Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.111.219.14 (talk) at 04:05, 12 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 11 April 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was dead : delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead rappers

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

Here we have a list of dead rappers (obviously). Normally, I'm apprehensive about AFDing recently-created articles...however, almost all the content here is copied and pasted from the various articles from them (a violation of the GFDL), and what isn't is unsourced and possibly unattributable. There's nothing to be merged since all the information is either unsourced or copied verbatim. Coredesat 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them died because they were murdered and not all rappers are American. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. All arguments on both sides taken into account. Metamagician3000 03:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fenton

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

Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "(AFD tag...Individual in non-notable other than being killed in Iraq...this page only serves as a memorial)" Eastmain 00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The United States lost over 407,000 soldiers in World War II. A very substantial portion of them (99.9%) do not have their own articles. We've lost over 2,000 soldiers in the current war. Does every one of them deserve a page? Dead solderies are a tragedy, but they are only remembered for a few weeks (by the media) and then we move on. I understand the desire to celebrate and memorialize every life lost in the war. But, this is not the place for that. I think we need to keep in mind, that if he were still alive, he probably would not have a page. The fact that he died put him in the news for a couple of weeks. That does not substantiate his notability. I think we should focus on the long term. As sad as it is, he will not be remembered 50 to 100 years later by the general population. --Cyrus Andiron 18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they do "deserve an article", if sources exist. Your argument was effectively that sources didn't exist, I was just pointing out that they do. I think people should be aware that deleting these articles does go against the letter of WP:BIO. Like I say below, I understand why people take that position, but I don't personally feel it's necessary at this point. --W.marsh 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a good thing Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. --W.marsh 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial. That being said, perhaps the Keep !voters could tell us what elements of WP:BIO this fellow fulfilled? Sorry if this sounds callous, but Sgt. Fenton was a young clerk with a high school education, no valor awards and a sparse official bio released by the military only after his death and containing little more than vitae curriculae. The article scarcely even asserts notability.  RGTraynor  16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh as said above, this appears to meet the core component of WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" --W.marsh 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I hope the closing admin keeps in mind how some of the people here don't seem to have read the article or at least won't reply to the reference section. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I likewise hope the closing admin keeps in mind selective quotations. For one thing, that core component goes on to say "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this soldier's death asserts practically nothing more than he died in action, and such encomiums as were given are the usual ones attached to any memorial. The official policy states that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Let's run down the list: is there a credible independent biography? Did he receive significant recognized awards or honors? Wide name recognition? Did he make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field?  RGTraynor  16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Articles were written about him by multiple publications giving non-trivial information... that's what WP:BIO requires. Attempts to bend that to require a book-length source of information on a topic to count as "non-trivial" are usually unsuccessful, as non-trivial just means enough to create more than a directory-style entry, but who knows, people might vote to ignore WP:BIO here. It's happened before. --W.marsh 17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:BIO is a guideline. I make no apologies for using personal judgement in addition to a guideline. It certainly does not require that an article with sufficient sources stay and there are numerous reasons that we might delete one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know, I'm sorry if there seems to be an overly negative implication to my statements about people voting to ignore it. While I think it's slightly negative to ignore it, in that we have no size limit so no need to delete good articles that aren't "important enough", it's understandable that some people want to not follow it here. --W.marsh 17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a straw man argument. Who is asking for "book-length" sources? We're looking for something, anything, which establishes this fellow's notability beyond his untimely death. A page will do, thanks.  RGTraynor  18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • But that's just it... sources were presented, but it's not enough because you're imagining that the core of WP:BIO says it doesn't count if the sources are only about his "untimely death". There's no such language there, the sources meet what is actually required. --W.marsh 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment unfortunately, the problem with covering deaths is that it will lead to a systematic problem. Let's take the current war in Iraq. It's 3000 or so people now for Coalition forces. That's not bad, is it? But wait, what about Iraqi deaths? That would add 50,000 people. Most of whom won't receive coverage in US sources, and possibly not Iraqi sources, but some will. And then we have to think about other wars. There are newspaper articles covering deaths at least a hundred years back in some cases. Individual coverage of deaths in war is almost the de-facto now, is it really any different than any accident or crime victim's death? Not really no. This is a case where it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy(see WP:BURO, it's not about rules, but about reasoning. And mine tells me that absent some other notability (like a television movie, or a book written about them), it's not going to work to cover deaths in war. Not here anyway, if some other site wants to do it, more power to them. FrozenPurpleCube 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would the problem be? The Wikipedia articles could be accurate and reliable (if we include them only if sources exist), we obviously would have no problem storing them all, and their inclusion wouldn't at all harm our ability to cover "more important" topics, no one's required to spend their time editing these articles. So to say there's some impending problem waiting for when we get "too many" of these articles really isn't realistic. --W.marsh 18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for me, it's a mix of the problem of size (think about it, this isn't just a few articles, but potentially hundreds of thousands, even millions of people if we apply the same standards to every country and war, and there are systemic bias problems that could arise from that). I also feel that such coverage would be somewhat outside the general purpose nature of an encyclopedia. There are dead people in the military who are important and notable. There are dead murder victims who are important and notable. There are even dead car accident victims who are important and notable. But not every person who died while in the military, who was murdered or had a car accident should have a Wikipedia article even if they do have reliable news coverage of them. It would be much better to have a different place for it, rather than trying to put it here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there simply is no problem of size... even if a million such articles could be sourced (I doubt it, but just for the sake of argument) it wouldn't make the servers sneeze, even with the capacity we already have sitting around going unused. Size an article takes up should never factor into why we delete that article, as it's not technically necessary. Besides, deleted articles stay on the server anyway, purges of deleted articles can occur but are rare. --W.marsh 18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm quite confident that it would be easily possible (that is, based on the existence of reliable sources, not in terms of getting users to do it) to make several hundred thousand articles on dead soldiers, at least as far back as the Korean War. World War II is also quite possible, and even World War I. That's a large number, and I don't know that it wouldn't cause the servers problems actually. Wikipedia currently runs around 2 million articles in English. This would be a significant expansion of that. Certainly, there is a lot of room to grow, but that's a lot to consider. And applying the same standards to other deaths (IMO, required by NPOV) would balloon the number even further. And I can imagine it would cause user problems. With that many articles, most of them would be orphaned and unknown. That would lead to Vandalism problems being unresolved. Bad idea that. I'm willing to be flexible, and inclusionist, but I just don't see this kind of coverage as appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe you should read meta:Wiki is not paper if you really think there's a technical/space saving need to delete articles... --W.marsh 19:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It doesn't make Wikipedia wastepaper, either. The main problem with a multi-million article encyclopedia is that it would be far vaster than any corps of volunteers, however dedicated, could possibly police. Without policing, Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is shot; it's already the case that many institutions refuse to recognize it as a useful source.  RGTraynor  19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've read it, thank you, and believe it or not, my standards for inclusion are probably wider than most people's. However I do have some limits, and since I don't imagine hundreds of thousands of people whose only notability is a short-lived bit of articles in papers because of their death is really encyclopedic, this is one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment W.marsh suggested that the sources he provided asserted Mr. Fenton's notability. I checked over the 14 sources and this what I found:

1. [3] - New Jersey newspaper article. Basically, noting that a local man was injured in combat. (May 6, 2006)

2. [4] – New York Post article that notes his death. (May 10, 2006)

3. [5] – New Jersey newspaper article that talks about a protest rally for the families of deceased soldiers. (Aug 17, 2006)

4. [6] – Another New Jersey newspaper article. This one is about how his father is now serving as a public speaker. (Aug 10, 2006)

5. [7] New Jersey newspaper article that notes that people from Mr. Fenton’s hometown are remembering him on the 1st year anniversary of his death. (May 29, 2006)

6. [8] - Web page unavailable. The synopsis indicates that it is about another deceased officer. (Sep 27, 2006)

7. [9] - North Jersey website. Talks about his death and funeral service. (May 14, 2006)


8. [10] North Jersey Website - Another article that discusses his families protest of the war. (Nov 20, 2006)

9. [11] New Jersey Newspaper article that is the exact same as the source above. (Nov 20, 2006)

10. [12] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the protests that occurred on the anniversary of his death. Very similar to number 5. (August 17, 2006)

11. [13] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the 1st anniversary of his death. Mentions the protests much like #10 and #5 did and that his father is a speaker now (Aug 10, 2006)

12.[14] – Same article as #7. (June 29, 2006)

13. [15] – New Jersey Newspaper. Letter to the editor, written by Mr. Fenton’s mother. (June 4, 2006)

14. "matthew%20fenton"%20iraq&img=\\na0021\2590465\14359648.html|14 Article about another Matthew Fenton who was killed in 1949. (December 3, 1949)

The only nationally recognized puiblication that mentions Mr. Fenton is the New York Post. That article mentions the fact that he died and discussed the events surrounding his death. All of the other sources are from the New Jersey area where Mr. Fenton lived. I believe that he may have notability there, but not in the rest of the country. Additionally, nothing has been written about Mr. Fenton since September of 2006. Only two of the sources provided directly deal with Mr. Fenton's death and subsequent funeral (#1 & #2). After reviewing these sources I reassert my opinion that Mr. Fenton is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He is mentioned only once by a reputable non trivial source. The local newspaper does not carry much weight as they tend to cover all deaths of people from the area. --Cyrus Andiron 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think some of the coverage is more meaningful than you say, such as the NYPost story, which does more than note his death. Anyway, the closing admin will... hopefully... take all of this into account. This is not a "battle" I really expect to win, it's just my opinion that there's no harm in including this article, as I've argued above. --W.marsh 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geeze, that comes off as rather trite. See above where I explained why this information is verifiable and notable, specifically so no one would cite that little page (which I wrote parts of). I guess I should have repeated myself loudly for people who just look for keywords and pounce. --W.marsh 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP does not create a page for every soldier KIA and nor should it. Since this is not just a US-based work, I doubt that similar raw material for, say, a Swedish soldier killed in the line of duty who was otherwise non-notable, would pass muster either. I believe that everyone who laid down his or her life for their country should be honoured, but WP is not the place to do it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While his death is sad, and should be memorialized, unless we are planning to create articles about every war casualty, I can't support inclusion without evidence that this person was notable in something other than his death. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see a lot of irrelevant discussion here. Per WP:N the subject meets the inclusion criteria based on the number of independent non-trivial sources which provide information. Whether it is fair or unfair that not all soldiers in all armies or other victims of war receive notice, is irrelevant to this decision. There are no criteria which determine that national media is more credible than local media. --Kevin Murray 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I examined the sources in one of my posts above. There is only one non trivial source, please see the examination above. The other 13 are articles were created by local newspapers, the sort of coverage you would expect out of the death of someone who lived there. Additionally, the following comes directly from WP:ATTRIBUTION: In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. The key word there is mainstream. The New York Post is the only mainstream newspaper that cites Mr. Fenton. Therefore, there is only one non trivial notable sources that refers to him. --Cyrus Andiron 00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the more recent wording at WP:N allows for a single source to establish notability; however, the source must be significant and there must be corroboration of neutrality and veracity. This source might be a bit weak here. However, the synergy between the small national coverage and the more numerous local sources may be enough to put this over the border. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is only one source. WP:N says there need to be multiple non trivial sources in order to assert notability. The other 13 remaining sources do not assert notability as they were local news coverage (to be expected in regards to the death of a resident) or did not deal with Mr. Fenton himself as shown above. --Cyrus Andiron 11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see what you mean - the criterion I used was to ask whether, if he had not died, would his life have met WP Guidelines? And now, was there something about his death that was any more remarkable than every other soldier who was KIA? I'm not seeing it, I'm afraid. I don't wish to appear heartless - I admire all members of armed forces who are defending their respective countries, I am just trying to interpret the guidelines here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOT (not a memorial). >Radiant< 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's sad that he died, but wiki is not a memorial. The references establish his existence, so we have verifiability, but beyond dying in the war, there is no establishment of any real notability. Mere existence is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the non-trivial coverage he has received in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a memorial applies only to articles that don't meet our notability guidelines. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any deceased persons. Most of the arguments to "delete" above promote a subjective/personal standard of notability that is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Black Falcon 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Has anyone here actually read the article other than looking at the references section? I would be hard pressed to believe it. Starting from the intro, where his notability is based on having "died from wounds", there is nothing that states his notability other than the fact that the NYT mentioned his death. Could it be based on the fact that he is from New Jersey and it might be worth a mention based on where the majority of their subscribers live? You will be hard pressed to find anyone who has contributed more information on the United States Marine Corps on Wikipedia then me but I do not think this Marine rates an article. I mourn his death but this page is a memorial pure and simple and does not belong here. --Looper5920 01:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Notability, as defined at Wikipedia as a standard for including or excluding articles, is proven through the presence or absence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. I'm unsure why this Marine received as much coverage as he did, but the fact is that he did. We as editors shouldn't make personal subjective judgments on the notability of persons, but rather to convey judgments made by others in published works. I know not wherefrom his notability (as defined outside Wikipedia) stems, but the fact that he received coverage in multiple works proves his notability. -- Black Falcon 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a memorial, and subject is non-notable. Fishhead64 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a memorial. Kusma (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claims of notability other than normal memorials for the dead. Sorry, but he's no more notable than any of the millions who have died in other wars before the advent of the internet. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ATT mentions mainstream sources but I take that to mean mainstream in the sense of true, unbiased reportage. It is not a reflection of circulation numbers. To quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source" Unless we can make the case that these sources are unreliable, we should keep. JodyB 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Weaver

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

Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "tag for deletion...only notable for having died in combat....this page is a memorial)" Eastmain 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vilno programming language

Vilno programming language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, when googled few hits come up, of those many are Wikipedia and it's various alternate languages, with most referring to a different subject matter entirely. PeteShanosky 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors who have played in trilogies

List of actors who have played in trilogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate information; Any actor who has starred in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same role (however small) in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same character in four films in a series (ie Lethal Weapon), because four films are a trilogy if you don't count the fourth film. Or any actor who has starred in six films in a series (ie Rocky), because that's a trilogy if you ignore the last three films.

Anyway, the point is, appearing in more than two related films is not significant enough to justify a list of actors who have done so. Saikokira 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 05:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abject (band)

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

Article doesn't assert any notability, totally unverified and unsourced. All google turned up for this band was the myspace, and the wikipedia article EMP 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the organized

Church of the organized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Been tagged for notability for several months now. It's apparent that the notability will not be asserted. If the group is notable, this page should still be deleted so that a proper article can be started. Sources are entirely self-referential. The asserted "source" of the Church of the Subgenius website makes no mention of anything in this article. To summarize WP:N and WP:ATT are simply not met. i kan reed 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Rosvold

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

Has all the hallmarks of an autobiographical vanity piece.RJASE1 Talk 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yusuke Oeda pupils

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

Non-notable. As the intro says, a list of pupils who have been taught by Yusuke Oeda in the game of Go. Yusuke Oeda is apparently important in the game, but that doesn't mean his students, or a list of them, are. Saikokira 01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional misanthropes

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

Highly subjective and POV list was apparently salvaged following the deletion of Category:Fictional misanthropes and Category:Fictional human misanthropes at the Categories for deletion discussion last December. All the same reasons for which the categories were deleted also apply here. Any list that includes Montgomery Burns, Bob Kelso (from Scrubs), and Godzilla is bordering on the ridiculous. Saikokira 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, no consensus to create a category straight-out. Anyone who wishes to proceed with turning it into a category is more than welcome to as a normal editorial action. If you do wish to do so, and are a non-administrator, please ask me and I'll make the text temporarily available to you. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians

List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First AfD

It's Original Research to combine two unrelated TV shows into one article this way. Also fairly indiscriminate, and innaccurate; some of these "actors turned musicians" were musicians before they were actors; some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers; and some of these actors were cast members of other series before - why not list those shows as well?

I was interested to learn that Russell Crowe is "Male", so there is some encyclopedic information here. But seriously, this was nominated for deletion last year, with a No Consensus result, although the only 2 attempts at a "keep" argument I could see were "useful and interesting" and "appreciated by Australians". I think it should be deleted this time. Saikokira 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 (T|C) 03:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR. MSJapan 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. And by the way, why does this article exist? Is there a purpose to it? Noroton 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A word of explanation: in Australia these two shows are often mentioned in the same breath - they are basically the only two shows in the category "Australian soaps", so the combination is hardly OR. The movement of stars of these shows into the music industry has been a much-discussed phenomenon in Australia. Especially given the varying levels of success.
Some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers. Oh well. StAnselm 04:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so source this much-discussed phenomenon. Pending that, this fails WP:ATT, so I can be counted upon for a Delete.  RGTraynor  16:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT Indiscriminate. Dallas and Dynasty used to get mentioned together, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article listing any comparisons of Dallas and Dynasty cast members. Regarding the above comment; "they are basically the only two shows in the category "Australian soaps"". That's funny, because there are actually 40 different shows in Category:Australian television soap operas, not two. Pufnstuf 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: Yes, but these are the only two shows on the list that are currently still being aired! I could make up a category "current Australian soaps" if you like... StAnselm 06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except that this is an encyclopedia that shouldn't make reference to a "current" anything, because we don't use a "current" point of reference. It's hardly an article that can age well. zadignose 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Sr13 above. Lankiveil 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps categorise as per Alucard. There is no reason for a list of people who meet a set of arbitrary and somewhat unrelated conditions. Orderinchaos 14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Sr13 above. not yet another pointless list. Rimmeraj 01:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete turn it into a category if it must exist, but as above, its just another bloody list. Nomadtales 06:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into the program articles. The music/soap star link is interesting but not enough for its own page. Euryalus 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create category per Alucard (Dr.). Fishhead64 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless list, anyway the list is basically covered by the category "Before they were stars" Bandwagonman 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and don't even consider a category or else get ready for an immediate CfD which can hardly fail. This is a bizarre intersection. Even categorizing "Neighbors Actors" is highly questionable. Categorizing them as "turned musicians" is worse. Intersecting the various performers who played some part in one of two different shows because they are "current," soap operas, and Australian is going WAY too far. This is all in addition to the facts that we shouldn't use a "current" time frame, the actors listed aren't all current members of the cast of either show, and many are more noted for other career achievements than their participation in these shows. The practice of telling editors to turn bad lists into categories, then telling them to turn bad categories into lists is a bad practice. It simply forces us to do more work while endlessly shuffling our problems back and forth. zadignose 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by User:Anthony.bradbury

Dan Tamarkin

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

Useless Contribution ReTSeM 02:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (50 Cent album)

Greatest Hits (50 Cent album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog house

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

Mostly nonsense and self-promotion; term seems to mostly appear on the web with respect to how silly this article is Jonathan Williams 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. It also fails the "n year test" for any n>3. YechielMan 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eh sounds like people on forums complaining about music that gets too mainstream for their tastes? I dunno. Article is a bit incoherent and leaves out details... such as anyone other than forum posters/bloggers using this term. Published sources would be helpful here. --W.marsh 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nature of the term makes it difficult to guarantee that there are no reliable sources- googling turns up a lot of unrelated stuff. If there is a real argument for notability, the article creator is invited to add the sources to demonstrate it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no reliable sources are provided asserting its notability. --ElKevbo 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blog House Must be Saved, the real problem is that this term was created by the internet for the internet. In all reality this is a joke term used to describe a certian type of house listener not really a type of house music. For the people creating this type of Electro they take it really serious and are probably offened by the term. But for people who listen to House music this has turned into a semi slang word to talk about people who will not be listening to this music in a year. Its kinda a toss up if you want to keep it around on wiki, its kinda like New Rave. But I would say go for it. holler at me on them emails to discuss this. I have been working on some more text too, casikroth@gmail.com--casikroth 9:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It's not the text that's the problems, it's the lack of citations or references. I would vote conditional keep, since there is some distinct material on the internet, but the entry needs to be more encyclopedic, esp. with respect to citations which would determine notability. Fishhead64 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is incoherent and there are not any verifiable sources. Just linking to blogs and bands does not an article make.THE evil fluffyface 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been fixed up and should now comply with Wikipedia standards. 12:27, 16 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.253.54 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. I'm sorry, but the changes don't make me change my vote. Almost none of those sources actually use the term 'blog house,' let alone discuss the genre in any meaningful detail. It sounds like it's a style that may be becoming more significant, but for now, I don't see the sources verifying the widespread use of this term. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Convert to disambig by User:Vicarious per consensus. PeaceNT 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booty

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

Article is a glorified dicdef, it might need to be replaced with a disambig page afterwards (including a link to wiktionary), it's current content needs to go. Vicarious 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Diaries 3

The Princess Diaries 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There's no evidence the film was even in pre-production. Crumbsucker 03:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Prasad

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

Unverifiable. Of the movies listed which appear on IMDB (Devdas and Kal Ho Naa Ho), Mr. Prasad appears nowhere in the credits. If these were minor Bollywood flicks, I could understand, but given that IMDB's credits for KHNH list parts down to "hot dog vendor", for example, this starts looking like some sort of hoax. Even if it isn't, though, we're still left with a biography with no sources and no verifiable claims of notability. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). EliminatorJR Talk 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Princess of the Netherlands

HRH Princess of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete or Merge to her parents pages: Non-notable bio. Baby girl born on April 10, 2007 doesn't seem to be notable unless she does something notable. Tat Meng 03:14, April 12, 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. Majorly (hot!) 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horton Edward Cooper

Horton Edward Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author per WP:BIO. Sounds like a great guy, though.RJASE1 Talk 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In the region of Appalachia where he lived he is notable. Seems a bit like systemic bias to delete when Wikipedia keeps articles of very minor characters in TV shows like the Simpsons and Pokemon characters. Understood that WIkipedia is not a directory or just a collection of information - but this article does provide some helpful context to Avery County. Possibly a merge of his contributions into the county article would be an alternative to deletion.Brian0324 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.amazon.ca/North-Carolina-Mountain-Folklore-Miscellany/dp/0930230183 http://www.townsendthepeacefulside.com/cadescove/cultrural_history/curtural_history.htm http://www.library.appstate.edu/appcoll/manuscript/find.html http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~ollis/MISC-OLLISES/averycountync.html

That there is cruft in WP is not an acceptable argument for a race to the bottom by adding more cruft, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your links above to his books do not show him coming anywhere close to the WP:BIO guideline: "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pete.Hurd 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I'll try and incorporate the info that is relevant to Avery County into the article if it is agreeable by all to delete the bio.Brian0324 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there is a relevant quote and reading list on Avery County, North Carolina, now.Brian0324 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold On The author says that the subject is notable within his region, but how is this demonstrated? There are no sources yet identified, but that's not a specific requisite for continued inclusion. We just have to have a reasonable expectation that we could find some sources in the future to prevent an immediate deletion. Since we use the existence of other publications on the topic as a surrogate for determining whether a topic is notable for WP, the author should convince us that someone has probably written about the subject or his book before - newspaper, magazine, government documents, book on the region. That he wrote books is irrelevant, unless the book(s) received written recognition in the form of reviews, awards, or are very widely cited. Good luck, and if you can make a case, contact me I'll vote keep. Read WP:N for some ideas. --Kevin Murray 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason that could be argued for his notability (as he was obviously not famous) is that he wrote a definitive history of a county that has been cited by geneaologists and researchers for the last 35 years. It is difficult to speculate on how significant his body of work was, but if it were the difinitive history of Los Angeles - it might make the cut methinks.Brian0324 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I said "I looked at the sources," and not "I counted g-hits." Not one of the sources provided above is an article that discusses this person as its main subject, which is what WP:BIO calls for. The provided sources are:
  • an amazon.com page which says that the author's book is unrated by amazon and out of print.
  • an article about local history that cites the author's book as one of ten sources, but doesn't specifically talk about the book or the author.
  • a library catalog confirming that a copy of the author's book is held by Appalachian State University
  • a genealogy web page which I just can't bring myself to spend the next half-hour searching just to see if this author is one of the names in the family tree.
  • absolutely nothing else, and nothing that even provides any information to verify the accuracy of what's in the article under discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Black/White people

List of Black/White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Similar lists and cats have been deleted: multiracial people, Multiracial Americans, etc. Also, the title of this one is more problematic and criteria harder to define. It was previously redirected/merged to the multiracial people list, but recreated after that list was deleted. Crumbsucker 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment didn't "List of multiracial people" just get deleted, and per consensus that the topic was inappropriate/too broad? So I don't think that moving there is appropriate. In fact, this article looks eerily familiar, perhaps an admin can verify if it is substantially different than that deleted list. Anyway, I generally support lists like this organized by occupation, but in this form, I'm neutral. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipe Araújo

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. The article has a major COI issue; the creator's username is the same as the article subject's production company.RJASE1 Talk 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Web 2.0

Enterprise Web 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a buzzword with no meaning -- Nexaweb uses this term on their own entry, which I suspect is an advertisement itself. Then, this page reads "Nexaweb says...". This is not a commonly used term, with any real definition, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Klondike 03:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_12&oldid=122139156"