is simply common sense and will avoid Wikipedia being full up with a lot of articles about people who weren't really notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison and Choess. Wikipedia does not loose anything by keeping this article. Peerages were notable in the day, and so should still be considered notable where accurate records can be found. John Vandenberg 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment,That is not a reason to keep the article please refamiliaris yourself with WP:ATA. regards--Vintagekits 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A blacksmith was notable in a village- should we have separate articles for all the blacksmiths that ever lived, or perhaps we should just have the article Blacksmith? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The difference is that peerage were religiously noted. Blacksmiths were not noted by default. John Vandenberg 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how/why that satisifies WP:N criteria!--Vintagekits 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - Verifiability is a criterion of necessity, it is not a criterion of sufficiency. It should be remembered, and noted, that titles are notable when bestowed - otherwise, they are merely inherited. There are clear guidelines and policies regarding this sort of thing. - Tiswas^(t) 09:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just out of interest does this policy only apply to the British peerage or can I start to add every "nobile dei" recorded religiously in the many editions of the Libro d'Oro - I think that is only fair, I can start in Sicily where there are thousands and slowly work my way up country. Giano 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they should be any different. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: being a Viscount is in itself very notable and the fellow appears to have been quite eccentric and has a piece in James Balfour Paul's The Scot's Peerage on him. The nominator of this AfD can hardly claim to be impartial when it comes to the Arbuthnots. Just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT really. Others have been told to display a disdain for terrorists on Wikipedia is out of order. Well demonstrating the same disdain for the aristocracy is the same. David Lauder 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Conversely, WP:ILIKEIT is equally jejune a reason for keeping. The nomination is on the grounds of lack of notability - the nominator may indeed not like the family, but has been careful in not citing this as a reason. The nominator's motivation is moot - Plenty of editors have expressed their opinions based upon established policy and guidelines. - Tiswas^(t) 10:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All peers "have a piece" in Peerages- they dredge up any morsal of info that they can on their subject- and the only morsals that could be dragged up on this one was that he trained in the law then managed his family estates, but not very well. Not notable at all. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His existence and (possibly?) geneology should be included on the Viscount Arbuthnott page. Thus, having received a mention in the encyclopedia, the questions is Does he require a separate page to record further notable aspects of his life?. The answer is yes if they exist and No if the dont. I myself have set up pages for obscure Viscounts, but, having read the above debate, I really do not think I would contest an Afd to justify their continued existence. Aatomic1 12:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say delete, but your remarks suggest you want it to be merged? -Halo 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To avoid any confusion, I have now have added to Viscount of Arbuthnot all that I personally would keep. Aatomic1 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The vast majority of British peers historically have satisfied WP:N and WP:BIO by virtue of being members of a national legislature. I do, however, agree that if it could be shown that Arbuthnott never sat in the GB Parliament as a representative peer, then his automatic notability under these guidelines would not apply. Christina Kaye 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know members of Wikiproject Peerage have lobbied for that to be the case, but sorry many Peers weren't notable as individuals, the peerage is the encyclopedically notable entity not the individuals. Even if they did have the right to sit in the House of Lords (the house which has had no real power for a long time) many never sat in it, and if they did many did nothing at all worth mentioning in any history book. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note that on 18:14, 5 June 2007 User:Kittybrewster posted a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage which might explain the deluge of keeps since then. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have never contributed to Wikiproject Peerage, and I'm just applying the guidelines as I find them. It's true that many members of national legislatures the world over (probably the majority) have never done anything worth mentioning in a history book. But if you disagree with the guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO, why don't you try and change them on their respective talk pages? Until they are changed, the only relevant question should be whether Arbuthnott ever sat in Parliament. Christina Kaye 14:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that this person lived in the 18th century, when the House of Lords was more powerful than the House of Commons. Thunderwing 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no evidence this person ever represented Scotland in the UK House of Lords. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, but otherwise Keep - By deleting this, you're just showing Wikipedia's systematic bias towards modern articles. It's a double standard to have articles on every modern MP or Congressman but not have one on an Earl when they essentially do the same job. Notability generally doesn't change, and Wikipedia is not paper. IMO, Lords are generally notable. Whatsmore, people (including the person who posted to AFD) are falling into the trap of saying just because an article is currently short, that it completely and fully represents all possible information that can be found about a subject. This is a much misused argument on an AFD - the argument is surely "they are not notable and no reliable sources could ever be found" and not "the article is current rubbish, so lets delete and prevent recreation". -Halo 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look- this is ridiculous! Peers did not "do the same job" as MPs! Many peers never even sat in the House of Lords and if they did they did never did anything more notable than vote a few times and fall asleep on the benches. Not even Peerage directories have separate articles on each individual peer! They have separate articles for each peerage like we the one we have at Viscount of Arbuthnott- we should regard the peerage as the automatically notable entity, not every Viscount of Arbuthnott- numbers 1-16! We are not falling into the trap that the article is currently short- extensive efforts have been made to find anything of note on this person- but there is nothing to be found. No important information is lost if this article is merged with Viscount of Arbuthnott. If something substantial is ever found to indicate personal notability the article can be unmerged again. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but are you trying to convince me to change my opinion from merge to, erm, merge? Also, I doubt "extensive efforts" stretch beyond Google, which has a definite modern bias and is rather sketchy on semi-obscure topics from the 1700s where other sources are likely to be much superior -Halo 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually Google Books has a vast array of older books (including books on peerages - which was where the info from the Scots Peerage was found for this one). I have my own collection of peerage books and they don't say anything notable about him either. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Per padraig3uk, --Domer48 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm fine with all British pers beng automatically notable. Johnbod 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This person is not encycopedically notable in their own right. A peerage in itself is of encyclopedical merit but every person who ever held it is not unless they did something that would qualify anyone else to have a separate encyclopedia article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm amazed the nominator doesn't know the simple difference between England and Scotland... Anyway, keep as notable... as in we have gour reliable sources. Thanks/wangi 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, please don't cast aspersions on the nominator- I know perfectly well the difference, I just didn't at cotton onto the fact at first that he was a peer in the Scottish peerage rather than the UK or English peerage. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Is it usual for the nominator to comment on any !vote which disagrees his perspective? - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response It's not so common, but there's nothing wrong with it. Likewise those who disagree with him are welcome to argue against what he writes in response to them. Indeed, I think this to-ing and fro-ing is a good thing, as long as it's polite. (It can be a bit exhausting for all concerned, however.) -- Hoary 08:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As has been pointed out to me it is not a vote and it is up to the closing admin to judge whether the arguments made against the nominator's proposal are valid. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is an unstated agenda here [10]. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry what is my unstated agenda- that I have an aversion to extensively detailing aristocratic families in thousands of non notable stub articles that can easily be merged into the main articles for the relevant title (i.e. exactly what I said in my nomination at the top!?). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad to infer (vaguely) that he wasn't as rapacious as he could have been, sad to be reminded that this was regarded as an eccentricity. Seems utterly unremarkable otherwise. I can't see any achievement or notability. -- Hoary 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- verifiable and referenced bio. Thunderwing 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that everything that can be verified and referenced should have an encyclopedia article- amazing! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No- I am saying a verifiable and referenced bio on a Scottish nobleman and peer should be kept. Thunderwing 15:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is a Scottish nobleman and peer more notable than a Scottish commoner, or a Bulgarian nobleman, or whatever; and if so, how? -- Hoary 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not necessarily, however I am basing my !vote on the article in question and I can see an article about a Scottish peer, which can be verified and referenced to various sources. I would say it is not a very good article- but that is not a reason for deletion. Thunderwing 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a very good article because there is nothing notable about that person independent of the Viscount of Arbuthnott title which can accomodate the very little of note that there is to say about him. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Eminently notable, SqueakBox 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What for? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there a very clear Wikipedia republican policy which states categorically that Wikipedia only recognises a meritocracy? David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not as far as I know. But merit isn't needed for an article on WP. Instead, it's something like a more than trivial impact (not necessarily positive) or achievement (none of which has to be much celebrated, merely verifiable), unusual merit, or more than just passing newsworthiness, or some combination thereof. I don't see it here. What am I missing? -- Hoary 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. Somebody like Jackiey Budden. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even by WP's standards, that article's a (presumably unintended) joke. I'm too busy/lazy to send it to AfD myself, but anybody who does can count on me for a "delete" vote. So, other crap exists. And to rephrase my question, am I missing anything notable about this Arbuthnot(t), aside from his commendable lack of rapacity? -- Hoary 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! And the countless other nonentities on WP. This Viscount (notable in itself) was regarded as notable in his time for holding down his tenant's rents (and even forgoing them) at a time of great agricultural hardship. In itself this was notable, given the period. You'd think all the anti-establisment types would have been cheering from the rooftops. Instead, they don't care what aristos ever did, they just hate them. Its ike the French Revolution all over again. David Lauder 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it, David. This fellow was an aristo; he actually seems to have achieved quite a bit. Perhaps a condition for this was the prospect of becoming king; he's highly atypical of aristos. Right then, try this one. The article is terribly inadequate but manages to explain how he was remarkable. As does this. Actually I'm all in favor of eccentric aristocrats, if the eccentricity is benevolent or neutral -- though IMHO both articles overemphasize the eccentricity and undervalue the achievements. Now, for Arbuthnot(t), a single sentence found in one book emphasizes benevolence and eccentricity. If he had been remarkable, would there not be more, even if only grumbling from contemporaneous aristos about how this soft-headed Arbuthnot(t) fellow was dangerously encouraging the peasantry to think above its station? -- Hoary 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have noted, being born into nobility does not establish notability in itself—the subject must have actually done something notable too. I see nothing of the sort. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its ike the French Revolution all over again. There is a world outside your window, you should get some air? The subject has done nothing, so what makes him notable, nothing! Regard --Domer48 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This little revolution of yours is monstrous intolerable - I say keep the article - The Scarlet Pimpernel 13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Princess Tiswas, why are you signing your posts as 'The Scarlet Pimpernel'.--padraig3uk 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Pimpernel obviously sabotaged her account that wretched aristo loving swine. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - My account must have been hijacked by that dandiest of fops, Sir Percy Blakeny (the Anthony Andrews one, that is) - Tiswas^(t) 09:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete or Merge into Viscount of Arbuthnott. This is a Scottish Peer after the Act of Union 1707; he was not a representative peer. Therefore he was not a member of the legislature; not even, like many English Peers, a member who never attends. I see no other claim to notability. (If Complete Peerage convinces me otherwise, I will comment on this !vote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete Peerage has no honors or offices; and the only personalizing is the fact he was his cousin's agent before succeeding, copied from Scots Peerage. Scots Peerage adds only the vague reports of eccentricity quoted. If actual examples were quotable, I might find this interesting enough to keep; as it is, why? This is an unexpandable stub. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A peer would have been quite notable in his community and in Scotland, even if not a member of the House of Lords. Notability doesn't fade with time, as I understand the policy. A peer from this era was among the most notable individuals alive at the time. This is why we have some record of their existence (find the village blacksmith's name). Removing these pages makes WP less useful. In any event, a WP policy for peers is needed. JJL 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you and other people are totally misunderstanding the argument. I am not arguing that the information be removed from Wikipedia and I am arguing that we merge it to Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understood that. I'm arguing that "notability doesn't fade with time" means that as he was notable back then he retains that notability now, and hence deserves his own article. I say that removing the pages makes WP less useful for a different reason--because of the fact that if 10 of those are sufficiently notable and the other six aren't, the page listing all of them will be pretty messy if it has a one-line link for the ten and a paragraph or two for the other six. JJL 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry but not everyone notable in whatever way ever is encyclopedic material. And the argument that the article should stay otherwise it would make the Viscount of Arbuthnott page "messy" is just ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the data is to be kept, the question of whether it should be consolidated into a single article or spread out amongst a number of sub-articles is a matter of page layout. Barring technical concerns, this is a question I think best left to the writers of the article. I don't see short articles as a problem. Single sentence articles appear in the Britannica.
The pressing question for any article on Wikipedia is whether the facts that it presents can be verified with a sound source and whether those facts can be presented in a nonpartisan tone. Well-referenced polemics or promotional pieces are still polemics or advertising, not encyclopedia articles. In this article, little is written, but that little is referenced.
Folks wishing to spend their days detailing the peerage of the UK results in Wikipedia having a particularly thorough coverage in a topic I have little interest in. But it harms none and may be of some small value. The punishment for lack of notability is lack of readers. — VulcanOfWalden 05:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the Viscount Arbuthnot article. No proof has been shown that the Viscount did or even could have sat in the House of Lords. This obviously means that he fails the politician criteria pf the notability policy and as there is nothing else to claim that he passes WP:N then we are left with nothing to defend.--Vintagekits 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: How was this Arbuthnot(t) chap related to politics? -- Hoary 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who considered this page writing and for numerous reasons stated above, I naturally am in favour of keeping. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- All peers are automatically notable Astrotrain 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How's that? -- Hoary 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A search of Amazon for viscount arbuthnott brings up, amongst other things, a book with the title The History of Parliament: the House of Commons, 1690-1715 that contains a quotation from a letter by the 5th Viscount Arbuthnott with the source for the letter being the NLS (National Library of Scotland). Where you can find one letter you can probably find more.
Checking the website of the National Library of Scotland, there's a pair of entries for "Arbuthnott, John Arbuthnott, Viscount, 1702 or 3-1791--Trials, litigation, etc.--Early works to 1800". One has a title of "The Right Honourable John Lord Viscount of Arbuthnot, and others, creditors of William Morison ... [brace] appellants. John Spotswood, of Spotswood, Esq; - respondent. : The appellant’s case..", with a note mentioning "On docket title: To be heard at the bar of the House of Lords, on Monday the 21st day of April 1740. Signed at end: Will. Hamilton. Alex Lockhart." The other entry refers to the same case, with a title of "The Right Honourable John Lord Viscount of Arbuthnot, the Honourable Francis Charteris of Ampsfeild Esq; and other creditors of William Morison Esq; [brace] appellants. John Spottiswood, Esq; respondent. : The respondent’s case.." and a note of: "On docket title: To be heard at the bar of the House of Lords, on Monday the 21st day of April 1740. Signed at end: Ch. Areskine. W. Murray."
Whether Arbuthnott is notable depends upon whether you consider his position as 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott to be notable. Odds are, there's more information to be had, but finding it involves searches through dusty archives rather than Google. — VulcanOfWalden 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - court proceedings aren't really a demonstration of notability, are they? It is verifiable, certaintly - but what is notable about being owed money? - Tiswas^(t) 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have plenty of similar entries for my non notable ancestors. They are probably just in relation to the rent problems as described in the article- nothing that would make a person notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delete. utcursch | talk 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 2nd Baronet

Non notable- delete as per other non notable Baronets. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The page could be re-directed to Arbuthnot Baronets if it is indeed the same family -( as this man has a hyphen I'm not sure) where he could have a couple of lines, but frankly there is barely a couple of lines worth recording and definitely nothing of note. Giano 08:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant page for this person is Lane Baronets so he can be summarized there if necessary or just added to his father's article Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 1st Baronet. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirectto Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 1st Baronet. Fails to demonstrate the subject satisfies WP:BIO. If multiple reliable independent sources with more substantial coverage can be found rather than just the directory listings in Who's Who and the Peerage books, such as (non-family history) books, magazines, or newspaper articles about the individual can be found, then an article could be recreated. Baronets do not appear to satisfy WP:N provisions for politicians. Edison 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep duplicating a baronetage is a reasonable thing for WP. JJL 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that mean? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same answer as my reply for the other Arbuthnot(t). JJL 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no wikipedia guideline or policy which confers a presumption of notability on baronets. Even the failed proposal WP:NOBLE didn't go that far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [11] it appears to mean that if there is an article for one baronet, there should be articles for them all. DGG 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Lane Baronets. He appears to have done nothing notable, and the article contradicts itself when it says that he was "a policeman", and then expands that with the info that he was a member of the Special Constabulary. A special constable is a part-time volunteer police officer, not an employee of a police force, and it is not a notable role. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to either his father or Lane Baronets. Pharamond 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asterisk PBX distributions

This is just a simple list - non of the packages listed here are notable enough to have there own entry on Wikipedia. Rehnn83 ^Talk 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Jmlk 1 7 07:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Shmaltz 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD is not a merry-go-round. This is essentially some "special" type of oxyhydrogen (whatever that means); go put the information there until reliable sources can be found. May I also warn that repeated recreation of this article without heeding policy (let alone badgering commenters whose opinions you don't agree with) can and will be construed as disruption, and blocks may and will be meted out to stop said disruption. —Kurykh 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHO gas

AfDs for this article:

Neither this article or Brown's gas survived multiple AfD's before, but people keep recreating it. Trying to keep an open mind I waited and gave the articles a chance to grow, this unfortunately did not happen. Since the recurring problems have not been solved I want some community input as to whether the article should be deleted again!! or can be allowed to stay. Included in this AfD is Brown's gas for the same reasons.

Among the violations of policy:

WP:NN and WP:SCI: Contrary to popular believe having your advertisement on CNN does not establish notability, especially in the absense of any scientific peer review of the alleged technique.
Violates WP:RS, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Aside from Randi all the provided sources are either commercial sites or promotional in nature. The supposed patent is not equel to a peer reviewed article.
Both articles purport to describe a hoax yet fail to sufficiently make that clear.

In short, if we take out what is not supported by independent non-promotional sources the articles would contain two sentences (hyperbole). Please comment on the need to keep such articles. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, per nomination. Jmlk17 07:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~This vote appears to be a mistake. — Omegatron 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Said they weren't aware of ever being involved in this deletion discussion, but after I pointed out their vote, they decided that they were in favor of deletion anyway. — Omegatron 18:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This caveat -by someone who is the main contributor, has followed commentators suggesting they change their position and then unilaterally undid the deletion of this article- is highly inappropriate and incorrect. In short, the editor has NOT retracted his comment!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of the editor himself: "I do not wish to remove my vote, as well as I believe they should be deleted."[12]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This does not appear to be notable. Isn't it just water vapor? --Charlene 11:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:Verify and WP:SPAM but NOT WP:NN as asserted --Javit 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and rewrite - Taking further comments into consideration, my position is that it needs blanking and complete rewrite per WP:Verify. It should VERY clearly indicate the subject as a hoax and unscientific. It should also be properly referenced and not sound like spam. --Javit 23:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)> I'm withdrawing from this discussion as my commitments elsewhere held me from keeping good track of the discussions and hence it wouldn't be correct for me to express opinion --Javit 00:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep - Repeated disruptive nomination by a user who either doesn't understand the purpose of Wikipedia or is intentionally trying to prevent us from debunking this hoax. Article topic is a notable hoax, links to proponents websites are not automatically spam, a list of verifiable, reliable sources for the claims and news coverage is provided on the talk page. Nomen Nescio repeatedly disrupts the article and prevents us from treating the topic from a neutral, scientific point of view. I don't know why anyone would want to censor this information except to obfuscate the issue so that people can continue misleading the public and making money off of this hoax.
Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process.
Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.
If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article.
— Omegatron 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted" Nice quote but how about this one: Wikipedia deals with legitimate scientific controversies by addressing them, not by excluding one side of the debate. However, this only applies when a legitimate scientific controversy can be shown to exist; ideas which are ignored by all but their proponents are likely not notable.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from an essay with little or no consensus. It barely addresses the point you are responding to, which is quoted from a guideline with a strong consensus. It also doesn't apply; it is about science articles, whereas this is specifically an article about the psuedoscientific claims of a company that has achieved widespread media attention for those claims. JulesH 08:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, you keep ignoring the fact there is no reputable source to debunk or substantiate HHO gas. Please advise as to why we should allow that violation of WP:RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"repeated disruptive nominations" rather misses the point that this has been deleted numerous times, always for the same concern: lack of verifiable independent evidence. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>Response to accusation of bad faith This user states "treating the topic from a neutral, scientific point of view." A valid position and all I keep asking him is to provide WP:RS to validate the article or to debunk it. His suggestion it is a hoax needs to be substantiated with the hitherto impossible to find WP:RS. Thereby making the allegation it is a hoax WP:OR. The articles, although well intended fail WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and everything discussed in previous deletions.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been asked by Omegatron to elaborate further on my reasoning. I will but I first want to make sure I understand his comments correctly. Omegatron claims this article is regarding a hoax, yet this is not at all mentioned in the article. In addition please do not quote WP:Abuse of deletion process like it's chips, I don't see how it fits in here. --Javit 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's an article debunking a hoax, why isn't the fact that it's a hoax mentioned at all? This is just spam. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorta. Ugh. Perhaps it's time to consider another alternative here - the fact that this article keeps being resurrected in a slightly different form by a different editor is a fairly strong indication that this is a notable subject that people keep coming here to find information about. Certainly by now there must be at least some reliable sources out there treating the subject as a hoax. If there are then I see no reason an article treating this subject as a hoax or pseudoscience cannot be written. If we delete it again it's just going to rear its ugly head as a snake-oil article again in the future. Either it needs to be fixed by making it a documented article about the pseudoscience or it needs to be deleted and salted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt yet again. Redirect to Oxyhydrogen. There is no reliable scientific evidence that Brown's gas or HHO (Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen) is anything more than oxyhydrogen. It is the result of a 200 year old process of decomposition of water (2H₂O) by electricity to yield 2H₂ and O₂. These can then be combined in combustion to get back a fraction of the energy it took to break down the water molecule. It is not steam or water vapor (which would consist of H₂O molecules). It is nonsense to propose that it makes water into a fuel, since there is much energy lost in the process compareed to just using the initial electricity to run the car or whatever. The only reason to discuss this in Wikipedia is as debunking of pseudoscience, which could be done in a paragraph in Oxyhydrogen. Appearance of its promotors on TV shows, or the obtaining of patents does not show it is more than pseudoscience. There is a lack of publications in respected peer reviewed scientific journals. The best the article has ever done is to present a mass of pseudoscientific claims and then some debunking links, in an ongoing battle. NPOV does not require equal parts of B.S. and truth in an article about every piece of pseudoscience, as if the result were an ongoing scientific debate. This has not reached that level. Edison 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although one editor thinks there has been insufficient time to include sourced criticism -see history to confirm this is an incorrect assertion[13]- he removes anything resembling a caveat to its veracity.[14][15] This is why keeping a neutral article to debaunk both claims is impossible.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm removing is weasel words and empty criticism. If you want to add good content to the article, go right ahead. — Omegatron 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Omegatron's edits look fine to me. First of all, there seems little doubt that the gas does exist and is created via the technique described, so saying it is "allegedly" created is a pointless weasel word. It is not necessary to point out that a patent doesn't guarantee the process works; this is obvious. The claim that oxyhydrogen is an "unproven or hypothetical substance" is plain wrong. The substance clearly exists, so describing it as a "supposed gas" is unwarranted. The media coverage was not about the promotion of the gas, so removal of this was correct. On to the second set of edits, Brown's gas clearly exists as it is used commercially; it is not necessary to have explicit sources for statements in the lead section that are already well sourced in the main body of the article, so removing the fact tags was appropriate; the fact tag on line 11 was attached to a statement that was sourced to the patent referenced at the end of the paragraph; similarly for the tag on line 20 and that on line 33. The removal of "peer review" and "scientific method" from the see also section was mandated by the NPOV policy because no sourced criticism suggested the lack of these was an issue. Similarly, the removal of category 'hoaxes' was necessary because no sourced criticism calls the subject a hoax. JulesH 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion There is considerable confusion here. I'll be speaking from the 'mainstream science' perspective:
- Brown's gas is a well known and fully accepted term for a mainstream science thing. It's just the name given to a mixture of good old hydrogen molecules and the oxygen molecules we know and love - in a ratio that makes it suitable for brazing and welding and such. Our present article on Browns gas seems pretty much OK to me. It explains that some crackpots make wild claims for it. It may be a little under-sourced and a but stubby - but there most definitely has to be an article about Brown's gas - and this is as good as we've got.
- HHO is a crackpot/pseudo-science thing dreamed up by the tinfoil hat brigade as a way to weasel out of any simple scientific debunk of the BS they are pushing. Most scientists of any repute believe that what is claimed to be some mysterious 'stuff' involving a lot of made-up terms like 'magnecules' is simply Brown's gas - which as I explained is a regular, well-understood, mainstream gas that is actually used in some specialised industrial processes. This comes as no surprise because Browns gas is why you get from the hydrolysis of water if you are stupid enough not to separate out the hydrogen and the oxygen (Brown's gas is pretty amazingly unstable!) - and that's what all of the crackpot water fuelled car and water fuel cell guys are actually doing.
Given all of that - one may well argue that there should not be an article about HHO (because it's bullshit and Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting bullshit) or that there should be an article (because it's bullshit and we need to say so, clearly and with references) - or the crackpots may wish to argue that there should be an article (because it's real and they can prove it with acceptable peer-reviewed scientific references as required by Wikipedia's rules). An alternative is to redirect HHO to Brown's gas - but doing that will cause the crackpots to tear up a sensible mainstream article on a (relatively) important topic - which is disruptive and unacceptable.

So - I don't know whether the HHO article should live or die - that's more Wikipolitics than I can take right now - but what I really, really don't want to happen is to have it redirect to Browns gas and spread the annoyance still further.

Thanks! SteveBaker 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown's gas as far as I know is not an accepted term in mainstream usage. We already have the mainstream information at Oxyhydrogen and the two articles that I have proposed merging with it. The way, the truth, and the light 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brown's gas is the same thing as oxyhydrogen. Nothing magical about it. That some crackpots claim magic properties doesn't make the fundamental concept wrong, and certainly doesn't mean we should delete the article. We have a duty to cover bad science as well as good science.

Actually, the crackpots will say there shouldn't be an article, if that article is well-written and contradicts their views. We saw that in the other AfDs, and we're probably seeing it here, too. — Omegatron 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because the media have picked up on the story (see, e.g., [16], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50255]). Article needs restructuring and cleanup, but that's no reason to delete it. JulesH 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some of this seems to be stemming from a content dispute between the nominator and an article contributor. There's a bit more to sort through so I am going to take a more neutral stance until I have had more time to review what's up here, but I do think the accusations of a bad-faith nom are unwarranted. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and yes, I know they are about a load of rubbish They are both valid articles. The fact that it is an article about a thing that is rubbish it not a reason to delete it. There are many other valid articles about things that are rubbish and Wikipedia is the first place many people will look for the truth. The fact that so many people hate this subject rather demonstrates its notability.

I wish more people would try to get that:

1, an article about rubbish is not a rubbish article

2. Wikipedia is the first place that many people will look for honest information about this kind of thing.

And I wish Nescio would make an honest attempt to understand this. Gnothi seauton. Man with two legs 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. See my user page and Replies to common objections for similar sentiment. — Omegatron 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio understands the meaning of WP:SCI, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV. Those suffice to make this article incompatible with policy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that you do not. The two tags that you added to Brown's gas were objectively wrong which is why I removed them. Try looking again at what Omegatron says about it. Have you understood that Omegatron is opposed to belief in the special properties of HHO gas? Man with two legs 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea. Delete and salt these articles, and create one called HHO gas controversy or such like. Then we're not leaning to the idea that it's scientifically valid. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean delete and redirect? I oppose the "controversy" idea. You really think it's impossible to write a neutral article that explains the scientific validity of the topic without putting "controversy" in the title? — Omegatron 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provided there are reputable scientific sources debunking this hoax what about renaming it to HHO gas (hoax)?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

The difficulty is that when something is very obviously scientifically rubbish, scientists don't bother to write peer-reviewed articles saying so. So there is not much out there explicitly debunking it. For example, if you look up Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations you will find many sites debunking them, but those sites are not from reputable scientific journals. Man with two legs 18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment does not appear consensus is going to be reached on this anytime soon. we have people claiming to be in the scientific community, a nominator whose intentions are questioned, and an editor who has a conflict of interest being the primary contributors to its deletion discussion. Does anyone else see a HUGE problem with this? I don't know where we go from here, but this conversation should probably be closed. Barsportsunlimited 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where else does one go to debunk pseudoscience? Paul Studier 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete for both and Salt HHO - Violates WP:SPAM and fails WP:SCIENCE. Most of the references are from one campany. Overall this article is very POV to the point the I must take any assertion of notability with more than a grain of salt. --EMS | Talk 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In response to a posting on my talk page, I am reaffirming my vote. I will admit that I had not looked at Brown's gas, but having done so see no value in it either. I must admit that I am more than a little disturbed by a set of "references" that is full of YouTube postings and hytechapps.com links. The newspaper articles are more germane but these seem to be more of a local human interest flavor rather than demonstrating any real notability. Also, claims of interest from car companies and the like cannot be taken seriously without confirmation by said companies. This whole business smells like a fraud to me, both technically and in the case being made for its supposed notability. The sense that I get is one of a campaign by the HHO "crowd" to gain attention with Wikipedia being part of their marketing plan. --EMS | Talk 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  What you are missing (and it's quite understandable because reading all of the papers on the HHO nonsense is painful) is that the HHO proponents go to great lengths to say that HHO is not Browns gas - and the the latter is indeed just a simple mixture of H2 and O2. So both the kooks and the scientists agree on what Browns gas is - there is no reason to delete a valid article on a valid topic. Brown's gas should never have been a part of this AfD - it's HHO that is the problem. SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see a case for notability for Brown's gas either! Certainly the case for its notability is not made in the article. Based on the "keep"s for Brown's gas it may be well enough known that my opinion is moot, but IMO it is another of these miracle hydrogen claims that does not deserve a Wikipedia article. --EMS | Talk 14:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claims that HHO gas represents a new state of matter seem to be ridiculous bogosity. However the present version of the article seems to adequately debunk the arguments that sound pseudoscientific. My only concern is the 'citation needed' tags, that may be hard to remove. I generally like Omegatron's arguments, and I am influenced by how uncomfortable I am with version of the article created by Nomen Nescio, the nominator of the AfD, and how much more reasonable is the June 5 version by Omegatron. (See a diff that compares Nescio's version with Omegatron's version here). If the 'fact' tags can't be removed within 90 days, I think I would vote to delete at that time. I'm assuming that some of those voting 'Keep' will work on removing the tags. EdJohnston 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to get rid of the fact tags if they weren't repeatedly put after stupid things like "HHO is a gas^{[citation needed]}" by the nominator. — Omegatron 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The new version from Omegatron has repaired the problem with the 'fact' tags that I noted in my above comment. EdJohnston 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles look like one big attempt to push various advertising sources as some kind of valid scientific claim. Even the news sources are not really reliable sources because the news reports are basically repeating what would be pre-written press release material with very little peer review.

Fnag aton 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the reverences to the news programming--not advertisements--not very high quality programming, but mainstream media coverage none the less. The patents do not show the value of the invention, but the confirm its existence. Patent applications, of course, mean nothing at all. One peer reviewed article, tho I cannot figure out why they accepted it. The ArXiv article is of course non-reviewed--he has another one citing himself at oai:arXiv.org:physics/0608229 (2006-12-20). This is sufficient to show notability as peseudoscience. If the broadcast media stupidly think something is sufficiently plausible to cover, they make it notable, and !votes that the science is not valid are meaningless as against policy. DGG 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - News articles aren't self-promotion. This, however, is self-promotion. :-) — Omegatron 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at their diagram for a water molecule at 1:32! — Omegatron 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks dangerously unstable to me. 4HO₂ -> 2H₂O + 3O₂ :-)
Keep. All delete votes appear to be based on the fact that this is pseudoscience. We're allowed to have articles on that, and I know that at least Brown's gas is notable: for example, noting the number of people (as above) that think 'Brown's gas' is actually the correct name for oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that "Brown's gas" is an old-fashioned name for a mixture of H2 and O2 in just the same way that "Muriatic acid" is the old name for HCl. However, if you go to your local swimming pool chemicals store and ask for Hydrochloric acid so you can adjust the pH of your pool - you'll get a blank stare until you correct yourself and ask for Muriatic acid. Same thing with brazing and welding equipment - "Brown's gas" is the term they use. SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "HHO gas controversy" or some similar title as per EliminatorJR, and fix it so that it is clearly an article about the controversy and not a seemingly spammy article suggesting that it is anything other than questionable science. If there is no way to do this, then I would lean delete. EdJohnston's idea also has merit. Orderinchaos 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If that is done, it should be merged with Brown's gas. Since Brown's gas is the more famous (I believe), it should be titled after it. The way, the truth, and the light 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  That is the one thing I think we must avoid at all costs. The kooks claim that HHO is not Brown's gas. If it was, there would be no controversy because mainstream science believes that their experiments are producing Brown's gas. We shouldn't 'pollute' a nice, simple article about a real subject with all of the pseudo-science debate that's bound to infect HHO. An article about HHO should explain what the nut-jobs think it is and what mainstream science knows it to be - Brown's gas should be in the 'See Also' section because it's not what the debate is about. SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete HHO. not all kookery is notable. Keep Brown's. `'юзырь:mikka 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A yet another axample of inherently bad idea to put two articles into one nomination. `'юзырь:mikka 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed! SteveBaker 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This business is related to hydrogen fuel injection which survived it own AfD not too long ago. An idea may be to merge all of these hydrogen-related items if they are to he kept. --EMS | Talk 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether HHO / Aquygen is true or not, if it is heard of among some part of the public (e.g. among welders), it needs an article. E.g. there is no such thing as a plasma rifle, but plasma rifle has a Wikipedia article. If it is a hoax, people need to be warned that it is a hoax. Anthony Appleyard 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all Apparently this has become an argument as to my motives (which sounds like a violation of WP:AGF) and "everybody should know this is a hoax." Please let me remind you what this is about. I am the first to point out hoaxes. However, that does not negate the need for WP:RS (please provide a reputable scientific source debunking this, this is policy!!) or explain why it is impossible to amend the article to clearly show it is a hoax without editors removing those caveats.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with major doubts but no prejudice about re-creation an article debunking the hoax using reliable sources). As said above this article is not debunking the hoax but perpetuing it, giving the still active snake oil merchants better business opportunities -- and this seems to be the main reason, why this gets re-created. So far well-meaning editors who want to keep the article to provide a NPOV covering of this scam have not demonstrated their ability to do so. --Pjacobi 09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also there may be very specific WP:COI concerns, AFAIK User:Nescio is in the business of selling this stuff. --Pjacobi 09:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)~~ Sorry, I had another contributor in mind. --Pjacobi 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Afd was created in response to my edit[17] removing {{hoax}} and {{advert}}, which are clearly incorrect and were placed on the article by User:Nescio to disrupt the progress. None of the contributors to this article have had any intention of promoting it, nor giving it an air of authenticity. John Vandenberg 09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a case study on how the effort of snake oil sellers and misinterpretation of the concept of an encyclopedia conspire to make this a mess. The article now contains the claims: South Korean Hung-Kuk Oh of Ajou University, for instance, claims that the implosion effect cannot be explained by modern physics, and proposes that the effect is caused by a "strong gravitational cavity" from "crystallizing π-bonding of hydrogen" referenced to this Elsevier publication [18]. Wow, a scientific paper, the naive reader may think. But there appear zillions of scientific papers every month, the good, the bad the ugly (not to mention of all the irrelevant ones, driven by the publish or perish law). If taking single published papers as valid references, nearly everything can be proven or disproven. But let's analyse the: In 1998 Hung-Kuk Oh made and published an experiment which nothing less than cannot be explained by modern physics. He's not a physicist and it is not a physics publication, but it's a start. We should imagine his university showering him with money to re-produce his experiment all over the world under the widening eyes of physicist, trying to secure to Physics Nobel Prize for Korea. But what actually happens? Nothing. The paper get's cited twice, and again not in physics journals. Editors! This was just a random fluke within the vast ocean of published papers. Nothing to see here, just go away, no knowledge has been created, which needs reporting in an encyclopedia. (Of course, if someone can find reliable sources which connect Hung-Kuk Oh and Ajou University with the Korean branch of the snake oil sellers, there may be small scandal to report). --Pjacobi 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't see your problem. The article says that Hung-Kuk says this - and the reference backs up that he said that. It doesn't say that what he says is true. SteveBaker 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rewrite and closely monitor for the gradual inclusion of junk) I have held off voting while I read around our policy documents - but having done so, I believe the course we should take is clearly laid out by policy. We need to return to the basic policy laid out in WP:SCIENCE - and especially WP:SCIENCE#Criteria. It says:
In general, a contribution in the field of science is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
Widely cited. Papers covering the topic have been widely[1] commented on in academic writing within the topic's field.

Outside notability. The topic is notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources outside of academic publications.
The footnote after the word 'widely' says that it's not enough for a lone paper to have been published - it has to have been quoted widely by academics other than those involved in the paper. I don't believe that can be said of any of the HHO papers - which are pretty much dismissed out of hand by academics in the field. So HHO fails the first test. What about the second test? Well, I think it's true to say that there has been quite a bit of coverage of the topic in the popular press - so I think it's reasonable to pass this article on the second criteria. But read on...our policy goes on to say:
Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena, should not be handled as scientific. For example, the Book of Genesis itself is primarily covered as a religious scripture rather than as a cosmology. On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific and religious doctrine, are properly evaluated both on a scientific and theological basis. Similarly, subjects purporting to have a scientific basis may be noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases, such as UFOs, which can usefully be discussed from several different perspectives.

HHO clearly falls into the same category as creationism - there are a bunch of crackpots pushing the idea against the beliefs of the vast majority of scientific evidence to the contrary. It is clear that we can only justify this article's continued existance under the second of the two criteria because the popular press is covering it. That means that it is "noteworthy primarily on cultural or sociological bases" - so clearly our policy directs us to write an article that discusses the matter from both perspectives. Note also that we cannot reject the article because HHO is pseudoscience - that is specifically listed as NOT a reason for deletion in Wikipedia:Notability (science)/Irrelevant arguments.

So I have to conclude that this is a keep - per WP:SCIENCE and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. But clearly the article needs some serious rewriting to keep it within bounds of acceptability. We have to write an article that says that this is a belief that some people hold that is known not to be true. We are not allowed to write an article about how wonderful HHO gas is. So all of you HHO proponents who want to see this article continue - be prepared to see an article that you are not going to like.

SteveBaker 11:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- contrary to repeated claims here, "Brown's gas" is not an old name for Oxyhydrogen. Check in your nearest chemistry department library's dark corners of dusty journals. It was discovered and described before Yull Brown's birth. If at all, an old name would be the German Knallgas. HHO, Aquygen and Brown's gas are just different brands of snake oil. --Pjacobi 11:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Even if Brown's gas is chemically just oxyhydrogen, the claims given about it make it into something else. --EMS | Talk 14:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. These are both just oxyhydrogen, but deserve their own articles because the proponents making dubious claims say that they are not. — Omegatron 23:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt HHO, split Brown's Gas to another AfD On the argument that HHO does not seem to have changed from what the prior AfDs have suggested; the arguments appear to be exactly the same which leads me to wonder just what's new about it. If the prior articles were readily available I'd say this is a G4 candidate - there surely aren't any new Keep arguments coming forth or any coverage about how this article has matured. In other words, what has changed from the prior three times this was AfD'd? By these grounds, Brown's Gas should be listed as a separate AfD candidate. Also, HHO article is somewhat disingenuous suggesting the concept has been covered by "NBC" and "Fox" news, when the references cited point to Local NBC and Fox affiliate news coverage rather than national network coverage, which is enough to blow it's WP:V credibility with me. LaughingVulcan 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point out the part of WP:V this conflicts with? — Omegatron 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." If the source is not correctly cited, it is not verified. If it is a local news report masquerading as a national news report (especially if it does NOT verify the truth of the claims made but primarily notes that funding is being gotten for the promoting organization... triply especially if it flies in the face of established science or claims to be 'extrascientific' or some such, a national news source -not local- would be 'exceptional.') it fails having been verified. While it is used in the context of Burden of Proof, the long quote from Jimbo about citations being necessary seems to apply, especially if the report is incorrectly attributed. And, while it may not be part of the policy itself, the quote came from a post with an enlightening title, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." Omitting an essential part of a reference is almost equivalent to lying about the source. If the sources are lied about, why should I trust any of the other information in the article? LaughingVulcan 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a science topic is met just by meeting ONE of the criteria on WP:SCIENCE. This easily meets criteria number 5, being covered by more than ten news organizations, and meets criteria number 7; popular belief. — Omegatron 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and WP:SCIENCE is not even a guideline, only a proposed one. Therefore I do not feel bound to honor it. And you're switching arguments. I see that the sources section has indeed changed, but I see no exceptional sources. LaughingVulcan 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't answer my first question: ~~Why does this article not qualify as WP:CSD G4?~~
- "provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version"
- Deletion policy: "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive." — Omegatron 04:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. ~~And I asked what's different, as there isn't any history going back past the other AfDs.~~ I'm not saying it isn't different, just that if the same result is coming up, and I'm wondering how the article has changed to reflect the prior AfDs. LaughingVulcan 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And looking through the Article talk pages shows that it has gone through several permutations of editing, so G4 doesn't apply. LaughingVulcan 05:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lots of people running in here to complain about this article, but I seem to be the only person actually contributing to it. Can someone please help? — Omegatron 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The fact you are the main contributor but refuse the article to reflect that the "gas" is nonsense[19] is troubling. This inability to have a neutral and sourced article on the topic is the reason it was deleted time an time again.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt recreation. It doesn't have to be 100% identical to be a recreation. Doczilla 07:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would seem that any true search for truth would have contacted and verified all encounters and research done by 3rd party interests... ie.: The alleged interest by gov., the universities that have recieved his machines for cross examination and reverse technology tests, or the other companies that supposedly had interest in aquiriing rights to use the claimed technology. Just because it doesn't fit our current understanding, does not mean that it cannot be. consider atomic energy views only a century ago.... I will say that this article does need re-written (with neutrality). — Huntja2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Huntja2 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Huntja2! Thanks for commenting here, but note that AfD is not a vote. (first and only edit)--Pjacobi 08:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please think a bit: it says "Process for electrolyzing water that results in a gas with properties that defy the laws of physics". That's impossible; if you're doing serious research you can't say you break the laws of physics. It's clear to me that is another Dihydrogen monoxide hoax (HHO = H₂O = water!)... And, curiously, this article has a link to that. Maybe a scientist that wants to test Wikipedia's accuracy? --Neigel von Teighen 08:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Sourced adequately to plenty of reputable citations. Interesting article. Smee 09:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Interesting? So it's alright to have hoaxes presented as normal as long as it's interesting? --Javit 09:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Sourced? Name one non-promotional reference. BTW, have just made the article less of an advertisement.[20] Unfortunately explicitely refuting this as non-science is consistently denied by some contributors.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can some explain why this article has not been speedily deleted under CSD:G4 and CSD:G11? --EMS | Talk 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added note: It is hard to say if this is a pure recreation given that I cannot see the previous versions, but based on the content it is very obvious that the recreation was by people who are intimately involved with HHO and who probably were involved with the previous articles. --EMS | Talk 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, it has now been speedied by User:Tom harrison as "g4; g11". [21] John Vandenberg 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply, due to deletion review decision on March 14. G11 does not apply as it was not written exclusively for advertising. John Vandenberg 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted and protected from recreation this, and Brown's gas, and whatever else I could find. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of an explanation why? John Vandenberg 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As re-creation of deleted content, and promotional. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted content was not used to restarted this article, and G11 doesnt stretch that far. Are you going to close this Afd or restore the article? John Vandenberg 14:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to restore the articles. Take it to deletion review if you want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please close this AfD.

Your call, but can you close this AfD? It's already in DRV with multiple opinions. LaughingVulcan 23:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - I do approve of this. I do not see that the previous content needed to be used directly under CSD:G4, but rather if the article was of similar content then CSD:G4 should apply. As for CSD:G11, the article was crafted to note that doubts exist but still was very definite about the claims of HHO gas. Overall, I think that the case made to permit recreation of this article back on March 14 was at best deceptive given the product that resulted. The article very much should have remained salted. --EMS | Talk 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SNOW. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Neutral. May be a potentially notable piece of pseudoscience. But check to make sure. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omegatron has restored the articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of deleted content; largely promotional. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreation of deleted articles is fine, and when done by independent parties is evidence of a need for an article.
- When this article was deleted, it was specifically done so "w/o prejudice against creation of a sourced article".
- Recreation of the exact same content as the deleted article is bad, of course, but this isn't the case. Re-written from scratch with reliable sources.
- Please describe in detail which parts of Brown's gas and HHO gas you think are "largely promotional" or non-neutral. Have you actually read them? — Omegatron 01:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Protect if necessary, Continue Cleanup This article has gone through many changes from where I first encountered it above. In its current state it has moved beyond simple advocacy of what seems to me to be junk science into a fairly well written article which reflects concerns about the hoax. Diff of above two. Should it revert back to the first of them without revision another AfD would be in order. LaughingVulcan 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this version?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should I be thinking of it? It's clear that you've been trying to polish the article into a form that you find acceptable. So is Omegatron.

As I read the article as it is now, I glean that there are problems with the theory as advocated by those with commercial interests. It doesn't have to scream "This is a hoax!" in 48 point sans serif. From what I make of the situation, you and Omegatron are in an edit war over the best way to elaborate on the controversy (or hoaxy aspects) of the topic. I don't think AfD is the place to resolve an edit war, if the article can otherwise be salvaged. And I think it can be from what I've seen of yours and Omegatron's work.

The article has moved from being a pure commercial promotional puff-piece of psuedoscience into something with far less POV (on either side of advocacy/pure hoax,) far better sourcing and description, and presenting both sides in a way that a rational person can make their conclusions about the factual validity of documented claims. (Which is the point of my diff above.) So, I think it's passed beyond the point of something deletable.

It would be far better if those of you involved in active editing would engage in dispute resolution to polish the article into a final form, than blow it away only to see the promotional puff-piece come back in a few months. But that's just my humble opinion. You're both working to make as good an article as you can, even though you might have significant differences over how it should be articulated. The article is evolving, so I don't understand the delete call at this point as originally proposed, in my humble opinion. LaughingVulcan 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of verifiable independent critique, and trout-slap Omegatron for undeleting an article where he is a major contributor while DRV is running. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Whether or not it is scientifically bunk or not, it has now attracted enough notability to warrant an article, so long as the article clearly indicates that it is an unproven theory with it's share of criticism.Sethie 07:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact some people keep removing every suggestion this is a scam is the reason the article can't be kept.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is definatley a problem, however deletion would not be the way to solve it! Sethie 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an imaginary problem. I'm adding attributed, verifiable criticisms with reliable sources, while Nescio persists in adding unsourced weasel word criticisms, despite being reverted by at least three other editors and being asked to stop. — Omegatron 23:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I t5hink Mro should now consider this my last warning regarding his WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations. Discuss the topic and not the other editors. Also, the fact criticism can't be sourced is the principal reason the article needs to be deleted as we are left with just the view of proponents. Better known as advertisement.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the main contributor to these articles has just unilaterally decided to undo the deletion while DRV was ongoing is very troubling. We should respect the deletion and simply go to DRV if we disagree. The current actions are rather disconcerning.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I have just edited HHO gas somewhat. Anthony Appleyard 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite the gas itself being a probable hoax, the furore around the hoax itself is notable. The article should be better edited to reflect the fact that it is a universally debunked hoax, however. Neil ╦ 10:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A furor within Wikipedia does not make this stuff notable. I see no evidence of outside notability, just some snookered local reporters and a group that has finally figured out how to play against Wikipedia's rules. I am less bothered by this being a scam in real world (as a scam can be notable) than I am about the case for notability here being a scam. --EMS | Talk 13:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Nothing worth saving. --John 14:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is Wikipedia's duty to cover these topics, and the current articles are adequate enough not to get deleted. Femto 17:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, not if there are no reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. But it remains my opinion that in these cases verifiability and reliability are fulfilled to the extent that deletion is not justifiable. Femto 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you should consider my point below. --EMS | Talk 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really do not see the notability here. In the referenced items, we have:
1. Web sites and press releases from the company the produces HHO. - That is not independent sourcing.
2. Patents for HHO - That is interesting but patents do not confer notability.
3. A CNN informercial - Given the obvious involvement of the HHO folks in that, it is not independent.
4. Numerous local news coverage items, but no evidence that the story has ever been pick up on nationally. IMO, a scattering of local stories is not "significant coverage" under WP:N. There are all kinds of stories like that.
5. Various YouTube postings, and bulliten board postings. As anyone can post to these places (and post anything they like even made-up stuff), they do not confer notability.
6. A story in [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNet Daily], a source that I have personally have never heard of and on which there is only a single short article on HHO. Both of those attributes argue against notability.
In short, the evidence presented for notability, while copious, is uniformly useless and/or unreliable. This topic blatantly is not notable, and I call on those whose keep opinions are based on said notability to reconsider their opinion. --EMS | Talk 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And an article in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
I see only one patent in the references section.
The "smattering of local stories" consists of at least eight news organizations covering at least six different states. And that's just the ones we've bothered to write down.
Even local news coverage doesn't count as self-promotion; they're all secondary sources with editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources. The idea that third-party news sources are "promotional" when they clearly criticize the topic is ludicrous. Have you even read the articles you're criticizing?
I've never heard of WorldNetDaily, either, but it's apparently notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. That you personally haven't heard of something doesn't make it non-notable.

Several people have changed their votes from delete to keep. I think that counts for a lot. — Omegatron 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says that you and the other HHO folks have figured out which buttons to push on this issue, and this response is an example of that. I have some real problems with it, such as
1. your saying that "local news coverage doesn't count as self-promotion". If you look at my reason for dismissing it, it is not for being promotional but rather for not qualifying as "significant coverage".
2. You claim coverage from "eight news organizations covering at least six different states" but four of the eight news citations are for Wave3 in Louisville, KY, and another is for a YouTube video of a "Fox26" broadcast whose location is unidentified and for which there is no other evidence of its having covered HHO. So I only count four organizations and five states (since Louisville is in Kentucky and next to Ohio).
3. You claim that these are "just the ones we've bothered to write down". I find it hard to believe that you all would have stopped at those if there was more to document.

I think this speaks of the kind of case that you all are making here. --EMS | Talk 00:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten news organizations in six different states:
- WTVT - Tampa Bay, Florida
- Tampa Tribune - Tampa, Florida
- St. Petersburg Times - St. Petersburg, Florida
- KRIV Fox 26 News - Houston, Texas
- KTRE - East Texas
- KXAN - Austin, Texas
- WFLD Fox News - Chicago, Illinois
- KCBS Channel 2 News - Los Angeles, California
- KSBI - Oklahoma
- WAVE 3 News - Louisville, Kentucky
All notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, not even counting online news sources like WorldNetDaily.
Why the hell does the exact number even matter? Why should we not stop at this many? In any other article, this many news references would be considered unreasonable overkill. Just one or two of these is sufficient to demonstrate notability.
You're still ignoring the journal article. — Omegatron 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A single journal article does not "cut the mustard" under WP:SCIENCE, and a series of local news stories in so "significant coverage" under WP:N IMO. You are obviously a principal in this HHO business, seeking to give in the widest exposure possible. You are doing a good job making this seem notable, but every time I sanity test your claims, they come out as just another scam to me. --EMS | Talk 00:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a scam! It is a notable scam! That is the point of having an article about it. Omegatron has contributed to several articles on related scams and his POV is clear (and spelled out on his talk page): have articles that show these scams for what they are. This discussion is about deleting it completely, which would also remove the bit that tells people it is a scam. Omegatron himself drew this article to my attention and to user:SteveBaker's attention in full knowledge that we are both total non-believers in this kind of nonsense. There is no doubt that he is not a promoter of it. Man with two legs 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to whomever may read this 70k+ mess of an AfD discussion: Yes, I also know Omegatron as a whistleblower and eliminator of desinformation, e.g. at the Ionocraft/Biefeld–Brown effect pages. Just check history and block log there. I'm the more paranoid of us and prefer deletion and he's generally for keeping and telling the plain story. But:

With the recent extremist interpretation of WP:CITE, you cannot debunk anything yourself anymore.
The HHO-scam would need a healthy dose of investigative journalism, but Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism. And until someone does this task, we are simply without first class secondary sources on this topic.
And note: The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy and T. Nejat Veziroglu are partially in the same boat as Ruggero Maria Santilli and his Hadronic Journal. This would be a nice topic for investigative journalism too, but as the audience who is interested in it is so small, it wouldn't feed a journalist, I fear.

--Pjacobi 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a principal in this HHO business, seeking to give in the widest exposure possible. --EMS

You obviously have an intimate knowledge of this article and its history, and your deductive reasoning abilities are unmatched. — Omegatron 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: referenced and balanced for this hoax. Previous deletion is not a licence to salt. Thanks/wangi 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact Omegatron has taken it upon himself to aggressively "persuade" people commenting here to alter their statements I find at best unfortunate, and the fact he is incapable of voicing his position without using ad hominems regarding my person is highly inappropiate. With the current attention from less involved parties the article today[22] seems to be more about debunking than promoting this scam. Nevertheless I have grave doubts as to the capability of the community to prevent it returning to its advertisemnent version when the dust has settled. What turned out to be impossible and prompted me to start this debate and why it has been deleterd three times before. Should the article be kept yet, after say a month, once again only voice support lets then at least accept a speedy delete for the reasons in all four AfD's presented.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that this article is in danger of evolving into an advert, but if it does, then you, or anyone else, can simply revert it to a legitimate version.
One reason I feel strongly that articles like this should remain in Wikipedia is that if you Google something like this, Wikipedia is often the only hit you get that contains any critical material at all. So deleting it is to the advantage of fraudsters.
Omegatron has the right to persuade anyone who will listen, as have you. It can happen that people don't 'get' the reason for keeping (or deleting) an article on first look.
The reasons for keeping the articles are by no means limited to ad hominems.

Man with two legs 10:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the Better Business Bureau, and so is under no obligation to report on every scam around. What may be useful and notable is an article on technology scams, which of course can include mention of these and other other hydrogen technology scams. --EMS | Talk 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, is, however, an encyclopedia, the sum of all human knowledge, and it is our job to cover everything notable in a neutral, verifiable way. This includes Category:Fraud, Category:Hoaxes, Category:Confidence_tricks, Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Protoscience, Category:Fringe science, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, List of minority-opinion scientific theories, ... — Omegatron 15:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is stated that "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge". That is not the same the same thing as documenting all human knowledge, and WP:NOT explicity states that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information". I will happily call for a notable scam to be kept. IMO, this scam is not notable. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and WP:SALT As i'm not a scientist I can't speak to issues about the article's content. I however would vote delete on WP procedural grounds, as three previous community consensus decisions have gone delete. The only reason this article still remains is because various authors are gaming the wiki to disrupt it and make a point. While the merge suggestions may have some merit, all that will happen is that it will drag POV editors over to these articles and cause them to get worse. As for a rename, again this will only perpetuate the problems. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of reasons for disagreeing with that:

a deletion review voted for re-creation so the deletions are not reliable evidence
there was not a consensus for deletion, only a majority which is not at all the same thing
it is absurd to delete an article for procedural reasons. An article should stay or go on its merits only. Procedures are there to assist the maintenance of articles, not the other way round
if you look at Omegatron's user page and edit history, you will see he is keen on reliable, accurate articles and not disruptive. The same goes for me.

Man with two legs 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please, if you're going to keep this, then rewrite it in such way that it is clearly stated that it is a hoax; tolerating this kind of things can undermine Wikipedia's accuracy. Anyway, I prefer to see this deleted (already "voted" above... yes: AfD is not voting, but I don't know how to say it). On "HHO": it is impossible that an inorganic compound could be noted that way, it should be either HOH (though very rare) or H₂O (guess what it means!)... I'm a philology student but I had passed through Physics and Chemistry courses devoted to engineers and scientist... just because of fun and interest, so I'm not an expert but I know the basics. And inorganic nomenclature is a basic topic. --Neigel von Teighen 11:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does make it clear that this is a hoax; that is rather the point of Omegatron's version. The word "hoax" appears in the intro to HHO gas. Man with two legs 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Omegatron made sure it was not clear this is a scam. See the diffs I provided above. Only after fresh blood has forced him to let the caveatrs stand can we say the article is more or less acceptable. Nevertheless, as has been noted above, an article documenting scams and then using this as example sounds much better. It is less prone to removing criticism as Mr O has been doing.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this point on your talk page. Man with two legs 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your <redacted NPA> addition of weasel word criticisms has been reverted by me and at least three other people. Meanwhile, I've been adding verifiable, notable criticisms with reliable sources. — Omegatron 15:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again you call me disruptive and I order you to stop your WP:NPA. The next one I will report. Second, feel free to provide an adequate source for criticism. No, Randi cannot be used to debunk scientific claims. Although notable no physician accepts him to dismiss the silly conspiracy stories regarding HIV and AIDS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll say it again: Your edits are disruptive.

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

Go ahead and report me. — Omegatron 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. And how would you call an editor that against consensus insists the recreation of four times deleted articles is mandatory, to the point he even abuses admin tools in edit conflicts?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop behavior discussion! Let's discuss the article, please, not people. If you want to dispute Omegatron's behaivor, open an RfC. Eveything must be kept in order if we want to make reasonable contributions. --Neigel von Teighen 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone! Are you suggesting I am discussing behaviour while simply trying to ask Omegatron to stop his harrasment of my person? Should you not ask him to refrain fromn WP:NP":NPA?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please file an RfC if you think I'm not editing the articles in a neutral manner. This isn't the place for personal attacks. — Omegatron 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one making personal attacks Omegatron. Fnag aton 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, eh? Such as what? Cite some examples.

The examples above where you try to call into question the person's motives and falsely accuse them of being disruptive, that's just for starters. It's not the first time you've been warned for doing such things. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Warning Fnag aton 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's certainly a water-tight case. You've definitely got me there. Those links show very clear examples of me making personal attacks against other users, and are all very relevant to this deletion discussion. — Omegatron 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you edited or showed any interest in either of these articles, by the way? — Omegatron 19:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of ad hominem. Fnag aton 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edits made to either article where the sources could be correctly described as proper "reliable sources". Fnag aton 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources convince me this should stay. --JJay 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments on these sources above. --EMS | Talk 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [23] --JJay 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fails to meet WP:SCIENCE - That appears to be the same article as cited above. Personally, I'd love to know how this stuff gets past a peer review, but for the less prominant journals the publication of alternate views may be a way of filling page space. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Tbeatty 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but keep it free from pro-HHO-gas and pro-Brown's-gas spam. This page may be to be non-notable as a page about gas science, but it is notable as a page about a hoax. The public needs to be warned about these hoaxes. Anthony Appleyard 05:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article successfully represents the HHO manipulation. The Brown's Gas article successfully highlights that Brown's Gas is nothing more than common ducted Oxyhydrogen. Noah Seidman 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEViANCE

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable cracking group, fails WP:BIO criteria. The rationale from the previous nomination 3 years ago still holds - Google brings up only Wikipedia mirrors for <DEViANCE CyberNaj> [24], and the article remains unsourced although people were asking for sources even back then. Resurgent insurgent 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Fairly well-known amongst crackers, but finding (reliable) sources may be difficult, considering the nature of the group. - Myanw 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NN and WP:VERIFY. --Javit 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - distinct lack of WP:INDY WP:RS. 81.104.175.145 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to reasons above, unencyclopedic tone and lack of any substantial information beyond a handful of sentences. --EEMeltonIV 12:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if you repeat the Google search with the modified query deviance cybernaj -wikipedia you get precisely two hits, both of which are non-compliant mirrors. 81.104.175.145 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this group is fairly well known, but I guess finding reliable info would be a problem.
If "finding reliable info would be a problem" then you actually mean "delete". 81.104.175.145 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of city flags

If this is not suited for AFD, then I apologize. Anyways, what we got here is a gallery of flags flown by cities across the world. Encyclopedic, yes. Notable, yes. However, the reason why I am choosing this route is that is due to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. Many of these images are hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, a sister project of ours. Their main job is to host galleries of images people can find useful. If there is one point I can concede, the list at the Commons, which can be seen at Commons:Gallery_of_city_flags, will be missing images due to them not being transwikied or under a license that cannot be on the Commons (such as fair use). Linking issues can be solved and we have various templates to point others to the Commons. As a vexillologist, as some of you coming here are too, I understand these categorization is important for flags. We have a whole section of our study to classify flags under color, patterns, symbols and lettering. However, I feel the need for this page would be better suited on the Commons than here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure galleries without encyclopedic comment should be on the Commons only, not on Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Commons:Gallery_of_city_flags is a poor substitute for what this article could become: a useful and rich visual index into city flag articles on Wikipedia. I think the Commons page has two major deficiencies. The first Zscout370 mentioned above: due to legal technicalities, it can only be a subset of what can appear here. But perhaps more importantly, it can be no more than a mere repository of images. The captions of the images can't all point to the appropriate articles in the English Wikipedia, can they? I think these caption links are the saving grace; they constitute "encyclopedic comment", in Kusma's terms. (I would not be opposed to pruning the current page of entries that do not have corresponding articles, though.) --ScottMainwaring 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Commons can link to the English Wikipedia articles. The articles would need to be relinked by hand, such as w:Flag of Los Angeles, California, but it can be done (and I will do that). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images can't be used on Wikipedia in a gallery, either, so we won't really lose information when this is only on the Commons. A link is not encyclopedic comment (our articles are supposed to be standalone and read well even if printed). Kusma (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Galleries of flags are indeed encyclopedic content; most print encyclopedias I have seen contain plates with exactly this sort of information on them, because it is the best way to present it. By all means keep even the flags that do not have their own articles; each of them is a potential article subject, and one of the purposes of lists, as opposed to articles, is to call attention to article subjects that have not yet been written. Finally, wrangling over copyrights here strikes me as a non-issue. I can't imagine any fair use criteria that would allow one of these images to be used elsewhere, but forbid its use in a gallery. We have gallery of sovereign-state flags; this is not significantly different. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think these are excellent points. If lists constitute "encyclopedic content", flag galleries should also qualify, as the type of list most suitable for this kind of content (as demonstrated by many examples in the print world). --ScottMainwaring 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference between the lists and galleries we have is many of the lists that I saw (or made), we have blurbs saying what the flags are, when they were used and a description of what they look like. These, on the other hand, are a simple gallery which can easily be done on the Wikimedia Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This really isn't a matter of discussion. It's a matter of policy. Many of these images are fair use ([25][26][27][28][29][30] to identify but a few) and can't be displayed in galleries anyways. There's not much point to a gallery like this that never can be complete. See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry. --Durin 18:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would not read any policy as forbidding an article such as this. The fair use policy specifically cited in support of the claim that galleries of fair use images are not allowed actually says this:
"Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable."
Since the chief distinguishing feature of any flag is its design, gallery presentation of this information is vital to the point of necessity, and not "merely decorative." We are not talking about a gallery of screen captures from a TV show here. Policy does not forbid the existence of this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images are not being discussed in any way, nor is their presentation adding any particular value. This is purely a gallery, and nothing more. We do not permit galleries of fair use images. This has been hashed and rehashed multiple times and is not permitted. I would be well within the bounds of policy to remove every instance of a fair use image from this article as is. But, the point is as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry, the article would be gutted without them. Thus, this article can not hope to be encyclopedic. It's permanently hamstrung. --Durin 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Go ahead; but if you do, go ahead and remove any image that might be fair use from Gallery of sovereign-state flags while you are at it. These deletions might not win you friends, and might well be borderline WP:POINT, but if a perception exists that galleries such as these categorically cannot be allowed, it seems to me that the issue needs to be hashed and rehashed some more until common sense can prevail. I just don't want to be the one that provokes it. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to make friends, so it's no concern if my actions result in me not making friends. Sovereign state flags fall under different copyright considerations than the flags on this page. And, removing fair use violations is most emphatically not a violation of WP:POINT as it agrees with our policies. --Durin 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you please explain why you say "There's not much point to a gallery like this that never can be complete"? First, why do you think it could never be complete -- that it is impossible for image files with appropriate legal status to be produced? Second, even if it isn't complete, isn't an incomplete but substantially notable list (in gallery form) of flags preferrable to none at all? I'm really finding it hard to understand the vehemence of the anti-flag-gallery opinions being expressed here; there seems to be a lot of "all of nothing" reasoning at work. --ScottMainwaring 21:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose to create a copyright free replica of a copyrighted work? If this article can not be complete, it's like discussing the Tower of London without being able to discuss its history. The article is permanently hampered by the fair use restrictions. This article can never do what it sets out to do; display city flags from cities around the world. By definition it can never be complete. You might as well take the featured article of today and arbitrarily cut it in half in mid sentence and say it's encyclopedic. --Durin 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing anything, just asking a question. It sounds like you are saying that city flags, by their nature, are copyrighted works and (to answer my own question) that it *is* impossible for image files with appropriate legal status to be produced. Is that what you are saying? If so, on what basis? Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some, not all, cities protect copyrights on their city flags. We can not reproduce them and claim copyright release. I say this on the basis of copyright law. Similarly, you can not create a replica of the Coca-Cola logo and declare it free of copyright. See derivative work. --Durin 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think this raises an important general question: what proportion of a notable category of flags needs to be copyright-free before a gallery-list of such flags makes sense as a Wikipedia article? I might be willing to concede that "city flags" should be deleted under some criterion addressing this question (though your saying "some, but not all" would seem to suggest this category could have "critical copyright-free mass"). But such a criterion would also allow many types of flag galleries to persist, e.g., sovereign state flags, right? --ScottMainwaring 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all the page is a pure gallery, I would try and move it to the Wikimedia Commons. But I am going to wait until this AFD is finished before I look at the others. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even if a flag gallery is 100% copyright free, you still want to rid Wikipedia of it? If we leave aside legal/copyright issues, I don't understand the justification for removing illustrations from lists. And if it's the gallery format you object to, vs. a tabular format in which there is only one flag per line, I still don't understand why such formatting issues should carry such weight. At the very least, why wouldn't you advocate conversion to a new format, instead of deletion of the page? --ScottMainwaring 01:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many lists being created now for flags, mostly based by country and or design. The problem is, that I noticed, is there is a lot of galleries for not just flag related pages, but also for currency. The same issues I am seeing here, I have seen before on the deletion of currency pages. However, if all this page is going to be a gallery, then we should move it to the Commons. But, I just wanted to do it formally by having the AFD instead of just speeding stuff (since I know the Commons have a bug now). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any acceptable-for-Commons images, then move them to Commons. Otherwise, delete this page. (messedrocker • talk) 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least the fair use flags. The rest can just be in an image category. ^(H) 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfoil Hat Linux

AfDs for this article:

Dead Linux distribution. Note that this is the second nomination for this article, after being nominated and kept in January 2006. At this time it seemed unclear whether the distribution was dead or had still users. This should be clear now. Unless someone has new arguments, the argument from the first nomination which remains valid is the historical value of the article. The distro still has under 1000 Google hits for the fully qualified name, but there are about 350 000 hits for "tinfoil linux". Chealer 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry, but while re-reading myself, just to be clear, the 350 000 Google hits are for tinfoil linux (without the quotes).--Chealer 03:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing really links there, and the article isn't too great itself. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has users (at least one; me). Notable as unique and extreme take on OS design.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 numerical majority in AfD debates is a factor, it is not a sole factor. In this case, the questions of verifiability and original research have not been addressed, nor does it appear that they can be. This being the case, we cannot have such an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Items in Ranma ½

This 35KB article is merely an unsourced plot summary. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:WAF and so on. Precedent exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items and concepts in FLCL. Also has 27 fair use images, which may also fail WP:NONFREE. Content is too excessive for merging. MER-C 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely fails WP:V with no sources. It looks like just a bunch of OR. If there is a manga wiki, maybe it should be transwikied over there. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There hasn't been 1 complaint till now and you go immediately to delete?! Not one edit by the nominator and the page is a relatively recent creation and can easily have sources added. This is not OR, as any person reading the manga/watching the anime can see these things. To call it OR is ridiculous and means everything about fiction is OR. It's also now heavily used by other R ½ pages for context.Derekloffin 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you intend on fixing the problems raised? I don't believe they can be fixed, so that's why it's here. And saying that there is sources ain't enough, you actually need to produce them. MER-C 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources can be added (how you can possibly believe it is impossible to reference Ranma ½ is beyond me), plot summaries trimmed if too heavy, mergers done as necessary. That you out of hand discount these most simple things makes me further think you didn't even try to consider remedies in any serious fashion. The complete lack of complaints, tags, edits of any kinds on your part, or warnings, is just further proof of this. Not even giving us the opportunity to address them and immediately jumping to delete without a single notice of a complaint isn't even the remotest attempt to allow correction. Effectively, all you have done by putting up this notice is strongly discourage edits for a week instead of giving editors the complaints and letting them attempt to address them. This is particular evident as even your example delete gave those authors MONTHS of notice of an issue. You gave none. This article is barely 2 months old by this point and hasn't had the chance for significant review. You are supposed to provide discussion on the issue, again none before this delete attempt. I consider this particularly heavy handed and a misuse of the deletion policy. Derekloffin 09:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bureaucracy. I will not unnecessarily jump through hoops or mess with red tape to get crappy articles deleted. Like it or not, this is a significant review of the article. You have the opportunity to address the fatal concerns raised, if they can be addressed.

And stop shooting the messenger and start fixing the problems. MER-C 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I do not think that AfD is best place to resolve these issues. Of course, this article need to be attributed and to follow our policies and guidelines, but not by deleting the whole article. Carlosguitar 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the whole article violates the policies and guidelines above, hence it ought to disappear. MER-C 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mmm... crufty Whs itc hy 14:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but modify based on the recommendations presented to bring it up to par: rewrites, attribution, establishing notability, etc. --BrokenSphere 19:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would definitely add another vote for keeping it. It complements the context of many other articles in the section, as a reference and entertainment source for afficionados of the series. The main problems you've cited above could easily be addressed with a single chapter reference for each item, and possibly some shortening down of the plot details. Give it some time and it should clear up fine. Dave 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need to be cited, but it should not be compared to Items and concepts in FLCL which was littered with original research. This article on the other hand can be easily cited with the manga and anime. (Duane543 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Bird

Contested prod. Unsourced article about a non-notable local dance. Appears to be a violation of WP:NFT at best, or of WP:CB at worst. --Finngall ^talk 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like something someone made up in school one day. Fails WP:V without a doubt. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per nom. Childish nonsense. Clarityfiend 08:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick glance at Google makes me think of WP:HOAX.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CB indeed. - Myanw 10:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not like it's a use for anybody.--Vaishu2 11:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete We have db-nonsense for a reason. Closenplay 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Db-nonsense is intended for articles that are incoherent or gibberish, not hoaxes or other kinds of junk. Propaniac 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Closenplay 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnotable unsourced nonsence. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Sports Champions

Proecedural Listing, Similar to PSA Sports Champions which was deleted before Savin Me 05:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Savin Me 05:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete This article is very similar to the Public Schools Association Sports Champions page - both are lists of non-notable amatuer sports events in Australia. Savin Me 05:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- You dont need to add a comment on an Afd you have nominated. John Vandenberg 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article has better presentation than the PSA equivalent, but as SavinMe has said, its just amateur sports. RS are unlikely to be found to back up all of this data. John Vandenberg 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopaedic. Much better hosted on another website or wiki that is not purporting to be an encyclopaedia. -- Mattinbgn/^talk
- Comment These pages may also need to be looked at:
  - AGSV:1 10 16
  - GSV:2
  - APS:3 4 5
  - ACC:6 7 8 9
  - CAS:11
  - AAGPS:12 13 14 15
- This comment can be moved to the talk page - just wanted to bring this to everyones attention Savin Me 06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can't include these articles here as the AfD process has already begun. However, i'll review all these articles tonight and then take appropriate action, including enjoining them to a new AfD if at all acceptable. Leave it with me. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Aquinascruft. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and seemingly unverifyable except through primary sources. Does not relate to the highest level of amateur sport.Ga rr ie 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be great to see an encyclopedic article regarding organised school sport in Australia, but a list of results isn't the way to achieve that. Ga rr ie 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a list of sporting results for an not-top-tier amateur sporting competition. That does not belong in an encyclopædia. Lankiveil 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, probably unverifiable. Perhaps we should have a school wikia. Capitalistroadster 10:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merger/redirection is an editorial decision that doesn't need an AFD. W.marsh 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharif Linux

Notability to come. Chealer 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article has some reliable sources, so it appears to pass WP:V. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is not concerned about Wikipedia:Notability, not WP:V. utcursch | talk 05:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Reference number 2 is a third party computer website, that qualifies as a reliable source. However, the article as a whole should be expanded. Not enough detail.--Kylohk 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you are technically right that reference number 2 is from a third party computer website, that may be misleading. The website is a Linux website (and a portal too). However, if someone finds a reference to Sharif Linux from a general computer website, that could be interesting.--Chealer 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a work in progress. Has a reliable source and also is referenced in other places on wikipedia. CredoFromStart ^talk 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found 3 references to the article in the main namespace. 2 of these were See also links without any description and without a clear relation, which I have removed. That leaves one reference from List of Linux distributions, which lists distributions not taking their notability into account.--Chealer 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are trivial mentions. Not all Linux distros are notable. Mentions in mainstream media (such as newspapers, general computing websites etc.) would make it notable. A para on tuxmachines.org and LWN.net in 2006 doesn't make this worthy of an article. Mention in List of Linux distributions and Sharif University of Technology with one sentence description, if you wish. utcursch | talk 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 04:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sesco Linux

Notability to come. Chealer 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources; it looks like it fails WP:V. I performed a quick google search and only found 411 hits, which is very low for a computer-related subject. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of June 2007, article fails notability. Carlosguitar 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is too short and not informative. Does not bring up many results on Google which is very low for a Linux distribution. With it not being well known, and a latest stable release date of December 31, 2004, I don't think this Linux Distribution needs an article. Skullblade 23:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mughda Chapekar

Single sentence + image gallery article that does not establish notability of subject and has been deleted thrice before. Should be deleted or merged with Dharti Ka Veer Yodha Prithviraj Chauhan. The article may even be a candidate for speedy deletion, in which case please feel free to close this nomination early. Finally, the images in the article are copyvios and should be speedied too. Abecedare 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the text per nom. The pictures are invalid fair use at best, and have been nailed by Orphanbot. Yechiel Man 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block recreation - This page was at one time a candidate for sppedy deletion, at which time it consisted of a single photo. It has sicne gained several more photos and two lines of text. I strongly suspect this to be a case of self-adveritsmetn by an actress. Whether or not she is natable, I cannot say, but the article does not provide evidence that she is. Furthermore what she has appeared in has a non-English title, so that I presume that what she has appeared in is a non-English TV programme or film. Peterkingiron 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 05:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since when is WP a photoalbum?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, since when was Wikipedia a gallery of fair use images? Delete. MER-C 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both. No references, notability not established. Cúchullain ^t/c 06:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format Proliferation

Appears to be an article about a neologism and may contain original research (probable presentation of a specific theory in business) or does not have enough available information for more than a dictionary entry without crossing into spam or advertisement. Also including SKU Proliferation in this discussion. Cquan (don't yell at me...) 16:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr 13 05:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The term and concept seem common enough from a quick Google search, and the article had only just been created when it was given the AFD tag. I think it should be allowed a little more time to develop. Propaniac 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both These are the only two contributions by the author, suggesting a conflict of interest. (Yes, there can be a profit motive in promoting this idea of Format Proliferation.) Also, it strikes me as original research. One source is not enough. Yechiel Man 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SKU, redirect Format -- Refs abound on Google.--Mike18xx 05:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobaloo

author removed prod without making any changes to teh article. I have no idea why this guy is notable. There are millions of comedians and actors in the world and many of them are gay. If this is all that we know about him, then he should have been gone when the prod expired! Postcard Cathy 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless properly sourced. No demonstration, or even assertion, or notability. --Haemo 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; No assertion of notability. Tagged as A7. Masaruemoto 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country Tonite Theatre

Most of article is list of awards copied directly from the CTT website, many of which don't identify the awarding organization. Many of the others don't have WP articles. NACMAI hosts on GeoCities, which doesn't tend to point toward notability. Aside from list of awards, does not assert notability particularly well. Delete SarekOfVulcan 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The awards list seems to be a copy of the list on the organization's website, at [31], from an anon edit in February. Appears to have been an attempt to demonstrate notability and get rid of a spam header. Willing to reconsider, but as it is there are zero secondary sources per WP:CORP, and I will be very pleasantly surprised if any appear. LaughingVulcan 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Seems to have been put up primarily as a vehicle to push Brianna Rieffel, who is up for AfD herself. A search through Google turns up nothing but promotional, marketing and advertising links [32]. That being said, there are 559 unique hits, which is quite a lot. If any reliable sourcing turns up, my vote would likely change. Ravenswing 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As would mine: it was primarily my lack of ability to find good references which led me to nominate it.--SarekOfVulcan 15:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, I'd love to know who awarded them those awards, but we haven't been told, have we? Totally agree with Ravenswing on the suspicious creation of this article. Corvus cornix 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Same here, i agree with Ravenswing even though he bit me on my RfA and almost made me quit.JONJONBT^{Talk to me!} 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Well, but see, now you're starting to do some of the things which would have made your RfA more viable, none of which you had before done. That's a good thing; keep it up. Ravenswing 20:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources are provided. While the list of awards certainly saved it when I nominated it for a speedy deletion, something with so much prestigious must have been written about in reliable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article posted by a disruptive editor who has shown little regard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and has since been blocked). DarkAudit 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main contributor of the article has been indef blocked, it is unlikely he will either comment here or source the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but that doesn't mean that someone else can't come up with some...--SarekOfVulcan 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chipuismo

Google searches for Chipuismo and Chipuesca come up with no links at all. Violates verifiability MKoltnow 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google is wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chipuismo (talk • contribs).

Speedy delete as patent nonsense.--SarekOfVulcan 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a bad joke. --Haemo 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Category:Chipuismo, and related images etc. --Haemo 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family

Per concenrns experessed on talk, this seems like a non-notable family. Most of the article consists of copies of info about Polish history and nobility - referenced, but not related to the family. Next, four members of the family are described, only the first one has any notability claims. The family might have had one notable member and the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two, but that doesn't make them notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--SarekOfVulcan 04:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "argument" directly above is an argument to avoid, listed in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Konieczny's argument is self-contradicting -- "the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two" obviously makes the family notable. Someone going to the Radwan coat of arms in almost all historical chronicles (Polish armorials) will see this family listed, and the Wikipedia entry for Radwan arms has a link to this family, which is useful for discovering more information about them. Hopefully, more families listed under the Radwan arms will do the same, as this will give insight into the fates of families listed. Polish genealogists with their own family names listed in Polish armorials will probably find this information insightful, and the footnotes section will give them starting points. 71.106.22.218 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep i see the point of the nominator, but it's referenced and i have to end up agreeing with...IP address 71.106.22.218. didn't want to sign it i guess....Barsportsunlimited 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not another vote, but meant to amplify a point. Konieczny seems to be getting the word "lackluster" confused with the word "notable". Not everything notable is required to be heroic. Jarosław Radwan Żądło Dąbrowski was demonstrably heroic -- a reference to his family (Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family) in the context of a wider Radwan gens/clan is useful in understanding his social milieu and origins. 71.106.22.218 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per precedence to WP:MUSIC which says "The band is notable if one of its members is notable". What is good for the band should be good for the clan, especially the one with established heritage going back to 1021, almost one thousand years. Those are pretty rare these days. greg park avenue 12:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of work has gone into the article and I strongly believe that is notable. It would be wrong to delete because I find quite valuable. I have seen far useless articles which have stuck around. MAJPOLE 5:20, 10 June 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. David Eppstein 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normal set

Expired prod, de-prodded by Kurykh with edit summary de-prod, might be worthwhile, except might need references. The problem is that I don't think this is standard terminology at all. If references exist, we can discuss them (it's still possible, even likely, that the terminology is a nonce term for one or two references, in which case I would still favor deletion). --Trovatore 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to set; by no means delete. This is interesting and a plausible search item. I learnt about this in high school. Resurgent insurgent 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find a ref, then? I have never heard this terminology, and I am a set theorist. --Trovatore 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Found: "A normal set is a set which does not contain itself." - from a maths thesaurus published by Cambridge. Resurgent insurgent 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several references on Google in the first 40 hits or so: I just checked. I don't have any old math books handy to check there, though. Merge per insurgent above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
Comment I had tried Google previously and found nothing relevant. It's true that I didn't try adding "russell's paradox" to the search. Are all the references in that context? If so, I'd say merge to Russell's paradox, not to set. --Trovatore 05:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is ad hoc terminology used in some presentations of Russell's paradox, not in use as a common meaning of "normal set" outside that context. Any exposition using it in the sense as defined here should contain its own local definition, and we should not sanction the elevation of ad hoc context-bound terminology to encyclopedic status by adding it to the Set article. It is unlikely that someone searching for some reason for "normal set" is served by a redirect to Russell's paradox. Some googling around found several, totally unrelated, uses, such as: the image of a normal space under a closed continuous map, or: a sample from a normal distribution. --Lambiam^Talk 06:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This definition would imply that the set of all normal sets is the Russell set (the set of all sets which are not element of themselves [33]), which redirects to Russell's Paradox. I don't like the idea of redirecting it there, however, as I'm sure there are other sets with this name. Perhaps a dab would be smart? Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ad hoc term, per Lambiam. JPD (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Lambiam. (And I've used "normal set" in various topological contexts, although I don't claim those usages are standard, either.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no common or generally accepted definition of this term within mathematics. For instance, I've just been working on Padé table, and in that context "normal set" can be taken to mean the portion of the table that is "normal" (and "normal" doesn't even mean "orthogonal" in this situation). DavidCBryant 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it might be a useful search term. Do you think that making it a disambiguation page of sorts with links to different fields which use the term, and a quick paragraph on how it is used in each field? Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a good idea, just like it would not be a good idea to have a disambiguation page for, say, the terms "Normal method" or "Acceptable solution". --Lambiam ^Talk 16:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to imagine what a plausible dab page might say: "In mathematics, normal set is an ad hoc term used by some authors to refer to several unrelated things..." Not a good idea... Geometry guy 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not standard mathematical terminology. There are such things as normal spaces, normal subgroups, normal extensions, normal rings, etc, but sorry, I never heard of a "normal set"... — Turgidson 01:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect/Merge. This is thoroughly standard terminology, although perhaps archaic, and encountered only in the historical context of Frege and naive set theory. Anyway, we already have a rather large article on this topic, its called Russell's paradox. I don't understand ZF very well, but I thought that one of the problems was that of counting to infinity (the axiom of infinity) and that the concept of a normal set somehow spun out from that. Whatever. I just read the commentary above, I see this point has been hashed out already. Anyway, a redirect to Russell's paradox is probably sufficient. Personally, I would have just speedy-redirected the whole thing, and not bothered with a prod/afd. linas 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Thoroughly standard terminology"? I beg to differ. I just checked MathSciNet, and there are 30 articles having "normal set" in the title (and 143 altogether with the exact phrase in the review text), but the meaning differs wildly -- which I think is normal for such an over-used term as "normal". Eg:

A subset $B\subset{\Bbb N}$ is said to be normal if the associated binary sequence defined by $i=1$ for $i\in B$ and $i=0$ for $i\notin B$ is normal, meaning that any binary word $\omega$ of length $|\omega|$ occurs in this sequence with frequency $2^{-|\omega|}$. MR 2187788

A closed bounded set $S$ in $\bold R \sp n \sb +$ is said to be normal if $(S-\bold R\sp n\sb +)\cap \bold R\sp n\sb + =S$. MR 2040059

A subset of $\bold R^I_+$, $I$ being a finite set of indices, is called normal if $g\in G$, $0\leq x\leq g\Rightarrow x\in G$. MR 1769890

A set $M$ of real numbers is said to be normal if there exists a sequence $\Lambda=(\lambda_k)$ of real numbers such that $\Lambda x=(\lambda_kx)$ is uniformly distributed $\text{mod}\,1$ if and only if $x$ is in $M$. MR 0308073

I could go on, but you get the idea. At any rate, why is the definition of "normal set" in this article any more standard than the others? Turgidson 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If normal set redirects anywhere, it should probably redirect to normal space, which is what I expected this article to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig it seems like a widely used term with a variety of meanings, a disambig page with pointers to Normal (mathematics) and Russell's paradox seems the most appropate. --Salix alba (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I think a disambiguation page might be a good idea. It should not include purely nonce terms, but if the Russell-paradox meaning is one that many people have encountered, then there probably ought to be some reference to it, without the implication that it's what "normal set" can be understood to mean without further explanation. --Trovatore 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 05:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Engle

Patent vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. MER-C 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Taggard (Complain) 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not necessary. Jmlk 1 7 07:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:SOAP, need I say more?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Athaenara ✉ 13:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" as required by the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. A Google News search produces 0 hits for subject, and no reliable sources are currently provided in article. -- Satori Son 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my tagging and the above comments. Bearian 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody and Satori Son's investigation. nadav (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L McBurnett

This biographical article does not contain any reliable primary/secondary sources to verify it's content as required by WP:BIO. Originally tagged per CSD A7, but more information was added which arguably constitutes a claim of notability. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Jmlk 1 7 07:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia not imdb. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). The redirect will be protected for a month to discourage recreation. --Core desat 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000000000000 (number)

This article keeps on coming back. See the previous afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number). I still believe this article should not exist. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the result of the discussion at DRV was to relist (although the closer said that redirects are not open for discussion there), I've reopened this AfD and reverted my earlier redirect decision. Please let the discussion run for five days. Thanks. Sr 13 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When people are reviewing the page, please look at the page as it stood at the beginning of this discussion (that in history : 09:54, 6 June 2007 by Sr13), rather than the one that has been substantially changed by another user, with, IMO, nonsense sentences on 'it is quite a large number', etc. Looking at the original page hopefully provides the best context and consistency for this discussion. The Yeti 22:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Its just a load of rubbish. — Taggard (Complain) 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why would we need this? JJL 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect Delete, protect if necessary. Jmlk 1 7 07:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can somebody pass the salt?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the well put comment above. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 10:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't. Hut 8.5 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge whatever salvageable and redirect to the existing Tera article. The latter would be an adequate indirect method of salting. Other than that, I guess it qualifies as a... WP:POVFORK! Niko Silver 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAFT per above Whs itc hy 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) like its brethren, and then protect. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and salt. Edison 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan is a preferable solution. The Orders of magnitude (numbers) page does a decent job of covering 10¹². Possibly the three Fibonacci numbers could be merged. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy delete as per most others. Dalejenkins 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) per above. Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, guys, in case you didn't notice my message above, there is an existing sub-article of Orders of magnitude (numbers), which directly relates to the specific number. It's called Tera, and it is consistent with Kilo, Mega, pico, nano etc. Give it a look please; I think we should redirect there. Niko Silver 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Arkyan, merging any content not already covered in Orders of magnitude (numbers). This number is only semi-interesting because of the scourge of creeping decimalism, which must be resisted in whatever form it takes. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, that's one of the most inspired arguments I've ever read here! I doubt most readers will know what we're talking about though... Niko Silver 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not the number article in itself, but what links to it - the point is that when billion/trillion is typed into Wikipedia, it brings up a disambiguation page for these terms (try them & see). The disambiguation page has come about because there are two different numerical numbers for billion/trillion (see long and short scale). To keep the disambiguation pages 'clean' and to avoid arguments and edit wars on the billion/trillion pages, it is simplest to link through to the actual number (1000000000000). I dont care about 10^11 or 10^13, but 10^12 does have its uses ! In fact, according to WP:NUM#How far to go?, powers of ten upto 10^11 are considered OK to exist. Why is 10^12 deemed one too far, particular when it has the billion/trillion ambiguity and then also has standard word name(s) and an si term ? With regards to the previous nomination, the billion and trillion pages have gone through large changes since then. At the very least it should be a Redirect to ~~the sub-article of Orders of Magnitude~~ Tera. The Yeti 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:NUM#How far to go? says "... Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 10^11, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property." Since 10^12 does have a standard SI prefix for SI units, and also has not just one but two different standard word names, having an article on it would clearly be okay according to that even without the special need for disambiguation which "trillion" presents. Cardamon 08:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect, then protect. There are infinitely many numbers of the form 10^X, and WP cannot have articles on each of these. The redirect is appropriate, but deleting the content before redirecting discourages the creation of similar articles. Xoloz 15:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tera, not order of magitude (numbers). Astroguy2 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- I have encountered the problem that User:RJHall described in the original June 2006 AFD discussion, many times -- namely, some well-meaning wikipedian, who, counting on their fund of general knowledge, "corrected" something, so that it was actually no longer correct. It is maddening. And, sometimes avoidable. In this case, it is avoidable. So, let's keep the article and avoid the problems RJHall described.
- Hut 8.5 wrote:"we really don't need articles about every number unless it has some special property, and this one doesn't." —— I agree, only that we don't need articles about every number. But, there are a bunch of numbers that are special, and should have articles about them. Not just zero and pi, but dozens or hundreds of others. I believe a strong case has been made that this is one of them.
- I do not agree that a redirection to Tera would best serve the wikipedia. -- Geo Swan 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage delete fans to apply a what links here -- sanity check. Over one hundred articles use a link, or a piped link to 1000000000000 (number). The links I have looked at from the "what links here" list are all nouns. Tera is not a noun. It is either an adjective, or just a word fragment, a prefix. That would be inherently confusing to readers.
  - Does it really make sense for someone who clicks on trillion in an article on the Federal Reserve System, or the Weimar Republic, to find themselves at Tera? I don't think so. We might all be numerate. Everyone here in this discussion might be comfortable with number, not suffer from discalculi. But that doesn't mean we should make the wikipedia less accessible to those who aren't numerate, who do suffer from discalculi. I question whether any article that deals with 1000000000000 in a monetary context should link to tera.
  - Consider One trillion (basketball) -- does it make sense for a click here to send the reader to tera?
  - Consider standard cubic foot, does a link to tera really make sense.
  - I wish those making nominations for deletion, or endorsing deletion, would make the effort to check the "what links here" list first, and think about how the deletion they favour affects the articles that link to the article they want to get rid of.
  - Cheers! Geo Swan 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just... stupid... If this lives, I'm going to find a way to justify making my phone number an article... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and unlink the references to it (and trillion) in other articles. Same arguments as the last AfD are coming out again - no surprise there. - fchd 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So that people can continue to wikilink to it to when they use the word "trillion" so as to make it clear what they mean. Cardamon 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree to a deletion and then a redirect to Tera. To address Geo Swan's concerns, I'd propose the compromise solution of redirecting to the subsection of Orders of magnitude (numbers) which discusses the particular number: Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 (only it doesn't look nice since "12" is not ^superscript. Coming to think of it, shouldn't there be a centralized discussion for all these numbers somewhere? I'd hate it if (a supposed) 1 000 000 000 was redirected to giga rather than the subsection of "Orders of..." if we decide differently here... NikoSilver 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tera is only for SI units. It is not really correct for a quantity that is a pure number, or for non-SI units. Using Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 risks someone only noticing what article they were sent to and not realizing that the section of the article to which they were sent was meant as a disambiguation. Actually, for the very fastest disambiguation, I would prefer to rename the article to 1,000,000,000,000, which is currently a redirect to Names of large numbers. Then the main point of the article would be apparent just by mousing over trillion, and would also be the first, and largest font-size, part of the article to hit the eye of those who clicked through. Cardamon 07:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I've been wondering what number follows 999,999,999,999 and precedes 1,000,000,000,001. But now I've found out, just Delete it. Masaruemoto 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numbers should be considered notable when there is something noteworthy to say, adnd for this number there is, and the above discussion has proved it. if it were, say, one higher or lower, we would have deleted it without discussion.DGG 05:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers). Alone, this article is totally pointless. Useight 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redirect some place useful, and protect. >Radiant< 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trillion. I find it difficult to understand how I am the first to suggest this when it seems so obvious, or am I missing something? LittleOldMe 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something, and that is that not everyone calls this number a trillion. Clarifying that is the main purpose of the article IMO. --Itub 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This number is notable precisely because of the ambiguity of its name. At the very least it should stay as a disambiguation page. A redirect to tera is not appropriate, because tera is an SI prefix, not a number. --Itub 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that could apply to any number over 1,000,000,000. As an aside, what do all the "other 13 digit numbers" listed on the page add to the article? - fchd 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that the naming problem applies to any numbers greater than or equal to 10^9, and I would certainly not advocate creating an article for numbers such as 10^360. However, I think 10^12 is notable because it is the first or second smallest number suffering from such ambiguity (depending on how you count), and it is possibly the largest order of magnitude that people actually bother spelling out, or even writing as a number without scientific notation or other type of abbreviation. People talk about billions and trillions frequently. The same is not the case for octodecillions, for example. --Itub 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus! We definitely need a centralized discussion for all these! We have two English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales), we have scientific names (kilo, mega, tera etc), we have the numbers themselves (1,000,000; 1,000,000,000 etc), and we have an article containing all of them (Orders of magnitude (numbers)). Now multiply this times all notable numbers; and you will see how many different results may be decided in separate AfD's!! Is there a Wikiproject or something discussing these? Niko Silver 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So there seems to be as many people for delete as redirect in this discussion, and the keeps are also closing in. Of the redirects, there's confusion on whether Orders of magnitude (numbers) or Tera is better. Is there really a desperate need to delete this one article from Wikipedia, given there seems little consensus on what to do, and all the ambiguities? The Yeti 13:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [edit conflict] Personally I doubt this is controversial or anything. We just need to get our thoughts together. Strike redir to Tera, and make it to Orders etc; not an issue by me as I'm mostly convinced. What I'm concerned about is consistency with the rest. I think we need to discuss the following agenda:
  - Confirm that the main article for all will be Orders of magnitude (numbers).
  - Address which numbers will be dealt with in there (up and down limits).
  - Clarify how the information will be separated between:
    - Main article (Orders...)
    - Numbers as such (1 000 000, 1 000 000 000, etc): separate articles? / redirected to Orders? / deleted completely?
    - English names (million, billion, trillion etc in two scales): redirected and merged to Orders? / piled together?
      - Trillion/billion x 2 scales - God no! We're trying clarify things, not make it worse!
    - SI terms (kilo, mega, giga, tera etc): separate articles? redirected and merged to Orders?
- I think this agenda should be discussed (or if it is already discussed pls point me to the discussion); and then we will be all happy. We can always salt everything outside the conversation to be safe, and we will point links to this centralized discussion in all relative talkpages. Then we're done. Niko Silver 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete), because the nominated article has no information besides what is in Orders of magnitude (numbers). Sentences like "1000000000000 is the number between 999999999999 and 1000000000001" are not useful information. I really doubt we could write more than a couple of sentences about 10^12, and articles that are necessarily so short are routinely merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is in the same format layout as that for 1000000 (number), 10000000 (number), 100000000 (number), and 1000000000 (number). (ie) 'consistency witht the rest' The Yeti 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I got this the first time. I agreed before, I agree even more now: redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) and protect if necessary. Niko Silver 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) (or delete) Per User:Jitse Niesen. The last AfD, from June 2006, also ended with a verdict of 'Redirect and delete'. Since the editors who re-created an actual article (without any intervening DRV) were overriding the decision of the AfD, I believe that this time the creation of a protected redirect is justified. The present article has little informational value for our readers, while Orders of magnitude is quite well written and can answer some of the same questions. EdJohnston 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per trillion/billion linkage cleanliness and to allow discussion about possible redirect as mentioned by The Yeti and Niko (and others) to occur in a cleaner environment than AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as billion/trillion ambiguity provides sufficient encyclopedic content, particularly for linking those words. After keeping it, consider renaming to 1,000,000,000,000 (but not immediately because that needs broader discussion about naming principles for articles about large numbers). The silly sentences about 999999999999 and 1000000000001, as well as the various multiples of 1111111111111 in the table may well be purged from the article without deleting it completely. –Henning Makholm 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (alrady voted delete...) I would think that "this article provides a place for people to link to" is a poor justification. There's no really useful comment in the article that's particular this number other than adding a few more digits than in 100. We judge article based on what they contain, not how many times we can link to something that doesn't really say much but has pretty boxes. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity to be particular to this number? Strange. –Henning Makholm 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, it's little more than a dictionary defintion issue, not the basis for an encyclopaedic article. - fchd 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the complaints about possibly losing a link to the "billion"/"trillion" ambiguity - how does wikilinking to this page help the user determine which one is being used? Not much. Articles for the words "billion" and "trillion" already exist and already document this ambiguity, a seperate article for the number does nothing to help inform. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are two more reasons for keeping this page. This shows that at least one non-native speaker of English recently searched for 1000000000000 in order to find the English word for it. So the page can be useful to non-native speakers of English. Also, the content, while admittedly far beneath the notice of professional mathematicians, could possibly be useful to, say, middle school students. Please consider that an encyclopedia is written for its readers, and that Wikipedia has a lot of readers and potential readers in the categories I have mentioned. Cardamon 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All this can be achieved by redirecting to order of magnitude. My point is that the only thing that the page should say is that the number is usually called trillion in English, but sometimes billion. An encyclopaedia does not consist of loose facts, it consists of articles which collect facts together. Thus, one fact does not make an article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would prefer to see the article title with commas "1,000,000,000,000", if it is kept. The string of zeros is difficult to take in. However, what is perhaps needed is substantive, rather than disambiguation articles on billion, trillion, and quadrillion, in which case this article could be retained as a disambiguation page. The present articleis certainly stuffed with the inconsequential, but the solution to that is to delete, not AFD. Peterkingiron 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can this page be a disambiguation page? The number 1,000,000,000,000 is not ambiguous. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me spell this out. As you yourself mention above, the English words billion and trillion are ambiguous. You can use 1000000000000 (number) as a disambiguation page as follows: To disambiguate trillion, if 1000000000000 (number) is the number meant, type [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] into the edit box rather than just typing trillion. That disambiguates the trillion by pointing the reader to the actual number that is meant. ~~Or, if you had an old quote which used the word billion to mean 1000000000000 (number), you could replace the word billion with [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion ]] , thus disambiguating it.~~ Cardamon 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I'm sorry, I think that is the least user-friendly of all the suggestions so far. - fchd 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ???? How are wikilinks like trillion "the least user-frendly solution so far"? Granted, moving the article to "1,000,000,000,000" would be better than keeping it where it is.Cardamon 01:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd expect that if the word trillion is linked, it goes to the article [[trillion]] . That's what links usual do. If you're concerned that the reader may misunderstand trillion, then you should explain it in the article (see also Septentrionalis below). It's not user-friendly to expect the reader to realize that the link [[1000000000000 (number)| trillion]] is an atypical link put there to explain the use of the word trillion and to click on the link. That's bad practice and thus not a good reason to keep the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 1,000,000,000,000 (number). This number is notable in being the largest number that is generally talked about outside of scientific usage. Voortle 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It hurts my eyes, and it is pointless. There should at least be commas, or title it "One million million". Oh, just delete it.
Keep. As Cardamon points out, the terms billion and trillion are ambiguous. The first time I saw it, I thought it was a good idea to end the confusion about "Is that a million million, or a thousand million"? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No additional information above Order of magnitude (numbers). The differences between US and Euro uses of number words is fully described in Long and short scales. -- MightyWarrior 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should not keep an article around just to disambiguate trillion. As a financial term, trillion is in practice unambiguous, unless someone can come up with a genuine citation for £10¹⁸. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article that uses billion to mean 10^12 in a financial context, and uses the page you want to delete to disambiguate it. Is that close enough for you? Cardamon 07:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. I grant that billion is ambiguous. But (precisely for that reason) the article should say "one hundred million million (10¹⁴)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is about German banknotes which used the German "billion" for 10¹² during hyperinflation. Here is an example which both says "Fünf billionen" and "5000 milliarden" (milliard = 10⁹). Others at [34] only said billion. PrimeHunter 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know A Storyman

Another hoax created by this user. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rainbow (1986 TV Series), appears to be made of text taken from Spider (TV series) (a genuine series). Masaruemoto 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've taken the liberty to create a case for a possible sockpuppet/puppeteer regarding this and other articles created in the same style. Wildthing61476 02:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, this article isn't created by User:RabbitHawk but ,as you point out, another sock-puppet. Masaruemoto 03:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jmlk 1 7 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another 2 sec. that won't come back.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another hoax TV show from the puppet farm. Can the people adding these hoaxes to the TV and movie wikiprojects slow down a bit and first find out if this stuff actually exists? DarkAudit 14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double wicked strong delete The crew is probably jst his frends and i looked on Ragdoll Productions and it says NOTHING about "Do you know a storyman?" JONJONBT ^{Talk to me!} 19:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as ballocks. Resurgent insurgent 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainbow (1986 TV Series)

Another hoax created by this user. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Did You Know A Storyman, appears to be made of text taken from Spider (TV series) (a genuine series). Masaruemoto 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obivous hoax, possible sockpuppet. Wildthing61476 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Nik Love-Gittins? Vyv Hope-Scott? A running time of 5 minutes? Tim Q. Wells 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was bold redirect to Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish". Sr 13 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Phelps

An article created for a character from The Simpsons that appears in a single episode, and is not notable in the story of the series, or episode. A suggestion has been made to move this page to List of one time characters in the Simpsons, however I don't think the character is even notable for that article. MrHate 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Simpsons has about 8 million characters, no need to redirect all the one-shots like this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for a series which ran as long as the Simpsons did, a one-episode bit character is not important. --Haemo 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the episode page, Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish" (whew!). Redirects are cheap, and it's conceivable that someone may use the name as a search term. (Perhaps someone wanted to understand the significance of the song title mentioned at the end of the article.) Zagalejo 07:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Zagalejo. Ben W Bell talk 09:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zagalejo. Propaniac 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Endings (film)

Non-notable student film; Googling "Alternate Endings" + "Greg Townsend" gives no significant independent sources. Masaruemoto 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not notable... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 June 2007.
Delete nn. JJL 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vanity article. - Myanw 10:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student film. --Nehrams2020 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin cultures

The article is based on a concept that seemingly has no real sources to confirm it besides that, it is completely unsourced, full of disputable statements, let's simply say that it's primarly composed of Original Research without any source to back it up. As a member of WikiProject Puerto Rico I dislike doing this to a page involving my people but I can't in good consiense ignore all the issues on it. -凶 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the talk page is that it's original research and POV. Delete. Placeholder account 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate to any articles on respective cultures that are considered Latin. No comment on current content. See Latin peoples (linguistic) for an example of one way to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a complete speculation and presents no sources at all, and I really do not know what a "self-identification as Latin" means! This is POV and original research. The Ogre 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a complete mess, a hodgepodge of wildly different (unsourced) thoughts and claims. As so often, there could be a half-way decent article here, perhaps on what is essentially the stereotype of "Latin" sensuality and expressiveness. At best this would be a careful documentation of the way in which the idea of a "Latin culture" circulates in assumptions about music, food, family life, and so on. But at present the article does little more than reproduce such stereotypes--and it doesn't even do that well! Alternatively, one could also discuss some of the shared cultural characteristics of (and these might be better terms) Mediterranean or Southern European peoples, and those influenced by those cultures (above all in Latin America). This would have to be done with care and sensitivity. Maybe at some later point someone will come by and write a worthwhile article on this topic. But they would have to start from scratch, and this article should go. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite so! The Ogre 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current POV/OR content and then recreate as a redirect to Latino, which is a superior article touching on the same basic subject. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't support a redirect to Latino as that mostly seems to be about Latin Americans, and nothing about the European cultures. FrozenPurpleCube 16:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point ... I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps, then, redirect it back to Latin (disambiguation) and clear up that section of the main dab page? Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article should be corrected, but not deleted. Latin cultures is a legitimate subject. The basic premises of the article are not incorrect and not based on POV or original research as some here claim. User: Josean Figueroa. -June 9, 2007
- And, pray tell, what are the article's basic premisses? The article seems to me a total fabrication, claiming to known the "self-identification as Latin" of various nations (where's the source?) I am Portuguese, and in Portugal we speak of Latin cultures only in a linguistic sense. The rest is basically stereotypes we find insulting. The Ogre 16:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a stereotypical fabrication, an example of "folk sociology" (much as folk etymology), based upon typical, even if more or less hidden, racialist assumptions. Velho 18:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Luna Harper

This character does not exist in the Pirates of the Caribbean. Since there is no fourth film, and the grammar is atrocious...fake. Sukecchi 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speculative, and may be a hoax. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, this a crystal ball full of unsourced speculation about what is going to come up in the fourth film. More likely, it is simply a hoax given that there is no evidence of this character on a Google search Either way, it should be deleted. Will (aka Wimt) 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure, unsourced speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Haemo 04:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but someone's fantasy. Is there even proof that there will be a fourth film? DarkAudit 14:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per crystal balling, and I don't believe there has even been a fourth film announced yet. --Nehrams2020 18:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling "Luna Harper" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" produces 0 hits. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1984 NASL season

Contested prod on this lone unreferenced article. Diff Prod rationale This long time unreferenced article appears to be an abandoned project, what would be sister articles 1985_NASL_season and 1983_NASL_season are both red links. It fails WP:V and has little hope becoming encyclopedic If there were other articles in the series they would/should be in Category:North American Soccer League but there are none there. While the topic would be notable, the complete text of the article is unreferenced and subject to removal, no one including the prod contester is motivated to reference it, I propose the article be deleted, as opposed to striped and left as a stub, as it will have to be completely rewritten from references if anyone ever does decide to "to fill in the missing years" Jeepday (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems a strange rationale that this article on this season of a professional sports league should be deleted because other articles on other seasons haven't been written yet. Has the nominator tried to reference the article himself before nominating it for AfD as policy suggests he should? These sources have a lot of info and I've added them to the article.[35] [36] [37] Nick mallory 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory and sources. The 1985 season would of course be a red link, since 1984 was the last season (according to the article, which I assume was read. Histories have to start somewhere, and if it is with one article on one year, then, so be it. Neier 05:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasons given above. The last season of the NASL was an important one historically for football in the USA and as has already been stated, histories have to start somewhere Blogdroed 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Season of notable professional league with considerable attendance, there's now been a few external links added so it isn't entirely unsourced. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the current status of NASL articles being somewhat of a wart, the topic is certainly notable and encyclopedic. I would rather put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to get some help in filling out more article content in this series than delete what already exists. Andrwsc 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The NASL was at one time the premier soccer league in the USA, and this is a summary of it's final year. Definitely notable, and per previous comments, sourced. Wildthing61476 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is a shame that whoever wrote this abandoned it without completing the other season articles, but this remains a valid article on a professional league none the less. Resolute 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Last season of the league is therefore perfectly notable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North American Soccer League - insufficient sourced content. Addhoc 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the content is deemed to be insufficient then surely the first thing to do would be to expand upon it rather than just redirecting it.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PCLinuxOS MythEdition

Notability to come. Chealer 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable distribution. Carlosguitar 06:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The whole idea came after the main developer, nintendofreq, got a TV tuner card for his computer". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the whole Myth in the title might have something to do with it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable Goldenglove^{Contribs ·Talk} 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into PCLinuxOS or MythTV articles if there is any useful content, otherwise delete. Lurker 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protein Wisdom (blog) (2nd nomination)

Non-notable political blog (the 68th most popular political blog on the internet!). SkipSmith 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add the link to the previous nomination. SkipSmith 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. And let's hope this doesn't get recreated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it non notable exactly? 'let's hope it doesn't get recreated' isn't a reason for deletion. Nick mallory 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Protein Wisdom is the subject of several independent media sources including Fox News [38], the American Spectator [39] and is cited by the The Washington Post [40]. Some of these stories relate to an incident all mention of which the nominator removed from the Protein Wisdom wikipedia article shortly before nominating it for deletion. That story is carried by the Arizona Daily Star [41] and the Rocky Mountain News [42]. Furthermore all the arguments which apply to the ongoing Steve Gilliard AfD [43] apply here. A large number of posters on that AfD seem to think that numerous mentions acoss the blogsphere and participation in the Daily Kos assure notability for Gilliard so equally numerous mentions across the blogsphere and participation in Pajamas Media should not doom Protein Wisdom. If Protein Wisdom is the 68th most popular political blog then it might be noted that Gilliard's blog ranks 662,416 on Alexa. [44] The same rules should apply across the political spectrum. Nick mallory 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Nick Mallory[reply]
Keep 68th is good enough. Perhaps we need some kind of standard there, but I think that anything under 100 would be a notable number, corresponding approximate to the number of nation &major regional newspapers. DGG 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The 'Truth Laid Bear' ecosystem lists the top 100 sites by links and is a good barometer of importance. In this internet age the Wikipedia standards for blogs are unrealistic and are bound to change in the future. Even by current standards though there's no rationale for the deletion of this one. Nick mallory 06:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure comparing the 68th ranked blog to the 68th ranked newspaper is a valid comparison. The 68th ranked newspaper in the US is the Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA), with a daily circulation of 189,000 [45]. Proteinwisdom.com is currently getting 7251 visits per day [46]. SkipSmith 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's sufficiently notable, shouldn't be deleted due to editors disagreeing with the content of the blog --Javit 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Lurker 16:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Doesn't seem notable enough. The news mentions tend to be along the lines of round-ups of what various blogs are saying, apart from one incident which seems to be something briefly mentioned in the news. And the "68th most popular" tag is meaningless. There are a lot of sites dedicated to ranking blogs, and this seems to be a political site with ideological similarities to the blog in question. It'd be like keeping a progressiv eblog because alternet ranked it highly. Lurker 16:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep in light of recent edits Lurker 10:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep keep keep 1) the nominator has suggested no wikipedia policy violations. "I think this is non-notable" or citing arbitrary nubmers is not a violation of wikipedia policy. 2)I assume good faith, but that begins to falter to bad faith when a nominator changes an article before nominating it for deletion, making the motives questionable. I have to agree with the other keep votes here, but stating that it satisfies WP:WEB should be enough to keep it on here. Barsportsunlimited 19:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Nomination. In my opinion, this article does not satisfy WP:WEB, which states "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." In the provided citations, this blog is only mentioned in passing in the context of a disagreement between the blog's owner and someone else --- the content of the blog is irrelevant in these cites, aside from a single quote from Goldstein in the Washington Post. This doesn't appear to rise to the level of "multiple non-trivial published works."

As far as the removed content, it was: Protein Wisdom suffered a DoS attack that was attributed to University of Arizona adjunct professor Deborah Frisch. Ms. Frish was also alleged to have engaged in blogstalking of Mr. Goldstein and his family. This content appeared to me to have little to do with the subject of the blog itself. Further, it seemed to bump up against WP:LIBEL, which is why I removed it.

Well it's now sourced to two newspapers and she's clearly admitted to doing it so I hope you don't feel the need to remove that information again. The political content of Protein Wisdom was exactly the reason why Ms Frish was commenting so fiercely upon it. She's a left wing activist and was strongly opposed to the opinions expressed on Protein Wisdom. "“I enjoy writing things that inflame, mock and infuriate the right” she says in an E mail interview with 'insidehighered' about the controversy which led to her resignation[47]. Let's be honest, no amount of sources are going to satisfy some editors as to the notability or otherwise of this blog. They'll always be dismissed as trivial or whatever. I leave it to the good sense of the closing admin to judge this on Wikipedia's guidelines and precedent. Nick mallory 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information because an argument between the blog's owner and someone else is not really relevant to an article about the blog itself. The incident itself might be notable and deserve an entry, but the blog does not. An analogy: if the owner of a deli gets into a fist fight with a customer, the incident might make it into the paper, but they wouldn't write a feature article about the deli. The accusation about the DOS attack might also violate WP:LIBEL. SkipSmith 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the same rules should apply across the political spectrum (which in my opinion would mean more article deletions). No bad faith was intended, and I apologize for being unclear in my nomination earlier. SkipSmith 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG--JForget 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not sure if this will change anyone's mind, but I just went to 'The Truth Laid Bear' and this blog is currently ranked 95th, not 68th. [48] SkipSmith 04:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was ranked 68th last year, so the article is factually correct. Are you arguing that any left wing blog ranked lower than 95 should also be deleted SkipSmith? I await your AfD nominations for them with baited breath. Nick mallory 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think any article on a blog that fails WP:WEB should be deleted, regardless of political leaning. I just happened to run across this one because I was editing Deborah Frisch and this blog was referenced on the talk page. And let's adhere to WP:CIVIL, please. SkipSmith 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note on this blog's ranking --- it was quite inflated last year by an influx of visitors in July 2006 that were attracted by the Deborah Frisch incident. Before and after that incident blog traffic is much lower, as Alexa shows [49]. 95th is probably about the right over time ranking. SkipSmith 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the 7 sources regarding Protein Wisdom mentioned above and in the article presumably mean you're changing your opinion to a keep now? Nick mallory 06:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Please re-read my clarification of the nomination. This article does not meet the criteria of WP:WEB, which you might want to take a look at. And while you're reviewing Wikipedia policy, you might also want to take a look at WP:CIVIL. SkipSmith 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note: I have just WP:BOLDly merged relevant content of Deborah Frisch article into Protein Wisdom and made Deborah Frisch into a redirect to Protein Wisdom. See Talk:Deborah Frisch#Replaced by redirect. (These edits were motivated by discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination).)

Article does meet WP:WEB under criterion #1: content has been subject of multiple independent reports, all over the conservative/libertarian blogosphere.
In any event, WP:WEB is only a guideline, and PW is an important member of the second tier of conservative/libertarian blogs.
This article is not just about the blog. Jeff Goldstein redirects there, which is why PW article has a short bio of him.
This article is not just about the blog. Wikipedia now covers the Frisch-Goldstein case there.

I hope my edits alleviate some or all of SkipSmith's concerns about how Wikipedia treats Ms. Frisch. Cheers, CWC 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern was with notability rather than the well-being of the players involved, but believe it or not, I think this latest revision addresses most of my concerns. I think one could make a case that this blog is notable in the context of the dispute between the owner and Frisch, so incorporating all that information in one place makes sense. I'm leaning towards keep now. Please check my edits and comment on the talk page and let me know what you all think. SkipSmith 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Spedale

probable vanity page of non-notable lawyer Calliopejen1 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- pd-self on Image:Darren_Spedale.jpg Says it all. Bundle that image into this AfD if you would. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He seems to be fairly widely cited and critiqued on the issue of same sex marriage and well or poorly it's worked in Scandinavia. [50] [51] Article certainly needs to be cleaned up, though, to expunge non-WP:RS info, expound on the area for which he's notable, and just generally not read like a bio his publicist would write for his book jacket. Mwelch 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable in a special field. No reason not to have a small photo if the copyright is ok. DGG 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really a small photo: Full resolution (798 × 1200 pixel, file size: 194 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg). The point was the article's creator also uploaded the picture of himself (tagging it pd-self "personal photo of author"), so that's the evidence of self promotion. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much doubt that the author of the article and uploader of the photo is either the subject hoping to promote himself or someone who is acting on behalf of the subject to promote him. But that's not really the point of a deletion discussion. As long as the person can be shown to be genuinely notable (and he does seem to be; not wildly so, but mildly so) and the article, as it stands, is not a copyright violation or guilty of some other speedy-deletable offense, then the article should remain and simply be cleaned up such that it no longer reads simply as self-promotion, but rather as a genuinely informative, encyclopedic article about him. And the photo's size can easily be scaled down for display in the article. Mwelch 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you recommending that we keep this because someone will step forward and fix this? As I see it now, its practically the same [52] as the last revision by the original author, after a year and a half of edits. If someone wants to commit to rewriting it, then by all means keep it, otherwise I see no need to keep this around any longer. It can always be re-created with better content. You're right about the photo, it can be replaced with a smaller version, I just figured its fate (whatever direction) should be paired with this article. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it if/when I can find the time to adequately research the guy, and if someone doesn't beat me to it. But even aside from that, yes, I'd say to keep it and wait for "someone" to come clean it up. That is, in fact, the exact purpose served by the myriad of cleanup tags we have here: to bring attention to articles that need such service. There are countless articles around here that are pretty much crap in their current state. But again, as long as the subject is genuinely notable and they don't violate WP:CSD, the correct solution is not to delete, but to tag them for clean up. Simply "it needs to be cleaned up" is not a really valid reason for deletion. Agreed with you that the photo's fate should be the same as the article's. Mwelch 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fairly notable within his profession so I believe this does pass WP:BIO as currently sourced. RFerreira 06:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intros on Never Mind the Buzzcocks

87 kilobytes of indiscriminate information; just a list of song intros played in a particular round of a game show. Put it in a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Masaruemoto 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List which isn't really useful to anyone. — Taggard (Complain) 01:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lists of trivia are never useful, nor do they serve a valid encyclopedic purpose. --Haemo 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate trivia. -- Mikeblas 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow. WP:NOT#IINFO. I'm not even sure I would dignify this by calling it trivia. Mango juice^talk 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-muslim war

The stub is a tendentious and unencyclopedic POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict, an explosive subject for sure, but not a war in the usual sense of the word, and is not a religious conflict (of course the conflict has some religious overtones, but Judaism and Islam have a long and complex history together - the current title is a classic case of throwing the proverbial baby away with the bathwater ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del as nominator. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn term. I was just about to nominate this myself. Tewfik^Talk 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a minor POV term used to refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict. --Haemo 01:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is just asking for trouble. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not about a war. The War of Jenkins' Ear was a war. The "Jewish-Muslim War" is a nonexistent entity. Placeholder account 02:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and also a possible POV fork. 6SJ7 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Added comment, it is also a neologism, in fact it is so "neo" that it doesn't even qualify as a neologism (yet).[reply]

Keep as author. I would respond that this is an article whose "subject is a Pov" and therefore is a legitimate article.

Humas Sapiens argument is with the political accuracy of the term Jewish-Muslim War. Sapien writes "not a war in the usual sense of the word, and is not a religious conflict (of course the conflict has some religious overtones, but Judaism and Islam have a long and complex history together." Sapiens statement itself supports the separate political meaning of the term.

Jewish Muslim war definately has meaning as a political statement whether one agrees with the statement or not. To delete this phrase is to delete it's powerful political meaning, certainly a gross violation of NPV.

As far as the phrase's significance, to devote two small paragraphs for a phrase used in a speech by the leading opposition leader of the largest and most powerful Mulsim countries in the world would seem fair.Live Free or Die 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per those advocating same. There's no indication that, outside of Baykal's particular speech, this term has caught on. Politicians routinely try to coin phrases - and the vast majority never catch on. It's also misleading for the reasons stated. There's a very slight case to merge this into the article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict somewhere, but I'm not convinced that's a great course of action. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A different, seldom used name for events and information we have far better articles on already. --Tefalstar 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar[reply]
Delete or, if the author can gather enough verifiable sources, merge into Arab-Israeli conflict. On it's own, I can't see this article developing as anything other than a POV Fork. -- simxp (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal by Author* Does the term add value to Wikipedia? If Nancy Pelosi (arguably the leader of the U.S opposition party) had used the term to define her party’s position on the Arab Israeli conflict, I have little doubt the term would have itself a page--much like George Bush’s “War on Terror” has a page, there would be no talk of a POV fork or duplication. Granted, Baykal is no Nancy Pelosi; but his status is official. That’s what make Wikepedia so valuable, it contains those little tidbits of info that you just can’t find anywhere else so easily.Live Free or Die 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Pelosi had used the term, I can guarantee an article would have been written, yes. However, the article (and the term) would have been subject to precisely the same criteria that this article (and the term as used by Baykal) is. The "War on Terror" has been, for better or worse, used by any number of people on both sides of politics and both sides of the war. At the moment, this phrase hasn't - and in that case it doesn't matter whether Deniz Baykal, Nancy Pelosi or my barber said it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BigHaz, ok, I'm sure there would be challenges to a page existing if Pelosi had used the term (probably from Republicans), but are you saying the page would be deleted if Pelosi had used the term to define the Democrat Party's position on a major policy speech on the arab-israeli conflict?Live Free or Die 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying that, in an ideal world where everyone followed policy, such an article shouldn't be created until the term has been picked up by multiple independent reliable sources in a non-trivial manner. Even then, I would not suggest that an article which simply says "Nancy Pelosi called the Arab-Israeli conflict the 'Jewish-muslim war'" would be a good thing to have - such information would more than likely get merged into the article on the conflict (if that). The fact would remain that there's already a name for the conflict, no matter what Pelosi wanted to call it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So if someone is researching the term for whatever reason, and that term had once been focal point of the Democratic party's position, the researcher would be more informed by not ever knowing (at least through Wikipedia) the true history of the term? Sounds like Wikipedia's loss to me. By the way, Baykal does have his own Wikipedia article, and to think that term used by him on so powerful an issue has no legitimate existence in Turkish politics probably reflects a Western bias.Live Free or Die 14:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Firstly, there's no indication anywhere that this term has been the focal point of any party (US Democrats, Turkish CHP, anyone else)'s position. If there were such evidence, we would be a lot less likely to be having this discussion in the first place. Secondly, if there were evidence that the term is the focal point of any party's position, that would strengthen the case to at least merge our hypothetical article with the one on the conflict itself. One could write that "The American Democratic party has argued that the conflict is a 'Jewish-muslim war'". There'd be no need to create a separate article, since pretty much everyone else still calls it the Israel-Palestine conflict (in much the same way, if a political party were to call the War on Terror the "Let's get Bin Laden Operation", that wouldn't justify a separate article unless that term became more widely used than "War on Terror"). I know that Baykal has his own article and that he's an important political figure. However, just because he is important doesn't mean that every word which he says is important. There are not articles on every single phrase which the current American President has coined, and neither should there be unless they attract independent non-trivial reliable coverage. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's say a regular Joe Blow (me) wakes up one morning and realizes that "jewish-muslim war" totally summarizes this craziness that I've seen my whole life on the news. He wants to know what the history of the term is. Does it exist or did he make it up? He doesn't care about the Wikipedian consensus on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has his own opinion, thank you. He does a search on Wikipedia... nothing. He searches google. He gets lucky on his 3rd attempt. The best article pops to the top. He doesn't have to wade thru professor blogs and porno sites. The term has a real history, not a big one, but a real one...The Turkish Press Review...The Nancy Pelosi of Turkey. That's all I wanted to know. You're talking as if some poor encyclopedia salesman has to carry this thing from door to door. He doesn't. That's what makes Wikepedia, Wikipedia!Live Free or Die 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - All well and good, but it doesn't in fact address the issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia has a given series of criteria for what gets included and what doesn't get included. It's a vote of confidence that you came here first rather than jumping on Google, but the fact that an article on this particular term (for something which, as I say, the wider world knows under a different name) doesn't exist doesn't necessarily mean that it must be created straight away. I'm not denying that Baykal said it. I'm not denying that Baykal is an important man. I'm not denying that Turkey is an important country - at least regionally. What I am denying, though, is that just because a term has "a real history" it must have an article. There are any number of local bands and high school athletes who patently exist but don't qualify for articles at present. That which passes the criteria can be included. That which does not shouldn't be. If the criteria change or the previously-ineligible subject suddenly passes them, the article can be re-created. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about suicide

Yesterday, I nominated List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics for deletion and am nominating this article for the same reason. This song is a list of... article, and like similar pages, should be deleted. However, there is always the chance of it being kept. Astrale01^talk_contribs 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Astrale01^talk_contribs 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is definitely hard to verify, and could possibly get out of hand after a while (unlike List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics, which seems pretty clear cut). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, which goes to the criterion for inclusion in the list, and appears to be wildly indiscriminate. Prune it to the bones if this is kept. --Haemo 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many lists on Wikipedia already; per nom and others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too hard to reliably source this. An example entry: "Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Öyster Cult is very easily interpreted to be about suicide, although it is never mentioned explicitly in the lyrics and the writer has apparently made claims that it is not about suicide. So, is it about suicide or is it not? (Or is it really about more cowbell?) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is not clear-cut like "Don't Fear the Reaper" then it is put in the section List of songs about suicide#Misinterpreted where it says "Songs either misinterpreted as songs about suicide, or where a reference to suicide cannot be ruled out." It seems to me to fit the criteria for inclusion at WP:LIST#Criteria for inclusion in lists and WP:LIST#Purpose of lists. Tim Q. Wells 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind though, that "Kill Myself" by Tim McGraw was originally thought to be about suicide -- it's not, so I moved it. Maintaining this list will be hard, which is why I voted delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kill Myself" by Tim McGraw is just another example. Tim Q. Wells 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated in WP:LC: As long as we don't have an article on "songs about suicide", there is no point in keeping a list of them. --B. Wolterding 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have Suicide song. Tim Q. Wells 17:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Suicide song passes the notability criteria? Are there any reliable sources discussing the subject? --B. Wolterding 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just saw the article and thought I would mention it. I've nominated it for deletion here. Tim Q. Wells 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a list (but I like the M*A*S*H theme song). JJL 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't follow the logic of the nom. Just because some lists of songs are deleted doesn't mean this one should be. This list seems to be useful and encyclopedic. Grue 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

encyclopedic? Useful, maybe for trivial reasons. Bulldog123 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --JayJasper 21:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT Bulldog123 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a bit crufty for my tastes. Also, WP:IINFO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:NOT Jackrm 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To unweildy. Despite obstensively clear inclusion criteria there are too many songs from redlinked bands and too many songs which are not really about suicide and too many songs... et cetera... and it is always likely to be the case with this list. A1octopus 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for better or worse, songs about suicide have generated a lot of notice and litigation in the US; Judas Priest,[53] Ozzy Osbourne,[54] and Slayer,[55], among others have had to defend themselves in court from claims that their music led someone to do something. Carlossuarez46 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The phenomena you describe above would be far better served in its own article rather than by this rather poor list. A1octopus 20:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably so. I have removed the keep from my comment because I really don't feel strongly on the list as long as I've made my point. It looks like consensus will be to delete and I can easily live with that. I hope someone will write an article about suicide song litigation or however it is termed. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide song. There almost certainly will not be an article on that as you hoped. I suggest you change you vote back to Keep. Tim Q. Wells 01:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of famous British miles

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. A nickname for a street, a nickname for a group of streets, a nickname for a city, a name of a town, etc. No connection other than they all happen to contain the word "mile". Masaruemoto 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the article should be renamed "list of notable British things which contain the word 'mile' in some way". --Haemo 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many non-notable lists. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 11:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupidity. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's something to be said for making it a dab page. JJL 17:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to being a disambiguation page, possibly as an 'other uses' page for mile. Peterkingiron 23:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as having no chance of being kept. Sr 13 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Princess (1958 film)

I don't think Disney ever made a film called Sleepy Princess. This seems to be a hoax. Edit: On second thought, the original author may have meant to edit Sleeping Beauty (1959 film), although some of the information would be incorrect. --Ixfd64 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- My eyes are bleeding after trying to read that. The author seems to think '&' is a good replacement for a '.' . More importantly, the content appears to be an incorrect duplicate as mentioned above. The director listed in the infobox was indeed listed as a sequence director in Sleeping Beauty according to IMDB. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 02:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as to obvious & hoax & person who not does know & about what & he's & typing & about & use & too & mnay & ampersands & so forth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oh & my & god & that & is & just & awful. Seems to be a hoax. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others comments. Can someone look into this editor, as this seemed to follow a trend of other articles created in the same style yesterday (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clinger Winker for an example) Wildthing61476 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ow ow ow ow Delete Another hoax movie/TV show. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detective Stroker as well. DarkAudit 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Definitely asserts notablilty. Sr 13 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman C. Skogstad

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. I believe that notability was asserted sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion. I'm moving this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion for the moment, but I'm inclined to !vote keep, since the medals and awards imply notability, and Skogstad is included in the List of World War II air aces. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and cleanup, notability obviously stated by means of medals awarded. The fact that the nom is "inclined to !vote keep" is just enough for me to vote for a speedy keep instead of a just plain keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Norman C. Skogstad was awarded the ETO Ribbon with seven battle stars, the ATO anti-submarine patrol decoration, the Purple Heart, the Air Medal with 17 clusters, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. He also earned the Presidential Unit and Silver Star for Gallantry." OK, I mean it's not like he did anything really important like appear on Buffy in season 4 or play two games for the Celtics, but he still squeaks in. Nick mallory 04:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability); discussion closed early. Walton ^Assistance! 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Insight

seems of limited interest to me. I would like to know what others think. Postcard Cathy 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:WEB. semper fictilis 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two external links - one is to the site itself which doesn't even work (as the article itself admits) and the other is a biographical article which only makes a passing reference to the site and does not give any information about it. I couldn't find any references to this website using Google, but the fact that a number of magazines share the same name made searching difficult. Overall though, no evidence to show that this is sufficiently notable for an article. Will (aka Wimt) 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam, ad...--Svetovid 09:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:WEB, WP:COI. Added tag --Javit 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Javit. Closenplay 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second discussion was originally at this page, but I moved it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination).--Chaser - T 15:56, 14 June 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 keep. The nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. This closure is procedural and makes no judgement on the notability of the article; it may be renominated without prejudice by a user in good standing. MastCell ^Talk 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford

The company clearly does not meet notability criteria, is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising. SKRINE2 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

Article Footnotes
^ a b Morgan, Mogg. Mandrake of Oxford: Who We Are

A self-published source which does not support notability

^ Evans, Dave. Occult E-books meets Mogg Morgan of Mandrake

"secondary sources" must not include ". . . works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself"

^ Morgan, Mogg. About me

A self-published source which does not support notability and is self-serving

^ Jan Fries Reviews

advertising for the company and does not support notability

^ UWE Bristol: The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic (JSM)

advertising for the company's act of publication only and does not support notability

Keep, this company is just as notable as the modern Mandrake Press, which has been combined with an historic Mandrake Press into one article to escape scrutiny over notability (see Talk:Mandrake Press for lengthy arguments over just this camouflaging). Plus, publication of a peer-reviewed academic journal for the University of the West of England leads me to believe that this is a reputable and known company. IPSOS (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the detailed reasons given for deletion. Please stick to the content of the article in question and the Wikipedia criteria for retention.--SKRINE2 02:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NN. Should go asap. In addition, I suspect a case of WP:COI with USER:IPSOS. --Javit 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia not a commercial directory. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IPSOS. And no, I have no COI. GlassFET 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Forbes Fictional 15

AfDs for this article:

Finishing an incomplete nomination. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although a useful and interesting source for information in articles on the respective fictional characters, I am doubtful of the independant importance of this list, and as such the merit of duplicating the content of 2 Forbes.com articles in a Wikipedia article. WP:ILIKEIT, but I'm not going to cry if it goes away. -- saberwyn 01:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't just copy lists off other people as they are commercial property. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may scrape past being a copyright violation, but it's definitely plagiarism. Plus, the list has no apparent importance on its own, so even commentary about it is not warranted. Mango juice^talk 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no copyright expert, but here's a source to compare the 2006 list: [56], and the 2002 list can be found on the wayback machine [57]. Looks pretty much copied from those two pages, with a little bit of consistency editing between the two years (originally, Burns was listed single [58], but in 2006 he was listed with one bastard child [59], so both versions were changed to reflect that. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, possible copyvio. Tempshill 17:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unnecessary collection of information. JodyB_talk 22:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being as these are fictional characters, this list does not contribute to the understanding of anything, and as such is an arbitrary collection of information, in my opinion. If someone could prove notablility of this parody, it would be different. Someguy1221 06:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bid management

Not a notable term, not referenced, and barely enough content to escape CSD A1/A3. A PROD would be moot since the creator opposed a CSD, and would likely oppose a PROD as well, so I'm taking this to AFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef at best. Naconkantari 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's part of a larger topic, but not deserving of its own unreferenced entry. Placeholder account 02:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which topic? Could a referenced entry be merged into this topic, or would it be worth a redirect? -- saberwyn 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A sub-stub that is quite difficult to follow, and lacks context. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not so informative as it stands, but it seems a relatively important industry term. I can imagine the page being expanded in all sorts of ways. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. It may need to move as a definition to Wiktionary or perhaps in the next week, someone will expand it and source it so that it can stay. I would be happy to revisit my !vote. JodyB_talk 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Saint Index

Blatant single-source promotion of a consulting group, which usurped the term "Saint Index" and now heavily promotes itself wherever possible. `'юзырь:mikka 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not even site a source, needs to be heavily wikified, spam of the program, and it is orphaned. Hirohisat 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. JodyB_talk 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Michelle Santos

Blatant advertising of nonnotable politician. `'юзырь:mikka 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Could be a suitable article if wikified and references added. The Sunshine Man 15:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an elected member of a local post might be notable, a candidate is not - barring other events. If the article is about her entertainment career I would expect to see some true assertion of notability. I think at this point she fails under WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V JodyB_talk 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above —LactoseTI^T 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable politician. --- Tito Pao 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came from the Philippines and I never heard of her. Tried google as well and I did not get any hits on Philippines-based web sites.
Delete per all above. --Howard the Duck 08:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank You Who ever it was that deleted this - THANK YOU! I created it months ago - about me - as an example to show someone how easy it was to create a Wiki entry. I expected it would be just as easy to delete it, particular as I do not regard myself as notable and as it was nothing more than a quick slapped together CV copied and pasted from my own website. I did try several times to delete it but unfortunately the whole Wiki thing seemed a little more complicated than I had first imagined. However there seemed to be some insistance that it should remain and I can not imagine who the people were who kept amending it, where they got the information and why! Best wishes and kindest regards, Paul Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonoid (talk • contribs)

Paul Anthony Williams

As far as I can see, this is a CV of a science researcher for TV programmes. I'm sure he's good at it - and deserves the credit. But encyclopedic? -Doc^g 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I'm surprised you didn't attack this on BLP grounds (j/k, since he wrote the article that would be an impossibility). Yes, the subject of the article wrote most of the material. But it's been updated by other users since that time. It's a stub which will slowly grow with time. It should be noted we have articles for writers on Star Trek (because of fancruft) so why not a scientist working for a regular show? -N 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's just a researcher doing his job? Why is he notable?--Doc^g 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Change to delete, fails Google test (horribly, I think we are the only website even mentioning this guy, and that includes searches without the middle name). -N 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really concerned that he's a TV guy but I don't see anything inline with WP:PROF. JodyB_talk 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless being a fellow of the society cited in the text is a sufficient claim to notability (I'm willing to be convinced here). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A TV researcher, non-notable among the many other such researchers. (Oh, and "pub quizmaster." Puh-leaze.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable --Francisco Valverde 10:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{subst:afd2|pg=Hicket|cat=|text=}} [[User:Tiptoety|T Van Wormer]] 18:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guff}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Push Up on Me}}