Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 8

< August 7	August 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete G7. --ais523 16:09, 9 October 2007 (U T C)

Ranjoy[edit]

No refs support claim of notability ("one of the web's most famous metasearch engines"). It's unlikely, given that the site claims to have been started only this year. Googling finds nothing at all about this site. Note: we're here due to likely contesting of other deletion tags. DMacks 19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be spam, and appears to qualify for G11 had this AfD not been opened. The article has a lively tone of pure advertising, and ironically boasts about the great fame of this practically unknown website. It turns out that List of search engines serves as a spam magnet, and when new things are posted there, it's time for us to check whether the related article matches our deletion criteria. Unfortunately it very often does. The main feature of the Ranjoy search engine is that you can search Yahoo, Google etc. on different tabs. Unfortunately this confirms that proposals for new metasearch engines seem to become more and more feeble with time. There could be an argument for excluding any website claiming to be a metasearch engine from List of search engines since these new articles are almost 100% deletable. EdJohnston 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article Ranjoy has already been deleted as a CSD G7, according to the log. This must be an editor request. I suggest that this AfD be Speedy closed as moot. EdJohnston 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hemlock Martinis 06:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Gomez[edit]

Article for non-notable child star. Fails WP:BIO WP:V No non-trivial, verifiable sources and no evidence of any noteworthy roles played to suggest that such sources - which I searched for and failed to find - exist. Ghits for this person are unreliable as Google can produce exaggerated Ghits for people who've done minor work in the entertainment industry. Credits are duplicated by imdb & yahoo film sites which are then repeated in different languages/countries. Message board, fan sites, LJ, or Myspace hits also inadvertently pad google results. In short, there is no justification for this bio. Bigdaddy1981 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since she's apparently going to be a major character on Wizards of Waverly Place [1], which is scheduled to air in October, she will qualify in a couple of months anyway. If you think that role won't clinch her notability, you ought to nominate the series article for deletion as well. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bigdaddy1981 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something could still come up to change Disney's plans, though it seems very probable to take place. However, my point is that if the series airs, her notability will be assured, so if she is too crystal for Wikipedia, then the series itself is too crystal for Wikipedia. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barney and Friends seems to be a significant children television series in the US. If you have appeared as one of the children in it in a non one-off basis, then it may be considered to be a "significant role in major television show" as stated in WP:BIO.--Kylohk 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Looking at the wiki article for Barney and Friends I count more than 75 children who have appeared on the television programme, I don't know if being one of 75 is really a significant role. Bigdaddy1981 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The large number of Barney children is the main reason I didn't bring that up. However, remember that Barney has been on the air for 15 years, and they have to replace their "cousin Olivers" regularly as they "age out" of their demographic. It's not as if there were 75 children on at any one time. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by the filmography list, looks like a notable child actress. JIP | Talk 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a bunch of bit parts to me; her role in Spy Kids as "Waterpark Girl." Barney is definitely a major television show, but if she's one of 75 kids I don't think that's a significant role. If that Wizards show hits the airwaves, add her back. Cap'n Walker 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Cap'n Walker that this looks like bit parts. If she becomes more significant in the future the article can always be resurreccted 3tmx 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a notable actress, starring role in Wizards of Waverly place, plus at least one ( or more ) episode(s) of Hannah Montana. Check her IMDB page - http://imdb.com/name/nm1411125/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Ginsberg (talk • contribs) Bigdaddy1981 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC) — Adam Ginsberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep Her notability will be assured once promotion for Wizards of Waverly Place begins airing on Disney Channel. Quasy Boy 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Bigdaddy1981 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Good grief, how many times does Bigdaddy have to say that? Future fame means future WP article. Cap'n Walker 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of things further in the future than that. I find the odd that the show won't air are pretty slim, and deleting the article and recreating it when we ~99% know she'll be notable then is pointless. Reywas92^Talk 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 15:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (advertising character)[edit]

Basically, I see this as British popular culture cruft. No reliable sources (except possibly the BBC ones), and no real assertion of independent notability. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BIAS, but some input from British editors would be a big help here. History sounds faintly similar to the Pets.com spokesdogthing. Haikupoet 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep per Haikupoet. The BBC is easily WP:RS. There has also been considerable coverage about the legal battle over the rights to the monkey[2][3][4] but many are subscription only. Needs substantial cleanup but passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 02:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable within UK (especially the specific pronunciation of the word. In 50 years, may not be. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Monkey is popular and notable within the UK and has survived longer than the original sponsor, where he was more popular than the actual product being advertised! PG spent money to buy Monkey instead of making up a new character because they recognised his existing appeal. I have even heard some people referring to PG (or non-premium tea generically) as "monkey tea". I agree that advertising characters are not generally notable but Monkey has captured the public imagination to an extent that is so. Besides, there are very many articles dedicated to minor characters from video games and comics on Wikipedia and I think Monkey certainly beats many of these pages for notability. --DanielRigal 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added an assertion of independent notability backed up with a reference. I have also improved the style, content and references more generally. --DanielRigal 12:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in the UK. Was teamed with Jonny Vegas, Was the face failed ITV digital network, advertises PG tips now. Lots of people went metal trying to get replica monkeys a few years ago. Do agree the article needs a bit of work tho. --Catten666 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and referenced. Nuttah68 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Point (University of Rochester)[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Only claims to notability are appearing on BOCA (which itself was deleted for not being notable) and winning minor ICCA categories. These do not amount to a bonafide justification for an article, as there is not sufficient sourced content which does not originate from the group itself (i.e. its website and the sites it uses to sell its self-published cds). Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Brown[edit]

Does not seem that notable, no cites. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, a reporter in a small town in a far-away country (to some of us) who has reported on a case that only affected a small part of said far-away country isn't amazingly notable! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but your distaste for the United States is not a relevant reason to retain or delete an article. --orlady 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local radio reporter whose claim to notability is that he made it onto the US national media a couple of times because he was the reporter on the scene of a big story. Not notable yet.--orlady 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Williams College Octet[edit]

Non-notable college a cappella group. There are no references to independent, published sources or even an unsourced claim to meet a notability criterion at WP:MUSIC. Take it to Acapedia, or a similar site, which does not share Wikipedia's notability requirements. Savidan 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "one of the oldest a cappella groups in the nation" not notable?

What do you mean "one of." They all seem to say that. Unless there are concrete influences on the genre as a whole documented in reliable, independent sources, then no. Savidan 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per Savidan's nomination. Not seeing multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage, so fails WP:N. No evidence of satisfying other standards such as WP:MUSIC. Its great that they get together and sing, and do occaasional concerts, but that does not make them more notable than, say a community band or even a recreational softball team. Edison 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. What's the deal with all these college a cappella entries? Cap'n Walker 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete. This group was used by Bruce Leddy (Williams class of 1983) as the basis for the movie "Sing Now or Forever Hold Your Peace" along with the Williams Octet alumni group "The Lemmings". This film recently won the audience award at the HBO Aspen Comedy Festival and as such makes this group notable. This information can be found at http://www.indiewire.com/people/2007/04/indiewire_inter_69.html Ddubs054 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)— Ddubs054 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Article doesn't really have much information about the group or even talk about the group as though it were a notable or well-known group. I'm not sure this is a terribly notable award, and ever less sure that the film itself would qualify for an article. Someone recently made an Academy Award nominated film about a group of street children; that doesn't mean that group is notable enough for an article. Savidan 02:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that if a group of street children featured in an academy award winning film wanted a wikipedia entry you would deprive them of it? Heartless. What if the street children could sing in harmony?

Delete non notable and nowhere meeting WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 08:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Reference is now added

Note: this is the same "reference" discussed above. Savidan 19:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G7, author blanked the article); deleted by TexasAndroid (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 04:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Horan[edit]

No sources (the linked company webpage doesn't mention his name), unclear notability, written like a resume - not like a neutral encyclopedic biography, basic biographical facts (like the birth year and place) are missing. High on a tree 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fariha al-Jerrahi[edit]

Not notable and no references given. Pharaoh of the Wizards 03:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research unless third-party sources are cited. Also, not written with a neutral point-of-view.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.137.101.146.10 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 23:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable non-trivial sources for the information provided. Leads me to conclude this is OR. Bigdaddy1981 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like the sources consist of the sect's website. Cap'n Walker 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DES ^(talk) 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk Chapel[edit]

Non notable church/location. ~ Wikihermit 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, several decades of history in a touristy location could lead to notability, but we would need better sources than the Presbyterian newspaper. --Dhartung | Talk 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Wildwood, New Jersey. Vegaswikian 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient newspaper and book sources available. Zagalejo 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This church seems to be a locally notable landmark on the Wildwood boardwalk. I've done some cleanup of the article and I added a reference to the Washington Post. I also found online video of the boardwalk preaching at http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/3159879986 and brief tourist blurbs such as http://blog.nj.com/shorepicks/2007/05/shore_attractions.html --orlady 05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Little content and notability. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hi PUFFY English[edit]

Okay, it's a book stemming from a TV show, that's nice, but I highly doubt the book itself is notable. Wizardman 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and also the fact that because the article is one sentence, it could be easily merged with the main article. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not assert any notability to the book itself. JIP | Talk 05:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 15:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babm[edit]

The page has one significant source - a book that was published by the creator of this artificial language (Amazon.com and library search engines are aware of its existence). However it is not so good with presenting external sources. Furthermore, the article admits that "the language has not caught on even within the constructed language community, and does not have any known current speakers". Therefore the notability of this subject is rather shaky. Amir E. Aharoni 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as admitted by the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Babm has never gained any momentum, but was widely discussed by linguists in the 60s and 70s. It's a linguistic curiosity and is well known among specialists. Also, please note that several other Wikipedias have articles on it, none of which have ever been AfDd for what it's worth. Babm is and will forever remain esoteric to the general public, but is a significant landmark in the research of constructed languages. --Targeman 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors in other Wikipedias may have thought that it is notable because it is included in the English one.

If you can provide verifiable sources for the fact that it was, as you say widely discussed by linguists in the 60s and 70s, i will withdraw this AfD immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other Wikipedias, the Esperanto and German articles both pre-date the English one. As for sources, they can be found almost exclusively in specialized books, but I have no access to a university library right now. Google hits such as this audio presentation by the College of Charleston only give a passing mention to Babm, as the language was declared a blind alley in research many years before the internet and is now only a curiosity relegated to blogs. So I suggest not to delete now just because finding sources requires several hours spent at the library. --Targeman 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you recall any authors or titles that treated this subject? I am going to a library on Sunday and you can help me save some time. I'd happily withdraw this AfD, if more and better sources could be added. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't. I honestly have no clue about authors and books that discuss Babm - constructed languages, except Esperanto, are not my cup of tea. I doubt however that you can find sources in a general library. If any generally available books mention Babm, I would bet on the Penguin series on linguistics. Most books on artificial languages should also mention Babm. However, if you find nothing, I'll have to accept that Babm is just not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Targeman 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't went to the library yet, but i plan to visit it in the next few days. If the administrators don't want to keep this discussion open, i don't mind if you close it as Keep. If it is possible, you can put it on hold somehow. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced that "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP). Languages are generally notable, unless there's very good reason to believe otherwise. It's a very decent stub, work has been put into it, and it's certainly more helpful to readers than a "this article has been deleted" message. When it doubt, keep. — xDanielx^Talk 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently has non-trivial, independent coverage in Libert, Alan (2000). A Priori Artificial Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa. ISBN 3895866679. cab 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A topic can be important, even if it isn't in practical use. Many physical and neural net models are of considerable interest despite a lack of practical applications. Babm also falls into this category, as it has elicited interest and respect within the auxiliary language field. Valerius 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darque[edit]

This group appears to be either made up, or non notable. When the article was created, it provided several website addresses, but each of those currently link to a domain registry service. That is, the websites aren't currently active. Various Google searches for "Darque", for "Darque hacker group, and for "Darque hackers" all turn up a variety of unrelated sites. That might not matter if this was an article about a 16th century secret society, but for a hacker group to have no web presence seems unlikely. It is also surprising to me that if, as the article claims, members of the group were questioned in over 3000 crimes, there isn't a single piece of news coverage that could have been referenced.

I am not, however, a hacker, so I'm open to the possibility that there is some sort of secret Internet that isn't accessible to us normies. I will be cleaning up the article regardless, to make it easier for people to read for the AfD discussion, and in the event someone can demonstrate notability and the article is kept. Natalie 22:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a valiant effort at a cleanup, but the original writing was incredibly poor and, with the lack of sources to read myself, I had to cut a lot of stuff that didn't make any sense. Feel free to compare the old version. Natalie 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. There are notable hacker groups (such as L0pht or Cult of the Dead Cow) - I don't believe this is one. Alfa 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a member arrested at that one Defcon one time does not make the group notable as a whole.. no matter how much they want us to think otherwise. spazure (contribs) 05:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some references bacjking up the claims to notability are provided. Nuttah68 09:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator withdrew the nomination. Non-admin closure. KTC 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Order of Armageddon[edit]

Not notable, no references. PEAR (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they meet both 5 and 6 of WP:BAND. I added references. IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close references were added after I created the AFD. --PEAR (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 16:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus decision-making[edit]

controversial neologism, a google search seems to indicate that it passes WP:N but they all quote or paste from the WP article. decision making is part and parcel of Consensus even though the Suffrage system is not applied. If this is not so then there should be an article on a form of Consensus lacking any purpose in decision making, not Consensus decision-making. too bad there are already a few such as voting and polls. ephix 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or just maybe Merge with Consensus democracy. ephix

Keep important topic, lots of books written on the subject. See reference list in article. Democracy isn't a condition for using consensus decision-making. --Alvestrand 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written and referenced article on an important topic. -- Alan Liefting talk 09:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written, thoroughly sourced article, which is particularly relevant here. Wikipedia is, after all, a consensus-driven community, and the article is especially relevant to AfD discussions. My Google search turned up over 2 million hits, many to universities, government agencies, NATO, NGOs and other non-profit organizations. —Travis ^talk 13:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; important topic with lots of refs, not the same as consensus democracy. Additionally the nomination for deletion is incoherent; discussions about content and overlap should be on the talk page, not an AFD nomination. -- phoebe/(talk) 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was not nominated in accordance with WP:DEL (please refer to the RfC for further info). This is a mature and well-sourced article. It appears to have been listed for deletion due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and customs on the part of a new user (I am assuming good faith on this). ~~I have removed the tag from the article. I don't have the authority to close this page, so request that an administrator do that.~~ Sunray 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears that I misread the policy. It is with respect to proposed deletions that one can remove the tag, not Article deletions. So we have a serious gap in policy here. Apparently anyone can slap an Afd on any article (without having followed WP:DEL) and we must go through this debate here. If you wish to comment on the policy issues, please do so on the RfC on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, I have restored the tag. Sunray 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WP:SK, and WP:SNOW -- Whpq 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Well written and referenced -- Whpq 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is currently worded, WP:SK doesn't seem to apply, but I think your idea is worth pursuing. Perhaps an amendment to the WP:SK and WP:DEL policies would plug this loophole. Sunray 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close - Restored customary redirect to Scouting in Hampshire#Hampshire 2007 after merge . (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H007[edit]

Merged with Scouting in Hampshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyboy899 (talk • contribs) 23:08, August 8, 2007

Speedy keep and revert back to redirect. The user who started this article, has merged the contents into Scouting in Hampshire after this was proposed on the talk page. He them blanked the page. I made the page to a redirect, but he then replaced that with the Afd notice, I think in error. See his talk page. I would do a non-admin close, but I think someone else should look at this. --Bduke 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Something has gone wrong here as we just have a blank page to look at. Is a redirect needed? I think that might be what Crazyboy899 is getting at. --Malcolmxl5 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the history. He replaced the redirect with the AfD notice. That is why I said it need a keep and revert back to the redirect page. --Bduke 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rusty Nails (filmmaker)[edit]

The result was Keep. Hemlock Martinis 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not properly sourced, contains false information, is the site of an edit-war, is being edited by users and IP addresses who/which are only editing this article and not others. The article is potentially libelous and is in violation of Biographies_of_living_persons. Not only should it be deleted but it should be locked to prevent recreating the article. I have voiced my opinion on this matter in the article's discussion page. I am in contact with the person of who the article refers and if this matter is not dealt with promptly I shall take the next step of contacting Jim Wales. I am sure Mr. Wales is very busy, so let us engage in a discussion about this matter and settle this here amongst ourselves. (AND THIS GOES FOR ALL PREVIOUS EDITORS OF THIS ARTICLE), Your silence in this discussion will only prove your negligence. ~~Engage in this discussion, do not edit the article.~~ Xsxex 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC) _{Fixed mal-formed nomination-Wafulz 12:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Speedy Keep. None of the nominator's reasons can be resolved by deleting the article. It passes WP:N and WP:BIO anyday. This should be on the talk page, not at AfD.Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are not allowed to tell users not to edit an article. You should also point out how it is potentially libelous, what is incorrect, and why you think it is a flagrant violation of Biographies of Living Persons.-Wafulz 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the nominator's horrible logic and vague accusations aside, I don't think this meets notability criteria because of a lack of reliable sources- I could only find one student newspaper review, and bunch of interviews with the subject. If I could find third party information on the subject himself, I might change my view.-Wafulz 12:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems just notable enough to me (The Portland Mercury, Reel Chicago). Interviews with the subject should be acceptable as references if published in a reliable source (Filmmaker Magazine). There does appears to have been some vandalism to the article, but the nominator appears to have some ownership issues with the article by the looks of the history and the talk page. --Canley 13:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you Wafulz for helping to fix the nomination. Also, THANK YOU to the users who have voiced their comments here and have participated in discussion. (As for the other users who have edited the article but have yet to engage in the discussion, again it shows that your only purpose here was to vandalize this article (I.E. users: User:LixLix, User:Lisa55k, User:Wc484, User:Wcheng13, User:Jjrobinson123, User:Delldot, User:Qst, User:Chetblong, User:Rossheth, User:Axlq, User:ArielGold, Special:Contributions/74.123.70.122, Special:Contributions/68.21.9.188, Special:Contributions/66.72.97.179, Special:Contributions/76.224.118.221, Special:Contributions/68.22.192.26, Special:Contributions/68.21.9.102, Special:Contributions/68.22.198.3, Special:Contributions/71.214.151.115, Special:Contributions/67.167.235.185, etc...). OK, to address some issues that have been brought up (1) I don't have ownership issues, the article should be correct or deleted. (again websites such as IMDB cannot be used as a source for information as they are first party, also the articles referenced by User:Canley do not necessitate that this is a notable director. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of directors and not all of them should be written about on wikipedia. What is considered a notable director? If it is decided that Rusty Nails is a notable director than the article should be written only using third party information from newspapers and books (I dont think he is mentioned in any book). (2) I full on disagree with User:Dalejenkins, "It passes WP:N and WP:BIO anyday," on what basis. It completely fails WP:BIO, and we are discussing WP:N. Also what is a speedy keep?
- WP:BIO is a specific version of WP:N. For the purposes of this discussion, they are the same thing. A "speedy keep" is a specific opinion in a deletion discussion for when a person thinks that the nomination does not have any actual deletion rationale presented.-Wafulz 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop accusing other users of vandalism. Users have no obligation to participate in this discussion. You clearly don't understand the definition of vandalism, so stop throwing the word around.-Wafulz 15:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it not vandalism?. By using information from websites these users are compromising the integrity of wikipedia. They have uploaded photos taken from other websites, without permission from the website or the director. They have used information from other websites which is considered to be a violation of wikipedia's policy on biographies. Does this not constitute vandalism? Xsxex 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are using material from imdb and from published interviews. At worst, they are committing some good-faith, unintentional misinformation. Also, stop rearranging this discussion.-Wafulz 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMDB usgae on wikipedia. Wafulz (and others). read: Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb. As it says there, IMDB should only be used for hard facts about films, not information about a director. The case here is an example of unacceptible usage of biographic information. (Read unacceptable usage). Again, according to Wikipedia, IMDB is acceptable to use for hard film facts, not trivia about a director. Xsxex 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a banner on the top that says "This proposal has been rejected by the community." While Imdb isn't the best source for a birthday, if there are no other reliable sources contradicting it, we can use it.-Wafulz 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearranging. Why should we let the comments clog up the discussion? There seem to be a lot of them. I move to separate the comments into a subsection. Xsxex 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not clogging up the discussion- they are part of it. This isn't a vote. Also I've removed your quote of WP:BIO- it's been linked, we can all read it, we don't need a giant block of text here.-Wafulz 16:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The vandal edits this article experienced follow a pattern of removing information that is sourced while attempting to make the subject appear less notable. IMDB is a citable source, like it or not. That an article has room for improvement isn't a reason to delete. I find the nominator's arguments specious and his assumption of bad faith disgusting. This article emphatically does not violate WP:BIO and is not libellous; being "potentially" libellous applies to any biography of a living person. I doubt Jimmy Wales would seriously consider a secondhand complaint about a reasonably-written bio from anyone except the article's subject. If Mr "Rusty Nails" himself has a problem with the article, he is welcome to chime in; Xsxex doesn't speak for him. =Axlq 04:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject appears to meet WP:BIO based on a google news search which to indicates recognition as a low-budget indie film maker. Content disputes are not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 23:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely minor actor/filmmaker. Subject is barely important enough to get a listing on IMDB -- and Wikipedia isn't IMDB Lite -- and nowhere near enough importance, impact, or coverage to deserve coverage by an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I disagree with all of the nominator's reasons, I don't think Mr. Nails or his films are sufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 18:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relisting - Not following "proper" process is not a reason to keep, mostly because the deletion discussion went on anyway. Acusations of vandalism should go to WP:AN/I, content disputes shoould go to to the article's talk page and to WP:RfC. In the middle of all that there is still a discussion going on, with few but opposing opinions stated. Given this is covered by WP:BLP we better have more opinions, on the safe side.

Please stay on topic: should this be kept or deleted and why? Thanks. - Nabla 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is evidently notable per Canley. FIXIT, don't DELETEIT because it ain't perfect right now. — xDanielx^Talk 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure who gets the Oscar for "Most dramatic acting in a Wikipedia debate" but this is all very exciting. While I had not heard about Rusty Nails, it's evident from the controversy that he must be fairly notable. In addition, it's nice to see some students of film in the AfD forum. Mandsford 01:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Devlin[edit]

No reliable published secondary sources indicating notability (WP:CSD#a7), the only notability claim is a Harvey Award nomination but the Harvey page doesn't help the cause. Previously deleted on 2007-07-14t00:53:24z by VirtualSteve because "unsourced, nn" (WP:CSD#g4). -- Jeandré, 2007-08-08t21:47z

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. He has written literally thousands of articles for Mad Magazine, ~~but he seems to come up a little short in the WP:RS department.~~ and thanks to whoever added more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's one of the top contributors to MAD, all the rest of whom have their own articles. This should be kept, expanded and better sourced. MAD itself is certainly notable, and he has written a huge number of articles for the magazine. He clearly fulfills the criteria under WP:BIO (emphasis mine):"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." & "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

I think his authorship credits in MAD constitute reliable sources, and the list cited in the article was compiled from issues with the aid of some of the MAD writers. Not to make a spurious comparison, but how would one go about citing that Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities if not by the fact that his name is on the cover?Falard 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable published secondary sources (as required by one of Wikipedia's most important policies: WP:V) indicating Dickens' continued notability almost 200 years after his birth [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].. . -- Jeandré, 2007-08-11t13:36z

Keep. He is a very prolific humor writer. --Ellissound 03:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per developing consensus. His work is notable mostly for being so prolific. And funny, but that is not a really good reason. Bearian 02:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as an attempt to game the system. Metros 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy (Alex Gilbert song)[edit]

Not notable, the article on Alex Gilbert was already deleted PEAR (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What in the heck is going on here? PEAR, this is your user talk page, you just moved it to this article space and created this article over it. Are you trying to purposefully game the system and get around the fact that no one will delete your talk page archives? Metros 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow, you guys are really sharp. --PEAR (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & delete, pertinent info merged to Developing countries' debt by Euryalus — Caknuck 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debt Cancellation in the 21st century[edit]

This appears to be an essay of sorts with a bunch of opinion. The page was blanked by the author on June 4, but was restored as it was interpreted as vandalism. There have been no significant edits aside from the author (save an attempt at wikification). This seems to be deletable based on the content of it but it might be considered for a speedy deletion per author request. Metros 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, or Speedy delete as db-author. Leuko 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, I would think this was a mistaken anti-vandal rv and, due to the author having the only real input to the page Speedy delete (G7) applies. EyeSerene^TALK 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the NPOV and sourced elements into this. The concept is an important one but doesn't need a standalone article and I agree that this appears to be an essay. I'll do the merging of the relevant bits this weekend if no one beats me to it. Euryalus 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have incorporated the relevant bits of this article into [11]. Euryalus 23:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way the article it is, which is more like an essay, it should be canned however, merge some of the content as Euryalus suggested.--JForget 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Harlowraman 00:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per euryalus. Mathmo ^Talk 01:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Leuko, but also as WP:OR. Bearian 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, apparent bad faith nomination. Objectively defined, finite lists that index notable information are widely accepted in Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in New Jersey[edit]

Current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply Statistics, recommend moving to Wikisource Spa toss 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spa toss 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Spa toss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Even the name seems to be shouting it's a single purpose account. The editor's only edits have been to another AfD and an attempt at retaliation at this article.

Strong Keep Above and beyond the fact that the nominator is using a single purpose account and created this AfD in apparent retaliation for being outed as a single purpose account, this article clearly meets the goal and purpose of a list: providing a concise listing of articles grouped by location and type with details of each school provided. This list has been an excellent means to provide a guide to all public and private high schools in the state. How an editor who has no editing experience on Wikipedia would know what "consensus" is or be part of trying to create it demonstrates one of the tremendous flaws of the AfD process. Alansohn 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read What Wikipedia is not (official policy). Spa toss 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Bad faith nom. Though I would support the utilization of categories for this information. Leuko 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, categories does seem like the better route. This Afd is in good faith, please assume good faith. Please read, if you have not already, the relevant policy on What Wikipedia is not (given above). Spa toss 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Consistent with how every other state is set up. Article is better than a category since Categories only contain schools with Articles. EagleFan 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is not "indiscriminate"; the criteria for inclusion is very specific. EyeSerene^TALK 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point here, but I think it might also be a slippery slope, e.g., "list of notable people who have had face lifts". Spa toss 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Not simply a list of statistics, but rather an organized directory to existing Wikipedia articles. User-name also indicates that there is a SPA concern with it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd need to see a real justification.FrozenPurpleCube 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category would solve the problem of creating an organized diretory. Spa toss 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sephardic Pizmonim Project[edit]

The result was Redirect to Pizmonim. Hemlock Martinis 06:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gone through two prior AfDs which both ended with no consensus. In the last AfD, ~~four of the five~~ some of the "keep" votes noted that the article was still in development, still just a stub, give it some time, etc. Well, it's over six months later and the article has gone nowhere. The reason for this is very simply that it's a non-notable organization, a one man operation with no credible third party references to speak of (as I demonstrated in the last AfD). Let's put and end to this. DLand ^TALK 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--DLand ^TALK 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough WP:RS to satisfy the primary criterion of WP:N to write a WP:V, WP:NPOV article. Leuko 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leuko said it perfectly. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You don't get three tries, unless something very significant has changed. Only one person in the last AfD even mentioned the "not enough time to tell yet" argument, and chances are he would have voted Keep anyway. Besides, your claim that no progress has been made since the last AfD is questionable. And even if it were the case, "no one has bothered to make this article good yet" is not a reason for deletion. — xDanielx^Talk 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: 1. The first two times were without consensus, meaning that it has not yet been decided if the article is worth keeping. So, yes, I do "get three tries". 2. You're right about the keep votes, I was looking at the first AfD, but my point still stands. 3. My argument for deletion is not that no one has tried to make the article good, but rather that the article is not good and cannot become good unless the project becomes notable, which it currently is not.--DLand ^TALK 04:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I argued for keep earlier, on the basis that sources would appear, and they have. I added one from a peer-reviewed journal [12]. Published in 1988. I do not know why I missed it last time around. DGG (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) see below[reply]
- Response You may have missed it the last time around because while it is relevant to the subject of the article, it makes no mention of the Sephardic Pizmonim Project, for the obvious reason that it was published in 1988, long before the project came into existence! Forgive me, but this is a far cry from a scholarly source about the project.--DLand ^TALK 04:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I mentioned last time, this article has significant historical value as a project dedicated to preserving ancient culture. It's not the kind of topic that would be heavily sourced on the internet, at least in English. --MPerel 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I can't see how that argument helps the article survive the standards of WP:N. Sure, it's an important cause, but it's not notable and the burden of proof is on those who would vote keep to show that it is.--DLand ^TALK 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find any mention of this organization in the harvard link. I do not have access to JSTOR link, so cant comment on that yet Corpx 05:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is a relative term in this case. First, on a relative basis there are not that many Jews in the world today; we are talking about, in a statistical sense, an insignificant number of people. When the topic is a subset of the main group, we are talking about a small group indeed. However, from a cultural perspective I would think that this is a valid topic. Though it may have significant value to the Jewish community at large, it is also of value to humanity at large. I also agree that the article needs work; just using proper English would help. However, I think this is both notable and valid. You gotta admit, when we look at the rediculous number of articles devoted to Pokemon (who could possibly care about something so trivial, but we have got 'em in spades), it is not too much to ask to maintain an article about something that is actually real. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frustrated response: This "organization" doesn't meet any notability standards, not even "on a relative basis" - irrespective of how culturally valid a topic it is. Please, please remember that we have to follow WP:N, and specifically WP:CORP, no matter how compelling an article looks at first glance.--DLand ^TALK 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly because of xDanielx. Also, what Storm Rider said. Mathmo ^Talk 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage for this organization. The one link in there does not mention this organization at all and I'm not sure about the JSTOR link Corpx 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Pizmonim. I would have suggested a merge, but I checked and found a section on "Sephardic Pizmonim Project" already in the "Pizmonim" article, nearly a word-for-word copy of the article under discussion. The Project is not notable per the standard criteria of WP:MUSIC - it's a local undertaking, and the figures of sales are not referenced. Most of the references and links in the article have more to do with Pizmonim in general than with this particular project; hence the logic of a merge. Shalom ^Hello 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect I didn't even think of checking for it in the Pizmonim article. I think Shalom's proposal make the most sense, pending increased notability. It's a reasonable way to deal with this.DGG (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't be opposed to redirecting it to Pizmonim, I think I even said as much last time, that it was a reasonable alternative, given its existing coverage in that article. --MPerel 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutilación general[edit]

Notability, Reliable 3rd party sources. It is a Forum that seems to be making pretty broad and unsubstantiated claims about its notability. Pharmboy 20:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not mentioned in any of the 3rd party sources it cites. Leuko 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fora-related deletions. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title doesn't match the article contents... is this General[M]ayhem or is it Mutilación general? 132.205.44.5 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes. That is yet another problem. I didn't list all the problems this article has, just the most obvious to get a delete over with, and it isn't a candidate for speedy. I did just notice that the article General Mayhem is protected to prevent creation, and General mayhem (small m) has been deleted before. Pharmboy 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/General_Mayhem where it was kept, then deleted for the same reason: reliable sources could never be found in spite of promises to get them. Unremarkable. Was ALSO up and DELETED in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Genmay for same.

Likely candiate for speedy delete now that I have seen this, and it appears it WAS speedy deleted prior, under a different name. Pharmboy 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Pharmboy.Brusegadi 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videogram[edit]

Contested PROD. Dictionary definition already transwikied to Wiktionary. TexasAndroid 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:DICDEF and the original ProD. EyeSerene^TALK 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't add enough to be more than a simple definition, per WP:DICDEF. Pharmboy 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the article provides no context past the definition of the term in the title, delete as per WP:WINAD --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For somewhat more than a month, someone checking the Wikipedia for videogram got at least a somewhat useful answer. Now they won't. Even worse, even if they knew about the wiktionary and checked there, too, they wouldn't find the transwikied version because it's at Transwiki:Videogram. The English WP itself has some two dozen articles using that word, but we'd rather leave people in the dark about its meaning because of WP:DICDEF!? – I've given up on using the transwiki templates a long time ago because the process is broken, and I totally fail to see how it helps us making a better, more useful encyclopedia. [I am the author of videogram, but I don't care much for the article itself.] Rl 06:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and poor coverage in other media is not a reason for inclusion. Nuttah68 09:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#A7 by MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinean Manitoban Association[edit]

Delete. No claim of notability; 11 unique Google hits do not support inclusion. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. So marked. Leuko 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 00:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moviestorm[edit]

Previously deleted via WP:PROD with a reason of "Only one independent source, trivial in nature." Now re-created. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fully agree with the prod - the independent source is here. If the product were notable, there would be more coverage of it in the last five months. Shalom ^Hello 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 11:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched and couldn't find a whole lot of non-trivial third-party coverage. It's reported to be still only in a public beta. It's slated to be bundled in an upcoming Machinima for Dummies book, but that involves a bit of a crystal ball. — TKD::Talk 10:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Kids[edit]

Previous AfD ended "without consensus". I feel the article fails WP:N and WP:V and also smacks of WP:OR. The main source seems to be a story someone posted on Usenet. Alfa 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ten-year-old Usenet posting is not a reliable source. The article is complete bollocks. Shalom ^Hello 19:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALLS is an essay with no official standing in Wikipedia, it also does not apply to urban legend as they are required only to be "verifiable myths", not "verifiable truths". Also, the usenet account is WP:V of the original content of the myth, not WP:V of the truth of the myth. Therefore it is self referencing and self authoritating, a person's own account is always WP:V for them having made a statement regardless of whether it is not it is WP:RS for the truth of the statement itself (X is proof that Y said Z, rather than X is proof that Y was telling the truth about Z). - perfectblue 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4320/ was the most interesting link I found, and it wasn't. Hoax type stuff, made up years ago and never became popular enough in ghost stories to be notable. Pharmboy 20:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete with Re-Write While the new article is better, it doesn't address the issue and my points. No matter how you organize the information, and no matter how poetic the verse, the topic itself is still not notable, and no rewrite can fix that. At the end of the day, it is still based on a hoax, and the hoax never got enough traction to be notable by itself. Pharmboy 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks non-trivial verifiable sources. Bigdaddy1981 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete with Re-Write - my original comment still applies in my view. Bigdaddy1981 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an urban myth, what exactly are you expecting, peer review science? - perfectblue 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Digest doesn't cut it in my opinion. Bigdaddy1981 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated, it lacks sources. It seems like it might be possibly worth adding a short section on this to some other article (if better sources can be found), but it doesn't deserve a full article.Sxeptomaniac 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as we know, this could be a prank, or nonsense. There are quite a few forums and websites discussing this, so I think that the topic does deserve to be mentioned in an article about ghosts/ paranormal phenomena etc. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem, as it was during the last AFD, is that the article keeps drifting back towards treating the subject as an actual, undeniable phenomenon, rather than as folklore. Since I've long since gotten tired of the argument and can't be bothered to deal with members of the tinfoil hat crew who bristle at phrases like 'Urban Legend', I won't argue for the article to be kept, but I do want to say that I don't think it's unsalvageable. -- Vary | Talk 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would completely agree, were it a widely-recognised piece of folklore. I feel that even if it were rewritten with the POV-pushing removed, it would fail WP:N and WP:V Alfa 11:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now sourced to a third party and has been re written as an an urban myth. - perfectblue 12:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE The article makes no false claims that the phenomenon is anything but "reported". It is a subject that regularly appears in sources regarding the paranormal and related topics. Sourcing, however, is needed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.228.155.130 (talk • contribs).
Keep: This is a topic in popular culture and urban legend/lore, scientific evidence is not required as it is basically an oral tradition (Beliefs in popular culture can exist completely independently from science). WP:RS should also be applied accordingly, meaning that all that is really needed is evidence that it is a real urban myth, not that it is a real phenomona. Any print published source should do for these purposes. Local newspapers, books on urban legend etc. - perfectblue 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there are no reliable sources. Your suggestions of local newspapers or books are good, but I don't believe any exist, so the article will always fail WP:V Alfa 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but how hard have you looked? I mean, have you tried looking at some of the regional urbn myth magazines/books out there. Also, as this is an urban legend in popular culture, rather than something that is attesting to having scientific merit, WP:RS can be much looser (Peer review etc is completely unnecessary in cases such as this, as citations are basically used only to confirm that the myth is a genuine myth, not that the myth has any truth to it). - perfectblue 10:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked and read many references, and many read as "this is something we haven't heard of before, but someone says it is popular". Personally, I am pretty lax about accepting nominal press as wp:v but most are asking about it, not telling about it. It is still a hoax that never got legs. Pharmboy 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a regular topic for discussion, 10 years after the original story was posted on the internet. I'd say that a 10 year lifespan for a web myth is pretty sound. - perfectblue 06:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, fails verifiability requirements by lacking non-trivial reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the user who sighted the Museum of Hoaxes makes it seem that just because it is discussed there thestory must be a hoax. the original informant has never claimed his sotry was a hoax and further, has stood behind it. I'm not saying they are real. What I am saying is that Modern legends and folklore have a place on wikipedia. This one is notable enough to stay in my opinion. The original report sparked quite a disucssion. You may wish to call this an internet meme if you like but I feel it is notable american folklore. Calling something a hoax just because you don't personally believe it does not make it a hoax. Seeking out every piece of folklore you don't buy and nominating it for deletion won't make that story go away. Let the article stay and then we can work on improving it and comparing it to other folklore of a similiar nature.LiPollis 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: Hoaxes and folklore very often are notable, and are encyclopedia worthy. I didn't say hoaxes have no place, and in fact, I believe the opposite. Ghosts are folklore, as are goblins and witches and all kinds of spooky things. They are quoted and used in many stories over the centuries and belong here. Black Eyed Kids is NOT the same, has nothing near the millions of camp fire stories told, thousands of stories published and overall universal acceptance that these have. It *is* based on a hoax, few have heard of it, fewer still care about it, and NO major publications have ever even mentioned the term, even in jest in their holloween day coverage. THAT is the issue, that it doesn't meet wp:n and can't possibly meet wp:v as there are zero wp:rs. These are real issues that no amount of "But I like it!" is going to fix. Pharmboy 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to take issue with your repeated use of the word 'hoax.' I'm not saying Bethel's story was true, but 'hoax' implies that a) the story has been conclusively disproved, and b)the originator of the story was actually lying. As we don't know what exactly Bethel experienced, if anything, it's entirely possible that he managed to get himself worked up over a couple of slightly creepy but otherwise normal kids. The fact that the museum of hoaxes has a page on it does not make the term accurate. It may be your opinion that it was a hoax, but please don't state it as fact. -- Vary | Talk 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then it is not a hoax. It still doesn't meet WP:N, can't be verified via WP:V because there are zero reliable sources as defined by WP:RS, and no amount of liking it changes that. Staying on topic, THOSE are the issues. Pharmboy 12:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Write[edit]

As of 2007-08-11, this page has been completely re written to be about the myth rather than about Bethel's encounter. It has also been sourced to a third party analysis of the myth which takes a skeptical view. Thus any deletion nominations made against the old version (prior to a third party source being added) should not be counted against the new version unless they have been restated as applying post 2007-08-11. perfectblue 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on the article, perfectblue - you have certainly dramatically improved it. I'm not an expert on what constitutes a reliable source on wikipedia; I'll let an administrator decide whether UFO Digest ("UFO Digest provides video proof of ufos, alien abduction and the paranormal") is one. If it is, then the article should probably survive; if not, I believe the AfD should succeed. Alfa 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source takes a skeptical approach, does not promote the topic, and that it treats it as an urban myth, there is no logical reason why it should not count as a reliable source. After all, it's discussing an urban myth, not hard science, so the WP:RS required is far more relaxed than it would be for, say, a page about quasar. - perfectblue 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rewrite; I'm encouraged by the fact that there hasn't been an outcry from the quarters that I mentioned above. It's a pity that one of the better sources from an older version, which also had more of an 'urban legend' perspecitve, is a 404 now, though. And incidentally, in my opinion at least, an AFD 'succeeds' whenever it closes in a decision that benefits the project, whether that decision is to delete or keep the article in question. -- Vary | Talk 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep but keep non-the-less. Seems like a valid urban legend but I'd really like to see some more sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete view. This is another article that is essentially OR. Take a doubtful concept, link it with a couple of references and pad it out with psychobabble. Without some serious sources, which haven't shown up to date, it should be removed from a serious encyclopedia. Bridgeplayer 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the rewrite eliminates the problem that there are no reliable published sources.DGG (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)[edit]

Not notable; Author has an apparent COI; images used within are copyrighted; appears to be advertising — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as it's a direct copy: — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following category for deletion - not appropriate as a category, and is actually simply a copy of the above two pages (I'm not sure how to handle this, because it's a category; I wanted to bundle it here. I've not yet put a CfD notice on the category)— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moonbeam and Friends (comic strip)

And these images are all related - not encyclopedic and all related to the above pages. (Again, I wanted to bundle them here, but not sure what to do about the IfD for them, so I haven't yet added IfD notices)— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gumballseries.JPG

Image:Snowmanseries.JPG

Image:Birthofmoonbeamcover.jpg

Image:Cstea070726.jpg

Image:Icyfort.jpg

Image:Almostready.jpg

Image:Marea.jpg

Delete I think you are spot on. The most significant press she has outside of her own city is here on wikipedia. Publishing a 65 page book on cafepress doesn't make you notable, and the article is pretty blatently advertising her. Account has same name as article and has only been used for these files and articles.... Pharmboy 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Agreed on the above reasons as well. Sxeptomaniac 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand why some people think it should be delted, I made the article. It was not made with the intent of advertising in any way. Initially, I created an article for Comixpedia, which is a wiki for webcomics. However, I found that other comics were included in Wikipedia, therefore I added the article to Wikipedia. It was not an attempt at self promotion, rather it was to establish the page the article before someone else did with incorrect information or copies of the comics that they did not have permission to copy. And while I appreciate that "publishing a 65 page book on cafepress doesn't make you notable" (ouch), there are many people subscribing to the daily comics, viewing the website, purchasing the book, etc. I would prefer that the correct information regarding the comic strip or the website would be posted to this article, rather than what someone THINKS the correct information is. It is not spam, it is not an advertisement. If it was, I would have included the price of the book, the fact that there is other merchandise for sale, how to subscribe to the daily comics, etc. I did none of this. I have my own website for this, and I do my own advertising. Wikipedia is not the forum to use for self promotion, and it was not my intent to do so. If the article belongs solely on Comixpedia, then that's where it will stay, rather than being posted to both Comixpedia AND Wikipedia. I am just surprised that anybody would have a problem with this article in the first place. This is an actual comic strip. It is posted each weekday. It has been noted as an Editor's Pick] on Comics Sherpa for the strip dated 4/30/07. Comics Sherpa is a site for webcomics through Universal Press Syndicate and UClick, who distribute the likes of Dear Abby and Garfield. Furthermore, there are other comics, such as The New Adventures of Queen Victoria, which have articles on here. Moonbeam28 22:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Moonbeam28[reply]

However, your adding it is a Conflict of Interest. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that if someone ELSE published this article, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest? What's the difference with the other comic strips that are on here? Or other articles? I am just trying to understand this so I don't violate any policies. Are there ways to edit this article so that it does NOT violate any policies? Moonbeam28 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Moonbeam28[reply]

Well, It might not be a COI if someone else added the article, if that someone wasn't directly involved with the comic or its author. However, it still would likely have issues in terms of Notability. You may want to read about the Webcomics Wikiproject and in particular look up the Wikipedia:Notability (websites) page referenced there. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moonbeam28, the conflict of interest is not what will kill most articles, as that can be fixed by someone else rewriting the article. The problem is notability. COI can often confirm there is a problem with Notability because it can imply that only the original person who added the article knows the subject (ie: a local band putting up their own article). This reinforces the idea that the topic is not notable, as no 3rd party bothered to start the article. This is a weak test, but combined with other issues, such as no 3rd party sources outside of your own city WP:RS, the comic appears to fail WP:notability. It isn't a personal comment on your craft or ability, it is an objective view of the Wikipedia policies. Local only influences tend to not get an article, just as self-published books will not establish notability, no anything on YouTube, MySpace and similar sites that don't meet WP:RS. Next year you may be syndicated in other papers in other area, and then this conversation would be moot, as notability would be established. For now, you seem like a really interesting person doing a comic strip and a couple other things in one city, who has even published her own book on cafepress. Someday you may be famous (ie: notable via policy) but it just isn't today. Pharmboy 12:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamicruft. Bigdaddy1981 22:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of notability for this comic strip Corpx 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- item: there's a RW, published, manifestation. So at least 1 publisher (and some purchasers) find it worthy of note; item: the COI point is well-taken, but must, IMHO, be balanced by the contributor/editor in question is an/the expert on the field, and therefore the closest thing to primary source. If this were an opinion article, I would agree that COI poisons the tree; as it's factually based, I would, for myself, overlook it. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but that RW Published manifestation is actually published via CafePress.com which is actually a place that aids Self-publishing with little investment because they use print on demand— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NotePublishing on cafepress is definetly not WP:RS, takes only a few minutes to do and no 3rd party opinion is involved. Pharmboy 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears, therefore, to boil down to "Unless it's published by a source the cabal approve of, publishing doesn't count. Given the number of "small press" type publications Cafe Press supports, I would rather find them notable than the plethora of vanity houses who then require their authors to do the marketing. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 12:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with the assessment that to show notability, publishing a book requires it be from some kind of reputable publisher, just as publishing content on the web needs to be a reliable source. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note Cafepress is SELF publishing. Having a 3rd party publish it (thus put their own money into it) is way up the food chain, as far as notability is concerned. This is standard policy, not an opinion. I love cafepress (and use them for several projects), but they are a 1st party publisher, not 3rd party. They will print anything, from anyone, so they can not be used as a source, because the DECISION of whether to publish or not isn't theirs, it is yours (1st party). If Bantum publishes your book, that has weight, and they are a 3rd party, risking their own money to convert dead trees into your book. Very different matter. Pharmboy 00:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- I am a reader of this comic strip, and I do not live in the same city as the writer. I was delighted to find this article on here. If it is a question of notability, there are others such as myself who have no connection to the writer who happen to enjoy comics. 66.41.7.251 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Lizzieabe[reply]
Delete. As noted above, a local comic strip and self-published book does not equal notability. Kinda spammy, too. Cap'n Walker 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 20:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though I'm sure that the artist means well, this article does appear to be little more than advertising. In order to be on Wikipedia, it needs proof that the subject is notable/famous, meaning articles about the comic strip that are not written by the creator. The work here may well be more notable in the future, in which case this article can be re-created. But for now, I'm just not seeing enough proof of notability to keep it around. --El on ka 16:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Phinney[edit]

doesn't meet WP:BIO, also WP:AUTO and WP:COI are involved GlassFET 18:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a candidate for public office doesn't make one notable, since anyone can do that. Sxeptomaniac 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as candidates are not (inherently) notable. If he wins (or does something else to make him notable) then recreate. Bigdaddy1981 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due especially due to the COI issue.--JForget 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but one of the edits before the deletion process is by the creator, therefore creating a WP:COI. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography. Also, even if political candidacy is relevant (and I agree that in most cases it is not), this particular candidacy does no appear to be particularly noticeable, let alone notable. If he gets some steam behind him as the campaign progresses, however, a page about him created by others may be more defensible.--Greatest hits 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Like Sxeptomaniac has written, anyone can run for office, but if the only source is a link back to MySpace then the article should be deleted. Yamaguchi先生 01:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Sandstein 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srbosjek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing improper nom by User:Rhun, nom reopened old discussion with "This text is almost entirely made up, and was already deleted here and on the German language Wikipedia, and has now been put back up. Read the previous deletion discussion below. Rhun 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The new article has scholarly references provided, and external links are added to ICTY trial in which this specific knife, used by Pavelic government in NDH, was called Srbosjek, as well as the dr Bulajic, president of the genocide research foundation in Belgrade and one of the most quoted authorities on Jasenovac genocide referring to this curved blade, used at Jasenovac, as "srbosjek".

As seen in the previous vote (majority votes was keep), local people are quite aware of the existence of the srbosjek knife, which was one of the most memorable exibits in Jasenovac museum most school people visited on excursions in the 80s. The scholarly references include book by dr Nikola Nikolic, holocaust survivor from Jasenovac, a Croat and medical doctor - his book is from 1948, in book by respected historian dr Mladen Colic (his full name is Mladenko Colic, he is one of the foremost authorities about ustasha military, a titoist, works at Belgrade Vojnoistorijski institut, and his book is often used in academic teaching at Zagreb university) from 1973, and in book by Vladimir Dedijer from 1986 or so. There are also some mentions in the english books by foreign (out of ex-yu) authors in the 80s. In the books I mentioned, the curved knife is described, as well as its origin, Vladimir Dedijer mentiones one being captured by the partisans. He also includes the account of 50 killing methods by Nikola Nikolic in his book. The knife was an exponate at Zagreb city museum, and the photo of the knife was one of the most memorable museum exibits in the Jasenovac museum in 80s and Titoist era. The knife is widely known as srbosjek (the name is used at ICTY, in press in 90s, it was translated to english as cutthroat or something like that).

For your convenience, I here list the books:

Jasenovački logor smrti - dr Nikola Nikolić, 1948
TAKOZVANA NEZAVISNA DRŽAVA HRVATSKA, dr Mladen Colic, Deltapres, Beograd 1973,
Vatikan i Jasenovac, Vladimir Dedijer, Dokumenti (Beograd: “Rad”, 1987)

the last book is also translated to English

Here is the part of the last book, which mentions the knife, and is in the part of the book scanned by google, so you can easily look it up: [[13]] In English, there is a book by Howard Blum, Published in 1977 by Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. ISBN 0812906071, which also mentiones the knife, and the part that mentiones it is also available from google books [[14]]

Part of book by Nikola Nikolic are available online at jasenovac-info site. For instance http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/vecni_pomen/atanasije_en.html Notice the word "cutthroats" there. More parts of the book might be available online in Serbo-Croatian if you google it.

Finally, the photo and the sketch are available online from archive of Republika Srpska official site (most exibits from the old jasenovac museum were removed to Republika Srpska during the 90s wars)

http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac6.asp

the last two pictures of the srbosjek (exibit at Jasenovac museum, which I remember personally seing some 20 years ago, and also the sketch of the srbosjek knife).

You can notice that on the sketch, there is a writting "Grawiso" on the knife. The knife was produced by Solingen factory, which exist even today [[15]], and produces various knives.

Here is a more extensive part of the book by Howard Blum:

http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/artukovic/aa0006.html

Also check out this discussion from the Serbian wikipedia: [[16]] Hvarako 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think that there are enough references to keep this article. --Milan Dinic 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hvarako, we had the same discussion the last time, here and on the German wikipedia. Although we agreed that such a knife knife was one of the weapons used at Jasenovac, there was zero evidence that it was actually called "Srbosjek", like the article title suggests. The links you provided do not actually link the knife with the name, they just prove such type a knife probably existed. The ICTY link mentions "some" knife used against the serbs (most probably every knife used against the serbs was sooner or later called a "Serb cutter"), and also, does not link to the Grawiso knife on the pictures. This is why the article was deleted the last time and why the description was moved to the Jasenovac-Article. --Rhun 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in that discussion. In fact, I was appaled to find out article had been deleted. As for the name srbosjek, this is the name it is widely known in ex-yu, and it was used in the yugoslav press in the 90s, and also, it is the name you can quickly check by consulting these ICTY pages. Please click the links, and type "srbosjek" in the text search, and you will see it is called srbosjek. This is not just any knife, it is a very specific knife which has a curved blade, and the ICTY links talk about order of Pavelic government etc, Solingen factory etc - this indentifies the knife uniquely, as there was only one knife with such a history, and links name to it [17] - type solingen and "serb cutter" (srbosjek in the original serbian transcript) in the text search. The data presented at ICTY trial is something you will find in the books provided. The "grawiso" inscription can be clearly seen at the sketch [18]; The name srbosjek was also referenced by dr Bulajic, president of the genocide research institue Belgrade, [19] in the text discussing the use of srbosjek in Jasenovac ("злогласни криви нож звани „србосјек”. " - "notorious curved blade called "srbosjek"(serb cutter)). Hvarako 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a question for you Rhun - how do you reconcile what you said when you proposed the deletion "This text is almost entirely made up, and was already deleted here and on the German language Wikipedia, and has now been put back up" with what you say now: "we agreed that such a knife knife was one of the weapons used at Jasenovac"? I have to question this and ask was this deletion proposal really done in good faith Hvarako 19:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hvarako, the ICTY transcripts feature personal, unprovable witness testimonials and can imho not be a basis for an article for the sole reason that they are neither proved by the ICTY, nor completely unprovable by a reader. Also the assertion that such a knife was used in the 90s' wars was not backed by actual sources. I would also leave out the anecdote how the knife is suposedly designed, because is mentioned only in a single (and only serbian, no third parties) source, and thus is neither proved nor provable. This name "Srbosjek" might be known colloquialy in the countries of the former Yugoslawia, but this still does not link it to the knife used in WW2, and can, as I said, be assumed to be the name on any type of knife used in murdering of serbs. I suggest naming the article "Jasenovac Grawiso knife" or similarily, because as of now, the name "Srbosjek" seems more of a general serbo-croatian wartime term, than actually the knife presented in the article. Greetings, --Rhun 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for renaming the article, and proposing deletion is not it. As you admit that such a curved knife existed and was used is Jasenovac, then clearly you will agree that article is legitimate. The ICTY was not mentioned as a source for the information about the knife, but as a proof that this knife, whose existence is proved by numerous scholarly references, exibits at Jasenovac museum etc, is now known under this name. As I explained, there is mention of this specific knife (ordered by Pavelic government from Solingen factory, used at Jasenovac, with curved blade) under this name (translated to serb cutter) at the trial [20]. The witness clearly cannot know any of this first hand, and in fact is recounting what is in these books; however, what is clear is his use of the name "srbosjek" (serb cutter is translation, but at other places it was left untranslated at ICTY trial); the name was also used by Bulajic, president of genocide foundation, for this specific knife, used at Jasenovac - [21] in the text discussing the use of srbosjek in Jasenovac ("злогласни криви нож звани „србосјек”. " - "notorious curved blade called "srbosjek"(serb cutter)). Clearly, it is used for this specific knife and under that name. The "graviso" knife was not the name it is widely known under these days - the press etc in the 90s refered to it as srbosjek, possibly under influence of dr Bulajic, who was foremost authority in Belgrade on Jasenovac genocide and was quoted a lot, and this name for Serbo-Croat speakers is for this knife, which is indeed very notorious - it is NOT a generic name; the reason for some Croat soldiers in the 90s naming their knifes "srbosjek" has to do with the notoriety of this knife - note that most school children in Titoist Yugoslavia had to go to Jasenovac museum as part of school curicullum excursion, and were aware of this knife, one of the most striking exibits - in the 90s some hand-made knifes with curved blades were made and had inscription srbosjek, and there is testemony at ICTY about this as well. But, as I said, if you question the naming, deletion proposal page is not the right place for it. Hvarako 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the "srbosek" mentioned in the trial transcript you cite. What page of the transcript does it appear on? All there is is the somewhat generic English translation "Serb cutter." Perhaps you should move the article to that name. For there to be a Wikipedia article called "Srbosjek" you should show references in English where the writer used the non-English word. Edison 14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hvarako. The article was deleted the first because the name could not be linked to it confidently. The existance of the knife has been disputed first until enough evidence was gathered together to back it up. The contents of the article was then mostly incorporated into the Jasenovac article, where also other genocide weapons have been described. I'm fine with that. For something as allegedly notorious as the name "srbosjek" or "serb cutter", as you say, the total lack of evidence is striking, especially the lack of _any_ third party documentation. At last, the subject is part of the Holocaust, for which mostly extensive documentation is available, except in the case of the name "srbosjek". I would not count Bulajic as relevant evidence on the naming, since his works tend to be strongly right-wing colored and pro-serb biased, bordering on war propaganda. He is known to have fostered the augmented the numbers of murdered Serbs in the jasenovac camps up to 700000, and actively supported the 90's Balkan wars and denying the recent Srebrenica massacres. I is not relevant how he personally named the knife 30-40 years after the WW2, but how the croatian ustasha culprits named it during WW2, and if it has been named (and thus deserving an article of its own) at all. Greetings, --Rhun 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion was lack of references, not the name - which is properly subject of naming conventions and has nothing to do with weather a subject merits an article or not. Though I am really puzzled why the article was deleted in the first place, as there clearly was no consensus that it should be deleted - majority of people (all familiar with the topic) were for keeping it in the first place. Now undisputable references are provided, and there is really no basis to delete an article on the weapon that you are not even disputing existed and was used in Jasenovac in the way described. Hvarako 17:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion was the lack of references for the name, not on the knife itself. That the knife existed was resolved in the last Afd discussion, and a description was then incorporated into the Jasenovac camp article since the name of the knife, the articles title, could not be verified. "Consensus" should not be a requirement for an article to be deleted, since most of the "Keep" voters did not bother to comment at the subject at all, they just knew they heard about some "srbosjek" once, somwhere, from their grandmas or something, but have actually no idea or conception (let alone a reliable source) what this rumor "srbosjek" could have once been. You have not provided undisputable references for the name at all. In fact, you have provided only a single reference from Bulajic, a serbian warmonger and Srebrenica denier, not being known for working "seriously" at all. The description of the knife as a murdering tool is already fully present in the jasenovac article, so what is the point of creating another article for it, when you cant provide a source for the _name_ of this new article more reliable than some biased serbian wartime hearsay? Come on. --Rhun 07:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case, the sourcing of the content was in question. Look at the discussion, in fact, naming can not be a proper reason for deletion. Rough concensus is needed for deletion, when there is no concensus, page is kept by default. But now sources are provided, and Bulajic is not even used as a source for the claims in the article. Hvarako

Is this then the right page for this argument ? Speedy close, as keep (because this is a term which people may/will wantg to look up) and move discussion/argument/flame war to article-Talk page to discuss issues of content. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not mostly the issue, but the naming, since there seems to be no attestable historical connection between the name and the knife, but some war rumors from the 90's Balkan wars. --Rhun 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are references provided that prove that this is the name the knife is called now - and naming conventions of wikipedia are in favor of the name srbosjek, instead of say graviso knife - but again, the naming issue is completely separate from the deletion considerations. Even if there was a better name for the article - and I strongly believe this is the proper name - it is no argument for deletion of an article. Hvarako 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - historical term --Jaro.p 12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Would you please care to elaborate and reason your vote? --Rhun 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the historical term just as Yatagan, Kopis and many other. If it was that what for to delete? Probably soon removed butterflies or penguins - they will need to be deletion from wikipedia too?--Jaro.p 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because there were no sources, especially not on the net for everybody to look up, that the knife from jasenovac really was named "srbosjek". Greetings, --Rhun 13:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This name is rare. And in Russian sources it is used too. In Russian Wikipedia there were other images of this knife but now them have removed - this image is better. Probably it is a legend but then meets in the big territory.--Jaro.p 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, it is not a legend. it is the knife actually used in Jasenovac, and noone is even contesting that. Name srbosjek is the one this knife is known under, Bulajic and ICTY are references proving this, but as I said, the weapon clearly existed, was used by the ustashe for slaughter in genocide at Jasenovac and other places, and while the whole story is so gross it is hard to believe, so are many things done by the Nazis and the Ustashe. Just because it is hard to believe humans are capable of such crimes as in Holocaust does not mean it is a legend, and indeed such bestialities are quite a legitimate topic. Backed with scholarly references, it meets all standards of wikipedia and srbosjek merits an article, like it or not. Hvarako 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wartime atrocity stories must have reliable and verifiable sources. The ones provided are not adequate. Many countries have denounced their enemies as brutes, sadists, pirates, cutthroats war criminals and baby eaters. Edison 0:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

what is exactly your concern, and why do you consider references provided not good enough? dr mladenko colic, for instance, is the foremost expert in ustasha military, a historian respected both in belgrade and zagreb. in fact, in zagreb his book (qouted here) is one of the main sources in advanced master level courses on NDH period. what is your basis to question reliability of his book? there are several other scholarly books provided, from the period way before 90s, there is a vitness account of dr nikola nikolic, holocaust survivor from jasenovac, croat by ethnicity. what basis do you have to question the reliability of the sources provided? not even the person who proposed deletion questions the existence of the knife and its use at Jasenovac. atrocities of ustashe are well documented and are not disputed - what is disputed by some croatian revisionist historians is the scope of the genocide, not the bestiality of the methods applied. if you call some source into question, then you have to have some justification, an expert in the history of ndh such as dr mladenko colic, whose work is used both in belgrade and zagreb to this days, for instance, is as reliable a source as you can get when it comes to ndh. Hvarako

Comment The article is extremely POV. It is difficult for English speaking editors to evaluate the scholarly quality and objectivity of the non-English references provided, but one gets the impression they are rather partisan. (edited to add) The article is ostensibly about a particular killing tool, but in a "coatrack" sense the larger article is about the views of one nation taht war cimes were committed against them by unspeakably cruel bloodthirsty cutthroat enemies. Many World War 2 evils and alleged war crimes of other conflicts have been written up not only in publications from and in the language of the country of the victims, but also in mainstream press and in books from publishing houses in other countries. A Wikipedia article could technically satisfy WP:N with no sources but books published in the aggrieved country and in their language, but in cases where atrocities, war crime, and crimes against humanity are claimed, it is helpful to add at least a couple of references from reliable and independent publications from the larger community of scholars, both to make references more accessible and to show that the claims have widespreaad acceptance. For examples of such articles with wider sourcing, see Rape of Belgium (where a number of additional sources are listed in the talk page but not yet added to the article), Lidice, Babi Yar, Nanking Massacre, Katyn massacre and Deir Yassin massacre. The presence of sources from a variety of nations is useful. Additionally, others here have stated that the subject knife is not a subject of many of the references. Edison 05:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references are books that contain information about the use of knife, and are sources for the claims made in the article. Of course the books have wider subject, but all of them include information about the use of srbosjek, and are proper sources; for instance, Nikolic has wrote at lenght about both srbosjek, as well as other methods for execution in Jasenovac. It is understandable that you may find it dificult to understand foreign language, but parts of books are translated into english, whole Dedijer book exists in english translation, there are sources in English as well. As for judging the reliability, neither Nikolic nor Colic are disputed as sources by Croatians (the side which was doing the killings), indeed Nikolic is a Croat himself, and Colic is a recognized expert whose book is used at Zagreb University (Croatian main university) [22] - this is a link to the transcript of session of Zagreb University, you can see a master thesis using a Colic book as one of the main sources; here [23] is a link of a course at University of Zagreb, the subject is Croatian modern history, and notice the Colic book under number 4 of bibliography; dr Colic is based at Vojnotehnicki institut in Belgrade and was very opposed to Serbian nationalism in the 90s. dr Bulajic, who is mentioned only in connection with the name srbosjek, is disputed in Croatia nowadays, but dr Colic and dr Nikolic are far from that. Vladimir Dedijer was a communist, and while he might be controversial because of that, he is not a Serbian nationalist, far from that. He was a high ranking figure in Tito government, represented Yugoslavia at opening of UN , and was very respected internationally as an intellectual. Together with Milovan Djilas he was ousted and was one of the most prominent disidents of the Tito era. He was born in Slovenia and died in Boston. He was Chairman and President of Sessions at the 1966 Russell Tribunal. Dr Nikola Nikolic had problems with communist Tito government himself right after the war. Howard Blum is neither Croat nor Serb and wrote a book in english. So, Croatian, Serbian, and out of ex-yu sources are all confirming the data, there are Tito communists as well as disidents and non communists, i.e. the sources are pretty varied as well. Hvarako 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dojarca 21:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt, is it notable? The article is on knife, not on genocide of serbs, but most of sources in the article are about genocide, and don't mention the knife itself. It is not even known, how many of them were produced, and was it mass production. Garret Beaumain 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is notable as it is the unique knife designed specially to slaughter people.--Dojarca 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly enough sources for notability. DGG (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, which ones actually name the knife by this name? Besides Bulajic, who is known for wild nationalism, even more wild inflating of victim numbers, denying 90's Srebrenica mass executions, asserting that the croatian WW2 ustasha nazi state and the jasenovac concentration camp was under the command of the pope and run mostly by franciscan monks, which ones? Not single one hast been presented. --Rhun 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you again push the naming issue, which has nothing to do with deletion, and moreover do not mention that both ICTY and Bulajic links provide evidence for the name. Indeed, for naming (as opposed to sourcing facts) widespread use is relevant, and a google search proves that srbosjek is the name this knife is best known - various internet forums and links that can serve as sources about themself prove that this name is the one most used. You may dispute Bulajic as a source - he is disputed by croatian holocaust deniers though he does have a PhD and an influential position as president of genocide foundation - but you cant dispute his use of the name. Google search gives few hits for graviso knife [24] but hundreds of hits for srbosjek[25], and in those hits this knife is what is talked about. You are I think well aware that this is the name knife is now known under, and that is the thing most relevant for the naming. The proper page to discuss the name of the article is article talk page, one does not start deletion page just because he disagrees with the name of the article. Please check WP:TITLE.Hvarako 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at those google answers gives some more links, confirming the widespread use of the name. For instance, [26], an article by american-Jewish journalist Jared Israel talks about srbosjek. The name is the one most used in english based sources and it is imho clearly the proper name for the article. Hvarako

Hello Hvarako, in most of the hits google returns, the old wikipedia article ist either used as a reference, or it it is a direct mirror of the old wikipedia page on srbosjek, since it was net wide the single existing source about this subject. There are several articles which were provided as a "source" for the name, which cited wikipedia as their primary and single source for the name. You can not imagine what impact the old wikipedia article had, especially considering that it was completely based on hearsay. Even the article you provided as "proof", from Jared Israel, does not cite its source on Srbosjek (because he simply ahs none?) and being written only a few days ago can not be used as a reference, since he also most probably used wikipedia as his source. (The Emperors new clothes, the whole website, is btw. a really _bad_ source to cite anything from, since it tends to support right wing extremist views like (from the Jarred Israel article): Croatia has been dominated by Ustasha ideas and pursued Ustasha goals. The Croatian secessionists even exhumed the World War II Ustasha symbols although by doing so they risked being internationally identified as fascists, since it is easier for outsiders to spot the Ustasha slogans, salute, flag, currency and uniforms than it is for them to recognize Ustasha ideas and goals.) (You could actually mail the author and ask him for his source, if he has one, so if its genuine, we could use it here. But I actually doubt he has anything else than again some wikipedia mirror. Nobody actually disputes that this term "Srbosjek" exists, so linking a google search is useless to prove your point, since when you weed out texts and forum posts influenced by wikipedia article itself, you are again at the starting point. If the wikipedia article stays under its current name, it will again become the _primary_ reference for this subject, and will get cited on dozens or hundreds of sites, since other sources are impossible to find. I dont know the exact wikipedia rule for this, but as i remember, the information in wiki articles should not be original data, but some kind of starting point, and have for any assumption easily available sources for further reading. How should anyone please find out about "srbosjek", interlending some half an century old book directly from serbia or croatia? Greetings, --Rhun 11:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Fortunately, there is a way to exclude mirror pages and wikipedia related results from google search, [27], so majority of hits are not wikipedia related. Are you now trying to claim that word srbosjek originated at wikipedia? That is patent nonsense, clearly Bulajic work and journalist reports from the 90s predate very wikipedia existence, there is here also a link in the hits first page about captain Dragan and discovery of new specimens of srbosjek in the early 90s. As for Jared Israel, he is a columnist who wrote a lot about ex-yugoslavia, and he is unquestionably aware of Bulajic's work. Indeed, I have learned many facts about Ustasha regime first time reading some of his articles - for instance, Jasenovac predated other execution camps, which were only fully operational after Wansee conference, and Nazis were very keen to know how slaughter in Jasenovac worked. Appaled by the barbarity of Croatian Ustasha, they opted for gas chambers as more humane. Even this article of his, which mentiones srbosjek just in passing, has some appaling information. You call him right extremist, what then you have to say about this YOUTUBE clip of stadion full of Croatians giving nazi salute all with the hand gesture [28], before the concert of the singer Thompson, who was banned from appearing in Netherlands where he was judged to be a neonazi due to his open support of neoustashas and singing songs such as Jasenovac i gradiska stara, cellebrating massacres of Serbs. Do you excuse such displays and yet claim that Jared is right wing for writting about them? This might be indicative of your own views and denial of dark side of croatian present and past. Jared Israel may be opinionated, but the link proves that the word has taken root in English language. Weather wikipedia articles bring some obscure facts to light or not is another question, but surely if it gets people to learn more about a topic, and in this case topic is a weapon of unspeakable barbarity, it can be only a positive thing. If more people were aware what Ustashe are all about, many lives might have been saved; however this is a larger point and is not related to this discussion which is a misguided proposal (to say the least) to remove this page, as if hiding things beneath the carpet would somehow change history. Hvarako

Comment If you will take a look at other AFDs, you will see that the endless, repetitious arguments presented here are not typical and are not desirable. All participants should present their argument succinctly, and please do not use this as a soapbox to re-argue every historical dispute. A Google search which excludes Wikipedia and its mirrors shows only a few uses of the term "Srbosjek" and those appear to be in blogs or other sites which do not satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. There are zero hits for the term on ProQuest, Google Scholar, Google Book Search or Google News. It is not the goal of Wikipedia to be a place of first publication of things which are useful in propaganda in long-standing disputes in the Balkans. Edison 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits conunts are for weighting the naming of the article, and do not have to satisfy the policies you quoted. The naming discussion is out of place here, but the only people who are against this article put up name as an argument. Reiliability of sources that are quoted (as opposed for the naming) has been explained at your request, and now you complain that arguments are too detailed. Also, please note that previous vote was overhelmingly in favor of keeping (just as this one, standing at 75% keep votes i.e. 6:2, with 3 strong keeps and one speedy keep), yet the article somehow got deleted and explanation was "not enough arguments presented by the keep side" - now it would be a bit hypocritical to call the discussion this informative repetitive in the context when article was deleted for the very style typical of other AFDs (in my opinion, by a procedural mistake). For the name, sources other than forums and blogs have been given - dr Bulajic's (a scolar) quote, ICTY quote (note: in one of the links you can find Srbosjek the other has translated into Serb cutter, but in Serbian original both cases are Srbosjek), Jared Israel article, also what one can understand from the links is that name was widespread in the 90s yugoslav press. Obscurity of a fact is no argument for exclusion; this knife may be obscure out of ex-yu but in the Balkans it is in fact not obscure. It is a topic a lot has been talked about in the 90s there, and certainly wikipedia wouldnt be the first source. Indeed the original sources are books about Jasenovac horrors by survivors and scholars, from decades before Internet even existed. Now, if you for some reason do not like the facts, that is your problem, you cannot dismiss Holocaust stories on the basis that they serve some purpose in the present. It is as if you tried to delete gas chamber article on the basis that it serves current Israel for some sort of propaganda purposes. Hvarako 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a few concluding remarks:

1. dr Bulajic's (a scolar) - Bulajic is actually a bad example of a "scolar" and certainly a _bad_ one to cite in a serious internationaly excyclopedia. He is a right-wing extremist, a nationalist, in his thinking and views close to the likes of radicals and warmongers like Vojislav Šešelj, and one of the writers whose works i.a. fueled the 90s' national hatred and the subsequent wars on the Balkans. He is known for wildly inflating victim numbers on the one side, and completely denying mass murders like the one from Srebrenica on the other side, nutty accusations that the pope and the vaticans ordered and controlled the genocide on serbian population in WW2 and so on.

2. Jared Israel - another right-wing extremist, in most of his articles takes an very active and extremist pro-serbian and anti-croatian (actually, mostly anti everything else) side. His mentioning of the srbosjek-name, which has been linked, happened only a few days ago, and is not supported with a reference (considering the lack of references we experienced arguing on this article, this should be important, because as an english speaker, he certainly should have one, since he can not know this serbo-croatian word by accident.). I recommended emailing the author and asking about his source on "srbosjek", but this has obviously not been done.

3. And Afd discussion is not a _vote_. Most of the voters argued in a "STRONG KEEP!!!1 I know this, my grandmother has told me about it." way, which is not a basis for an inclusion in an international accessible encyclopedia as an verified fact.

4. The ICTY link is not a proof of anything, since it is not an official court document, but a, again, serbian defense witness testimonial from the war crimes trial of, i suppose Milan Martić, the leader of the rogue Republic of Serbian Krajina, the cause of the 90's war in Croatia.

5. Obscurity of a fact is no argument for exclusion; this knife may be obscure out of ex-yu but in the Balkans it is in fact not obscure. - Actually it is obscure enough, as you see, as you have only serbian right-wingers mentions of it, considering this word is of croatian origin and that the concentration camps were in Croatia, where not only serbs, but also Jews, Roma, Bosnians and Croatians were murdered.

6. It is as if you tried to delete gas chamber article on the basis that it serves current Israel for some sort of propaganda purposes. - The existance and naming of the gas chambers is very well documented and verified, there are multiple, international sources about them, and those sources can be considered neutral and not biased in any way. If it were like in the case of the "Srbosjek", there would be _no_ sources about them on the net, just some book written in hebrev from 30 or 60 yrs ago by a jew right-wing extremist known for not taking historical facts too seriously and misusing them for nationalistic/political causes.

That should be all I have to say on this matter, since the arguments here have already be presented already a few times and tend to repeat themselves. The rest is admin's work. Greetings, --Rhun 08:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hvarako once again, I would like you not to chop my last and summarizing reply into pieces. I know that it is easier to "discuss" something replying sentence by sentence, since wikipedia lacks a proper citation and discussion system, but keeping the paragraphs in one piece makes the review process by an administrator easier and the point of a single commentator unchanged and more comprehensive. So please, format your reply so that it keeps mine intact as I sent it, or I will revert it to the previous state. (And please dont take this as a offense.) Greetings, --Rhun 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separated the objected comments myself to avoid silly reverts and rereverts with User:Terse. --Rhun 15:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. dr Bulajic is a scholar, like it or not, and again, he is only mention in connection with proving the name. He is certainly not a right wing extremist, you might dispute him as a serbian nationalist but you cant dispute other sources on this basis and you cant dispute his use of a name.

2. Again, Jared is mentioned in connection with use of a name. Weather he is right wing or not, I dont know, but you seem to think that all people who are pro Serbian are right wing - you have to face it, writting about numerous expressions of Croatian neonazism and neoustashism does not qualify someone as right wing. In fact, you would probably put Noam Chomsky in this group, and certainly people like Chomsky are not right wing. Jared Israel is probably better described as antiglobalist. What matters here is that Jared is a journalist who was using established name "srbosjek" (established obviously not only in ex-yu).

3. Criteria for inclusion are well established, and srbosjek meets them as you have admitted yourself - you dispute only the name. Your way to belittle the arguments presented as "my grandmother told me" (noone mentioned anything remotely similar in this vote) when so many facts about both literature and background have been presended is really amazing. I dont see you disputed verifiability or reliability of the main sources - books by Novak, Colic and Dedijer at all, and the only thing which you in fact disputed was the name, which you claim there is no proof was used in WWII. What matters however is that this is the name now used for the artifact, and naming issue is not related to deletion anyway. As for keep votes there is clear procedure on wikipedia about what is the purpose of the votes - to judge the opinion of community - and that both in arguments and in opinions what needs to be done for article to be removed. Clearly here noone even disputes the fact that such a knife existed and was used in Jasenovac, what you disputed was the name which you dislike for some reason.

4. Dedijer, Colic or Novak are certainly no Serbian right wigners. Certainly Jews and other people have been killed in Jasenovac, Novak is a Croat, and Jared Israel is a Jew, which probably has to do with why he is so disgusted with expressions of Croatian neoustashism and right wing extremism, nazi saluting in full stadion, singing Jasenovac i gradiska stara on rock concerts etc included. As for the widespreadness of the name, it appeared in press and media in the 90s, certainly this fact was useful in times of war for propaganda purposes. A very wide public is aware of this knife under this name because of that. In the links that google gives you have plenty of mentions of this use in the media; the journal papers from the 90s do not exist on internet however. ICTY proceedings of Milosevic had a very large public audience, often with millions of viewers, and the mention of srbosjek under this name there is also significant as it proves that a large portion of population in the Balkans knows this name. Hvarako 13:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Again, you miss the point. This was answer to the argument that wikipedia should not present facts that are used by someone to favor their political/national position. Srbosjek is certainly less known than Gas chambers, but the ways of execution in Jasenovac are just as reliably documented, multiple and from varied sources, as I have already explained. Lot more has been written about the gas chambers, but that does not change the main point. For wikipedia, having even a few sources which are verifiable and satisfy required standards is enough, and in this case the facts are sourced by books by Croatian doctor - survivor from Jasenovac, person persecuted by communists as well, respected historian Colic (a titoist) from Belgrade whose book is used in Zagreb university, a prominent Tito disident Dedijer, independent Howard Blum (I know little about him other that he is not from Balkans) are all given as sources. Hvarako 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. It is proof of a use of the word srbosjek, as explained already; the facts about the knife are sourced independently and you dont even deny them. Providing links showing the usage of the word has to do with naming, not deletion, and such links are evidence of its own. Hvarako 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note Rhun has repeatedly (3 times) removed comments of Hvarako even after I warned him that this is not acceptable. Only after he has been reported at vandalism in progress page has he left them, though at different place. Terse 15:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terse has since then kept deleting my comments on that matter from the Afd page. Hvarakos comments have been moved below mine to undu the change he made on my comment. --Rhun 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not true. Anyone can check the edit history. I have been reverting your edits, since you removed my comment as well. The comment should stay even though it is not related to the topic - noone should delete other people comments, as it constitues discussion page vandalism - to quote from WP:Vandalism Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Terse 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: User Hvarako has reformatted my comment and chopped it in pieces without my permission. He has been given a day to undo his changes on my comment, after which I reverted the the Afd discussion to a state prior his reformatting. Instead of doing the work he is supposed to do, because he reformatted the comment in the first place, you jsut restored it to _his_ last version. To make a long story short, I hope we now have a state in which both of us will not have anything more to object. Greetings, --Rhun 15:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting Darwinism[edit]

Not notable. Precisely 4 google hits, all referring to text. In over 20 years of business, never heard it used once. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable description (that would in any case fail WP:DICDEF). AfD = Article Darwinism in action ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the term has not gained wide acceptance; i.e. WP:NEO. Shalom ^Hello 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable term that apparently is a blurb in single book. We all have a rough idea what the author means, but it doesn't merit an article. ... Kenosis 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What next, Motion Picture Darwinism? Computer Darwinism? VHS vs Betamax Darwinism? Bah. Jim62sch 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and unsourced. Although, to be honest I must say I do like this article because it shows how fanatical & wrong many evolutionists are. --PEAR (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, please do explain. ROFLMFAO. Jim62sch 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no basis for an article here. Sxeptomaniac 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 23:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BigFishy 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more than a neologism. You could slap "Darwinism" on pretty much any concept. JIP | Talk 05:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Smells of original research, but I am not sure. Bearian 02:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of SpongeBob SquarePants merchandise[edit]

Long, rambling list of merchandise for a particular franchise. No encyclopedic merit indicated, and no notability asserted. Violates WP:NOT#DIR. Eyrian 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Violates WP:NOT#DIR (and my gag reflex). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems a shame, as a lot of work has clearly gone into this. However, per above comments this is a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIR, the useful content is covered elsewhere, and the merchandise lists fail WP:ATT (no sources, hence OR) EyeSerene^TALK 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I may be the creator of the article but it does violate WP:NOT#DIR. --Caldorwards4 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the concept is interesting, it is an unorganized list of lists of stuff that you can buy, with nothing to give it context or meaning, making it unsourced trivia. Pharmboy 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if you check WP:NOT#DIR it says: "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is not that, it is clearly defined to a very narrow scope. Instead I suspect I'm seeing WP:IDONTLIKEIT here instead in disguise? Due to the huge number of blue links in the article it is a highly useful page in pointing towards other relevant pages, thus should be kept also in a disambiguation sense. Mathmo ^Talk 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I'm a huge Spongebob fan, much to the chagrin of my wife. Perhaps you are not applying the principal of WP:AGF here? Pharmboy 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not saying you specifically don't like it. Plus there is a big difference in liking the subject and going "I don't like" the article. Mathmo ^Talk 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I don't like the article because it doesn't meet WP:NOT#DIR or WP:RS. Would be rather odd to think you must like an article to want to delete it. The problem for me is that there is nothing tying the lists of material together. If you have a list of lots of stuff and nothing to say about any of it, maybe a category is the answer. Pharmboy 22:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mathmo. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I happen to find this "Long, rambling list" incredibly useful. (And I prefer to get this information here rather than on a pushy site with flashing ads. Maîtresse 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This section in ILIKE specifically addresses why "it is useful" is not a valid arguement for keep. I'm not arguing with your opinion as to it being useful (it is) but that isn't the issue. Pharmboy 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but downsize and and maybe split. Some of the less notable items (e.g. internet games, cell phone games, other games) can be summarised in a single paragraph. DVD and VHS releases needs to be tidied, possibly get its own page with critical reaction, sales figures, etc. Same for video games. Toys could be summarised in a couple of paragraphs. Article should be kept but needs massive cleanup. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet WP:NOT#DIR or WP:RS— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 23:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR] - Not a sales catalog. Corpx 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for such a successful franchise, the article is notable. --musicpvm 08:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathmo. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cappellupo[edit]

Non-notable hockey player Skudrafan1 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Monroe Community College (Rochester, NY) hockey player fails WP:BIO. ccwaters 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Community colleges have ice hockey teams? (Well, alright, this one apparently does.) In any event, this beer league player absolutely fails WP:BIO even in its strictest interpretation. Likely WP:COI as well, as this subject represents almost the sole Wikipedia activity of the creator. RGTraynor 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: Not many, but mostly is New York state [29]. Its not all that odd to me: Binghamton local news occasionally flash Broome Hornets scores. ccwaters 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said. Kaiser matias 20:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't played in the higher leagues yet.--JForget 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all possible notability requirements. --Djsasso 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Djssaso. GoodDay 19:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American (magazine)[edit]

This has had a notability prod on it since February. One editor updated it by adding two seemingly notable contributors, but I don't see how the publication itself is notable. It is a magazine founded only last year and produced six times a year by a conservative think tank. I can find no references to the magazine itself, or even to any influential stories or pieces it has written. Five months of a prod for notability seems long enough. Perhaps it would be better suited for the American Enterprise Institute's article. Delete or Move to American Enterprise Institute article. --David Shankbone 17:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability prod was under the previously-existing The American magazine; that article was moved to The American (magazine) today. It previously had been categorized and prodded since February. --David Shankbone 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Successor to the notable The American Enterprise, and edited by the notable James Glassman. Circulation of 45,000, far more than other magazines that were kept by consensus in AfD nominations (e.g., Law Practice Magazine). National press coverage when the magazine was initiated. (COI disclosure: I've written multiple times for the publication, and know many of its employees.) THF 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really pertinent to this discussion that Law Practice Magazine or any other have higher or lower circulation numbers, which is not the threshold. Notability is. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --David Shankbone 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, circulation figures are regularly cited in determining the notability of magazines, including the AFD for the considerably less Law Practice Magazine. THF 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and is this paid circulation that has been quoted? Is there a link to circulation numbers? Seems like there would be somewhere. I can barely find mention of this publication on Google searches. --David Shankbone 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above. Sufficient sources to indicate notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a speedy delete, so no needs for speedy keeps. The article is written rather shoddily (with every sentence starting with "The..."), and I don't see how the notability has been established with the additional sources, none of which are independently verifiable. Is 45,000 paid circulation? Is there a link to that circulation number that can be provided? Why is it that all of the articles that were added neither have links to them, and all have the same November 27, 2007 date? Lastly, how do these additional sources show that it should not instead be moved to the American Enterprise Institute's article, with its own section? --David Shankbone 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a speedy delete to call for a speedy keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point for a speedy keep when it's not a speedy delete, but an AfD process? --David Shankbone 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It notifies administrators that this is a waste-of-time nomination, and there are grounds for quickly closing it. THF 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've supplied more than enough reasons for why this is not a waste-of-time, none of which are answered, and perhaps the magazine is noteworthy; no evidence has been presented of that yet. --David Shankbone 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is smacking of WP:POINT. The article is written shoddily because you AFD'd a plainly notable magazine in retaliation for my voting against an article you wanted to keep, and I rushed to insert sources before someone with a quick trigger-finger deleted it. November 27 is a Monday, and most weekly magazines publish on Mondays, and the Chicago Tribune prints its magazine column on Mondays, so all four sources are on Monday and three are on the Monday after the first issue came out. If you're going to violate AGF and accuse an editor of faking sources, do it to my face, instead of this insinuation. THF 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, assume good faith and keep a cool head, this isn't personal. And this isn't a speedy delete, but a five day process (per the AfD guidelines). I AfD'ed an article that has had a prod on it for five months, that I can barely find on Google, and seems to fit better under the think tank's article. Not one of the follow-up questions has been answered, and I'm sorry, but I don't see this is a "plainly notable magazine" and it's certainly hard to find on Google searches, using a variety of methods. --David Shankbone 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not have a prod on it, it had a notability tag that was placed on the mistitled orphan The American magazine that never had a stub tag, so nobody ever saw the article. This article has only existed for eight hours, and you placed an AFD on it immediately. Also, please don't update your comments (such as your initial nomination) after people have responded to them without clearly indicating the edits or the update time. THF 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made no substantive change to my initial nomination. This article has existed since February, and it had a notability prod on it since February, which flagged it as needed additional sources (regardless of stub status). There is no "starting time" accorded articles that allow them to prove notability, regardless. Put the work in and prove me wrong, instead of arguing about a very legitimate process that has been undertaken. Instead of discussing procedure here out of some misdirected sense of victimization, why don't you just prove the magazine's notability? --David Shankbone 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, you're the only one who is tendentiously arguing lack of notability, so I don't feel the need to aim for your moving target. If editors who aren't violating WP:POINT have legitimate questions, perhaps we can discuss those. The record will reflect the article was created less than seven hours ago. The record will also reflect that an article with a prod on it for five days gets speedy-deleted. THF 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, this AfD has been active for an hour and a half. There is a detailed history of this article's nascence as The American magazine; yes, you created The American (magazine) eight hours ago. I will chalk your impassioned debate and refusal to answer questions about it up to the fact that you 1. write for the magazine; and 2. work for the think tank that publishes it. --David Shankbone 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This US News & World Report blog post was listed as one of the references to show notability, but it only shows that the magazine replaced the AEI's (quoting) "old political rag". I don't think minor blurbs that simply announce the launch of a publication really show notability. Again, I think this may be more appropriate under the AEI's article. --David Shankbone 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Who cares what a blog post says? The article doesn't cite the blog post, it cites a November 27 article in USNWR that included an interview with Glassman about his goals for the magazine. That there are also over 2000 blog posts about the magazine and its website shows additional notability. THF 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cites the "Washington Whispers" column, which this is - this interview I am unable to locate it. And there are over 1,500 blog posts about the reviled Law Practice Magazine. --David Shankbone 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is to the Washington Whispers blog, which is not the Washington Whispers column. (Yes, the quote from Glassman was part of a longer column that included information about non-Glassman things.) In any event, the Chicago Tribune ran an 800-word story on and glowing review of the magazine, which is more than most magazines listed in Wikipedia can say. I'm not sure why you mention Law Practice Magazine, other to demonstrate that this brand-new magazine, with a notable editor-in-chief, notable writers, and a notable designer, has more blog mentions than a decades-old magazine. THF 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that Law Practice Magazine has a far smaller base of readers (it's an American Bar Association magazine about the practice of law) compared to one that writes about business and economics, it's surprising that there is little discrepency between them in terms of blog interest. That's neither here nor there. Both USNWR and Chicago Tribune archive their articles on-line. Do you have any links? --David Shankbone 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm agnostic on this. I think if the previous magazine (even more of a stub) was good enough to escape the nominator's scorn, this one should have too. At any rate, here are a couple links not already in the article, off the top of a quick search.
- "American Pie" in The New Republic
- "Money magazines get smart" in the New York Sun Cool Hand Luke 22:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The New Republic link just seems to mention a column by an AEI guy, but the other one is a good link. --David Shankbone 22:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to say "article," which has this one relevant paragraph:

Tellingly, AEI's magazine has abandoned the Zinsmeister model and relaunched itself with a new name (The American) and a new mission ("a magazine of ideas for business leaders"). The new editor, James Glassman (who was tnr's publisher from 1981 to 1984), is best-known for co-authoring, with Hassett, the kitschy stock market-utopian tract Dow 36,000. His most recent venture was running Tech Central Station, a "think tank" owned by a lobbying firm whose clients would find their views taken up in purportedly independent op-eds written by Glassman and his minions. (This arrangement, also innovative and also not entirely ethical, was aptly dubbed "journolobbying" by Nicholas Confessore in a 2003 Washington Monthly expose.) Mirroring the change in leadership, The American now seems less dewy-eyed about the virtues of democracy and far more dewy-eyed about the virtues of the bottom line. Out is the conservatism of Paul Wolfowitz. In is the conservatism of Montgomery Burns.

Amusing criticism, at least. Cool Hand Luke 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. It looks like this subject is more than an AEI party organ to me. See especially the New York Sun article above. I think the nominator may have failed to find sources because "The American" is a very common expression to google, but one can find some coverage by searching the title in conjunction with the editor and AEI. I recommend that nominator withdraw the nomination for a speedy keep. Cool Hand Luke 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fwiw, Glassman has long taken the position that there is a market niche for a business magazine that was actually pro-business; see this 2003 piece he wrote. Of course, this can't make it into the article under WP:SYN. But this is Glassman's vision. THF 02:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With the added citations, it seems to be at least as notable as Law Practice Management magazine, if not necessarily provably more influential. I would not object to withdrawal with the article in its current state. Certainly is far better than it was this morning (or five months ago). --David Shankbone 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable and is quite sourced although expansion can be needed a bit.--JForget 23:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and notable. Nick mallory 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even merely as replacement for the old AEI magazine is notable, no matter how off target you might think their politics are.Sposer 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on its own merits. It's not necessarily relevant to compare with magazines in other fields. Circulation figures are relevant, but within the field or in relation to the potential audience. But certainly the continuation or re-start of a notable magazine will generally be notable. DGG (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 06:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe ronayne[edit]

Contested prod. Recently deceased semi-professional skateboarder who doesn't appear to have done anything noteworthy. I can't find any reliable sources (or, indeed, any sources at all), so he fails WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 and WP:MEMORIAL. No assertion of notability, no sources, could be a hoax for all we know. --Finngall ^talk 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete Can't even get a single ghist with his name in quotes and skateboarding. Notability is not asserted, as "semi-pro skateboarder" isn't a free pass to notability, even if it is true. Pharmboy 20:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Very not notable skateboarder, lack of sources too and very messy article.--JForget 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be consensus that it needs cleanup, but I don't see one for deletion. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in the Warcraft universe[edit]

I am all for thoroughness, but this article is ridiculous. The stuff on here is what WoWWiki is for. Even if it isn't deleted, it needs to be toned way-way-way down – the page is 213 kilobytes long! Not only that, but some of the locations in this gargantuan unencyclopedic article each have their own articles (see Azeroth, Draenor, Darnassus, Ironforge, Stormwind, Orgrimmar, Thunder Bluff, Undercity). It also overlaps with the much smaller Warcraft universe article, which is supposed to be the "main" article, judging by the infobox. Sdornan 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I'd just like folks to note that the nominator has changed this article considerably since it was first nominated(see comment below) and it might be worth looking at the article as it is now rather than considering it as it was. In particular, it's no longer 213 kb long. FrozenPurpleCube 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. How is it possible to have a 213k encyclopedia article that has no sources? 213k of WP:OR World-of-Warcruft? The prose is unsuitable for a merge as it stands, being written 'in universe'; per nom, this belongs on WoWWiki, not WP. EyeSerene^TALK 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the vast improvement that this article is now showing, and the addition of a decent source, I think I'm justified in changing to weak keep; "weak" because I still have some concerns about the game-guide aspects of the article and more sourcing would be nice, but these are really cleanup rather than deletion issues. Excellent job Sdornan and FrozenPurpleCube! EyeSerene^TALK 12:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a second look at it, but don't credit me for anything, I'll give the kudos for all the hard work to Sdornan. FrozenPurpleCube 13:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when you merge every little thing; the parent gets too large and is deleted. You all brought this on yourselves. —Xezbeth 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really don't see how this is any different from most articles regarding fictitious characters that rely entirely upon the primary source material. They are notable as key elements of an unquestionably notable series of games. I will agree that this article really, really needs some sourcing and massive rewrite per WP:WAF but that's not quite a reason to delete. I hate to invoke something like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but let's be honest, there are many, many other articles similar to (or worse off than) this one that get kept along the lines of reasoning that "X is a notable part of Y, Y is unquestionably notable, article on Y is too big for X so a seperate article makes sense". ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that nearly all of the article is written from an in-universe perspective. In-universe material is not encyclopedic. I disagree with the notion that there should be large separate articles for in-universe material. There are probably encyclopedic things that could be said about the subject matter, but this article contains nothing of that sort. I would argue that everything in-universe should be removed, but what would we be left with? Leebo ^T/C 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perspective is a concern to rewrite, not a concern that mandates deletion. What exists in the page afterwards could be examined at the time. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a rewrite from scratch though. Until someone does that, the value of the article is near nothing in encyclopedic terms. I'm just providing my opinion, I'm not currently saying "delete" or "keep." Leebo ^T/C 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be how you would rewrite it, but I wouldn't rewrite it that way. I would make use of the existing material as appropriate, and in some cases, yes, I do believe that would be quite valid. FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existing material is not encyclopedic though. It should be removed and replaced with encyclopedic material in any case. There isn't much of a difference between deleting the article and replacing it with a proper article (if no one is willing to rewrite it soon). Leebo ^T/C 19:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it? What would make it encyclopedic? I can understand concerns about tone, I would certainly not say the page overall is well-written, but I am unable to comprehend the reasons for your statement that the page contains nothing encyclopedic. Frankly, I don't even have a clue what you mean by saying something isn't encyclopedic. Could you give examples of what is and what isn't so I understand where you're coming from? I'd understand maybe if this article were written in a perspective like that of a character in the universe, but that isn't the case. FrozenPurpleCube 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just to be clear, I do feel an extensive rewrite is appropriate, BUT I feel a rewrite from the existing material is the way to do things. This may just be a choice of editing styles. In this case, I would prefer to work with what's there, if you prefer another way of working, that's your choice. I am reluctant to do anything with this discussion going on, however. I don't want to waste work. FrozenPurpleCube 20:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that in-universe material is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you are going to write about the locations in the Warcraft universe in an encyclopedic manner, you would talk about how they were designed, what influenced their design, how they influenced other games, etc. We don't need to know what lands are adjacent to other ones or who lived where or other matters concerning the plot of the series. Also, this isn't List of locations in the Warcraft universe, even though it seems to be written that way. Do you better understand what I mean? An article concerning this subject should be about the real world significance of these locations, not the game-world significance. Leebo ^T/C 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I believe I strongly disagree. You may not consider it important to know where Ironforge is in relation to Stormwind. I do, at least to some extent. (I'll pass on including information about the gnomes hanging out in the Tram). This isn't to say the other stuff you mention isn't of some value (though I think being overly concerned about that value may be a bad idea in some cases), but I highly disagree that there is no value to in-world material for an encyclopedia. Heck, I might well say that the stuff you're talking about is useless without knowing what it is that is in reference to. And of course, if you do believe that sort of thing should be excluded, you're going to have to work for the deletion of many many articles besides this one. Besides, my idea of an in-universe style is to write as if from the perspective of someone in the universe, as if it were real. Like as done in some books. However, it is clearly possible to write non-fiction works describing a fictional universe, as the many works which do so can obviously proof. Some of them are even titled Encyclopedias. (though there are some that do so in an in-universe way, that is not always the case). But hey, so what? It's a cleanup issue at best, appropriate for handling elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I consider your statement that this page isn't List of locations in the Warcraft universe to be an easily addressed concern. If you want to suggest renaming the page, go ahead, I don't consider the change to be all that meaningful, but if you feel strongly about it, I don't see a reason to protest. FrozenPurpleCube 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my opinion alone. If you see the manual of style for writing about fiction, the focus of fictional topics is supposed to be the impact on the real world. There is no justifiable reason to have 200kb of in-universe material on a single subject with no out-of-universe material. I'm not reinventing the wheel. Yes, I realize that I may have to say this many times, about many articles dealing with fiction. I already have said it many times, about many articles. That doesn't bother me. I can handle one at a time. A good example of an article appropriately covering a fictional world is World of Final Fantasy VIII. It does describe the world, but not in excruciating detail, as this article does. It covers real-world impact too. It's concise and offers appropriate weight to both. Leebo ^T/C 23:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you're claiming as being part of the MOSF. In fact, the incorporation section specifically addresses the inclusion of material that is directly from the source. It seems to me that your interpretation is incorrect, because it's opposed to inclusion of the material at all, while the suggestion on the page is balanced, which your position is not. I think the problem is your mixing the prohibition against writing from an in-universe perspective and conflating it with the idea of the information itself. Sorry, but that's not what it's about. In any case, if you merely wished out of universe perspective, it would certainly be possible to do so, though it would be important to find a balance that didn't become a game guide. And as far as it goes, looking at World of Final Fantasy VIII, I read it, and I find myself feeling I know nothing about that world at all. If anything, I find it superficial and near useless as to the actual world. I suppose the reaction coverage is ok, but I'll never really be all that interested in it. Plus all the citations make for a distracting read. Of course, if you're concerned about a mere 200 kb of information, you'll probably want to look at some of the Middle-Earth articles. There's a surprisingly large number of them. Quite a few things on Category:Middle-earth locations. (Note, by the way, I'm not mentioning these as reasons to keep this article, just noting that if you are indeed interested in this subject, it would be an obvious place to start, and I do feel there is some work to be done there.) FrozenPurpleCube 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're deflecting my comments. You don't find the FFVIII world interesting... and that's completely irrelevant. I don't find Warcraft interesting, but that's not my argument. The citations make for a distracting read... what? I can't imagine that you're arguing against the use of proper citations. This is a core Wikipedia concept. If I'm misunderstanding this somehow, please correct me. Lastly... it means nothing that you are uninterested in reaction material. That is your personal preference. Splendid. Does it mean the article should not properly cover out-of-universe material? No. Does it mean that an article which is in-universe is okay because it's more intersting? No. I apologize if my tone sounds frustrated. Leebo ^T/C 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, and I feel like you're misunderstanding me. I didn't say anything about what I felt about the world of FFVIII. I can't say that, because I don't feel I even know much about it. My comment was to the article, (if I didn't make that clear, my apologies) which contained a lot of information I considered uninteresting, and even beyond that, provided an inadequate coverage of the supposed subject of the article. IOW, reading the page, I'm left feeling ignorant of the world, not informed. And it's not a core Wikipedia concept to create pages that are hard to read. That's distinct from whether sources should be cited or not. If you can find a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says every statement should be cited, I'll say that is a bad idea. Though WP:CITE says "Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations." and in case you didn't know, the criteria for WP:FA suggests going to Wikipedia:When to cite for advice on appropriate use of citations. If you look on the talk page for that essay, you'll see a fair bit of discussion on the subject. Including cases where people objected to FA status because of too many citations cluttering the page. So I think it's quite valid to be concerned about excessive citations making an article unreadable. Not that this is related to this discussion, but it did come up. I'm not standing alone here, it is something that influences others as well. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back to the subject at hand there is a difference between writing from an "in-universe perspective" and writing about things in a universe. Really, do you think it's inappropriate to mention the geographical relationship of two cities in a setting?? That just doesn't make sense to me. I am not opposed to out-of-universe material being included. I am, however, opposed to what I see as an excess focus on that material to the point where you don't even end up knowing about the world itself. In any case, the issue itself is a clean-up matter, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the feeling that we have very different opinions on what makes for an appropriate article about fiction. That's a good thing, for the community to have different opinions. Since I haven't said "keep" or "delete", and this discussion has gone well past its necessary scope, I'm content to agree to disagree with you. What you seem to be referring to as superficial, I see as appropriate in depth. Earlier, you said "it would be important to find a balance that didn't become a game guide." in reference to finding an appropriate balance. The current article is like a game guide, in my opinion. A geographical summary. Out-of-universe material is what needs to be added to create the balance. Leebo ^T/C 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reducing Indent for clarity) Well, to me, a game guide in this case would be to include information like detailed information on (a) rare mobs in areas. (b) resources found in areas. (c) quests in areas. (d) information about flight points in areas (All of which you can find at Wowwiki, but hopefully not here, since I think I removed all of it, though it's possible I missed some). The current article does nothing of the sort, and while I can understand your statement about there not being real world content in the article, such as might be found at the FFVIII one, I am completely and utterly astounded that you believe this article has game guide material. While there was something about the levels of mobs in the version as initially nominated, it's been removed, so that's not a real issue. Honestly, you continue to astound me with your interpretations of the content of this article. What of the content do you believe is a game guide? Give me some specific lines at least. I'd like to know some examples. That might help me to understand your position. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I can accept the idea that you want more real-world content. Fine, that can be worked on. But do you feel that the inclusion of the current material is inappropriate? If so, how? Where is the game guide nature here? I'm just not sure how you go from in-universe to game-guide anyway. The two would seem almost mutually opposed to me. There is a wide gulf between say, mentioning that Ironforge is north of Stormwind, or Darnassus on a different continent from the two of them, and say, describing how to get between them in the most efficient way. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem mutually exclusive to me. I expect a game guide to give every bit of detail on the geography and any important details about where to find places and such. That makes sense to me, but perhaps that's astonishing. I also feel that it's not necessary material for an encyclopedia article. We should probably continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Leebo ^T/C 03:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, let's go there. I've copied the relevant discussion bits FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as most, if not all of the valid concerns would be addressable on clean-up, rather than through deletion. And Wowwiki actually provides a lot of things that shouldn't be on this article, as its focus is different. And if you want sources, you could just ask for them. [30] would be the obvious choice. Now is there an actual policy based reason for deletion,or are you just using your personal opinion of the subject to guide your nomination? If so, then I suggest you reconsider as there are strong reasons not to delete things simply because you think they are ridiculous. Patent nonsense is one thing, this isn't that. FrozenPurpleCube 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for those looking for third-party sources, many examples like [31] exist. If you want something else, please do tell, but give some some examples through existing pages if you can. FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's the article editors' job to provide sources (preferably as it is being written), not the job of an AfD. An article can only stand or fall on its own merits at the time of nomination. No-one would realistically argue that sources don't exist, but the point is: there are none in the article. Add them in by all means, and I agree that failing WP:WAF is not a reason for deletion per se, but we have to get away from the idea that it's ok to defend unsourced articles because someone, someday, might find some. EyeSerene^TALK 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, we don't provide sources in an AFD to address concerns expressed in said AFD about sources? I'm afraid I don't agree with that. It doesn't make sense to me, since it would imply that an article which is claimed not to have sources couldn't be refuted with an AFD. Nor do I agree with the implied idea that a person nominating a page for deletion has no responsibility to look for sources. I actually consider it essential that anyone nominating any page for deletion make at least a minimal effort to look for sources. To fail to do so and just throw it at the AFD chopping block may represent a person not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. It's one thing to not find any, or to be doubtful about any you find establishing notability(I have experienced both myself), but it is highly important to at least try. Of course, it's probably worth noting that the initial nomination didn't even complain about a lack of references. Probably because in this case, it's pretty obvious that sources are not a worry of serious consequence. But still, I find myself in disagreement with what seems to be your position, as I am concerned that it may be inappropriately directed. Yes, it is a problem that many articles on Wikipedia are unsourced, or even just poorly sourced. But there are many options besides deletion, and I feel any deletion nomination should be an informed one, which at least entails looking for sources if that's your concern. If you can find some, you can add them, if you accept that they can be found, then you can add {{unreferenced}} to the page. That may not produce immediate results (and in this case, I think it'd be missing the real needs of this page), and you may need to work at it to get it results, but that's better than making an ill-chosen AFD. Like say, the recent one for Wikimedia Commons. FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have expressed myself badly above ;) Sources can of course be added into an article by anyone including those debating it on AfD - there have been recent examples (such as the AfD for Blackle.com here) where the discussion turned up WP:RS sources that meant the article survived. It's just that, in a case like this one, I don't think it's realistic for such a long article that loads of people have edited and not one has sourced, to expect AfD to provide the missing link. Maybe an {{unreferenced}} tag might have been better, along with other cleanup tags, but the article is here and has to be evaluated as it stands. My reading of deletion policy is that sourcing is the real issue - everything else would be down to a thorough copyedit (although Leebo raises a good point that if all the WP:WAF stuf was removed there would be precious little left). EyeSerene^TALK 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think it's a good idea for an editor to protest that there are no sources without even looking for them. I've already provided one source. There are obviously others. We are talking about something millions of people play after all. Thus it's not a real problem here. Really, I see plenty of articles that are inadequately sourced, many of them that have apparently seen more work than this one has. Yeah, it's a problem. Fine, take it to the talk page, take it to the appropriate Wikiproject. But I just don't agree that a lack of sources is a deletion reason when even a trivial search can turn them up. FrozenPurpleCube 22:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although sources are important, I listed this here because I believe it to be much more than a source problem. The article is written entirely in game terms, it offers no information to readers who do not play the game themselves. Being a previous WoW player, I can tell you that not only is this article broken down into different zones (Just a list of zones and descriptions I would have no problem with, and there are 50+ zones in the game in all.), but also into individual segments of zones, which are completely unnecessary. Using WoWWiki's list of locations as a guide, you can see that the Wikipedia article on Warcraft locations is far more needlessly broken down that even that. For example, Blade's Edge Mountains, according to WoWWiki has 61 sub-regions. Now, the Wikipedia article already needlessly has a section for 10 of these sections. Imagine now, if you continued this treatment for every single sub-region for every single zone. These "sub-regions" aren't even major parts of the game, they are tiny sections of a zone of a world inside a video game for a computer. It takes maybe 10 seconds to walk from one sub-region of a zone to another. At the very least, I believe that this article should be completely edited to only include the 50+ game zones as sections. Sdornan 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my initial comment, what you've said is a valid cleanup concern, not a deletion concern. In fact, I've already begun some of that cleanup by removing what I consider to be extraneous material. The same with game terms (which was not anything more than a minor concern for this article as I see it, even before I began cleaning it up). If things like "zone" or "level" or "quest-hub" are in the article, the solution is to remove that text, not delete the whole article. Really, if you'd have brought up your concerns on the talk page or with the Wikiproject, I suspect many people would have agreed with you. I don't disagree with you, though I wouldn't specifically limit it to the named regions. FrozenPurpleCube 23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about Warcraft universe, Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms and Draenor in relation to this one? Surely we don't need four articles all with the same content. Sdornan 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also cleanup issues, not deletion issues. Perhaps you noticed the attempt to discuss splitting this page to cover those that was occurring on this article's talk page? Personally, I'd have Warcraft Universe as a bare summary of the setting with a focus on the games and other material that form this universe, with this page as a broad picture descriptions, and the other pages as offering more details. But I'm not committed to that position, and if you wish to suggest something else go ahead. But it's a cleanup concern, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. FrozenPurpleCube 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WoW is typically considered one of the most notable modern video games, so though this article is loosely related it gets heaps of spillover notability. Besides, better here than there. (Yes, I mean it. Thank god that essay is not a policy.) — xDanielx^Talk 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but I'm not sure if it would change how you feel, but this article is about the entire Warcraft series, not just WoW, the most popular game in the Warcraft universe. It obviously still has the notability, I don't think anyone is arguing that it doesn't, but it's scope is out of control right now. Leebo ^T/C 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acually, the problme with scope had nothing to do with the inclusion of prior games, but rather what I would say is an excessive focus on the details on one of the games. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a sprawling list of indiscriminate information. No amount of clean-up can fix this underlying issue. --Phirazo 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's not a FAQ, Plot Summary, Lyrics, Statistics, or News Report. What do you believe is the actual problem with this article? Do you feel all listings of fictional locations should be deleted, or are there exceptions? I really find this kind of response to be less than helpful myself, since it's really not explaining your position. It just asserts that there's a problem without justification. FrozenPurpleCube 04:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article doesn't have to be a "FAQ, Plot Summary, Lyrics, Statistics, or News Report" to be indiscriminate, though I'd argue this runs pretty close to a plot summary, and is almost certainly game guide material. To answer your questions; "What do you believe is the actual problem with this article?" This is an indiscriminate list of places in a video game without any real-world context. "Do you feel all listings of fictional locations should be deleted, or are there exceptions?" Yes. Yes I do. There should only be an exception if there is real-world notability. --Phirazo 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you don't elucidate on what you consider to be indiscriminate, and it doesn't easily fit any of the existing criteria, then it's hard to know where you're coming from. Sorry, but I do find it pretty much useless when someone just says "It's indiscriminate info" and much prefer the explanation. Like you've done. Expressing the position that fictional locations shouldn't have articles unless there is real-world notability is at least clear and comprehensible, even if I disagree. Which I do, to the extent that I prefer the common sense approach that settings in many fictional works are clearly worth covering in an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the production of works that describe those locations. Nor do I think you're correct in describing this as game guide material. I can't see how this would be helpful to playing the game as it is was primarily constituted. (see other comments for examples of things I think would make this a game guide). And I also find it ironic that many of the real-world connections in this case would be things that you'd probably call game guides. But thanks for at least taking the time to make your position clear, I do appreciate that. FrozenPurpleCube 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And I also find it ironic that many of the real-world connections in this case would be things that you'd probably call game guides." Interviews and reviews would not contain any game guide material. Those are appropriate sources for real-world significance, not strategy guides and such. Leebo ^T/C 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here's one [32]. Say I use the material there, would you call it a game guide? I think many people would. I certainly consider it more of a game guide than what I'd suggest writing. Same with this: [33]. Me, I'd rather be reading about the lore of Zul'Aman than that it's an instance dungeon designed for repeat raiding. And I do expect it'd be called a game guide. Or is [34] what you're looking for? I can see how you might want it somewhere, but I consider it to be so very different from the meat of the article that it's not really what I'd be looking for. FrozenPurpleCube 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless real world sources (and I would prefer something other than a game guide) are found to establish notability for these. Corpx 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept that the World of Warcraft MMORPG is notable? And the preceeding computer games? If so, then I would like to know what reason you have to objection to covering the world it is set in. To exclude such material would render the articles covering the game incomplete. Sorry, but I think this is a clear case of inherited notability. But hey, if you want try [35] and [36]. You might I suppose want [37]. If you want something else, then I'd like a clearer articulation of what you're seeking in the way of notability. Perhaps an example? FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW is notable and I have plenty of friends who play it, but covering the locations in it is akin to describing the maps in Battlefield 2 or Counter-Strike or the different terrains available for play in Age of Empires . There are all just locations in a fictional world and gets down to game guide level content. If strategy guides are used to assert notability, then everything mentioned in them would be deemed notable, meaning every character in WOW should have a page that shows their skills/pvp stuff/HP and everything else. Corpx 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning fails to convince me. For the first, you're comparing apples to well, not even another fruit, but something even further different. AFAIK, neither the maps or terrains of any of those games have anything in the way of individual character. I would not say any of them have an established world at all. Thus, AFAIK, they don't have a fictional universe or anything which would merit any kind of description outside the game. (Well, Age of Empires does, but since that's a historical game, we can unquestionably refer to the existing historical civilizations without problem). To put it another way, this is no different than say, having an article describing the locations in Tolkien's Middle Earth, or the planets of Star Trek or Star Wars. I can accept reasonable concerns with regards to the content, but I don't see that support for wholesale deletion would occur. Game guide concerns are needless. Sure, it would be possible to write something like "The best place for alliance bank characters is Ironforge" but it's also quite possible to write about Ironforge and other locations within the setting without mentioning the game at all. You do know there have been novels set in the WOW universe, right? For the second part of your argument, you're making an equally bad claim. There is no reason to assume that Wikipedia would mindlessly have to accept any and all content merely because it's present in a book. We are not bound to the rules, but rather to the spirit of the rules. Covering characters in WOW is reasonable, they're really no different than characters in any book or television series. I see no reason to list their game stats, but am instead capable of using the judgment that such is not deemed appropriate. Sorry, but I really think your new objections are preposterously inapplicable. FrozenPurpleCube 06:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the Red vs Blue stuff were made in Halo, but I dont think that justifies descriptions of maps in Halo. I personally do not see a distinction between locations in an MMORPG vs locations in a FPS or any other genre. Maps in counterstrike are extremely important (even more so than wow) because of all the E-Sports competitions played on it (usually played on a standard 8-10 maps). Descriptions of places in books or TV shows should also require coverage from significant sources (for me, guides can be used to source articles, but not to establish notability). I also do not think MMORPG characters should have pages unless their notability is confirmed by reliable sources. Corpx 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the value of List of maps used in Red vs. Blue, but it does exist. But as I see it, I have to ask are you aware of Halo universe? Maps in Halo is one thing. The universe in which the games in the Halo series take place is another. Do you see the difference? Setting and map are not the same thing. In any case, if there is a competitive event that uses the maps, then I suppose it would be appropriate to cover them in the same way we cover stadiums and racetracks. But I'm not exactly a follower of competitive gaming, so somebody else will have to do it. In any case, I disagree with your contention that seperate and distinct notability is needed to establish coverage of places in books or TV, and I don't feel there is a consensus for that position either. If you do wish to establish that consensus, I'd suggest working on it in the VP or somewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - God I don't want to be grilled for just giving a bloody opinion, but here goes. It is a bloody computer game; this is unnecessary detail that goes from information only the most over-the-top fan could appreciate to unsourced infromation. Get a blog, write a handbook; regardless, it is not sufficient or notable for an encyclopedia article. And yes, I would delete all other articles like this in the game world and no, I will not engage in endless comments here. Let's just vote and move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry you don't recognize the value in discussing things with other people, but AFD is not a vote. It's a discussion, and treating it like a vote where you don't interact with other people is counterproductive. You've basically just slapped me in the face, do you think I'm going to be intimidated by that? Because it's sure not persuasive. In any case, I don't know that I agree with your statement that this page is only going to appeal to the most over-the-top fan, in fact, I'd say that the superficial level of detail wouldn't appeal to them. Besides, Warcraft isn't just a computer game. It's a game popular with millions of people, that has lead to books, P&P RPGs, shortly a comic book, that has a richly detailed background setting, the coverage of which is as valid as covering anything else fictonal of the same level of notability. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:PAPER, AfD is not cleanup etcetera. —Xezbeth 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some major restructuring and trimming. What do you think? Sdornan 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good job. I admire the effort you put into it, though I do know the work is nowhere near done. Still, I do like how you're going about things. FrozenPurpleCube 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FrozenPurpleCube, per significant coverage in reliable sources such as the BBC, and the WP:CONSENSUS of over two hundred editors contributing to this page over the last two years. DHowell 23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube, and per DHowell. Mathmo ^Talk 01:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its present state seems reasonable enough, given the apparent importance of the gameDGG (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to Keep. Walton^One 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jutsu[edit]

The article contains only impermissible content, and I do not believe it can be rehabilitated. It purports to be a disambiguation page, but jutsu is not a "term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article", nor a term that could appropriately be the title of any of the articles listed, contrary to WP:DAB. Further, the list of articles violates WP:DAB#Lists, because the listed articles are merely terms which include the disambiguation term. If the contents of the list are removed, the article will consist solely of a dictionary definition, in violation of WP:NOT#DICT. Finally, only the English dubbed version of the tv show Naruto uses the term "jutsu" as a noun or stand-alone term; in real life it is usually only used as a suffix in other words. Because it means "practical art" (or something like that), an article could be written about the "Practical arts of Japan", but, 1. that might be too broad (lots of things unrelated to martial arts also use the suffix jutsu); 2. members of such a class should probably each have their own article; and 3. at any rate such an article should not be titled "Jutsu", but should have an English title, such as "Practical arts of Japan", per WP:Use English. I recommend deletion, redirect to Jutsu (Naruto), or moving "Jutsu (Naruto)" to here. Bradford44 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. --Bradford44 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Do not transwiki. --Targeman 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom but as a comment (and the ninja guys are really prone to this) is there are a whole mess of somethingjutsu which is more a set of techniques rather than a Japanese art per say (ie. suijutsu). Are these dictionary terms also?Peter Rehse 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Dicdef/bad disambiguation and to link all possibly relevant articles would be a pain when the search will term them up if this is deleted. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been significanly re-written to something useful needs some tidying but could be useful, might still fall under dicdef in which case trans-wiki would be appropriate as good info --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jutsu (Naruto) as the only valid claim to the word as a stand-alone use. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) CHanged, see below.[reply]
Redirect to the Naruto article per Nihonjoe. All of the other things here would only belong in a "see also" section, and that's not necessary when there's nothing to disambiguate for the main term. The Naruto article should also migrate to the plain title for the same reason, but that can be done through Wikipedia:Requested moves. I note that the nominator actually tried to redirect the page before, but got reverted. Whatever happens, this should not continue to be a dab page. Dekimasuよ! 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no longer a dab page. -- Hoary 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or else delete. Don't redirect to this article on "Naruto", at least until the latter is rewritten in order not to mislead. For here's an extract from the latter: Generally speaking, jutsu are divided into three categories: genjutsu, ninjutsu, and taijutsu (my emphasis). This is easily readable as explaining, well, "jutsu in general". If the article about some aspect of "Naruto" unambiguously limits itself to that fantasy world, fine; if it limits itself to a fantasy world but doesn't bother to keep reminding the reader of this, fine; but as long as it's readable as describing the real world it's a crap destination of a redirect for a morpheme that's widely used to refer to activities in the real world. ¶ Should Japanese words and interjections get articles in en:WP? In general, I don't think they should; but I'm puzzled by the way in which Japanese terms from/for "popular culture" are written up, while this admittedly weedy effort on a morpheme of wider use is redirected to an article on one particular manga/anime. ¶ Meanwhile, WP does have articles on plenty of other suffixes: I'm too sleepy/lazy to see how WP defines "dicdef", but these are hardly dictionary definitions in the usual sense, if only because most [normal] dictionaries don't linger over suffixes. -- Hoary 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I was sleepy when I wrote that. Of course jutsu is not a suffix. However, a lot of what are in Template:Table suffixes and Category:Suffixes aren't suffixes either. ¶ The Jutsu article has now been altered. It still seems pretty superfluous to me, but not obviously more so than articles on other "suffixes" such as -izzle. And if juvenilia such as Animal Crossing: Wild World merit long, earnest descriptions, perhaps jutsu merits a short, simple explanation. -- Hoary 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - PPS That's as sleepy and confused as what it sought to correct. Well, take a look at the little article. -- Hoary 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (withdraw nomination), now that it has been appropriately rewritten. At the time I nominated the article, I was not aware that there were "suffix" articles. Although I might support a wholesale deletion of all such articles, as they are dangerously close to being pure dicdef's, in this case, I think that what has now been written is suitably encyclopedic. Also, this presents an opportunity to write about the practical and philosophical meanings of jutsu as related to martial arts, and briefly, the difference with and change to dō. Bradford44 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the reconsideration. Meikuappujutsu rulz OK! -- Hoary 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if citations to evidence of notability are added; otherwise, delete per WP:NOTE. Dicklyon 18:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh. You've now probably doomed the article to survival, because people are going to dig up some mumbo jumbo about the deep, metaphysical (?) significance of jutsu as opposed to dō (or at least vice versa). I find this kind of notability deeply soporific. Look, this is an innocent morpheme that exhibits fascinating metamorphoses uh I mean allomorphy thanks to the wonder of gemination. (Just don't tell this chap.) -- Hoary 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite. It now fits in with other "suffixes" and is acceptable as an article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Daft, isn't it: We can't have word-dicdefs, but we can have morpheme-dicdefs! -- Hoary 23:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, you can never have enough ~~morphine~~...er...morphemes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE (renew nomination): Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is solely about a Japanese word (not about the subject that the word denotes), transliterated into English. There is already an entry for the word in the Japanese Wictionary, which is where this material should be treated. If it were an English word, the material would be appropriate for en:Wictionary, but not Wikipedia (English or Japanese). Finell (Talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Targeman 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I tend to agree with you about WP not being a dictionary, Fine11. But where did you get the notion that jutsu is a word? Other perhaps than in some quaint mistranslation of some manga, it's no more a word than -logy or -hood is. (Yes, I tend to think that the whole lot should be deleted, despite the delightful work that I put into Jutsu.) -- Hoary 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my Japanese is sketchy at best so I'll trust your opinion that it's a suffix. Suffixes obviously belong in Wiktionary, too (see here for an example). --Targeman 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article be saved by adding a discussion of the word's subject? Bradford44 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word's subject? What do you mean? --Targeman 16:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it means for a particular activity to be a "practical art" within the meaning of jutsu, as opposed to an "art" as in gei (芸), or a "way" as in dō (道). Bradford44 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but in that case you'll have to decide whether you want an article on an aspect of Japanese culture or about Japanese morphology. As it is now, it's a pure dicdef. --Targeman 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom and Finell. This violates WP:NOT. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notredirect as if someone looking for the jitsu foundation or similar searches then they will get a manga article, deleting allows the search to show the options. Also if deleted trans-wiki it.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After relist, consensus was adequately reached. Singu larity 04:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Free Press[edit]

Non-notable e-zine. No claim to notability asserted in the article, and draws only 635 hits in the Google test. It's web site [www.capcityfreepress.com] doesn't crack Alexa, either. Consequentially 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, from hits on google appears to be popular and talked about e-zine. --Beloved freak 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The top results: 1) It's own cite. 2) It's own site. 3) Directory reference. 4) Cafepress.com 5) Cafepress.com 6) Blog. 7) Blog. 8) Blog. 9) Blog. 10) CD Baby. These aren't Reliable sources. The next ten? Band promotion site, band promo site, a trivial resume mention, personal promo site, band promo site, directory info, directory info, CD Baby promo, band promo, and a blog. This isn't popular. This is bands clinging to a positive review published in a local e-zine. The bar for e-content is set higher in Google tests because web-content can replicate and spread quickly. This e-zine hasn't spread . . . anywhere. Consequentially 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, google results do not hint of any sources either -- Whpq 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article cites no sources, and those found on Google do not include the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject required to establish notability. Unfortunately this does seem to be a problem in that media outlets seldom seem to write about other media outlets, so notability is hard to prove. However, per Consequentially above, more than 742 g-hits would be needed to show widespread dissemination of this e-zine. EyeSerene^TALK 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and not easily found, if any exist. Not notable. Pharmboy 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No one has provided references and none are obviously available, so notability is not established. Nuttah68 09:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was unanimous delete. Singu larity 04:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bmtron[edit]

Non-notable Tron clone released to the Internet in 2001. A Google test leaves 3,010 hits, the first ten of which are sites re-hosting a single-player version of the applet. Has not been distributed outside of the internet, and draws no third-party reviews or criticism. Probably because it's absolutely non-notable. Consequentially 19:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to hosted in a variety of places but so are many other qweb based free games. No writeups or any other information to distinguish this game fromt he crowd and make it notable -- Whpq 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTE due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources, even those from Australia and Bath. EyeSerene^TALK 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 23:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability, full of POV and mostly a game guide. Nuttah68 10:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fun, non-notable game. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 19:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect into Peter Sellers. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]

Monty Casino[edit]

Unreferenced fictional material without context, totally in-universe. Google gives only 100 hits, with insufficient possibilities to provide sources. Article was created by a new user. Shalom ^Hello 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am old enough to remember this, but it was Not Notable even then. Bearian 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although I'd normally come down on the 'delete' side on this, it might be worth waiting a while as there is apparently an on-going discussion on Talk:Peter Sellers re a propsed merge. EyeSerene^TALK 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Peter Sellers. This isn't notable enough to merit its own article. Cap'n Walker 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Peter Sellers and redirect. This should have been merged already and this afd nomination avoided.--Svetovid 11:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per EyeSerene's observation. --Aarktica 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Terse 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian Harlowraman 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect to Netzer Olami. Notability is not inherited, and arguments regarding the lack of independent secondary sources led to the close. Sourced information from the article can be merged into Netzer Olami, to which this page now redirects. MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LJY-Netzer[edit]

No long winded reason - just haven't found any evidence in the article or on the internet that the article meets the primary notability criteria of having recieved coverage by any reliable, independant sources (Wikipedia:Notability). The notability tag had been up for a while with no changes or comments Guest9999 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Netzer Olami, of which this group is a subsidiary. Most of the article is too specific and in too much jargon to be comprehensible or of interest to the average Wikipedian (though I happen to understand the jargon terms). Someone should leave me a note if you want help executing a merge. Shalom ^Hello 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Together with Reform Synagogue Youth (AFD nomination by the same nominator), this is the UK affiliate of the international Netzer Olami movement. Its relationship to Netzer Olami does not appear to be that of a subsidiary, but rather is that of an independent member of a coalition or network. --orlady 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's a very interesting and large organisation, and certainly satisfies the notability policy.--Rambutan (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you mind saying how it "satisfies the notability policy" (Wikipedia:Notability), being interesting (which is subjective) or large (which I would dispute) does not make up for a lack of reliable independant secondary sources which no one has yet shown any evidence of. [[Guest9999 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

The way I see it (as one disinterested observer who has no personal knowledge of these groups), Netzer Olami is a notable movement within a notable Jewish denomination, with good support for notability. Netzer Olami is, however, not a single entity, but an international network/coalition of national Netzer Olami organisations. That tells me that the individual constituent national organisations of Netzer Olami should be presumed notable, as long as there is solid evidence that they are real national organisations with recognition from the international entity and substantial participation (not, for example, something made up in school one day). The fact that national reform Judaism acknowledges the youth group and international Netzer Olami organisations such as Netzer Australia proclaim a connection with the UK group helps confirm that the UK group (which is apparently is one of the larger Netzer Olami units around the world) is a real component of the UK denomination and the global network. --orlady 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As there are no independant sources or references (there are none mentioned in the article, I could find none and none have been mentioned in this debate) any information would likely come from the group's website (I would bet everything currently in the article can be found there). This essentially (in my opinion) means that the page would always be either a vanity project or advertisment - not an encylopaedia article. Regardless of this I still maintain that this lack of independant reliable sources or references means that the page fails the primary notability criteria. [[Guest9999 02:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

As to satisfying WP:NOTE, it is a constituent of Netzer-Olami, and is thus notable. Every British MP is notable even if they've only been in office for 30 seconds, because without the MPs there is no parliament. Plus, a Google search for LJY Netzer brings up 656 results, of which only the first four should be discounted for being affiliated with the source (three are from the LJY website, or the website of the parent body, Liberal Judaism; one is the WP page).--Rambutan (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Having gone through the first thirty of the results I would have to disagree with your assessment of the google results. Of the first thirty only one seemed to be a reliable, independent secondary source and that wasn't really about LJY, just mentioning it in passing.

1) Liberal Judaism page – affiliated
2) (as above)
3) LJY home page – affiliated
4) Wikipedia page – not secondary source
5) Dead Link
6) Dead Link
7) In first line of article reads “We aim…” – not secondary source
8) “We make sure…” not secondary source
9) Links to diary of events – not a secondary source
10) Zionist youth council – LJY is a member – not independent secondary source
11) LJY home page - not secondary source
12) Directory which includes a person who is a member of LJY
13) (as above)
14) Page from Reform Synagogue Youth home page – not independent secondary source
15) Contribution from members – not independent secondary source
16) Promotional material (in pdf form) – not secondary source
17) Wikipedia article – not secondary source
18) Possible secondary source – [[38]] – does not give significant coverage – two one line mentions.
19) Links to an e-mail address – not secondary source
20) LJY MySpace page – not secondary source
21) Search page – not secondary source
22) Promotional information (as pdf) – not secondary source
23) AOL video – not secondary source
24) Reform Judaism page – debateable secondary source but isn’t actually about LJY
25) NFTY website – affiliated
26) (as above)
27) Forum posts by group member – not secondary source
28) List of addresses
29) List of phone numbers
30) Does not mention discuss LJY – not secondary source#

[[Guest9999 16:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments pointing up the lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability were convincing and weighted as such. If such sources exist but have not yet been prodcued, it could be taken to deletion review. Prior nomination, which closed as "speedy keep", did not appear to meet WP:SK criteria (unless I'm missing something). MastCell ^Talk 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Synagogue Youth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Organisation does not appear to be mentioned by any reliable, independent sources - there are none in the article and I can find none on the internet. Previous nomination ended in speedy keep which appeared to go against consensus.

Fails primary notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability as well as organizations notability criteria Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Guest9999 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking assertion and verification of notability altogether. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is the UK branch of an international youth movement within Reform Judaism. See http://www.nfty.org/about/netzer/directory/ for a directory of national Netzer Olami groups. It's a notable topic, even if the person who contributed the article did not establish its notability to the satisfaction of Wiki-insiders.--orlady 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability established for this branch. Not every YMCA is notable because it is part of a global organization Corpx 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per orlady. Mathmo ^Talk 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria sittel[edit]

If you remove all the fluff from this article, it boils down to the fact that its subject was a news presenter on a Russian TV station. News presenters are not notable as such, unless this is a major TV network (and perhaps not even then). Shalom ^Hello 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't assert notability. It says she's award-winning and well-known but doesn't elaborate. ALTON .ıl 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails WP:BIO and does not sort any reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 18:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've done some digging and the only thing I can say for sure about her is that she's exceedingly easy on the eyes ([39]). She hosts some sort of dance show on national Russian TV - I can find no trace of her being the network's news anchor (please keep in mind that my Russian sucks, so take this with a grain of salt). There apparently are Sittel fan sites but nothing I would call reliable third-party sources. Where's a Russki when you need one? :-) --Targeman 18:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/Very weak keep On the Russian wiki I would say keep but as for the English I think I'm leaning toward delete. She seems like a sorta-of-celebrity in her home country but I don't think she really has any recognition outside Russia. Jmm6f488 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Hyde[edit]

I know this article's only been up for a week, but I don't see any notability asserted anywhere in the article. Wizardman 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for falling short of WP:BIO. --Aarktica 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^One 13:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Show[edit]

Local-access cable tv show in Evansville, Indiana. No claim of notability beyond that. NawlinWiki 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability and apparently self-promotion (see Wikipedia user name and name of singer-songwriter referenced in article). --Evil1987 16:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. I am not THE Alan Williams. I am simply a fan of his work. Does someone have to be WORLD WIDE Famous to be included on a Website like this? What about RENETTO? I have discovered that he is on this site. What has he done to earn the title of "famous" or "notability" other than make videos for YouTube? Who has the right to say that someone is famous or not famous anyway? Yes my username is Awilliams100 but that does not say I am the person whom I was writing about. Many messageboards feature users who use another persons name do they not? Evil - your username states you are called Evil - does that mean Evil is your name? I doubt it. --Awilliams100
- The article on renetto provides no less than five references from very reliable secondary sources to establish his notability. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you can meet that criteria for your article, you shouldn't have a problem achieving a "speedy close" of this AfD, keeping the article. --Evil1987 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And my apologies if you are not "the" Alan Williams, but it will ultimately be the lack of notability and not any possible self-promotion that will get this article deleted, if such a thing happens. From WP:COI, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."--Evil1987 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need to apologize, was an easy mistake to make. But I do however, believe that the artist deserves a spot in Wikipedia, seeing as he does currently have an EP release on iTunes, Rhapsody and numerous others. These links were provided in an earlier submission I had made, which was soon after, deleted (and fast). I do know of other sources, but not all information is available via the internet. Such as a newspaper article and other material I have found in the past (not via the internet). Mr. Williams is a working artist. He many not be "world famous" but he is definitely notable for his work in many areas. --Awilliams100
    - Information to establish notability doesn't have to come from the internet--have a look at the link I gave above. Also, keep in mind this deletion discussion pertains to The Happy Show, not Mr. Williams. --Evil1987 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand that. Just that there is no deletion discussion regarding Williams. The Happy Show has also gotten notability in other countries - please refer to This article discussing The Happy Show on a British TV documentary series in England. The Happy Show was featured in that perticular episode of the show. --Awilliams100
        Um, no. The BBC link is actually a story about John Sweeney (journalist), that merely has a link to a YouTube video of the Happy Show's parody interview of Sweeney. This is not a BBC "feature", or even recognition, of the Happy Show. NawlinWiki 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It should be pointed out that "The Happy Show" has been mentioned on the Internet by no less a respectable site than www.businessweek.com where an article (February 27, 2007) was written about the producer of the program's battle with Viacom over the wrongful removal of a parody video from YouTube. Also, as noted above, BBC's long-running "Panorama" news program did interview Matthew Hawes and his puppet Happy over a parody concerning the news program's investigative reporter and his rant against The Church of Scientology. The interview was aired on the BBC on July 16, 2007. I would think those two instances, one National, the other International, would make the inclusion of "The Happy Show" as an entry on Wikipedia noteworthy. Please refer the edits I made on that entry for direct links to said article and news program for verification. -- User:ThomasSteele — User:Thomassteele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        The businessweek.com article doesn't seem to make any direct reference to the show, just to Mr. Hawes. And I got the same impression from the BBC link that NawlinWiki did. --Evil1987 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        See above re the BBC "feature". As for the Business Week story, which is here, I do not think that it establishes the notability of the Happy Show. The article was about policing video copyrights in general. The fact that someone happens to be interviewed for a news story (that's not primarily about them) does not make them notable. NawlinWiki 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Excuse me and for your information, it sounds to me like Wikipedia is simply singling out people or subjects that THEY feel are "notable" The Happy Show WAS featured on the BBC series Panorama - I think that anyone who has been featured on a TV series ANYWHERE for whatever reason, is regarded in my humble opinion, as "notable". The Happy Show has been ON THE AIR on TELEVISION for the past FOUR YEARS. It has been the subject of a news item, articles in numerous e-zines and magazines, and has a large fanbase and following. If this is not notable in your eyes what is? Of course, may I again mention how you feature a subject such as Renetto, a simple YouTube user who makes videos - but you question the notablity of a TV series? That sounds to me like you are picking people who you favor, not what your site visitors may find interesting or enjoyable. --Awilliams100
Keep Notoriety acquired from battle with Viacom makes this show notable. And being featured on BBC series Panorama is an additional indication of notability.--orlady 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability - That article about Viacom does not mention this show by name once in the article. It only talks about the copyright dispute the creator faced, which I would say is not significant coverage. Corpx 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE as outlined by Corpx. --Aarktica 21:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to the American Professional Football League. TerriersFan 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha Extreme[edit]

Prod contested by author. Prod'd because article on league indicates team is a fill in team scheduled only to play one game next season. Author contested prod on basis that they played three games last season. Well, to me this is not much different than an article on Tom Cruise's stand in or a Broadway actor's understudy who maybe only performed for two or three days while the actor had to go to a funeral out of town or some such thing. It is a non notable team that is there when they are needed to be and apparently at no other time. Postcard Cathy 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question is whatever league they play in notable enough for an article on its own? Perhaps a redirect to that page would be appropriate pending creation of a better article? FrozenPurpleCube 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer and Comment Yes, they played in the American Professional Football League. For Cathy, the team's status for next year is not known yet. My opinion, if the team disappears in the off-season (likely), I have no problem deleting the article. If they return (also likely), article should be kept/recreated. Mateinsixtynine 12:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I AFD'd the article, the league's page said they were only playing one game. I am acting on good faith that that information is accurate. Cathy

Comment - The definitely fail WP:ORG, but they can be sourced. See here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't failing WP:Org trump sourcing?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into American Professional Football League Using the Broadway analogy, a production that closes after only one show is significant for that reason, and it is unusual for a team to play only a single game. Nevertheless, I see no reason to have a separate article about each APFL team. Mandsford 16:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford. --Aarktica 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 23:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thefurniture.com[edit]

Contested speedy. Non-notable website. Fails to meet WP:WEB. None of the sources are independent reliable sources. Evb-wiki 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been trying to write this article for three days now and thought that I reached a consensus. I wrote it in an encyclopedic manner, showed that the company is notable (because it is an internet-based company and has survived for 6 years which is a long time by online standards) and provided reliable sources (that were simply used to present statistics). Even if the sources are considered biased the information they present is not. For instance, Google checkout case study was used for information regarding 18 full-time and 18 part-time employees. That fact is undeniable, whether Google likes or dislikes the company. Dmcnabb5 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From the article: "The current domain name was acquired in 2005, but the parent company, SpektorUSA, has been doing business online since 2001. Over the past two years, the revenue has jumped 630%." Thefurniture.com is only 2 years old. The parent company is 6. press releases are not independent sources and neither is the company's president. --Evb-wiki 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The company is not two years old because they were selling furniture under SpektorUSA as well. They simply changed their domain name. However, the ownership and employees of the company remained the same. So, it is 6 years old. If Wikipedia changed its name it wouldn't change its headquarters. It would still be the same company and would be however old it is now. Please understand that it's not just the source but also what the source is saying. It doesn't matter what the source thinks of the company, you cannot make up numbers regarding employment figures. If it has 36 employees, that's that. Dmcnabb5 16:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete, with regrets. This article has been on a bit of a roller coaster ride. I originally tagged it for speedy deletion (as I frequently do :-) ), and the author asked for more time and help. I removed my speedy tag and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag, and assisted Dmcnabb5 as best as I could. during this process, two editors completely ignored the {{underconstruction}} tag and the discussion on the talk page and speedy-deleted the article anyway. I had to prevail upon the admin who actually deleted the article to retrieve it and replace it, which he did. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that there are not enough independent, reliable sources with information about the company to prove its notability. I agree that the company has a considerable online presence, first under SpektorUSA and then Thefurniture.com. However, most of the sources cited are simply links to the site itself and its subsidiary sites. The author originally tied notability to the design of the site itself, but unfortunately there is nothing at all unique about its design and functionality — useful, yes, but definitely not unique, as many other online shopping sites are similarly designed and functional. I feared that this effort might might end up being an exercise in futility on my part, but I went on under assume-good-faith principles. Alas, it just didn't work out. If someone can come up with some independent, reliable sources, I will gladly reconsider. But I just can't find any that aren't already in the article. Realkyhick 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marwood 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you please tell me what you would consider a reliable, independent source. Also, no one seems to address the fact that the information that I use from the sources is not affected by the source's supposed bias. For instance, no one responded to my statement that you can't deny employment figures. Please give me an example of a reliable, independent source and then please give me time to actually find one. If you leave it up for a few days, maybe Wikipedians will add to it and add reliable sources. Deleting it right away doesn't even give the article a chance. It is pretty clear that my intent is simply to inform, and I am obviously making an effort to get the article up to Wikipedia standards. So, please give me a chance to do so. Dmcnabb5 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least for now, can we agree to put the {{underconstruction}} tag back up and give the article and the author a chance? I can give examples of loads of articles on Wikipedia that have neither sources nor outside links. They are also about subjects that are more trivial than the one I am writing about. There are articles about cities, for instance, that are not notable at all and simply exist. They are not deleted. People are picking apart this article for some reason when I have made a genuine attempt to inform people about a company. Dmcnabb5 17:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: There are those who would argue that the level of only 36 employees gives evidence as to lack of notability. Second, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. We've given you plenty of resources about finding proper independent sources, but you haven't come up with any. I've tried to do so myself using methods I've used countless times, and I have come up with little or nothing as well. We've had the {{underconstruction}} tag up for a while, but we're really not making much progress. Sometimes, a subject simply isn't notable, and the best-written article in the world won't change that. Realkyhick 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I thought we agreed that notability rests with the number of years in operation and not in the employees. Therefore, your argument does not relate to the "notability" standpoint. As far as the reliability of sources, I do not understand why press releases are not reliable sources. Also, the {{underconstruction}} tag was up for a day, not a while. What if you give it a week or something, maybe then other users can actually have time to cross the article and contribute to it. Our conversation was finished at about 5 pm eastern time yesterday. The tag was replaced with a deletion request this morning. That hardly constitutes "a while" and is clearly not enough time to gather sources or garner attention from other users who can help. Dmcnabb5 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While press releases can provide some useful information, their content is controlled by the person or company who issues them, and may not always be reliable. I can issue a press release that says that Al Gore is an ax murderer, and it could be published, but it wouldn't be true. (See WP:SP and WP:SPS.) As for number of employees, I meant that some other editors may feel that 36 employees is too small a number. I don't necessarily share that view myself, but I'm not the only judge here. That's the whole point of this discussion. The {{underconstruction}} tag was in place for several days, and others were free (and encouraged) to contribute as well during that time. Realkyhick 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, my request is that you look at the content that I am getting from these press releases. It isn't like I'm saying that the site is the most convenient or something. Content like that isn't made up. Like you said, 36 is a relatively small number, so, if the author of the press release wanted to make the company seem better, wouldn't he or she say that it has 300 workers or something? Isn't that more proof towards the fact that the information in the press release is probably credible?? And by the way, press release services have editors who make sure that they are written well and publish information that is suitable for the public. It is sort of like Wikipedia, and they have importance guidelines as well. They do not publish things that are not notable. So, they are alot more reliable than you may think. Dmcnabb5 19:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newspaper reporter and editor, so I know all about press releases. They are not necessarily written by professional writers or given a once-over by professional editors. Indeed, that is less and less the case today, as more companies and individuals have tools available to let them distribute press releases easily and cheaply (PRWeb among them). PR companies publish whatever their clients pay them to, adding their professional advice, polish and knowledge of distribution channels, but they are used far less than they were before the Internet came into widespread use. Realkyhick 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have rebutted my press release comment but not what I wrote above that. The fact that the press release says that a company has few employees is more a testament that it IS telling the truth. Also, don't you agree that the information I used would remain the same regardless of the article bias? If I were discussing attributes, bias would matter. However, statistics are cold, hard facts that cannot be denied. Dmcnabb5 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither that fact nor any other fact in the article, or in the "sources," establishes that the company is notable. My searches have found nothing more promising. btw - this is a 5-day discussion process. Feel free to try to find notable facts in the mean time. --Evb-wiki 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was established by the company's longevity. We have now moved on to a discussion about the sources. Evb-wiki declines the notability, while Realkyhick isn't happy with the sources. That just goes to show that everyone's interpretations are different, and it wouldn't kill you to just leave the article alone. If it isn't interesting, people just won't go on it. However, it could be useful for potential customers to read an objective overview of the company. Can we please settle once and for all whether or not I must prove notability or find better sources? Dmcnabb5 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both! One works toward the other. Finding better sources will prove the company's notability. Realkyhick 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, . . . while it may no longer be blatant spam, it is still WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 20:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK do you honestly believe that any information in this article is wrong? And also, how is it spamming, there is not one positive or negative thing said about the company. Should the Goolge article be deleted because it is also about an online company. Don't rebut this with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I know about it and think that that fact alone causes everyone who protests an article to lose jurisdiction. It is hypocrisy to delete some articles and keep others. Dmcnabb5 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means that just because those articles exist doesn't make them notable, it just means an ediors hasn't caught up with them yet. If you see articles about non-notable subjects, you're encouraged to mark them, too. We need all the help we can get. The issue isn't hypocrisy, it's lack of manpower. Realkyhick 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on that is this: If articles aren't notable, they just won't be accessed or read. Why waste time deleting and arguing over an article if you think it isn't notable. If it's not notable, it won't be accessed and the author is the only one who wasted his or her time. It isn't like there's a problem with space or memory. Wikipedia can have an unlimited amount of articles. I could understand if something was scandalous or blatantly false or offensive. In that case, I am in full agreement that Wikipedians must work together to get rid of it as soon as possible. If it's not notable, however, just let it go. If you think it doesn't matter, others might too and it just won't be read. Is that too far-fetched of a philosophy? Dmcnabb5 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question as to why deletion occurs due to a lack of notability, it's because Wikipedia isn't a free and open space for whatever content somebody wants to provide. That would be the WWW in general, where anybody who wants (almost) anything up on it can choose to do so. Wikipedia is instead about people collaborating to provide the value of information that's effectively gone through the thresher so to speak. Basically, this is a managed system, as opposed to one of survival of the fittest. IOW, it isn't a problem of storage costs, but rather of information value. Now is this the only way to do things? No, and you can argue for another way, but the appropriate method of doing so is not through this AFD discussion, but rather through convincing the consensus to change in places like the Village Pump. I suppose you could try to change AFD processes one nomination at a time, but I doubt you'd be successful and would probably just end up frustrated. Yes, sometimes notability is mis-used, sometimes it's not the appropriate way to judge something, but it does exist as a standard that has widespread (if not universal) acceptance. FrozenPurpleCube 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but, like most things, notability is subjective, as I believe it is so in this case. What some people deem important others do not. There are exceptions to the rule, and certain articles should just not be written. However, I do not believe that this article is an exception. It meets a great deal of Wikipedia standards, and it could be argued that it meets all of them (depending on the standpoint). I'm sure you will agree that it is an honest attempt to relay information and not to advertise or maliciously attack anybody. As such, I do not understand why you cannot just leave it alone. Dmcnabb5 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indenting to improve readability). Indeed, notability is a subjective judgment based on highly variable criteria that does not exist solely or even primarily in an objective fashion. However, that doesn't mean it's not a useful, or accepted tool to manage the inclusion or exclusion of articles on Wikipedia. And perhaps you had no bad intent in making this page. This doesn't mean as much as you think. Many well-intentioned people make pages they shouldn't on Wikipedia. In this case though, there is the added concern that having an article provides a commercial value to the existing site(s). That is a bad thing for Wikipedia(as it creates a financial incentive to have a page, which takes neutrality into question), and why in this case, I do not feel you will accomplish your desired goal of having this article kept without adding third-party sources of at least some merit. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how it provides a commercial value? I'm sure there are articles about yahoo, or google, or espn. Saying that this article encourages users to go to this site is the same thing as saying that those articles are of commercial value, even though no one is protesting them. So, if commercial value is out of the question, is one or two credible sources the only thing that's keeping this article from staying on Wikipedia? Dmcnabb5 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It provides value because it's here on Wikipedia, which is widely recognized as a place to get information. There are even companies that tried to sell their services to get articles on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia desires to be neutral, and not open to the highest bidder, thus the importance that to avoid providing undue commercial benefit for sites such as this one. The difference between this site and yahoo, google, or espn is that a multitude of third-party sources exist to describe each of them. Is this somehow escaping you? I've said this outright before. I notice at least two other editors have. The problem is the lack of acceptable third-party sources. Fix that, and anything else can be addressed in clean-up. FrozenPurpleCube 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The assumption that any company becomes notable after a few years of existence, even if it is not larger than an average supermarket, is false. I might be wrong, but it seems not unlikely that the article's creator might be in some relationship with the company. In that case, please read WP:COI. Regards, High on a tree 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the original author's defense, he claims no connection with the company, and I have no reason to dispute that. Realkyhick 23:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per High. The user so vociferously arguing for keep needs to read WP:ATA, as they use several of them over and over again. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Still reads very much like advertising and seems like it is trying to justify its own existance on Wikipedia. ww2censor 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable spam. Leuko 06:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for High on a tree, I have no connection to the company. I have heard of them and simply want to write an article about the company, like many before me. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest. Also, the article does not read like an advertisement since Realkyhick personally did me a huge favor and corrected the parts that were not up to snuff (thank you!). He is the only one who looked at it with an open mind, so his opinion of the article is most valid, as he was in contact with me throughout the creation process. I think he can vouch for the fact that I was cooperative and changed the things that needed changing, including the parts that read as advertisement. Therefore, I am not interested in promoting the company and definitely have no affiliation with it. Dmcnabb5 12:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for that. Dmcnabb5 has been very cooperative through this process. This is his first attempt at an article, so I am sure he's learned a lot. I think many of us went through a similar situation our first time out. I think he saw a web site — actually, a group of them — that seemed to have an interesting take on selling furniture online. Unfortunately, it wasn't really unique or notable (yet). Oh well, we catch our breath, pick ourselves up and live to write again. Realkyhick 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources to establish notability. Still reads like an advert. Cap'n Walker 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established in line with WP:ORG. A company this small really needs the multiple, independent reliable sources. Nuttah68 10:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Quinn[edit]

Questionable notability. Already speedied once and has been recreated. Marwood 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found one additional source[40] besides the one in the article, but although it is an interesting tale, I don't think it meets the threshold. The spammy, PR-ish tone doesn't help make a good impression, either. --Groggy Dice T | C 10:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of the page keeps removing the AfD notice - and has blanked this page. The changes were reverted and the editor has been asked to stop. Marwood 10:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article Ross Quinn is quite famous and the story should remain on wikepedia as people want to know about this youngman. I request that this article remains intact, deleting this article is non-productive. However, telling me how to modify this is, or offer advice. Waiting for your reply. I must say, anybody in their right mind after reading the4 article which is backed up by hard evidence that this guy should be on wikipedia. Stop clowning around and leave it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typeone9 (talk • contribs)

Please define how Ross qualifies under WP:NOTE. Marwood 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Article~~Marwood - YOU, please explain exactly what, IN YOUR THOUGHTS does not meet the guidelines, as from my judgement everything is fine. You are requesting to delete my hard work in making this article, i respect Ross Quinn alot, he's my hero, i think he should be given more significance and recognition, so i believe you should be the one being specific and outlining the "apparant" boundaries crossed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.109.45 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC), apparently the same as User:Typeone9. [reply]

You can't vote keep, twice! The notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia state that the subject must have received significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources independent of the subject. Ross Quinn doesn't meet this standard; as the only sources given are a couple of local newspaper interviews with Quinn himself. Marwood 11:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further CommentRoss Quinn made national news - ITV do you think that is local? Please call them, they will confirm. Ross has without a doubt received significant publicity through his ventures. He was seen again on the BBC news in a meeting with Richard Branson to speak about being the youngest astronaut in the world! Please tell me how this is not significant.

I don't think this is significant coverage; I've been on television and in the newspapers more often than this. But if you think you have sufficient reliable sources to back up your claim that Quinn is notable, then please review WP:CITE and then add them to the page as appropriate. Many thanks. Marwood 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further CommentYou might have been on the news more times Marwood, but i severely doubt you've been on for something extraordinary like this young man, many thanks.
Delete, PR piece, with only two PR interviews as sources, apparently no way to write a fully verifiable and neutral article from what we have. Surprisingly few Google hits for such an "amazing story". Kusma (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability, --Tom 12:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and probably non-notable. Mel sa ran 16:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced vanity article. Cap'n Walker 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the four posters above me. Interesting, but definitely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. GlassCobra 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing attests to notability.--Mantanmoreland 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one puff piece in the business section of the local paper is not enough to meet WP:BIO. Nuttah68 10:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime prime number[edit]

Probable WP:HOAX, stubby definition. — Coren ^(talk) 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total bullocks. Worse, it gives the definition of a prime number, then lists several 9, which isn't a prime number. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete A mathematical hoax? Looks like a bit of math (or as the Brits call it, maths) student whimsy, or perhaps Mr. Steely is chortling over this as he describes it to his students. The article indicates that a prime prime number can even be divided by "itself, 1 or any other non-prime prime number". Thus, a "prime prime" number is not a "prime number", since it can be divided by something other than itself or 1. But what's a "non-prime prime" number? I guess I don't care care. Mandsford 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't think this is quite blatantly nonsensical enough to speedy. But delete anyway. —David Eppstein 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; the original editor explained his contribution on my talk page. Anyone who hesitates on whether this article should be deleted or not should probably check there first. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I wonder what a patternation is, and whether they would allow me to perceive the machinations of prime numbers. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A real mathematician could put together a much better hoax than this one. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable and unsalvageably incoherent. Borderline CSD G1. I humbly suggest early close as this is a prime waste of everybody's time time. TreeKittens 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a hoax. Seems that by this definition, most numbers would be "prime prime", but I'm not sure. Math's confusing this early in the morning. Useight 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A hoax, and a poorly written, confusing hoax at best. James Luftan ^contribs 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G1 (nonsense), and unconvincing at that. 'non-prime prime'... EyeSerene^TALK 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as utter nonsense. It may be coherent nonsense, but it is nonsense nonetheless and there's no reason to keep discussing it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many many times. DCEdwards1966 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since when is 9 prime? Bigdaddy1981 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since last September. The economic measure was approved by the House of Commons to aid in TV scheduling on September 10. Mandsford 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire "Susan Peter Steely" - I guess this must be the fellow Johnny Cash sang about. Iain99 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong strong delete unsourced nonsense. PrimePrimeHunter 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coherently nonsensical circular definition. Someguy1221 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpert Eleven[edit]

Non-notable website, does not meet WP:WEB. No WP:RS, search through Google only turns up some forum postings. Speedy-deleted twice already. Leuko 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete same as the last two times. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as Hattrick. Kahkonen 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent sources are found to establish notability Corpx 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Lenahan and CSD A7. --User:Krator (t c) 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to disagree, but Xpert Eleven is a game with 257,835 members (see front page www.xperteleven.com). The tone of the article could undoubtedly be improved, but I am appalled that people promoting the promulgation of knowledge across the world in many languages are driven to delete anything which in their eyes isn't "notable". I realise server space is an issue, even for a project as large as Wikipedia, but Xpert Eleven is not a passing fad, and deserves a Wikipedia entry (indeed, when I joined the game six months ago I was amazed it didn't have one already). David 86.212.29.149 08:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick PS: I have finally become a Wikipedia member and carried out a brisk edit of the Xpert Eleven page. It is clear that further work is needed. Regarding notability, it is evident that the game has not received publicity in the mainstream media, indeed most Google hits are forum posts. However, I believe that this somewhat surprising lack of publicity is most likely to be due to the site creators being happy to let the game spread virally/through word of mouth, and it should be noted that 257,000 members is not an insignificant amount. Clearly, the site is not as well known as e.g. facebook, myspace etc., nor is as well frequented, but on the other hand has not generated sufficient controversy to be covered by the mainstream media, for whatever reason. Can I please ask that the entry be allowed time to develop and cross-reference information, I'm sure there are many others who will want to contribute to this process. Thanks. DERW1981 09:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our verifiability policy; articles should built upon independent references, regardless of argmuments for or against notability. We certainly shouldn't be writing articles and then waiting for reliable sources to write about it. Marasmusine 09:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so we have to wait for "reputable" journalists to write "puff pieces" in "reliable" sources before we can add a Wikipedia entry? I don't mean to get personal, but I have looked at some of the articles on your page (e.g. Android 2 - which surely never had more than 250,000 players?) which are cross-referenced by equally obscure, now defunct, 80s magazine titles (as far as I can see - the example could equally be hypothetical as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles I see have maybe one, or possibly two obscure websites listed as sources. Just how does this improve the quality of the article?...)

I appreciate that the Xpert Eleven website's claim of over 257,000 members might be disputed, but who exactly is going to verify this, and wouldn't all journalists merely quote this figure without checking it anyway? If Wikipedia is to document human history, it has to take account of a significant number of people engaging in an activity, and not just a reference from a website judged to be reliable. I look forward to the articles on "Second Life" and other virtual life websites cited in its article (e.g. "red light center") to be deleted before this article on a football game is deleted - otherwise it's just editor snobbery, pure and simple. Sorry for appearing cross, but I am. DERW1981 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mean to get personal, then don't. Please see WP:NPA. This discussion should have nothing to do with the editors involved, but the subject at hand. Also, if you feel like you are appearing cross, then it might be a good idea to wait until you are not before posting. As it is your argument appears to say "This article should stay because the one of the foundations of Wikipedia policy is completely wrong", which to many might not be a viewpoint editors want to align themselves with. In other words, personal attacks and angry comments are more likely to get the article deleted. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shan't hog this page any further, but imagine there's an article on a website tomorrow, interviewing the owners and quoting verbatim the figures they provide. One article, and suddenly everything's ok? I just don't see this as a black and white issue, although I appreciate the theoretical concerns outlined above. DERW1981 13:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than one, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also, popularity and recognition are not notability. If you feel that this topic should be notable, I'd recommend propositioning video game websites like Gamespot or 1UP.com to write an article on this overlooked website. If the site is as popular and unique as is claimed, it shouldn't be a problem. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone provides sources establishing notability. Nuttah68 10:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —« ANIMUM » 01:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Murphy (baseball fan)[edit]

Non-notable person. Catching a baseball does not make someone notable. Borgarde^talk 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other articles exist of baseball fans who have been somewhat frequently mentioned in the media. --Roehl Sybing 15:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Story already covered in the Barry Bonds article.--Sethacus 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough to have articles discussing him on ESPN.com, BBC News, ABC News, etc. Bound to make further news when he decides what to do with the ball. -- Amazins490 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Delete, seeing the arguments for deletion, I'm inclined to agree. -- Amazins490 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sethacus and nom. Barry Bonds already has a way-too-detailed section on his home run record chase as it is. Clarityfiend 16:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless it can be proven that the man is famous for more than just one thing. From what I can tell, he isn't, nor is he likely to be famous for more than the catch for a long while. Sidatio 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barry Bonds Delete - all the important information is already in that article, so there's no need to try to merge. A standalone article on this person can never become more than a stub, as there's nothing notable to say about him besides this one event. Iain99 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Barry Bonds per above. Not notable except for catching a record setting baseball. Dblevins2 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per Dblevins2 and Iain99. Smokizzy (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No offense, but what's the point of a redirect? We already have a disambiguation page for notable Matt Murphys. Is someone really going to search for "Matt Murphy (baseball fan)"? Sidatio 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I was obviously not reading the title properly. The sentence in the disambig page can be directed to Barry Bonds or removed depending on one's view of how likely it is that anyone will go searching for him after next week - my feeling is that it's pretty unlikely Iain99 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Barry Bonds per above. Chris! _{my talk} 18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment: For what it's worth, there's two votes on the Discussion page - a Keep vote (rationale: WP:INTERESTING) from a Fidelity IP address and a Redirect vote from Poemisaglock. I put a notice on the Discussion page to vote on this page. Sidatio 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very lucky, and soon to be very rich, but not notable. --Bongwarrior 18:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barry_Bonds#Chasing_the_all-time_Major_League_home_run_record.Terry Carroll 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete/merge - per notability --Tom 19:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This person is now highly notable in the history of baseball. --Effer^AKS 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why the hell would you delete this? what is the problem? you should be able to put up a wiki article on yourself if you want, let alone a historic baseball fan.. whoever motioned to delete this is an idiot.. and if you go STRICTLY by the rules, 20% of wikipedia articles would be deleted.. besides this dont violate the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.65.127 (talk)

Comment: what you happen to believe should exist in wikipedia, and what actually is supposed to exist in wikipedia, do not coincide. you should not be able to put up a wiki article on yourself if want, and chances are it'd be deleted in short order if you did; you are not a reliable source for reporting upon yourself. On the other hand, I absolutely agree - going strictly by the rules, 20% of wikipedia articles SHOULD be deleted. hey, let's call it 35% and make wikipedia 100% better. Anastrophe 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete part about Bonds being greatest baseball player ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.69.189 (talk)
Delete and Redirect to Barry Bonds, per the above arguments, and per failure to satisfy WP:BIO. 15 minutes of fame does not make a lucky person encyclopedic. Otherwise everyone who won $400,000 in a lottery would be entitled to an article (they are not). Edison 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to the Bonds article. Seriously, this is a little sad. †Ðanieltiger45† ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honestly, what the #### is the purpose for this article??? Sure I'm happy for the guy, but seriously, he is only known for this one event only, and still isn't notable. Keep it to the Barry Bonds. Bongwarrior said it himself, "rich, but not notable". To the guy who attacked the nominator, your reasoning deserves no merit, if you could back the "20% of articles would be deleted" theory, then I will give you some credit. My apologies if I sound like an #######, but I had to say it sometime. James Luftan ^contribs 21:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-08t22:02z

May not matter, but this article is being vandalized constantly. James Luftan ^contribs 22:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "flash-in-the-pan ≠ notability" arguments above. Mention his name in the Bonds article…don't even need a redirect, since a search for him by name would then find the Bonds page. James, I'd go even further: even if 90% of the articles on WP are deletable, that doesn't mean that this one here is not deletable. Or even if the one here is deletable, having others that are also deletable not get deleted at this instant doesn't mean this one here should also not get deleted at this instant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DMacks 22:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention him in the disamb. page as the guy who caught Barry Bond's homerunFrank Anchor 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero notability. The ball itself is more notable than mr. 'i'm the guy who happened to be where the notable ball happened to land'. Anastrophe 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lucky fellow. The information on the news sites is more than enough. Bali ^Talk 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Barry Bonds and possibly the current MLB season, the San Francisco Giants and/or Three Com Park. Even if he caught the ball of the 756th Bonds HR, doesn't deserve the individual article, and so should other similar pages about people who caught historical baseballs (including Steve Bartman).--JForget 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Titanium Dragon 00:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless Mr. Murphy accomplishes something notable in his life, an article about him is not necessary. Catbox 9 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Catching a baseball does not make someone notable. Catching a baseball worth $500,000 might. Still, it's hard to see voting to keep, since Murphy is, essentially, a footnote in the Bonds story. Does anyone remember who caught any of the baseballs hit by Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Sadaharu Oh, Barry Bonds (back in 2001?) or Alex Rodriguez? I think Mr. Murphy will probably not be too devestated if his Wikipedia article is deleted. Mandsford 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person and no sufficient information to justify a stand alone article. Tomj 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP1E#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event subliminalis 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability, unlike Bartman Corpx 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles for Jeffery Maier and Steve Bartman who both just "caught balls".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kapla2004 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 August 2007.
Delete: Zero notability. Other people with articles just because they caught balls should also be deleted. Tilefish 07:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could be way off, but I don't think there are any articles for people who have just caught a ball, with the exception of Bartman, which is a lot different. It was a foul ball, not a homer, and I don't remember if he even actually caught the thing. He also possibly affected the outcome of the series, huge media coverage, etc. No comparison really. --Bongwarrior 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is one more notable case of "fan catches ball" - Jeffrey Maier. Sidatio 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article: There shouldn't be no merging this article w/Barry Bonds article. This man has a sepearte life from Bonds. It wouldn't make sense. There should be, however, an article about the 756th homer and the background to it. It's interesting to know this guy planned this game 3 weeks in advanced, and the fact that he wasn't a Giant fan.
Delete as an obvious WP:COATRACK article. There is nothing notable about this person. He caught a baseball. Big deal. Burntsauce 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this trivia. Merge into Bonds article if needed. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Barry Bonds, and only a small part at that. Realkyhick 18:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike Steve Bartman he is not the subject of thousands of fans wrath, and numerous ESPN, Sports Illustrated, et. all. articles. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... so he caught the ball. And? Cursory association with a notable event doesn't automatically equate to notability meeting WP:BIO for all involved. To compare to Steve Bartman is apples and oranges. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if Tom House can have a page, why not this guy? Cinatyte 21:55, 8-9-07 (UTC)
- Because Tom House was a baseball player. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS comment. Chris! _{my talk} 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete Murphy (and any milestone ball-catcher) is a minor footnote who should be mentioned in the article about the hitter, and also it an article about the eventual ball owner, but that’s it. No individual article deserved or required. Note that this differs from the likes of Steve Bartman who actually affected the outcome of an important game.--Fizbin 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One event can be very notable. Something that is notable is a person, place, or thing that has achived monumental status because of one event or several events. In my opinion why would ESPN put this man on their TV Program if they didn't think that he was notable. To be mentioned on National TV and in newspapers all around the country for catching Barry Bonds 756 hr is an honor and is very notable.--2bad4u2day

Comment: That's the key word there - mentioned. Notability is not temporary. Sidatio 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Realize that this is a record that will always be remembered. One day you may think to yourself: I wonder who caught that baseball? With a ball worth that much people will always remember that homerun and the fan who caught it. Also think about what this man had to do to get this ball. He had to fight off 30 fans and came away with a bloody face. I at least think this man deserves to be on wikipedia.--2bad4u2day

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Casino[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable musician; all google hits on "Leigh Casino" seem to be turning up other notices. COI problems as well. The Evil Spartan 15:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AUTOBIOfest for a non-notable musician from a non-notable band.--Sethacus 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Every band mentioned in this article is either a redlink or links to something unrelated. That doesn't lend much hope of notability. --Bongwarrior 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom not notable Harlowraman 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet the requirements of WP:BAND. Nuttah68 10:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to Keep. Walton^One 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople by nickname[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally speedy deleted under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. A consensus on Deletion Review nearly unanimously found this deletion in error. Given the delicacy of BLP issues, this article will be relisted at AfD and protected blank for the duration of that discussion. Deletion is on the table, as are other suggestions to alter the presentation of the content. Xoloz 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial intersection of athlete + nickname. Listing some of the greatest names in sports with some one-off bench warmers on the basis of a nickname is useless. 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep If the deletion before was in error, that indicates either that the consensus was to keep, or that there was no consensus and it defaulted to keep. You know me, I respect the wishes of the people. Mandsford 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was speedily deleted for BLP violations, the DRV has nothing to do with consensus or a lack thereof but rather that the speedy was improper. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or it wasn't something that should have been speedily deleted, but put up for standard AfD. That's what i gathered from the deletion review, anyhow. DurinsBane87 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my vote in the original AfD. Citing WP:OR as a rationale for deleting this is sheerly a smokescreen by the original nominator, since whether or not these nicknames have been applied to the people is a matter for simple verification by means of published sources; original research has no part in it. And WP:V requires that an article's facts need be verifiable for the article to be kept, not that they all be currently sourced. I'm also having a hard time seeing where the WP:BLP concerns are coming from: If there's anything in the article that's egregiously disparaging of living persons, I'm not seeing it. Deor 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia isn't a collection of information. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should have an article. DurinsBane87 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments in the DRV. Wikipedia IS a collection of information, Durinsbane... the idea that it isn't is silly and I can't believe anyone would actually say that. Only specific things are excluded as being an indiscriminate collection, please read the section in WP:NOT on what those items actually are. Anyway, blanking this article was a bad idea... an AFD is the best time for an article to get improved with stuff like sourcing. The DRV showed consensus that this is not a BLP issue. --W.marsh 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I missed a word. That was what i was reffeing to, however. I don't see why it's needed to have a seperate list of athlete's by nickname. The nicknames are on their articles, this is silly and not encyclopedic.DurinsBane87 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just an opinion not actually backed up by any policy. Nicknames are a significant part of sports culture, so it's not a trivial intersection. It might not be the most fascinating list ever, but there's still no reason to delete it other than just not liking it. --W.marsh 03:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore The idea that people are going to sue over a listing of nick-names sounds like a satire on American litigation madness. Mowsbury 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blanking this page during this discussion smacks of an air of lofty self importance which is beyond parody. This is a list of nick names. Get over yourselves because with this attitude Wikipedia will become even more of a laughing stock than it is already. Nick mallory 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Xoloz was kind enough to leave me a note explaining his rationale for this. I don't agree with the policy, but accept his action is fair enough in this instance and I withdraw any accusation of self importance on his part. Nick mallory 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TRIVIA listcruft. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections mentions nothing about deleting any articles. --W.marsh 02:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm saying this topic is one big trivia section. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The page you linked to was not meant to cover deletion of entire articles. At any rate, something the page actually says is 'A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information' --W.marsh 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of trivia and none of these names are cited to anywhere, arousing my WP:BLP concerns Corpx 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They could all be cited, though... if the article wasn't protected... this is a catch-22. Also 40 of them are cited... this has been explained to you. --W.marsh 04:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article has been in existence for over years though and it is in this condition. Even then I still think it is a list of loosely associated topics, as every athlete seems to have a nickname these days Corpx 05:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We simply don't delete articles as punishments for not being great yet despite having been around for a while... otherwise the majority of our articles on non-English-speaking places and people would probably get axed. As for every athlete having a nickname, that implies that there's a level of interest, if all of these things are getting written about in the press. It may not be interesting to you but it's interesting to some people. It's also something that could be addressed by tweaking the article rather than deleting it. --W.marsh 05:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I love sports and I definitely think this is interesting, but that should not be a reason to keep the article. This is not really punishment for anything. I just think this is a bunch of unsourced trivial details Corpx 05:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It could all be sourced though... there's nothing in policy that says everything in an article needs an inline citation this minute or the whole thing must be deleted. Only specific dubious items need citations to avoid removal. --W.marsh 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You keep adressing the issue of sourcing, but you seem to be ignoring or not noticing the other point being made. This whole list is a trivia section. DurinsBane87 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be dense, but I fail to see how this article falls under the description of trivia in WP:TRIVIA or related guidelines and essays. Could you be more specific with regard to the supposed triviality of the article contents? Deor 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, am going to quote mandsford from the original AfD: Athletes tend to be known by nicknames more than most other prominent people, simply because sports reporters create them. This list takes the approach of running from Ace to Zeko; it's a plus that it's not limited to Americans. Mathmo ^Talk 01:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore The "trivia" argument if from people who don't have any interest in sports. What about people who've heard of "Refridgerator" or "The King", but have no idea who they are? I thought encyclopedias included things like that... (Of course, I also had nominated a list of military figures by nickname, which I started, nominated for the same ignorant reason..., so what do I know...?) Trekphiler 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, when, if, the list is restored, add tennis star Maureen "Little Mo" Connolly, Bronco Jake "the Snake" Plummer {I always thought that was Don Prudhomme...}, & boxer Carl "Bobo" Olson.)[reply]
Keep, purge, and restart The list doesn't have any serious criteria for inclusion. It is even less sourced than I thought during the DRV, as almost 90% of the sourcing is to other Wikipedia articles, leaving about 4 legitimate sources in this list itself. I randomly sampled 5 (a very small sample) of the names here - in 1 case the nickname wasn't mentioned in our article, in the other 4 it wasn't sourced in our article. So a massive purge is needed, and it would probably be easiset to purge by removing everything. Before starting to rebuild, criteria for inclusion are needed. I'd suggest that we want only lasting nicknames, not ones used only in/by a single source/author. How to articulate this in a sourcing requirement will be tricky, but perhaps using only biographical or retrospective sources following retirement would be a good first step. GRBerry 20:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athletes tend to be known by nicknames more than most other prominent people with possible non exception of politicians. Hey! there is an idea! Triple3D 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightholder[edit]

Fails WP:N, sources are questionable. Surname articles are supposed to be used for disambiguation; but in this case, Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for a person of this name. The article rather contains extensive details about the history of the name. The only traceable source is a privately published book, which probably goes under WP:SPS. I can't help the impression that somebody is publishing her original research here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 15:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless sources are found to back this up Corpx 04:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a geneaology resource. There is no claim to notability and there are no independent, reliable sources. Nuttah68 10:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Corpx. --Aarktica 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Set Radio Next[edit]

This game was rumored to be announced at the Tokyo Game Show 2007 by numerous sources (including this one at Kotaku.com) and it turned out that the original source of the rumor, Xbox360Rally.com, was given a false tip. They retracted the rumor. None of the games the source gave were presented at TGS 2007. "Jet Set Radio Next" does not exist. ~ Hibana 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmm, well I didn't realize the TGS hadn't taken place yet this year. But this article is still based on a false rumor, and I'd still like to see what others think. ~ Hibana 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now There's no reason to believe it isn't going to happen. Yes, the Xbox360Rally list has been said to be false but Tokyo Game Show hasn't even happened yet. We still have another month to find out if it really is going to be an actual game or not. 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)~

Userfy and delete. See WP:CRYSTAL. Dbromage [Talk]

00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if the only source is a debunked rumour, it should be deleted. It can always be recreated if / when the game is announced with some sort of reliable source. FredOrAlive 15:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a real product. Deathawk 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CRYSTAL material. --Aarktica 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe berry (entertainer)[edit]

The article asserts that "Joe Berry is a world famous entertainer", but 5 minutes on Google didn't find his name being associated with any of the works listed. Seems like vanity spam. Uncertain notability. Also, absolutely no sources for a biography of a living person. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unknown college kid. A random search of his "movies" and his "TV show" turn up nothing.--Sethacus 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Vanity. World famous, and you and I have never even heard of him? Gimme a break; The article's surname isn't even capitalized for Christ's sake. James Luftan ^contribs 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells a hoax here. Unsourced too.--JForget 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Nuttah68 10:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable, hoax. Mel sa ran 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination, possibly a hoax as well so a speedy deletion would not be opposed. Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, what on earth? Picaroon (t) 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian National Mosque[edit]

Not notable, no references PEAR (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, every bit as notable as Washington National Cathedral. It's one of Abuja's most remarkable landmarks (sample picture: [41]). The article needs expansion and sources, I'll gladly take the task upon myself. --Targeman 16:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better sourcing and certainly could use expansion but appears to be notable. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close per Deor's comment, Article was tagged for Afd for nearly 24 hours by an IP without providing any reasons for the deletion. Non-admin closure.--JForget 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claroline[edit]

I don't understand why SmackBoth has marked this article for deletion. The article has been taggged since August 2007, so isn't it a bit early to mark the page for deletion ? --ZeFredz 09:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was tagged for AfD by an anonymous IP, who must have given up when unable to complete the nomination process. Unless someone offers a rationale for deletion, I think a speedy closure is in order. Deor 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetofection[edit]

This page is advertising, and Im pretty sure its fake. I work in a cell biology lab and have never heard of this. The article is of poor quality, and the science in the article is vague or just outright wrong. RogueNinja_talk 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is promotional in tone and needs major rewriting, but the technique appears real per several Medline hits in reasonable quality specialist journals, see eg [42] Espresso Addict 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added references, formatted and re-written a little for tone. Tim Vickers 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep source seem adequate; I did some additional editing, and there's a good deal more still needed. DGG (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Cleanup is all that is needed. James Luftan ^contribs 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rose love[edit]

This article is on an upcoming album. There is one linked source, and my search of the lengthy .pdf failed to locate either the name of the album or the name of the artist (although there is an artist named "Monrose" and an album called "Ghetto Rose"). A google search of "Rose Love" and "Laila Richard Sadeq" came up with only Wikipedia and unacceptable sources. So the first issue with the article, in my opinion, is verifiability. However, even if there is a scheduled album by that name, I believe it fails the album notability guidelines because it lacks independent coverage and the artist herself may not be notable. I believe the article should be deleted. Moonriddengirl 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nom says it all. Deiz talk 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom... and per the earlier shenanigans surrounding this. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 14:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoaxy article to correspond with a non notable actress. James Luftan ^contribs 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole Laila business smells like a hoax. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's all a hoax. Corvus cornix 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanich[edit]

Non-notable neologism. First several pages of non-wiki ghits do not show the word used in this way. No sources in article to show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dicdef of a neologism. Most ghits show honest mistakes in spelling "Spanish".--Sethacus 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Maybe a redirect to Spanish would be in order? Seems to be a common misspelling ;-) --B. Wolterding 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, non-notable, dare I say non-existent neologism, very likely made up. --Targeman 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This makes no sense whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for tings made up in school one day. James Luftan ^contribs 17:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and block user). User:Groovybill has recreated this page after it was deleted as Nonsense ... richi 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like something made up in school one day. I have a friend who makes up words all the time, but that doesn't mean we need articles on them on Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir, ladies and gentlemen, that's right, it's Spanich! It's Spinach, only Spanish! You'll love it, guaranteed, or your money back! ...Um, yeah. Anyway, irrelevant. Pointless. Putrid. But it sounds like a food. REMOVE ASAP -- M (^speak/_spoken) 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete complete made up nonsense. Burntsauce 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that this article is fine but thats a biased opinion. And it's not a made up word, lots of people i know use it. If you can suggest a website that will be less harsh with critiscisms about its articles please suggest it here. groovybill 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest www.myspace.com . --B. Wolterding 10:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if a lot of people use the term, it has to be used in a notable context and shown to be used outside of blogs and the Urban Dictionary, and not so new that its use is more than a fad. Sorry, dude. Bearian 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. If the creator of this article is repeatedly generating hoax articles, this should be looked into further as well. Yamaguchi先生 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Singu larity 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ten[edit]

Low budget movie, no references, no assertion of notability. PEAR (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on critical reviews in the Hollywood Reporter and Chicago Sun-Times, to name a few. I'll add sources.--Sethacus 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree WP:MOVIE states that one of the criteria is "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." This certainly meets that per the reviews. Add sources. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BigFishy 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User is an admitted sockpuppet of the nominator. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sethacus and T.R.E., and also because a number of famous actors are involved. Slic e NYC (Talk) 01:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the reviews @ rotten tomatoes Corpx 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the film is opening nation-wide and is being strongly advertised for on many television channels (Comedy Central in particular) in addition to what has already been said above, so I don't think an additional "assertion of notability" is necessary. Waqcku 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no question, I can't even believe this is in question. it was just reviewed on Ebert & Roeper not to mention the cast alone is easily strong and well-known enough to keep.
Speedy keep and close per WP:SNOW. This isn't even close under WP:MOVIE. THF 10:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topiary Communications[edit]

Unreferenced blurb/advertisement for a company with one redlinked product, created and edited by the president of the company, Topiarydan (talk · contribs). Deiz talk 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous comment --kateshortforbob 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and nowhere near meeting WP:ORG. Nuttah68 10:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing to satisfy WP:CORP. --Aarktica 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger Rich[edit]

Not notable, no references PEAR (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary (with standardized capitalization) and delete. The idiom is fairly well known, but Urban Dictionary does not count for a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigger rich (second nomination) (note capitalisation) and UrbanDictionary is a patently lousy source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable racist neologism. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:VanTucky. --BigFishy 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet of nominator. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 02:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" Corpx 04:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete since it's already been deleted once. wikipediatrix 16:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN & racist. --RucasHost 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation, not notable, racist, unsourced, nonsense, original research, you name it. Mel sa ran 11:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Leaning towards keep, I remember a very popular song called "Hood Rich" that implies a similar meaning, will search for sources before I solidify a keep vote. spazure (contribs) 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Lady´s (drag duo)[edit]

Delete - non-notable performing duo, written as self-promotion by one half of the duo. Otto4711 13:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable unless some sources to the contrary are added. Nuttah68 11:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evana von Tramp[edit]

Delete - prod removed by article's author, who is also the articles subject (WP:COI). Subject does not pass WP:BIO and the page is self-promotion. Otto4711 13:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -NN & unsourced. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable unless some sources to the contrary are added. Nuttah68 11:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin Kempo Karate[edit]

Unsourced & no assertation of notability Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, blatant advertisement. --Nico 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable spam. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found Corpx 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a classic example where the only source (incomplete) refers to the founder of the school. The founder may be notable or not but that does not translate into notability for the school or system.Peter Rehse 05:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenpō, merge whatever can be sourced (which doesn't seem like much at this point). PubliusFL 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allysin Chaynes[edit]

Not notable, no references, fails WP:PORNBIO. PEAR (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has won a significant award so passes WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no source to confirm that. Valrith 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should really have read the sources before claiming that. It's mentioned in the Adult Rental Bio reference. Epbr123 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have won quite a few porn awards which I guess makes you sorta famous.
Keep per XRCO award Corpx 04:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria for inclusion. Valrith 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Winning an award = notability per WP:PORNBIO Corpx 01:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per awards. (and that's the coolest pornstar name I've ever seen!) spazure (contribs) 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's "Kelly, The Coed". 03:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.180.97.165 (talk • contribs) 23:13, August 12, 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - duh. DS 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alliterative phrases in Harry Potter[edit]

More Pottercruft. The article doesn't state its importance. It's just a list of alliterative things in Harry Potter that an editor finds interesting. Marc Shepherd 13:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 13:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just because a series is notable, doesn't mean every aspect of it's writing is. DurinsBane87 13:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random collection of info, no attempt made to cite comment on it --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random, and importance not asserted. --kateshortforbob 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be true, but it's original research. Spellcast 14:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 15:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I do think a mention of alliteration could be incorporated into a "writing style" section of J. K. Rowling or Harry Potter. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment assuming someone can find a reliable source which has commented on it. This article doesn't cite any. Hut 8.5 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double delete "Riches" Rowling has "made a mint" with her "magical mystery" tour de force, allusions to alliteration are tres' trivial. Mighty Mandsford 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, depressingly daft dump of deplorable detritus, definitely devoid of defendable data. --Targeman 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruddy cruft. --Folantin 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appallingly awful cretinous cruft. Moreschi ^Talk 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suggest useless lists like this be moved to a Harry Potter fan site. Completely original research, fancruft etc... and has no potential to become an encyclopedia article. Majorly (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. A bad title or POV content are reasons for renaming or cleanup, not deletion. Any moves or mergers are editorial decisions. Sandstein 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide[edit]

Firstly, the controversial role of the Church has already been mentioned in the main article about the Rwandan Genocide. Secondly, the article Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide suggests that Christianity as a whole or Rwanda being Christian is primarily at fault for the Rwandan Genocide, by creating a separate article for it. The article furthermore mainly contains quotes rather than a balanced background story on the role of the Church in the genocide. The way the article has been written, and the fact that it has been separated from the Rwandan Genocide article makes its contents highly evocative. Its evocative nature has been discussed on the talk page.

Delete An entirely wrong headed analysis of a tragedy has no place here. Nick mallory 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for underlying POV and I suspect WP:POINT. The underlying assumption of the article (typified by the title) is that Christianity as a whole bears a responsibility based on the actions of a few members (e.g. the clerics in Rwanda mentioned in the article). As the nom mentions there is a section of the main article addressing Christianity, this article would be redundant even if it weren't of extremely questionable POV. -Markeer 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is almost equivalent to an article called "Islam and the Darfur Genocide". If there is anything of value in this article, it is buried under PoV bias. — RJH (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content that needs covering is already in an appropriate article as referenced above.--Stormbay 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Taprobanus 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed two obvious sockpuppets votes. Look at my talk page for details. The nominator looks highly suspect too. Would the closing admin please check all votes carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Church and the Rwandan Genocide and slap a clean-up tag on it. The references clearly indicate that there is a connection between the two, however bad the lack of attention to this article in particular. Topics to be covered include the Church as a parallel form of social advancement used by Hutus during the colonial period, which did create a strong link between the post-'social revolution' Hutu elite and the Church. The accounts of Tutsis fleeing to churches and then being betrayed by the priests to the genocidaires are legion. I stumbled across this deletion discussion because I was about to move in a recent anon contribution to Rwandan Genocide about the growth of Islam in Rwanda as a result of the perceived connection between violence and Christianity as a result of the genocide. (Supporting Washington Post article) A move to Religion and the Rwandan Genocide or Religious institutions and the Rwandan Genocide is thus also possible. This article needs help, not deletion. - Banyan Tree 09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above mentioned solution amounts to moving the problem. It does not take away the argument why I put this article up for deletion. The new article will still be as evocative as it is just a cosmetic change. The title of the new article is just as evocative, as are its contents. I do not object to the thesis that the church was involved but the main article puts it better than this one or the one you propose. The controversial role of the church in Rwandan history is also mentioned in History of Rwanda. It is more outspoken on the subject, but does not contain dubious quotes, which makes it better. The above mentioned claim that Islam has spread in Rwanda is dubious at best. The US State department says 4,6% of Rwanda's population is Muslim (based on census data from 2001), which is also shown on the Wikipedia pages concerning Rwandan demographics. That doesn't constitute a great change from 1994. I want to conclude by pointing out that Wikipedia is not a forum on religious topics.GreatWikiFan 09:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Deletion discussions are for articles that cover non-notable topics or are otherwise unencyclopedic. You do not appear to be contesting that this is an actual topic discussed by serious commentators, but rather appear to be taking issue with its tone and emphasis and lack of well-rounded coverage. That is the use of the templates {{POV}}, {{tone}} and {{unreferenced}}, among others, not the use of {{afd}}. The fact that you are arguing over details of content indicates that this is an issue of content, rather than notability or encyclopedic-ness. I would have zero problem with you turning the extended quotations into one sentence summaries, but I would have a problem if this article, the most likely target for the anon contribution I note above, disappears. If this article didn't exist, I would probably be obliged to create it. - Banyan Tree 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide. The actual title is unacceptable, and on this we all seem to all agree, but Im uncomfortable also with the alternative proposals that BT has made, as they link a bunch of distict organizations under a term that can be quite vague, "Christianity". I feel this article must detail the relations among one specific organization, unified to Rome but with no formal ties to the other organzations, i.e. Roman Catholic Church. What the Anglican Church has done in Rwanda has nothing to do with to Ctholic Church, and in the same way the words of the Archibishop are of no importance. This is my view, and also, I think it's the only way to avoid making a soapbox, but a serious analysis of how the Catholic Church reacted to the ongoing Genocide, studying it on four levels 1) deacons and priests 2) foreign and local friars and nuns 3) higher local hierarchy 4) the center, Rome, observingRome-,s behaviour after the genocide (there have been allegations of protecting priests implicated in the Genocide--Aldux 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I nominated the article for deletion just because it evocatively links an entire church organisation to a genocide conducted by individual priests (which have been condemned). The role the Roman Catholic Church as a body played has already been described in the main article and in the article about Rwanda's history. That's why I consider this article to be redundant at best, evocative at worst. In my opinion a move is out of the question. I think separate articles for any organisation or group involved should be avoided in order to avoid framing entire groups for the deeds some of them committed, discussing their role in the main article instead, which has been done. -GreatWikiFan 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. —Banyan Tree 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Content problems can always be solved, and I personally think that we need to expand on the issue of the behaviour, not only for bad, but also for good, of the Rwandan Roman Catholic Church. To make this expansion, the rwandan Genocide article is not enough, especially because we should analyse how the Rwandan church as a united corps behaved, and what role has it played in the aftermath of the tragedy, especially regarding national reconiliation. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church isn't composed by atomic priests who respond just to the Pope, bu instead to a complex chain of obedience, in the frame of a national church subordinated only in last instance to Rome. Regarding your fears of a mudslinging article, until the article will be made to awnser the policies, I find them immotivated: especially since you seem to take for granted that the article would be a long rant, while carefully sourcing the article and avoiding to make a simple list of what x priest did here, and xx priest did there.--Aldux 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide - per Aldux.Baka man 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article also discusses the Anglican church. DGG (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was the company really sold for 748 bucks? NawlinWiki 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xirrus[edit]

Non-notable organisation: fails test of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Gordonofcartoon 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and it looks more than a little like advertising --kateshortforbob 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well backed-up stub with references (although used incorrectly) and an external link & lots of hits on Google. Lra drama 12:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not give any information on the subject, and the company seems to be an ordinary shop rather than a large company worth mentioning. Furthermore, the references look like advertisements. GreatWikiFan 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete, refs are unsatisfactory and article is a directory listing. Deiz talk 13:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in the process of re-writing the article. The refs as given are indeed mostly press releases but a Factiva search for "Xirrus" shows 249 results. While the majority are their press releases, there are multiple independent write-ups that describe the company's operations. This makes it notable per WP:CORP. Resurgent insurgent 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP's notability guidelines, the organization does not need to be large to be worth mentioning. Xirrus meets notability guidelines WP:Notability. Xirrus is being covered by several independent industry leading journalists and publications such as eWeek, InfoWorld, NetworkComputing, TechWeek, etc. They have been chosen as the Wi-Fi sponsor for the largest networking tradeshow (Interop) three times in a row. They are backed by Microsoft's only VC and share a BOD seat them). Chomperhead 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I googled this company and found more than their own press releases. Someone will always think something is an advertisement, but it doesn't seem like it has a malicious intent, and the best way to find out about a business is to have their products listed and features enumerated. I look forward to reading more about Xirrus as more people contribute, the article is rather short now. Give it a chance to grow before sending the firing squad out too quickly as many of you are wont to do. AndrewJSteele 9 August 2007

*User's 3rd Wikipedia edit. Deiz talk 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Judaism[edit]

Not notable, no references, link spam. PEAR (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: above user has been indefinitely blocked

Weak keep, not my area of expertise, but there seems to have been at least one book written on the subject (Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism), and several webpages. Perhaps merge into Open source religion instead? --kateshortforbob 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uninformative and uninteresting article. Mandsford 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless reliable sources are found to attest notability. Found one article, but I'm not certain if it is pertinent to the AFD Corpx 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable on the basis that there was a book written about the subject, the movement has produced a Haggadah, and apparently this movement has inspired other (albeit less focused) activity in the area of open source religion. I don't think that the "merge" suggested by Kateshortforbob is a good option. The Open source religion article is about creating new belief systems ("invent your own religion"), while it seems that Open Source Judaism is about using open collaboration to enhance participants' involvement with an established religious faith. (I have a hunch that if the article were about Open Source Christianity, there would be an uproar against merging it into an article about do-it-yourself religions...)--orlady 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per orlady. Mathmo ^Talk 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without needing to discuss motivation.DGG (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by which I mean that the article should be kept based on the sources, and there is no need to consider whether the nomination may have been affected by improper considerations--it is enough to just consider the actual article. ,DGG (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per orlady. Terse 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per Corpx Harlowraman 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The text of the article is a near duplication of this. Given that there was no copyright notice on the website itself, it is generally assumed on the side of safety that the content is not free to be used on Wikipedia, and is hence deleted. Kurykh 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Boutella[edit]

Contested prod. A dancer who has worked with some notable figures but doesn't appear notable herself. Darksun 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search shows quite a number of hits for this dancer. Moreover, this webpage has an entry for this subject. She is also the winner of the Nike women daceclash 2006 as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of google hits is irrelevant. The site you linked to is just a forum post, not a reliable source. The Nike competition seems to be an amature competition and in itself not very notable, I wouldn't say winning it would make someone notable. --Darksun 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Twice deleted previously, still unsourced, probably a lovely person but no evidence of notability. Robertissimo 13:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Goggle hits, the article itself could use some work though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmm6f488 (talk • contribs)
Copyvio apparently. Matches text here[43] and at a couple of other sites. Would be leaning to keep on notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal puff piece. WP is not Myspace--Greatest hits 06:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' one of the best known in her kind 88.114.230.211
Delete as WP:COPYVIO caught by Groggy Dice. --Aarktica 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Penang[edit]

This article reads like a tourist brochure and is therefore better suited to WikiTravel ([44]). Caniago 10:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WikiTravel, due to the cohesion, style, and presentation of this article. It looks like it would be much more successful, suitable and relevant on WikiTravel. Acs4b ^{T C U} 11:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki~~ per WP:NOT#TRAVEL Corpx 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't transwiki there as they have a non-compatible license. --W.marsh 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aaargh, I thought it was only wikinews that was not GDFL. Delete then Corpx 05:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a rough guide. Nuttah68 11:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roosterbowl[edit]

1. I don't believe the "Rooster bowl" is recognized by either University as an official event.
2. The source website seems like the event itself is an event put on by a group of fans, but no official representatives from either school are shown on the website. The page could be considered an advertisement
3. There is significant debate at Texas A&M weather the Texas Tech sports rivalry with A&M has any greater significance then with any other school. The sources that do recognize the perceived high levels of hostilities between the schools do not call the rivalry the "Rooster Bowl" but instead try to argue the existence of the sports rivalry itself.
4. While this "rooster bowl" might eventually evolve into part of the official traditions of both schools, at the moment the are not. Therefore, I do not feel that the "Rooster Bowl" is notable for wikipedia at this time. Oldag07 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was an incomplete nomination brought to my attention by another user. I'm completing it without a significant opinion on the article itself. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be non-notable, Google turned up only a few hundred links. RobJ1981 10:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not noteable as a sporting / games event. Lra drama 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why, oh why, did I visit roosterbowl.com? Why, oh why, did I read the story about how Joe and Blake pass a wooden rooster back and forth depending on the outcome of the game? Mandsford 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Richard Sadeq[edit]

I'm procedurally completing this nomination. It appears the "nominator" Justlit thought that a notability tag meant AfD and created this page in the wrong way to say keep. There are now delete !votes so the debate should not be closed due to this error and I have added the AfD tag to the article. So the article may end up being deleted because somebody (a large contributer) wanted to keep it! Oh, the irony. PrimeHunter 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: the following comments were added before this was properly listed and may be votestacking.

~~Send to cleanup~~. Keep. This is a young actress Actually has some minimal content ~~but needs to be cleaned up and stubbed~~. --User:Justlit 01:49, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)

keep Laila Richard Sadeq the article should not be deleted because if this person has never acted before howcome there are fan videos and fan sites like wet paintwet,msn groups and 35 blogs on blogger and there might be some future so if you delete this article the next time disney comfirms the world of this actress then you are lost.

--User:Xxdisneyxfanxx 06:49, Jun 24, 2007 (UTC)— Xxdisneyxfanxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James Luftan ^contribs 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree keep this article i went on laila richard sadeq at msn groups and i found a lot of pictures and keep these articles for the following reasons * although laila's is not yet a disney channel star she is still considered a professional actress and although ms sadeq has not had any references or sites that claim these obligations i believe that disney fans know that stub wikipedia articles and topix forums are nothing but how are they actually reading these stub article and forums and actually making these fan videos on sites like youtube ( the weirdest thing is youtubers are actually watching videos about this person who wikipedians like Nlwiki claim that has never acted well what do you think now Nlwiki have you seen how many people watch those youtube fan videos ha ha ha.

--miley hilary 10:49, Jun 24, 2007— Miley hilary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. James Luftan ^contribs 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This debate was added to the AfD log 10.50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) by Nlwiki [45], when the article still had no AfD tag. PrimeHunter 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion continues here. Please note that this is not a majority vote.

I noticed someone has put a lot of effort into trying to create a notifiable person out of someone who isn't. This person is not an actress who has been in any movie according to IMDb. This seems to be the case for all 6 mentioned movies on her page. I have tried to put a notability tag on het page but anonymous users keep removing them. The only mentioned external link is "Laila Richard Sadeq' s MySpace" and it links to www.myspace.com and not to a profile of an user on myspace. I hope other Wikipedia users look into this because I think articles like this one doesn't do any good for Wikipedia's credibility. Nlwiki 10:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Non Notable. incidently as far i can see Xxdisneyxfanxx fan has contributed to wikipedia since this morning, and has made quiet an effort on their userpage 3tmx 10:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- User Miley hilary was also created 7 August and the date in both of their comments above shouldn't be "24 June" but "7 August" Nlwiki 11:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets?? 3tmx 11:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC) This appears to me to be a typical example of people missuing wikipedia for promotion. Basically the argument that she may become famous is rubbish as we don't speculate about these thing on wikipedia. 3tmx 11:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N, specifically WP:BIO... also the majority of information there simply isn't verified. Let's also try and keep this civil, please. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but i think the sudden creation of these two users needs to be looked into 3tmx 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has this article been nominated properly for deletion? I can't find any evidence that the article has been tagged. Not only is it not mentioned in the history, but a page by page search for the last several days doesn't show any sign. --Moonriddengirl 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, yeah... excellent point. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i think it should be nominated. 3tmx 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Justlit appears to have copied the first few lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexa Nikolas. WODUP 12:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V, looks like a really stretched effort to make something out of nothing. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 13:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actress does not seem to have sufficient notability yet, and some of these claims--like the Barney one--are unverifiable. --Moonriddengirl 13:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the "what links here" pages and the Rose love-page (about an upcoming album of Laila) seems to contain misleading information. The only reference used (a PDF-file) doesn't contain any information about the Rose love album. Nlwiki 13:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Deiz talk 13:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. If the person does something notable and verifiable, it can always come back. --kateshortforbob 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. Her biggest role is in Horton Hears a Who, and even thats a cameo. James Luftan ^contribs 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't it funny how some votes are marked 10:49 24 Jun 2007 (which is wrnog anyway since it isn't UTC), yet this AfD started today? James Luftan ^contribs 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe other thing i'd point out about XXDisneyfanxx is they have stated they live in England, but also they have a box that says they live in florida. They created their user page yesterday so its not like they 'forgot' to update it. Even more suspicious. 3tmx 17:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) and "their" page was created 10 mins after justlit finished his edits to this page (go by this pages history - not time the first three editors have signed)[reply]

3tmx 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I like how similar they're usernames are! James Luftan ^contribs 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not imdb and this person is a non-notable starlet. Bigdaddy1981 22:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax for someone who may not even be an actress at all. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:BIO. wikipediatrix 16:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as acting in a failed pilot is not in itself notable if that's all one has done. Pat Payne 21:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, imdb never heard of her. Nothing of substance with a Google search, it looks like somebody has made this person up and spammed the net. answers.yahoo.com even had a question about her, and the questioner eventually came to the conclusion that "somebody made her up". Corvus cornix 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. They "spammed the net" to give the appearance that she was famous. I.e. tag youtube videos w/ her name (fan vids) make a tv.com user profile (to give the appearance of an actual profile), Fuck, the top two google searches are here (understandable), and my usertalk page!!! I even filed a sockpuppetry case for Justlit, Disneyfan, and miley hilary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Xxdisneyxfanxx (changed sockpuppeteer as more evidence beacame available). James Luftan ^contribs 02:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was unanimous delete. Singu larity 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of world records[edit]

As it currently stands this page is incomplete and largely unreferenced, whilst I don't think that this is a reason for deletion I do not thin that this page could ever be a good or complete article. It would have to be longer than the Guinness book of records and require almost constant updating over hundreds of pages of text. There are individual pages for certain notable records (such as List of Test cricket records) and I do not think it is neccessary to try and combine them all onto one page, possibly goes against WP:NOT#INFO. Guest9999 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I have no idea how anyone could think that a list containing every world record could work as an article. Propaniac 12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's obvious a lot of effort has gone into this article, but it already seems almost unmanageably long, and I imagine it's only going to get worse. The World Records category already exists. On the other hand, if it is deleted, where will information like the record for smallest origami frog go? --kateshortforbob 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though WP:ILIKEIT, it's a indiscriminate collection of info. Unmaintainable and if it was completed, it would unacceptably long. Useight 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as mentioned above. This is what the Guinness book is for. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one page in a massively collaborative project of almost two million cannot hope to come close to Guinness in any meaningful sense. There just aren't enough people interested to make it worthy of Wikipedia's attention. Haikupoet 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is a word for this, and it is called "plagiarism". "List of world records is an annotated list of world records organized by category." I recognize a lot of these from Guinness... This appears to be a case of someone going through the Guinness book and picking out their favorite parts. It's obvious a lot of effort has gone into this article, but not the type of effort that should be encouraged. Mandsford 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per list of loosely associated items - This is not the guiness book Corpx 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way too vague in terms of criteria. And as noted above there are potential copyvio issues with Guinness. Also this article would require continuous maintenance and updating. 23skidoo 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an editor to this page, it is high maintenance, non referenced, and is a habitat for continued vandalism. I also agree that this is what GWR does, and if anything can be considered a collection of miscellaneous data, which is against wiki policy. Maggott2000 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep Giggy ^Talk 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Perry[edit]

Non-notable indvidual, and a poorly written and sourced article. Mayor mike haggar (talk) 8 Aug, 11.17

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this to be a bad faith nomination. There appears to be some sort of battle involving three articles about video game journalists ( Paul Rose (journalist), Stuart Campbell (video game journalist) and Dave Perry) The user account that nominated this article also created the AFD page for Stuart Campbell (although the AFD notice was put on the page by an anon IP (81.178.249.75)). Something doesn't smell right about a three day old account having a hand in the AFD of three people in the same profession. - X201 11:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's notable. 'Poorly written' isn't a justification for deletion. Darksun 12:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this adequately establishes notability, so it just needs to be heavily cleaned up. — brighterorange (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is sufficiently established in the article. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per above, clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable, iffy nomination with little rationale. Iain99 16:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plague (Vancouver magazine)[edit]

This publication does not appear to be notable, according to Google [46]. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, school magazines usually do. Hut 8.5 10:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above --PEAR (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately. This probably has a near cult reputation but is unlikely to have recieved the coverage required to establish notability. If someone can provide sources I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 11:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Aarktica 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La gauche[edit]

This publication, distributed only within St. George's School (Vancouver), does not appear to be notable according to Google [47] --Uthbrian (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, school newspapers usually do. Hut 8.5 10:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn high-school newspaper (are there really any notable ones?) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without sources its hard to see how a school paper, unofficial or not, is notable. Nuttah68 11:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totnes Community Mag[edit]

Non notable, unenclyclopedic content. Unremarkable defunct community newsletter with an unverified circulation of 50 -100. No secondary sources to support notability. Google search reveals only mirror sites. The article's author was involved in the magazine: http://www.infoanarchy.org/en/User:SqueakBox (see history state prior to todays date) 3tmx 08:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons in nomination, particularly the lack of sources. --kateshortforbob 14:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if we just go ahead and assume the article is 100% true, come on... circulation 50 to 100?! When I was a kid I used to pass out xeroxed comics I drew that did better business than that. No real references either: the two links in the article are a government funding request (for £900!) that doesn't even mention the magazine by name, and the other is a very short "review" of the group that published it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Totnes, SqueakBox 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Strongly disagree with merge Contray to what the article author thinks the content is simply and completely non notable, and unverifiable regardless of whether it is incorporated into the page Totnes or not. If it is merged the issues regarding verifiability and notability are still pertinent. How is this newsletter culturally significant in any way??? Imagine if every single community newsletter ever published in every single small town thought it deserved a mention on Wikipedia. Then think about the implication that every single community group, village council etc would by implication entitled to a wikipedia page. Squeakbox why don't you give reasons as to why you think this deserves a mention on wikipedia (you had plenty of opportunity on the talk page but didn't either - maybe because its position is unjustifiable?)

3tmx 17:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable resources, a circulation of 50-100, no notability. No merge, for the reasons outlined above. Nuttah68 11:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia[edit]

Our article on state terrorism tells us that it is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition. And this article isn't even about state terrorism, but about alleged state terrorism. That essentially means it's hypothesizing about a conjectural term, and it fails WP:NOR. Encyclopedias deal with facts, not allegations. >Radiant< 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been expanded with many other sources covering a host of different incidents. Nick mallory 09:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not firmly opposed to such articles in principle - I voted to keep Allegations of state terrorism by the United States - but there needs to be substance in the article to justify what is otherwise a clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Here all we have is an assertion that the term "state terrorism" was used by a journalist in connection with Russia. That's not good enough. Shalom ^Hello 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to FrozenPurpleCube for asking me to reconsider my opinion. In light of the improvement to the article since my previous comment, my original rationale for deletion is not valid. My current opinion is neutral. Shalom ^Hello 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia deals with "allegations" (and their cousin "controversies") all the time. There has been an enormous amount of discussion on the page Allegations of state terrorism by the United States which resulted in that particular title. This new article is simply following that format (apparently an article called Allegations of Iranian state terrorism has been created as well, and the article Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka has existed for awhile). These titles are far from ideal, but they were generally agreed upon by a number of editors heavily involved with the incredibly contentious US state terrorism article. In any case, if we are going to have a state terrorism by the US article (and it seems we are) it certainly makes sense to have similar article for other nations, though this will no doubt continue to be a highly debated topic. Certainly Russia (and the USSR) have been accused of committing state terrorism by what we would deem reliable sources, so there is a basis for an article along these lines. This article was just created, so it should at the very least be given some time to develop. Those interested in commenting on this AfD should probably familiarize themselves with some of the discussion at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (including the most recent AfD) as it is quite pertinent to this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination) in case anyone is interested. --Itub 09:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep " for reasons given by user above 3tmx 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are going to be articles about 'allegations of state terrorism' then so be it. Russia's record since 1991, never mind the Soviet period, is littered with such accusations, all of which can be well sourced. If the article on the USA stays then so does this one. I have started to add sources for the 1999 apartment bombings, the Litvinenko poisoning, the Estonian cyber war, the Viktor Yushchenko poisoning in Ukraine and yesterday's missile drop on Georgia. Nick mallory 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps accusations of... would be a better title? >Radiant< 09:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If the article on the USA, Iran and Sri Lanka uses the word 'allegations' then why not here? Nick mallory 09:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all of them should be called "accusations", then. Otherstuffexists is never a reason. >Radiant< 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there are many cases where that argument is misused, to say it's never a reason is an absolute that's not supported by my experience. There are cases where it is appropriate to note that an article with a similar premise exists. In this case, where the obvious intent is to cover acts by nation, I would think it quite reasonable to support the creation of articles for any country where sources describing terrorism allegations by that country exist. Since I doubt you can argue that there aren't any allegations against Russia when several have already been sourced on the page, I would say that you can't fairly object to this page as a concept without also addressing a position on the others. And if you wish to propose renaming the convention of the articles to accusations as opposed to allegations, that would be a different forum than AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the history of this article, I see two edits to it. The page's creation, and the page's nomination for deletion. This means we can't rely on the current page for anything, but must instead look elsewhere. Let's see. [48]. That's one. Here's a speech on RadioFreeEurope. [49]. Here's a CNN transcript. [50]. That's three quick sources I could find on this subject. Are they perfect? No, but they convince me this is not just an isolated fancy, but rather something that can be appropriately developed given time. If you have a problem with the title of the page, which would be something that'd impact a lot of other pages, I don't feel AFD is the right place, however, I do feel it's obvious that the concept of state terrorism as practiced by this country is something that has been given coverage in third-party sources. To remove it would be censorship. You are, of course, encouraged to make an effort to improve the page. FrozenPurpleCube 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I would especially suggest additions to coverage in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Though an argument could be made for putting them on their own page. FrozenPurpleCube 09:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already suggested on the talk page of the article splitting it between the Soviet Union and post Soviet Russia. Russia is the successor state but the sheer amount of possible information means two pages would be better than one. Nick mallory 09:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, though I would also add Tsarist Russia to the mix. I'll go add my thoughts there. FrozenPurpleCube 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I see not much of value in the current content of the article, the topic is notable and encyclopedic and the article is very new. Give it time to expand. --Itub 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I'm naturally resistant to articles surrounding "allegations", but the arguments above are valid; give the article time and see where it goes. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. --PEAR (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But many of the sections of the page just recently added would not actually be defined as "terrorism". Maybe acts of aggression, conflict, war, whatever. The sources or the sections themselves do not mention the concept of "state terrorism". Recurring dreams 12:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great arguments per User:Bigtimepeace Taprobanus 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give time to develop. Manticore's arguments are solid enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per bigtimepiece. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is neutral in tone, deals in widely discussed subject matter of clear notoriety. This is a bad-faith nom working in a backhanded fashion towards the deletion of the Allegations...United States article. It is as absurd as all the other attempts, and deserves a speedy trip to /dev/null. Stone put to sky 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per bigtimepiece and FrozenPurpleCube Harlowraman 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Opinions do not equal facts. This article violates WP:SYNTH.--MONGO 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bigtime and others. Mandsford 01:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH - You cant take a bunch of facts and tie them up to make a point. Mention the sourced incidents in the appropriate articles, but not like this Corpx 04:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT. --Tbeatty 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the title is highly POV as is the article; I think of a situtation where it is alledged that "Dick" is a sexual pervert or "Jane" is a terrible mother. These are not grey areas, they either are or they are not and that is why I reject this article as well as others like it. They are the opinion of the accuser of what is and what is not terrorism. This is intellectual smut at its worst parading as valid journalism. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article about a subject that is notable? Yes. [...]

Is the subject of the article or its content entirely or inherently original research? No.

Does the article contain non-neutral content? Yes.

Is the article inherently or irreparably POV? No.

Is the title of the article neutral? Irrelevant.[...] I would say that the current title is appropriate per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which states: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize ...". (shamelessly copied from User:Black Falcon’s rationale Taprobanus 12:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH definitely and per nom strongly. I hate when people assume "adding sources" to an article always fixes everything. Bulldog123 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and give peoples a chance to work on it. Topic may have merits but currently article is a dump and schoolbook example of WP:SYNTH and WP:POV. Adding "energy" part to it is so hilarious it almost begs to add link to this article to Russophobia page. Russian attempt to use it's economic influence is considered State Terrorism. Gimme a break, what country does not use whatever economic influence it has? RJ CG 17:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as per arguments by Bigtimepeace. Digwuren 18:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States wasn't deleted so why should this be any different. If the information is sourced and the allegations have merit the article should be kept.--Southern Texas 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nom says encyclopedia deal in facts: notable opinions are facts, in that the opinion exists and is discussed. If we couldn't document opinion, then what about all the religion articles? This article is a useful documentation of historical statements. ... Seabhcan 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Southern Texas, I would delete both articles but lets be consistent Alex Bakharev 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Violates WP:SYNTH just as much as that other crap magnet Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to rename it it is an editorial decision. Sandstein 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani[edit]

Another one in our series of allegation articles, this one is not so much original research as it is simply a news story sound byte. A convicted criminal stated there were mass graves somewhere; this was investigated, and it was concluded that he was lying. A newspaper might hype this up, but it does not appear to be an encyclopedia story, except perhaps as a footnote to the article on the murderer (which, incidentally, we don't have). WP:NOT a newspaper, and this gives undue weight to something found to be false. >Radiant< 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (if kept, rename as suggested below). >Radiant< 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- reaname into what specifically ? 12:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It's an old news story, and there turned out to be no substance to the allegations. Shalom ^Hello 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this recent report] in 2005 that disputes what you just said that this is done with. Thanks Taprobanus 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per Shalom, its an old story and only a few bodies were found. Allegations from convicted criminal who served in the military, so how can that be trusted. Sinhala freedom 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really what is an old story ?recent report this one ? and only few bodies ? 15 bodies were found. They did not find themselves in the ditch by themselves. Thanks Taprobanus 23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is what happens when someone reads an article in a cursory manner and makes up their mind. The statement in nomination undue weight to something found to be false where is the WP:RS source that substantiates. It simply takes the point of view of the alleged perpetrators of the crime, that is the state of Sri Lanka as a fact when number of WP:RS citations in the article mention that 15 bodies were found including academic books. Currently the title itself is under mediation. I strongly believe the allegation part on the title is misleading. Also google search on Chemmani yields over 900 hits. This is not based on a newspaper article. This does not violate WP:NOT and WP:NOTABLE. This is written from a WP:NPOV point of view with WP:RS sources. Thanks Taprobanus 14:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Taprobanus. Article is sourced to more than one newspaper article. It is a point of controversy in an important civil war. Any problems with the article itself should be addressed in the mediation. --Richard 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Another bad-faith nom by this poster, no doubt to try and build a case for deleting the "State Terrorism...United States" page. I sure hope the sysops are keeping count. The article deals with a widely discussed event in a neutral manner, has citations from government sources to back up most assertions and other, suitably reliable sources to support the others. Stone put to sky 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Much more thought and research have gone into the article than into this nomination. This is a case that received widespread international attention and is important in understanding the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. It's not a matter of a newspaper "hyping" the matter up, and anything more than a skim of the article (not to mention the wiki discussions, the sources, and related material on the Internet) bears that out. The reason that the article is entitled "Allegations..." is because whether or not the allegations were proven or disproven is a matter of ongoing controversy. The nominator's view: "this was investigated, and it was concluded that he was lying" cannot be attributed to a neutral source. Incidentally, the title was upheld in moderation. This nomination is groundless and frankly baffling. -- Shunpiker 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above, at least 5 news sources. Although the weasel word "allegations" should be removed. 68.90.179.243 19:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework. I am positively baffled as to why this article resides at this "Allegations" title when it's obvious the mass graves did exist. There's even a redirect at Chemmani mass graves which makes a lot more sense - what would be even better is if someone who has access to the information could write a proper article on the village of Chemmani itself and then merge this information to that page. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep graves did exist and it got International attention and is backed by reliable sources.Harlowraman 20:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As per User:Taprobanus. Please note that the name change is in meditation. We are trying to meditate to bring it to say Mass grave at Chemmani. Watchdogb 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't resist.... Buddhists meditate and Wikipedians mediate. --Richard 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindus also meditate. I was talking about the wikipedia meditation that is closed now. Watchdogb 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Hindus also meditate. And aren't you talking about the wikipedia mediation that is now closed? --Richard 18:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yep I was talking about that :). Seems like you repeated my sentence :) Watchdogb 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be able to point out the inadvertent humor in your misspelling. It is quite amusing to imagine a new WikiProject called the Meditation Cabal (shortcut WP:OM) whose mandate would be to meditate away any conflicts that may arise. I've heard of psychokinesis but the idea of being able to meditate an article into changing its name is quite a new one on me. Lesseee, if we can get enough Wikipedians together, maybe we can meditate away all the trolls and vandals, too! --Richard 07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nomination accurately summarizes, somebody alleged that there were mass graves, this was investigated, and it was concluded that he had exaggerated (although 15 persons in a grave seems like a lot to me). Reader can judge for themselves whether the allegations were true or not. Mandsford 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further this is an ongoing saga, meaning the investigation is not complete and people are not satisfied that the allegatiosn of hundreds of bodies is a lie and suspect a cover up. Thanks Taprobanus 12:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename into something less inflammatory Corpx 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like what ? Chemmani mass grave ?Taprobanus 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Bunch of dead people in a hole who could have just wound up there by accident or maybe it was evil government soldiers but Wikipedia wouldn't say that because it might be considered inflammatory? --Richard 01:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the problem on the nail :( but that is the process we have in Wikipedia and only way to resolve them is to have a critical mass of editors intereted in these obscure HR issues. Thanks Taprobanus 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep style could be more encyclopedic though. Terse 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - spam. - Mike Rosoft 19:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MRHEDP[edit]

"A newly adopted process by which anyone … can self-distribute their media output". So new that Google has never heard of it. Spam / original research. -- RHaworth 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, spam. Shalom ^Hello 08:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon L. Jones[edit]

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

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

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

non-notable sports person, no references. Dan027 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It comes close to CSD G1, patent nonsense. The claims about the person are unsourced and hard to believe; and the external links seem totally unrelated. Shalom ^Hello 08:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This subject is definitely non notable and unsourced. There are no references relating to the subject him/herself. It may be a fabrication.--Stormbay 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete probable hoax. The external links, such as they are, point to general websites that don't mention the subject at all. Googling "Shannon L. Jones" softball returns this article. Googling "Shannon L. Jones" The Girth returns nothing.--Sethacus 20:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not sourced ,not notable Harlowraman 20:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Utterly non-notable, borders on an A1 speedy (no context). A look at the article history reveals that there's some pretty serious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on.Blueboy 96 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Nuttah68 11:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. It might be a hoax but either way it lacks reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs in popular culture[edit]

Documents anytime frogs are mentioned in anything. Wikipedia is not a collection of information, and it should certainly not be so poorly sourced. DurinsBane87 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boil slowly so it doesn't hop away and escape Same poor quality as the copious other "in popular culture" articles deleted recently. cab 09:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. -- Jelly Soup 11:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- Given that, despite policy, there seems to be a loose consensus among editors in favor of pop culture reference/trivia lists, I think a fair case could be made in favor of invoking WP:IAR on general principle here. However, I do agree with the matter of sourcing and also submit that a list on such a general subject might be unmaintainable. So I suggest deletion without prejudice, unless someone steps in with a boatload of references, and even then I'm not convinced that the article can ever be reasonably inclusive. Haikupoet 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I disagree that this is of the "same poor quality" as other IPC articles. This one is actually quite good, examining the caricature of the frog as a symbol, mascot, corporate spokesman in a fashion that is both informative and concise. It never occurred to me until reading the article about the oddity of having a slimy amphibian associated with a box of breakfast cereal, even if it is Sugar Smacks. Each article must be judged individually. Like most IPC articles, this could use a shave and a haircut, but this one is still well above the bar. Mandsford 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Many of these references aren't notable, more specific critera for inclusion should be made if the article survives AfD. DurinsBane87 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a list of all the frogs that ever graced any cartoon. Delete per WP:FIVE (trivia collection) and WP:NOT (loosely associated items) Corpx 04:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mansford. The article may need more references, but this defintely seems like a notable topic. --musicpvm 08:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this needs help. Owen 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list of trivia and oblique references. Reference same policies ad guidelines as Corpx. - fchd 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Mansford. Also note that current problems with an article are not a good enough reason for deletion, there is such a thing as fixing it! Mathmo ^Talk 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for reasons given by Mandsford. As currently written, the article is a mixture of the sublime (example, most of the introduction is excellent and the part on Frogs in Egyptian mythology is very good) and the ridiculous (too many examples of this), but the topic is clearly encyclopedia-worthy for reasons set out in the first paragraph of the introduction. With some loving attention, this could become a Featured Article.--orlady 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the delete arguments come down to "delete because some of the content is non-notable," which is of course completely opposed to Deletion policy, and should be translated into "keep, and edit"DGG (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. These pop culture lists aren't necessary on Wikipedia. In response to DGG's comment: read up on policies, instead of just disagreeing with people that voted delete. Next time use deletion debates to actually post a keep reason. Simply disagreeing with one side, and using that as your reason: isn't how deletion debates work. RobJ1981 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total trivial fork, violates policy. Nearly all "in popular culture" pages are just forked off trivia pages that are not encyclopedic or needed here. None of the keep arguments have any merit. Biggspowd 05:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop#Asimov Solensan, which would not have needed an AfD. Sandstein 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov Solenson[edit]

No sources and, frankly, very poorly written - after some research one finds out that this is not a real person, but a character from an anime, which is already described much better and in correct spelling at List_of_Bountyheads_in_Cowboy_Bebop#Asimov_Solensan. High on a tree 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom... just terrible. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with anchor to the list mentioned in the nomination as a plausible misspelling of the character's name. -- saberwyn 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Really, it's not hard. You think this is better covered elsewhere, then instead of going to AFD, hit the #R button and put it where you think it belongs. There might be times where the spelling is really implausible, or the connection unlikely, but this isn't one of those. In addition, you could have tried {{prod}} or informed the author of the page of the mistake, and seen if they'd have requested it's deletion. Since they are a new user, it's quite likely they didn't even realize the issue. It would probably help them a lot more if you'd taken the chance to talk with them about it. Ah well, I hope you get a chance to use this advice in the future. There are times deletion is appropriate, but there are also other options. FrozenPurpleCube 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I made a redirect at Asimov Solensan as well. FrozenPurpleCube 08:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per saberwyn. --Aarktica 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Sandstein 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronit baras[edit]

An article about a life coach based in Brisbane written by the subject's husband. No independent reliable sources, no hard facts establishing notability (the book was self-published at Trafford Publishing), mostly written in a non-encyclopedic advertising style. High on a tree 06:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. -- J Readings 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please review updates -- User: GalBaras 10:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pruning has helped and the article looks less like an advertisement now. I don't see much improvement about the notabilty issue though. Regards, High on a tree 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Is a published author with moderate success, and there are reliable sources [51], [52]. Article needs to be cleaned up though. Recurring dreams 12:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published books are usually not valid as arguments for notability. Regards, High on a tree 13:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. As a new contributor, I would really appreciate suggestions to make this article stay. -- User: GalBaras 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:COI spam for a non-notable individual. Wikipedia is not web host or free bio service. The "sources" provided are not independent, third parties that make significant coverage. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are the Courier-Mail or the ABC not independent, third party sources? Recurring dreams 01:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key word: significant coverage. Two trivial mentions by local sources are not notability. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Courier Mail is one of Australia's largest newspapers by circulation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is the national broadcaster in Australia. The articles both appear to me to be specifically about the subject of the article and not a mere trivial mention. If these sources are not acceptable I struggle to see what would be. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited reports are from ABC radio Brisbane, however, which appears to be a local station, and their main subject seems to be the free hugs phenomenon.

Were you able to actually read the whole Courier Mail article? It is not freely available online. Regards, High on a tree 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the complete article, and can verify that it is wholly about Ronit Baras, is 375 words and has some bio info, info on the book, and some quotes from Baras. Cheers Kevin 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given her work as an author and some media interest. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and WP should not be used as an attempt to increase notability. In other words, spam. --Greatest hits 06:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Australia Counts. Notability in Australia, by radio stations, offline magazines, universities and government agencies should count for something, even if they are in Australia. What happens with someone who is mostly notable offline? Please advise and I will happily comply -- Gal Baras 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Notability is established through multiple independent reliable sources. Any clean up or potential conflict of interest issues can be dealt with outside AfD. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 07:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are sources, but they are based upon human interest, not intrinsic notability. this is in a sense the same principle as our articles about murderers--either any two sources for notability is enough, and all of both sets of articles stay as long as there are sources, or we consider intrinsic notability and we reject them, or we say articles are notable for the good guys.DGG (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any positive practical advice? People, I totally respect your zealous defence of Wikipedia standards. This is what makes it such a great site, which I often use. I would really appreciate any advice you can offer on types of things I can do to make this article conform. Ronit has been nominated for Australian of the Year, but they don't publish nominees, only winners. She regularly writes for a Hebrew newspaper in Melbourne, which has an entry in Hebrew Wikipedia, but they do not advertise the list of regular contributors. She lectures on behalf of the University of Queensland, but they don't show it on their web site either. She has organized events for Brisbane City Council, but they don't advertise it online. What can I do? Please help me out, because Ronit Baras is a notable person people should know about.

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt, per multiple recreations. >Radiant< 08:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoe Theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appears to be WP:OR. Though the first cited source mentions the concept and the word "horseshoe" in passing, the article offers no evidence this theory exists outside Wikipedia, or in this form, or that the theory is notable. Has been deleted by AfD before. Weregerbil 06:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and prevent recreation. Harlowraman 07:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 04:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Front porch sittin[edit]

Previous editor started Afd; didn't complete process, restarting: Joke definition of joke regional term Michael Devore 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef combined with unencyclopedic. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Buckshot06 13:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom VanTucky ^(talk) 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alan Jackson is from Northern Vermont? Mandsford 01:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, unencyclopaedic dic def. Nuttah68 12:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Cage[edit]

Radio personality of little note, apparently even in the Sirius world. Additional ghits: [53] NMChico24 05:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nonnotable person; article seems promotional and is not properly referenced. The article represents the sum total of contributions from Caliboydc (talk · contribs), thus indicating a probable conflict of interest. Shalom ^Hello 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article looks like its written by somebody with a COI and there is no coverage from reliable sources to prove notability Corpx 04:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads as spam, remove for the same reason. Nuttah68 12:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into InuYasha special items and attacks. If editors wish the merge target to be the film then that can be discussed and resolved as a post-AfD editorial matter. I selected this target, rather than the movie, since it would unbalance the movie page but I am neutral on any subsequent move. TerriersFan 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So'unga[edit]

Completely in-universe. Appeared in a single movie and has no relevance to the rest of the series. No reliable, verifiable sources to confirm its notability. Delete or merge into InuYasha special items and attacks. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge Better yet, if it was only in the one movie, merge to that movie's article. Snarfies 21:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Whichever editors with knowledge of this topic decides. There is no notability for this to stand on its own Corpx 04:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge I concur, merge it. Aoikumo 05:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to InuYasha the Movie: Swords of an Honorable Ruler, which seems to be the relevant film. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conserve I think it should be conserve due to it's not only an item, it's actually the main villain from this movie: InuYasha the Movie: Swords of an Honorable Ruler, 00:09, 13 August 2007
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Since there aren't any sources listed at all, merging is a bad idea. Jay32183 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conserve I aggre it should be conserved, 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- This was made by a guest [54] - So it doesn't count. WhisperToMe 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I do not see why this needs a separate article. WhisperToMe 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jay32183 Harlowraman 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Singu larity 05:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Octopus[edit]

No independent sources (only a link to the band's purevolume page), notability not established (formed in 2007, so far published one WP on their own label). High on a tree 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are lacking sources too and these persons are only claimed to be notable as members of the band:

Regards, High on a tree 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to create the AfD myself. Fails WP:BAND. Google search give 5 hits, none of which seem to be for this band. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Padoo, Gron and Nute for speedy as nn biographies. There is perhaps an assertion of notability for Mon Calamari. Still a delete, though! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I am the creator of these articles; the band has received some radio play here in Little Rock, so I'm not sure if that would qualify it on the page listing requirements of notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xephyrwing (talk • contribs) 05:08, August 8, 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete I can confirm the comments on the band's radio airplay. They are fairly big on the Little Rock scene.

Delete all per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Added related {{la|Cosmic Prayer}}. Dbromage [Talk] 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - one EP and no WP:RS equals lack of notability. Come back after a couple of LPs on recognized labels. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. For future reference, this sort of thing gets speedied all the time. Friday (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot as failing WP:BAND and WP:BIO. Nuttah68 12:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of organizations[edit]

Redundant to Category:Lists of organizations. The usual reason for having a list that duplicates a category is the ability to add redlinks and encourage new articles. This reason doesn't apply to lists of lists such as this, because list guidelines state that redlinks and nonexistant lists should not be added to these, so this only a poorly maintained duplicate of the category. Masaruemoto 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I agree that there is no advantage for a list over a category in this example. Shalom ^Hello 08:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adds nothing to what the category has. Spellcast 14:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about indiscriminate... VanTucky ^(talk) 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the category, if that's possible.

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

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

The result was speedy deleted —Jeremy (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2FSS[edit]

No sources, unclear notability. High on a tree 04:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted CSD:A7. Nothing to see here--Sethacus 04:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AfDs for this article

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Walker[edit]

Non-notable individual, only publications are self published. What he esposes may be a notable fringe theory but he is not a notable proponent of it. I believe this went through an AfD some time ago with a no consensus result. Bigdaddy1981 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional point, I note that there are no verifiable references that confirm that Walker had anything to do with writing at least one of the publications listed - State of Siege (http://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Siege-Miners-Politics-Policing/dp/095099670X/ref=sr_1_14/202-2959890-8975820?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186552677&sr=1-14)

Delete Non-notable. No reliable sources.--Sethacus 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable conspiracy loony. Nick mallory 06:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a reliable source. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 06:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Left-wing local politician (not stated in the article) and author of some self-published pamphlets. Of limited online notoriety. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Sethacus. Article somehow survived first AfD, and eighteen months later it still doesn't assert notability or cite a single reliable source. Enough. Sideshow Bob Roberts 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most notable allopathic critic writing in the UK today, hence the desire to delete his page.john

John, if you think this guy is notable, just rewrite the article's introduction to establish how he meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Sideshow Bob Roberts 17:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems[edit]

Expired prod. However, since the article is a quasi-orphan and is uncategorized, it may not have had the visibility it deserves. The notion itself seems legitimate, although its importance in the field is unclear and certainly not highlighted by the article in its current form. I also suspect that the same idea may be also known under different names. All that being said, I abstain and hope from input by biologists... Pascal.Tesson 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated it for deletion as the idea has no notability I can discover in biology.

Pubmed search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = zero hits

Pubmed search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" (no quotes) = zero hits

Google scholar search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = zero hits

Scirus search "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = zero hits

Google search for "Geodakian conjugated subsystems" = 10 hits, mostly Wiki mirrors.

Google search for "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" = 17 hits, mostly Wiki mirrors

Sole non-Wiki source on Google is a personal website called "www.geodakian.com", dedicated to promoting the work of Vigen Geodakyan. Tim Vickers 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the above comments, I'd also be concerned about a biological theory published in a journal for cybernetics research - it is unlikely to have been reviewed by appropriately qualified people. JulesH 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement delete: Any adaptive controlling system, which evolutionizes in a variable environment being divided into two conjugated subsystems, specialized according to conservative and operative trends of evolution increases thereby its evolutionary stability as a whole. The English language has lasted a thousand years without the verb evolutionize, but it will not last another thousand unless coinages such as this are obliterated. Can you say complete bollocks? I thought you could. . . - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. - I saw a discussion on Tim Vickers's user talk page; looked up "Vigen Geodakyan "; read this; started reading Evolutionary theory of sex which said "The theory is based on the concept of asynchronous evolution and The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems"; I clicked on the link and saw that something Evolutionary theory of sex is based on was to be deleted; so I merged it to Evolutionary theory of sex. The next question , I guess, would be if Evolutionary theory of sex should be deleted or not. I don't know. I'm just now looking into this. WAS 4.250 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point to note is that the person who created this article User:Sashag is the owner of the "www.geodakian.com" website (link to discussion on my talk page) and according to this post about "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex" on a forum, the owner of this website is the son of Vigen Geodakyan. Tim Vickers 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh boy... This user seriously needs to be reported to WP:COIN. His sole edits seem to be concerned with linking to geodakian.com and Geodakyan's work and in many cases there has been resistance to these changes. In any case, I am now convinced that the present article should be deleted. Pascal.Tesson 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for such an attention to the article. I added notability and corrected grammar. That should close the comment #2 from Smerdis of Tlön.

Comment #1. “biological theory” The Principle is not a theory. Theory of systems is theory. The Principle can be included as a part of it. The application of it is not just biology. It’s much wider, for example in computers it’s RAM – operative and hard drive – conservative. “published in a journal for cybernetics research” – the concept is more about flow of information and system organization, so “by appropriately qualified people” – yes. After that the principle was mentioned in almost every article of Geodakian, published in biological, genetics, mathematical, medical, popular science and systems research. Do not remember any criticism about content.

“Sole non-Wiki source on Google is a personal website www.geodakian.com” There are more than 100 articles just by Geodakian listed on the website. You probably need to see the Citation Index for the other authors for citation. Search should be on author.

Now the good ones: “Expired prod”. – do not quite understand what you mean. Like the scientific principles have expiration date?

“the article is a quasi-orphan and is uncategorized” – agree. It should be categorized, can be combined or made part of another article. System may be?

“The notion itself seems legitimate” – agree. “Its importance in the field is unclear and certainly not highlighted by the article in its current form.” – hope I fixed that.

“the same idea may be also known under different names.” – possible, but for about 40 years I did not come into something similar. May be Yin and Yang concept?

The article is just a short summary and I can put more content if it will not be deleted. It’s a cornerstone for more than ten hypotheses (Tim, you should like it). Please help me make it better. Thanks again. RegardsSashag 20:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this article is about a biology idea based on a theory concerning computational evolutionary algorithms. I added categories accordingly. WAS 4.250 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a computer scientist fluent in both English and Russian could help us with sources and translation of terminology. WAS 4.250 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These remarks suggest that there may be some controversy as to what this "theory" is about. Computing and biology strike me as only loosely related fields, and the above text claims that this text relates to both somehow. The essentially empty abstractions of the texts in question, with "systems" that "evolutionize" in an "environment" — in other words, a something that does something somewhere — suggest that this theory is word salad rather than anything that contains insights as to how either ecologies or computer work. The merger should in all likelihood also be reverted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not word salad, but it does claim too much. As a factor in evolution it makes perfect sense from Systemics point of view. But the theory goes way too far in claiming to be the guiding principle rather than at most one factor among many. As for "Computing and biology strike me as only loosely related fields"; you may care to read Bioinformatics. It is an interdisciplinary field. WAS 4.250 15:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a Systemics hypothesis that lacks enough notability to have its own article and should redirect to Evolutionary theory of sex which has a biological context to help explain this Systemics hypothesis and which is notable enough that it might possibly qualify for not being deleted. I'm on the fence about that article. Its interesting enough to keep, but its creator makes wild claims about its applicability which might make it more trouble than its worth. I just don't know about it. WAS 4.250 15:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mathematical biology is a perfectly well established field, and analogs have been used for naming theories before. "conjugated" is not being used in the ordinary chemical sense, but that does not prove non-notability, & similar analogies have sometime been important theories. But we're not here to judge the science as peer-reviewers, but to judge how well it's known The journals published in include some of the better Russian journals, covered in Web of Science. The author's earlier unrelated works have up to 20 citations per article, but the ones discussed here no citations at all except from other works of this author. Though Russian journals are under-represented in WoS, still this is clearly a theory that nobody except the author has paid any attention to. DGG (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain the principle in simple example so there will be no misunderstanding that it’s a valid and fruitful concept far from “word salad”. Imagine a blind man. Without a cane or a dog he will periodically bump into objects, fall into cavities etc. Even if he does not move and sits quietly, a tiger can come and eat him. One day he can wake up and find out that forest is now a desert without food and water. Adaptive systems need a cane too. So, phenotype is a cane for genotype (this idea was explored by Dawkins), proteins – for DNA, sex chromosomes – for the autosomes, males - for females, left hemisphere – for the right one etc. Length of the cane is a variable dependent upon environment. More stable – short is enough, harsh – should be longer. Length of the cane in the case of sex is a reaction norm, for other cases it is dimorphism – sexual, lateral etc.

This is not the area of Mathematical biology. The way it is written – it’s a qualitative concept, not quantitative (which of course may follow). It’s not biology or theoretical biology (the principle covers social, technical, physiological, psychological and other types of adaptive systems). I would think cybernetics, systems theory or research is more appropriate.

"conjugated" – the Russian word is “сопряженный” which means – linked together like two horses in one carriage, interrelated.

“a theory that nobody except the author has paid any attention to” – not quite true. Simonov P.V. e.a. (1995) Журн. высшей нервной деятельности. (J. of High Nervous Activity), v. 45, 1, p. 13-17. writes: “Geodakian law is equally valid for phylo- and onthogenesis”. I’ll try to find some other examples.

On the other hand its true – theory does not have the attention it deserves. French proverb says: “If not you – (then) who? And if not now – when?” This is why I am trying to fix it. Please help me, because this project is huge and will need interdisciplinary involvement. New approaches to breast and prostate cancer treatment based on the theory (discovered in recent years) if proven valid can save thousands of lives in the US only.Sashag 17:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is precisely the problem: Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for promoting your father's work. Alas, Wikipedia cannot help you in this project: if you want your father's work to be recognized to the extent you think he deserves, then you should aim to have it recognized by researchers in his field, through the standard scholarly journals and textbooks. Until his theories have faced that kind of scrutiny from the scientific community, they will be considered as fringe work and won't have a place on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that comment completely, note that despite my long experience of writing about biology, and the fact that I have a PhD and have multiple scientific papers to my name, I have never made a professional assessment of whether or not these ideas of your father's are true. That is not what we do on Wikipedia - material is included if it is verifiable and notable, we make no judgements about if something is "true" or not. All we do is report what notable, reliable sources say about a topic. If a hypothesis has been ignored in the scientific literature, then it cannot be included here. Tim Vickers 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it needs to be deleted, do it. I have no more commentsSashag 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The accumulated evidence strongly indicates that this topic lacks the notability required for a WP article. It's possible, however, that the concept deserves to be mentioned in a broader article. Most likely that would be somewhere like Systems theory or Complex system or Complex adaptive system. --orlady 22:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or at any rate no consensus to delete. Sandstein 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Champion[edit]

Procedural nom. Expired prod whose rationale read:

reason non Notable college football player wikipedia is not a site to list all college football players."

This strikes me as somewhat unconvincing and though I don't have much of an opinion, I'm sure many will... Pascal.Tesson 03:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete i proded that article and stand by i said in the prod meassage also the prod had been in place for 5 days before you deproded it with no one changeing it before i kind of that as not a nice thing to doOo7565 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know that the prod had been in place for 5 days and this is not about being nice, it's about sending to AfD deletions which I think may be controversial. I'd say the starting quarterback of Louisiana Tech is actually likely to survive AfD... Pascal.Tesson 04:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Louisiana Tech competes in top-level Division I college football and he is the quarterback, so he satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend 05:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep QB of a D1 team is notable - See WP:BIO for athletes Corpx 04:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of action stars[edit]

WP:NOT#IINFO and largely WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Includes virtually any actor who has ever starred in an action film, and then becomes ridiculous, listing Gwyneth Paltrow, Olivia Newton-John, etc. Masaruemoto 03:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, for failing WP:NOT#DIR. Also, Lazenby's in there twice... way to rub it in! :-D OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider making a category. Seriously, Newton-John......Irishjp 10:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That which I would consider to be an "action star" is listed on here as a "Non-comic book action star". Interesting POV, I guess... is an action star whose abilities are the product of special effects and CGA comparable to an action star whose abilities are the product of a stuntman? That notwithstanding, however, this list would be difficult to maintain. Mandsford 01:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as horribly misleading for one thing. Bulldog123 13:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a list of action stars, it's a series of lists of who has played certain characters in film and TV. Even if renamed to something more appropriate, it's still a listing with no really firm criteria, and if someone is looking for who played Catwoman, one would just go to the Catwoman article. 23skidoo 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After several rather thin arguments such as "Delete, Non-notable" or "Keep, notable figure" are dismissed, a sizable majority of editors who have discussed the issue of sourcing in detail conclude convincingly that the sources are too unsubstantial to provide notability. Sandstein 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cathcart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart

Delete - Individual does not meet notability criteria per WP:BIO. Furthermore, all the citations are either to the individual's own site or to commercial sites. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It also fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:BIO. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a notable author in Orthomolecular medicine as regards megadose vitamin C, especially the oral dosing to bowel tolerance concept & protocol, with documented correspondence & praise from Linus Pauling, as well as several noted publications in Medical Hypotheses (5 pubmed indexed articles ?). His oral dosing for vitamin C is considered pioneering in orthomolecular circles (last stop before IV) and decades ahead of *any* published tests at these adminstration levels in "mainstream" pharma advertisers' journals. He also has publication in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. This author is one of a handful of authors close to ground zero in the collision between science, CAM and conventional medicine over vitamin C. The article's deletion would be considered highly censorious in some circles. The article just needs to be cleaned up and better referenced.--TheNautilus 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: See, all the new sources are merely to the author himself. Please review WP:BIO requirements on notability, as well as WP:SOAP on fringe theories. Djma12 ^(talk) 12:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources, there are more. Interestingly, the some in the "mainstream" with absolutely NO DATA in 11-200+ gram/day range, swing the epithet, "fringe theory", while pontificating on the basis of decades of solid vacuum, see pseudoskepticism. Also you might brush up on WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I would like to collaborate, not argue.--TheNautilus 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. The text doesn't appear to be based on reliable third party sources about him: just papers by him, mostly at a journal whose policy is to waive the normal peer review process [55], and one partisan Lulu-published book. It smells of WP:SOAP. Gordonofcartoon 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cathcart is prominant as a medical doctor within orthomolecular medicine. There is an interview with him published on Pubmed [56] when he was Chairman-elect of the Board of Trustees of the American Hospital Association. He is often cited in papers on the medical use of vitamin C ( see Cathcart R F. Vitamin C: the nontoxic, nonrate- limited, antioxidant free radical scavenger. Med Hypotheses 1985; 18: 61-77. Cathcart, R. F, III. The Method of Determining Proper Doses of Vitamin C for the Treatment of Disease by Titrating to Bowel Tolerance. Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry 10:2, 125-132, March-April 1981). He has had letters published in The Lancet [57] 1990 , Medical Tribune [58] 1975. Full bibliography is here. He fully meets notability requirements. His work is experimental and not accepted in the mainstream but to delete him would be POV censorship of minority scientific opinion. Lumos3 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that. Looking at the refs cited above, there seems to be no reason for complaint about representation of this opinion (Orthomolecular medicine#Notable orthomolecular doctors). Most, however, have wider notability and are easy to find in third party sources. Deciding that not all members on the list are notable is not censorship (any more than deciding that not all modern artists are notable is censorship of modern art).

The point also remains that the article is not reporting sourced third party statements about him. It's an OR exposition collating material by him. That's also why I think it's WP:SOAP; the undue weight to this exposition. It's supposed to be a biographical article, but the man appears incidental to the opportunity to slug us with an essay on the benefits of vitamin C. Gordonofcartoon 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interview with him published on Pubmed [59] when he was Chairman-elect of the Board of Trustees of the American Hospital Association.

There isn't. That's H Robert Cathcart, someone else. Gordonofcartoon 16:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Cathcart developed his interest in vitamin C dosage while trying to speed healing after surgury for hip replacement. He is the inventor of the non spheroidal shape used in modern replacements. This alone satisfies the notability requirement. Lumos3 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumos3: Appreciate your efforts, but it still doesn't fit WP:BIO notability. Anyone can patent anything. The non-spheroidal hip replacement is NOT standard of care -- so all we have again is a self-reference, and his own patent on a non-notable medical device. Djma12 ^(talk) 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please read the citations I added , the work is noted in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume Online. (1983). [60] Lumos3 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't support the statement in the article. A 1983 paper, cut off at 1971 after mentioning Cathcart, is not evidence of this form being commonly used nowadays, or of its implied dominant role in the historical development of such prostheses. The other reference [61] is just a scrapbook of unattributed material. Gordonofcartoon 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting "Cathcart elliptical head endoprosthesis" into Google [62] Lumos3 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who haven't done this - this search turns up several links, all of which point to the same 2001 article indicating that the "noncemented elliptical head unipolar replacement was associated with a high medical and surgical complication rate as well as poor clinical and radiographic results." I'm not an orthopod, but I can tell you that the lack of success or even published follow-up tests with that device makes it pretty unlikely that it's in current use. Now, Cathcart may be notable, but almost certainly not for this. Ante lan ^talk 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references presented other than his own papers and the Lulu book. (Having letters published, even in a peer-reviewed journal, is not even evidence of notability.) — Arthur Rubin |

RE:Notability - how many of the rock groups with pages allowed to stand on Wikipedia would meet the test for "notability" that you are demanding of this doctor? Isn't the fact of this discussion itself prima facie evidence of notability in his field? Be that as it may, this user thinks it is healthier that websurfers looking for Dr Cathcart - or any other "alternative" practitioner or method - are not led to Wikipedia. There are plenty of primary scources out there which cannot be contaminated by dishonesty and/or ignorance. Whoever has a Wikipedia reference leaves hostages to fortune.

(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. No change in !vote, in spite of the addition of additional "sources" which I do not believe to be WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Changed to Strong Delete, as the primary proponent (here) has been unable to produce a WP:RS, in spite of claimed knowledge of the field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate specific commentary on sources 6-17, especially 10, 14, 16 (a chapter), 17, 18. Also since Hemila's 2006 thesis is the detailed version of Hemila's work in two accepted Cochrane reviews, I would appreciate any pointers to specific WP discussions on theses, since this seems to be a case that does fit WP:RS, Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. where Hemila's thesis is arguably the more detailed & (later) reviewed (updated) part of Douglas, Hemila (2004) plus part of Hemila, Louhiala(2007) Cochrane reviews.

Delete - Fails Wikipedia policy, arguements to keep don't meet policy. Shot info 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article says "A prominent figure in alternative medicine."--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm having trouble finding secondary sources about Cathcart. Can someone who supports keeping this article try to round up a few? I see that he's published a few articles, mostly in journals like Medical Hypotheses, but I'm not seeing the secondary sources that would confirm notability. (Note: orthomed.com is registered to Robert Cathcart.) Ante lan ^talk 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources are all in the fields of alternative health, orthomolecular medicine and life extension, where he is well known. Lumos3 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/vitc12.htm

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news&ID=200

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news&ID=187

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19185.php

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/RDA.htm

http://www.google.com/search?output=googleabout&sitesearch=www.vitamincfoundation.org&q=cathcart&submit=Search+our+site 135 mentions on vitamin c foundation site

http://www.megac.org/articles.htm

http://orthomedint.org/language/English/05-SuggestedReading/index.php

http://orthomedint.org/

http://www.cqs.com/

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/may2000_vitamin_c_01.html

http://www.arthritistrust.org/Articles/Vitamin%20C%20How%20to%20Use%20the%20Great%20Missing%20Vitamin.pdf

http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=1473

http://www.fitnessvenues.com/uk/vitaminc-the-truth

Thanks again for the sources Lumos3. If you carefully read the articles, though, note that several of them are identical, and they are all merely citing orthomed.com. Again, per WP:BIO notability criteria, independent citation is required, not rehashes of the author's website. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With references to places such as the Vitamin C Foundation, I feel that we're dredging the bottom of a very shallow well of sources. That foundation's RDA page states, "Vitamin C is about as toxic as water. The body seems to absorb what it needs", which is an explicitly untrue description of the way the body absorbs water. Ante lan ^talk 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Those links are a list of unreliable quack sites, a veritable who's who of quackery. -- Fyslee/talk 10:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a researcher--8 articles in PubMed journals total, counting letters to the editor and nursing journals, is trivial & way below the bar. The cult stuff is all derived from his own website, or self-published. Medical hypotheses specializes in what are explicitly hypotheses, not evidence-based anything, but that they'd publish articles advocating half-pound size vitamin C doeses is a little odd. DGG (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete He is clearly someone the Quackwatch folks would consider a quack yet he is not even noteworthy enough to be mentioned anywhere on their website[63] [64]. Pocopocopocopoco 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requested independent secondary sources and nobody produced any notable ones. I do appreciate Lumos3's effort, but this is not a notable individual so far as has been evidenced in this discussion. Ante lan ^talk 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not trying to establish Cathcarts scientific credentials here. We are trying to see if he fits any guidlines in Wikipedia:Notability (people). He clearly fits the following:

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

This is evidenced by his being widely mentioned on the alternative health, orthomolecular medicine and life extension sites, as shown above. Lumos3 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:Afd should not be about whether you believe in his theory or not. May I direct everyone to the criteria for academics per WP:PROF.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Indepedent here is defined as outside of the immediate community, in this case the orthomolecular one. As we have no cites outside of the orthomolecular, the article fails in this regard.

The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

None of the sources cited in support have been from nutritionists or academics -- just heath websites that recopy the his original self-publication.

The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

The author's publication is in an un-peer reviewed journal (Medical Hypotheses) and is unknown to anyone outside his immediate field.

The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

See above.

The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Again, fails criteria on independent, non-trivial reviews. Health sites that sell vitamins and forums do not count.

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

The author has not received any notable award recogonized by the scientific community.

There are full professors on the National Academy of Sciences who don't meet notability. This one falls far short. Djma12^Djma12 ^(talk) 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Cathcart’s field as orthomolecular medicine he meets all 6 of these. It is you who add phrase "Independent here is defined as outside of the immediate community ...” I say that independent means the independent views of others within his field. You keep returning this judgement to whether he has been accepted by science as a whole. Your argument would exclude from Wikipedia any scientist who comes forward with a plausible hypothesis which is not yet accepted by the main stream. To be of any use Wikipedia must describe all plausible scientific hypotheses that have gained a following in a section of the scientific community however small. OM is just such a minority group and Cathcart is a major figure within OM. Lumos3 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Djma12 seriously miscontrues "independent" and is being very exclusionist. Also one should distinguish scientific and (allopathic) medical, some (over) commercialized/institutionalized sectors in medicine have developed habits not in concord with scientific principles or practices in other scientific fields, especially with regard to emerging phenomena. In fact, one of the ongoing problems for some hidebound "mainstream" claimants, is that science/technologists from other fields finally start minding them about such failures.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not the forum for any and everyone to voice their personal theories. (See WP:SOAP.) This is why notability criteria require independent verification from some source outside the community. If the OM community is really as minority as you claim it is, then it is non-encyclopedic. If it actually has some following, then you should be able to find at least some independent sources for this guy. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial and professional battle lines are drawn such that otherwise non-notable, *erroneous*, supposedly "mainstream" sources get instant play in the (heavily influenced advertising) press and orthomolecular medicine is *studiously* ignored, blackedout or embargoed in many cases. Erroneous sometimes means "trial by press release* not followed by a corroborating academic publication or systematic errors, such as Chalmers. Chalmers' "meta-somethings" form the much of the modern backbone of confusion (and utter denial - whither *any* controlled testing to follow up very promising clinical reports over 60 years in "huge" megadose vitamin C, e.g. 20-200+ grams/day oral or IV, despite repeated pleas?) about vitamin C in viral respiratory diseases. Hemila et al's re-analyses, mentioned in his 2004 Cochrane review, detailed in his 2006 thesis, destroy Chalmers' putative meta-analyses, where one can seriously consider scientific incompetence, malfeasance and/or misconduct. That is often part and parcel the path of (persecuted) minorities. In altmed topics, one must often carefully distinguish science (rationale, *type*, *level* & totality of evidence) vs allopathic medicine (variously past, present and/or comprehensively scientific) vs obsolete or non-scientific POV of some claimants.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (As I can't decide to whom this is in reply....) If he were notable in the orthomolecular medicine community, he meets the criteria for listing. However, as all but one of the references are to his papers (and all but one of the references mentioned here are to his papers and mirrors of his papers), we do not have any evidence of that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure on the first point. Even in the OM community, Cathcart is only known for the bowel tolerance concept. Per WP:PROF

Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page..

I'm pretty sure he doesn't deserve his own page. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

First Djma12's entire sequence above starts off miscasting the notability requirements, Cathcart is not academic, so WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people apply, although Carthcart does meet a number of WP:PROF criteria by any fair minded application, where any one of them establishes notablity. Djma12's specific answers above either miss the obvious, miscast or dismiss them out of hand. There are now a number of orthomolecular references in the article that show Cathcart's notable participation in the field.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Cathcart is quoted by the very notable Harry Hemila, the main author of the Cochrane meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold. I quote Hemila:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

we also have notability by association:

In one of his last texts, Albert Szent-Györgyi (1978) mentioned a personal experience: "Last year I collected a rather unfortunate personal experience. I broke down with pneumonia which I could not shake off for months, until I discovered that the quantities of ascorbic acid which I took (one gram daily) had become insufficient at my age (84 years). When I went up from one gram to eight, my troubles were over."

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/dovitami.pdf We could discuss about Hemila's use of "gastric" instead of "intestinal". However, this remains a quote to the article by Cathcart having "BOWEL TOLERANCE" in its title...

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's weak evidence for the other article, not for this one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Why? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. Notability by association is not a valid criterion per WP:BIO. The Szent-Györgyi quotation is irrelevant to discussion on this article.Djma12 ^(talk) 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response and clarifications. Ok, Djma12. Let's take your point for the sake of argument.

Now, can we assume that you have no problems with the main statement I made, I quote:

"Cathcart is quoted by the very notable Harry Hemila, the main author of the Cochrane meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold. I quote Hemila:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

I was about to say that somebody, above said: "Again, per WP:BIO notability criteria, independent citation is required, not rehashes of the author's website". But it's you, who raised this. So: am I providing "independent citation" or not?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per WP:PROF, point 4, Nonetheless, numbers of publications can be judged quantitatively to a degree. The importance of a paper can often be deduced from the number of citations of it. So the only other reinforcing citation is a minor reference in a meta-analysis that included literally thousands of studies. Hardly convincing. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other AfD discussion page about Cathcart:

This is what I feared. This quote is NOT from a Cochrane meta-analysis. You did not pay enough attention, and you criticized what you thought I put forward, not what I actually brought to everybody's attention.

This kind of behaviour distracts readers. You also distracted readers by stating, right at the beginning (of the bowel tolerance AfD discussion page), that "bowel tolerance" is a "non-recognized medical condition", to which I responded, because I know what we're talking about, that "It is not a "medical condition"!" Aren't we wasting time?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Pierre. I would suggest you actually READ the Cochrane meta-analysis, given that you cited it? The quote (sans the "much evidence" part), is verbatim inside of it. For your convenience, here is the link to the article [65]. Also, please don't simply copy and paste your comments in both Afds, the "medical condition" argument is not even relevant for this Afd. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted a text. You ignore it. I provided credentials. This answers questions others have asked. You're still avoiding. I could answer to those things you're saying, but it would be a waste of time. This is not the first time you do that.

This lack of respect is now over. I'm now ignoring you, indefinitely. Don't write on my userpage, like Antelan did.

I ASK OTHER EDITORS TO READ MY INITIAL VOTE, AND ITS ACTUAL JUSTIFICATIONS.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12 Please look closely and carefully. Pierre specified (re-linked) Hemila's 2006 thesis for his third doctorate as containing several direct references to Cathcart, 1981. Additionally, the Luberoff, 1978 reference in Hemila's 2006 thesis is the American Chem Society's published interview with Cathcart, "Symptomectomy", describing Cathcart's experience and background with the bowel tolerance vitamin C protocol. Pierre *did not* specify Hemila's 2004 Cochrane review. However you can see Hemila taking note of Cathcart in his 2006 PhD thesis, after this stinging exchange in 2005 over her 2004 Cochrane review, with Bill Sardi and Steve Hickey. Apparently Cathcart is still notable to Hemila, in his 2007 Cochrane review on vitamin C and pneumonia (more favorable), because he again cites Cathcart, 1981 and Luberoff, 1978. I would say that's pretty notable considering the degree of heresy involved.--TheNautilus 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments, to my mind, take a good stand in support of the bowel tolerance article, but it doesn't seem sufficient to validate this individual's notability. Ante lan ^talk 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the independent citations were more than sufficient to establish Cathcart's notability to the point of interfering with presentation and readability as well as the popularity/notoriety of the B-T method in altmed and orthomolecular circles. Also I would take Pauling's praise and correspondence length first.--TheNautilus 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some grad student's thesis does not fit WP:V by a long shot. If you want to use the Cochrane meta, please refer to my past critique. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this degree of dissection of sources is getting well into WP:SYNTH. I'm particularly looking at arguments along the lines of "it's so heretical that any mention at all in a mainstream source demonstrates its notability". We are not allowed to make that kind of inference. If something is notable, it ought to be clear-cut to all concerned. If it has to argued via complicated editorial interpretation of the combined significance of its getting a brief mention in paper X, meta-meta-review Y and being tattooed on Z's butt, the chances are the notability is insufficient. Gordonofcartoon 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dissecting or SYNTH, I am pointing out that Djma12 keeps missing which Hemila papers (sources) are being discussed and sliding around as if Pierre & I are the ones not comprehending something, when our points are evaded & then disparaged. Let's get that straight. Separately, the "hersey" aside refers to well-known publication bias & systematic biases of the "mainstream" & pharma against their competitors (& targets), where applying the normal rules of notability for "mainstream" articles being referenced by other mainstream pubs & Medline, are not only SYNTH but completely broken models.--TheNautilus 10:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12, Hemila's PhD thesis is *not* "just some grad student's thesis", rather it provides the underlying details for Hemila's work in the accepted 2004 Cochrane review (Douglas, Hemila, D'Souza, Chalker, Treacy for vit C & colds), updated, and some of the 2007 Cochrane review (Hemila, Louhiala for vit C & pneumonia). Also Hemila is an associate professor, already possessing a PHD(1993) and MD(1999) with one of the longest cumulative mainstream tenures rigorously examining the vitamin C viral issues with recognizable mainstream RCT, RCT that use some combination of short (often several days), inappropriate pharmacokinetics (mostly single daily dose - vs every hour or two), and always relatively "small", by 1-2 orders of magnitude, in respect to Cathcart's B-T regimen but still finds subgroups that benefit and indications of dose dependence. The accepted PhD thesis is electronically published by U Helsinki.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a smell of wikilawyering and obfuscation. If someone non-mainstream is notable, we don't have to pick around in obscure publications to find evidence of that. They'll be reported prominently in the mainstream for the controversial nature of what they do (for instance, Andrew Wakefield). Cathcart simply isn't that important as a non-mainstream figure. Gordonofcartoon 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. -- Fyslee/talk 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's gotten worse. If the hip prosthesis is to be mentioned at all (and there's little evidence of notability here), the articles on the severe complications mentioned in this discussion also need to be included in the article. If those references can be justified, I'll change my !vote to Weak keep. If not, he's only notable (if at all) for his association with Vitamin C megadosing, and should be merged into one of those articles, probably bowel tolerance (also up for deletion. Most of the references that I've checked seem to be only a passing mention, which do not support a finding of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Maybe a case can be made for notoriety, which is a form of notability. If these complications have led to many deaths, then a case might be made. In Denmark an MD who made a cement used for hip prostheses has never yet been prosecuted, even though the cement was a disaster and caused untold suffering and deaths. Is this a similar type of situation? -- Fyslee/talk 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my guess that his prosthesis never achieved wide usage after the trial failed to show superiority. I could be wrong, but in that case I think we should have heard about the lawsuits... Ante lan ^talk 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable figure within the field of alternative medicine. Burntsauce 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been looking for RSes that confirm this notability. Would you be able to help here? Ante lan ^talk 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a neologism without sufficient reliable sources. No evidence (as opposed to claims) has been presented that this is a widely recognized concept or widely used term. Whether or not megadoses of vitamin C are effective or not is not relevant. Demonstrably false theories may be covered where reliable sources exist, but here they do not. Eluchil404 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowel tolerance[edit]

Delete: Per WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:Avoid_neologisms. Article on a non-recognized medical condition whose only citations are to a commercial site with a non-notable author (see WP:SPS) and an old interview without academic reference (see WP:RS#Scholarship). What is left is an article about a phrase used by a narrow community.Djma12 ^(talk) 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the sister AFD to this article is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Cathcart. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "medical condition"! Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete By normal standards, the article is barely referenced and would not easily be deleted. However, we are dealing with the medical profession, which requires precise definitions, and apparently this term is not in wide usage. Shalom ^Hello 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually we're dealing with rather dangerous psuedoscience here and people advocating taking massive doses of vitamin C to fight cancer etc. This shouldn't be given spurious credibility by appearing on wikipedia. Taking half a pound (read the article) of vitamin C a day is insane. Nick mallory 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though I wouldn't consider it pseudoscience. Dr. Linus Pauling advocated the use of "megadoses" of Vitamin C, though for other reasons than this. Dangerous? Yes. Controversial? Yes. Pseudoscience? Meh. And, going back to reread the article, it doesn't seem like he's advocating megadoses of Vitamin C. This seems to be merely a test to see how much C a person can take before diarrhea sets in. The "half a pound" is about how much cancer or influenza patients can withstand, not about how much one should take to fight cancer. --Sethacus 20:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powerfull as your 'meh' argument is, you're begging the question here. Where's the evidence that taking megadoses of vitamin C actually helps a patient fight cancer, as opposed to radio or chemo therapy? The fact that large doses of Vitamin C can't be properly excreted by someone whose digestive system isn't working properly because of illness is a reason NOT to take those doses, not a sign the body needs it. Crackpot ideas like these kill people - look at the case of Katie Wernecke whose parents fought the State of Texas for the "right" to treat her cancer with such dubious methods.

You're missing the point of this article completely, Nick. The reason it's called "bowel tolerance" is because it refers to how much Vitamin C a person can stand before diarrhea. There is nothing in the article about how much Vitamin C is "needed" to fight cancer. The cancer and influenza examples are just that, examples, subsets. What the article is saying is that half a pound is the limit to which cancer or influenza patients can stand before diarrhea. It may infer that you need C to cure cancer, but that's all it is, an inference.--Sethacus 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crackpot idea? Really? A crackpot idea? You're saying it's a crackpot idea that megadoses of Vitamin C are usually given to cancer patients by mainstream doctors and has been shown to lengthen their lives by up to a factor of four? You're saying all of the mainstream doctors that use megadoses for theraputic help for other illnesses are all crackpot as well? You sir are the crackpot, you and your crackpot reasoning saying how "kidneys don't have enough strength to get rid of the vitamin c" WITHOUT HAVING THE SLIGHTEST CLUE what's going on or what you're talking about. Anonywiki 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To your questions in order. Yes. Yes, really. Yes. Maybe/yes (no opinion on whether megadoses of Vitamin C are given to cancer patients, but there's no associated live extension.) Yes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonywiki, the entire point of this AFD is the lack of citations that fit WP:RS. If you have any sources that we don't know about, especially concerning the cancer claims that you've made, we'd love to see them. Also, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL with your posts. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only ref is self-published paper. No other claim to any notability. As Sethacus notes, the idea of megadoses of vitamin C is proposed by notable persons including Linus Pauling. This fellow isn't notable though. Bigdaddy1981 00:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and nominate for: Wikipedia:Deleted_articles_with_freaky_titles.Falard 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the internet article by Dr. Cathcart: "Copyright (C), 1994 and prior years, Robert F. Cathcart, M.D. Permission granted to distribute via the internet as long as material is distributed in its entirity and not modified." Since this is the heart of the article, it's copyrighted and it's not being used in its entirety, I think that there may be a problem. Mandsford 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, although I disagree with the copyvio claim above as that just applies to material being printed word for word; dissemination is not the same thing. I haven't checked to see if this is word-for-word in which case then copyvio would apply. I will say I've just discovered my catchphrase for the week. 23skidoo 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Robert Cathcart. This is a piece of terminology invented by Cathcart to describe his clinical observation that the amount of ascorbic acid that can be taken by an individual seems to vary in proportion to their general health. The limit at which diarrhea sets in is much higher for those with a wide range of disease than those in good health. Lumos3 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep if not a copyvio. I'm afraid the concept is notable in orthomolecular medicine, although I cannot confirm that the name is used by anyone other than the non-notable Dr. Cathcart. Although I agree with Nick that it's not rational to do it, the term makes sense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. Tim Vickers 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term well known in orthomolecular medicine.--Michael C. Price ^talk 01:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, this falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, as it is only used within a narrow community. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine isn't medicine, it's a crack pot idea which takes the obvious notion of a good diet being important for health and extrapolates it into insanity. You might as well say it's been endorsed by homeopaths and therefore it's real medical theory. This article is trying to suggest that such dosing is appropriate and efficient when it's neither of those things. Nick mallory 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In that case it should not be deleted, but edited so that it is clear that this term is only used in orthomolecular medicine, which is considered pseudoscientific, i.e. a crackpot medicine (assuming that it is). Homeopathy is crackpot as well but sadly it's common enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia and so are terms related to it. Dan Gluck 07:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Notability criteria require independent sources for verification. I am not basing this deletion upon whether orthomolecular medicine folks believe in this or not -- the article's only citation is to a work of self promotion thus violates WP:CITE along with notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 12:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done This article has independent, notable references.--TheNautilus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Where? Why are we considering Hemila, the third author on one article, a notable reference? Djma12 ^(talk) 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It does generate a lot of hits on google and it is something that the Vitamin C megadose crowd seem to know about and maybe practice when they get a cold. I would remove reference to Robert Cathcart and rewrite it so that it is NPOV and clearly state that there is no scientific evidence that this helps a cold and may be unhealthy. Pocopocopocopoco 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but none of those hits qualify as independent verification by any stretch of the imagination -- they only cite back to the original self-publication in an non-peer reviewed publication. Also, the hits in questions (sites selling vitamins and health forums) fall far belowWP:V standards. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about allopathic medicine. It is about a fairly well known altmed concept with a common phenomenon, other phenomena, and a practice common to some parts of alternative medicine, especially considered fundamental in "megadosage" circles. Descriptions of history and practices with this nutrient do not require FDA style dbpRCT, one scientific tool (of many) of limited tractability, use and utility, especially finacially.--TheNautilus 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Cathcart is quoted by the very notable Harri Hemila, the main author of the Cochrane meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold. I quote Hemila:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

we also have notability by association:

In one of his last texts, Albert Szent-Györgyi (1978) mentioned a personal experience: "Last year I collected a rather unfortunate personal experience. I broke down with pneumonia which I could not shake off for months, until I discovered that the quantities of ascorbic acid which I took (one gram daily) had become insufficient at my age (84 years). When I went up from one gram to eight, my troubles were over."

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/dovitami.pdf We could discuss about Hemila's use of "gastric" instead of "intestinal". However, this remains a quote to the article by Cathcart having "BOWEL TOLERANCE" in its title...

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very weak evidence, at best, that anyone else uses the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. The Szent-Györgyi quotation is anecdoctal and no where close to WP:V criteria. Furthermore, Cochrane Meta-analyses are comprehensive literature reviews that investigate all claims -- irregardless of study quality. I believe Pierre is referring to [this article.] I would encourage any interested editor take a quick read of the article him/herself to see if it is anywhere close to what Pierre claims it says about bowel tolerance. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, it is a common term and concept in some circles, just not at QW. Djma12, the title of Harry Hemila's reference to Cathcart, 1981 is "Vitamin C, titrating to bowel tolerance,...". There is such a thing as incorporation by refrence, you know.--TheNautilus 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djmla12, we'll see about that later, but for now, I'd like you to respond to the point I made. If you don't, we'll have to assume that you are ok with this, since you only comment on other things. I quote again:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 03:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I already responded on the section concerning Cochrane meta-analyses, which is where the quote is from. As stated previously, mere mention within a Cochrane analysis does not translate into notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I feared. This quote is NOT from a Cochrane meta-analysis. You did not pay enough attention, and you criticized what you thought I put forward, not what I actually brought to everybody's attention.

This kind of behaviour distracts readers. You also distracted readers by stating, right at the beginning, that "bowel tolerance" is a "non-recognized medical condition", to which I responded, because I know what we're talking about, that "It is not a "medical condition"!" Aren't we wasting time?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Pierre. I would suggest you actually READ the Cochrane meta-analysis, given that you cited it? The quote (sans the "much evidence" part), is verbatim inside of it. For your convenience, here is the link to the article [66].Djma12 ^(talk) 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12 Please look closely and carefully. Pierre specified (re-linked) Hemila's 2006 thesis for her third doctorate as containing several direct references to Cathcart, 1981. Additionally, the Luberoff, 1978 reference in Hemila's 2006 thesis is the American Chem Society's published interview with Cathcart, "Symptomectomy", describing Cathcart's experience and background with the bowel tolerance vitamin C protocol. Pierre *did not* specify Hemila's 2004 Cochrane review. However you can see Hemila taking note of Cathcart in her 2006 PhD thesis, after this stinging exchange in 2005 over her 2004 Cochrane review, with Bill Sardi and Steve Hickey. Apparently Cathcart is still notable to Hemila, in her 2007 Cochrane review on vitamin C and pneumonia (more favorable), because she again cites Cathcart, 1981 and Luberoff, 1978. I would say that's pretty notable considering the degree of heresy involved.--TheNautilus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nautilus. I looked at that article originally and noticed that it was merely a graduate thesis of some sort, so I concentrated on the Cochrane meta instead. As the thesis doesn't exactly meet WP:RS, we should devote most of our energies on the qualifications of the meta-anaylsis instead. I agree with Gordonofcartoon's comment on the Robert Cathcart deletion page that the use of the meta-analysis violates WP:SYNTH. Trying to define notability off of association with a notable article is analogous to defining a person's notability off of knowing someone notable. Both fail wiki criteria. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article needs to be better referenced and cleaned up. The concept has been notable for some time in various ways, sniggering in the press included (~30 yrs?), and the phrase directly noted by Linus Pauling. It is not for Wikipedia to comment or advocate but to describe accurately. Some writings in altmed become confusing to readers without some knowledge of what is even being discussed. This AfD appears to me to be a dubious use of WP process, since there were no prior ({cn}} or discussions at Talk. Various comments "medical condition", "dangerous pseudoscience" etc clearly indicate to me a certain level of ignorance and pseudoskeptical, nonscientific POV (the aforementioned practice doesn't have to be proven, or even, "right" for that to stick) that floats around WP. What would be dangerous is a medical practioner that doesn't even understand what is being discussed when directly requested by patients for information and options, much less have a knowledgable (nutrients are *big* "if" in medical education - I get this from friendly MDs themselves all the time), informative, well thought reponse that truly honors the patients' inquiries. Btw, where I live, conventional MD oncologists and 5 yr NDs actually work as complementary practices and, in some private clinics, MD and NDs practice together.--TheNautilus 23:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Factiva search for bowel tolerance and vitamin C reveals 31 hits in the main stream press including such publications as The Australian, The Toronto Star, and The Denver Post. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:V; needs cleanup and better references not deletion! Ccscott 11:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Maybe someone can help me out a bit, but I ran the same Factiva search and it reveals no hits. Here is the link if someone would like to verify. [67]. If you search for bowel tolerance without quotes, you obtain 31 hits, but to unrelated articles. (Basically, without the quotes, you pull up anything with "bowel" or "tolerance" anywhere within the article.) Djma12 ^(talk) 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keeping or deleting this article should not be conditional on whether we keep Robert Cathcart as it's questionable whether Cathcart came up with this and it may have been Linus Pauling. See the Vitamin C section here. Pocopocopocopoco 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note.I am unaware of any published materials that would support either Pauling or Stone (who informed Pauling about vitamin C) predating Cathcart on the bowel tolerance technique, and I know of correspondences that clearly suggest Stone quickly adopted or disseminated Cathcart's initiative. Also Cathcart inverted the treatement concept (taking AA to bowel tolerance) to roughly infer the severity of the disease in terms of grams per day as a rough measure from bowel tolerance.--TheNautilus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I ran the search with quotes (the exact search is was: "bowel tolerance" and "vitamin C"). In fact, reading the articles I can confirm that they indeed are discussing bowel tolerance as described by this wikipedia entry. Here are several examples of articles which discuss bowel tolerance:

A shot of good health, Sunday Telegraph, 17 July 2005, 793 words, Carla Oates, (English)
Nature's Way, Sun Herald, 6 June 1999, 450 words, Mim Beim, (English)
Natural treatments for hives, The Toronto Star, 22 February 1998, 416 words, By Dr. Zoltan P. Rona, (English)
What's the alternative? - Lifestyle., The Sunday Times, 27 July 1997, 1539 words, By Hazel Courtney, Health Journalist of the Year., (English)
Massive lack of vitamin C blamed for heart disease, Kitchener-Waterloo Record, 17 September 1992, 642 words, W. Gifford-Jones, (English)
Can vitamin C save millions of lives? The Financial Post, 14 September 1992, 613 words, Dr. W. Gifford-Jones, (English)
Keep an open mind about vitamin C, Denver Post, 4 March 1991, 667 words, Diane Eicher, (English)

Plus there are many more from lesser known publications or health magazines. I have no idea why your search is not picking them up, but they definitely exist. Those who disagree with the validity of this subject as a medical technique should address their concerns in the article, not by deleting the article completely, which subject has been discussed multiple times in the independent media and thus meets the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Ccscott 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request. Do you mind including a link to your citations? I'm still having trouble finding the sources you mention on Factiva, and I'm having trouble finding the article titles you included on Google. This could simply be a function of me entering something different than you. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am accessing Factiva through my university's library so any links would not work for you. I was able to find some of the above through google news (such as: here). In fact, I get 52 hits with "bowel tolerance" and "vitamin C" on google news search. Ccscott 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccscott, I've had a chance to look at the Google hits. (Alas, still can't get the Factiva hits, but from your description, they seem pretty similar.) I don't think they fit WP:RS standards for articles, specifically WP:RS#Scholarship, as most of them are minor newspaper clippings. If this was a AFD for notability for an individual, this would be different, as it demonstrates public recognition, but I think the standard for articles on medical topics is more stringent. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they don't meet WP:RS#Scholarship as they are both from search engines of the popular media, not pubmed. But, they easily meet WP:RS, and as clearly stated (in bold even) in the WP:RS guidelines, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." Several of these news stories (in known, fact-checked publicatons, therefore reliable secondary sources) refer to and comment on bowel tolerance in a non-trivial way, and therefore this article should not be deleted. The fact that there is a protocol called "bowel tolerance" that has been widely discussed is not in dispute and this means the article merits inclusion. It is the primary sources (the scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals) or lack of them that should be discussed within the article to present a balanced prevailing view of medical opinion of the topic. Medical topics should enjoy no special privilege; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of accepted medical practices. Ccscott 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that academic articles, especially those making medical claims, fall specifically under the purvue of WP:RS#Scholarship. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Rather, academic articles should go through at least some level of academic scrutiny. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutiny - yes, deletion - no. My scientific opinion is that "bowel tolerance" is a load of bunk, however, I would much rather have someone who reads about this concept in their Sunday paper to come to this page and learn that there is little evidence to support it and it is not recognized by the majority of the medical profession than to pretend it doesn't exist. In my opinion, a rewrite and incorporation of the above citations will satisfy WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS so I still see no grounds to delete it, but if need be redirect and merge it into Vitamin C megadosage as suggested below. Ccscott 19:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOR and WP:V (or rather the distinct lack thereof), regardless of comments, Policy is Policy. Shot info 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep': Bowel Tolerance is a well-known and useful term. It's used for magnesium as well as vitamin c.Anonywiki 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a known medical term. Terse 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's incorrect. I !voted "keep", but it's a known orthomolecular medicine term, not a medical term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well broadly speaking, its medical term. Terse 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its a medical term, then it should fall under the jurisdiction of WP:RS#Scholarship, of which it fails miserably. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vitamin C megadosage - a brief section within that article would be appropriate as it would then be discussed in context. As a stand alone this will be a target for future AfDs because it is essentially a subtext of vitamin C megadosage and reveals itself as something minor. SilkTork 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete seems to be more OR. Harlowraman 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire communities by household income[edit]

The article appears to contravene Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4 "statistics".

Delete per above (Transwiki to Wikisource) TableManners 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I prodded the article [68], but it was removed. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 03:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Transwiki to Wikisource -~~ a rank-ordering of geographic entities (be they country city etc) bu income is not an indiscriminate list of facts; however, this list needs some work. It must be made clear that this captures the ranking for a single year and that year must be specified. That's not a major re-work so I'm not comfortable arguing for deleting it. Bigdaddy1981 04:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"is not an indiscriminate list of facts" (quoted from Bigdaddy1981) - How is it not? Do you have a rationale for the statement? Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - its a rank ordering which by definition makes the facts not indiscriminate. Furthermore, its a rank ordering by a non-trivial statistic of great interest - income. Its no less an indiscriminate collection of facts than, say, a ranking of the countries of the world by GNP per capita. I'm sorry chaps but this nomination is policy wonkery gone wild. Bigdaddy1981 05:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on the comments, the "indiscriminate" comes from the section heading of the policy that was wikilinked. The statistics item 4 was specifically cited in this afd, and is the relevent point. The article is just a table. It can have an introductory sentence or paragraph added, but these additions will not make it an article. TableManners 06:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an indiscriminate list (as I argue above) ~~but I stand corrected on the consensus. However; this shouldnt be deleted but rather Transwikied to Wikisource Bigdaddy1981 06:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)~~ And given Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s edits, it is no longer in my opinion in violation of the consensus you note. Bigdaddy1981 18:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Hampshire_communities_by_household_income&diff=149999833&oldid=149896193 isn't exactly a major change - it still doesn't provide necessary context, and should still be deleted/transwikied. Giggy ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

...In addition to other sections of this policy, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:... 4. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

”

Keep and expand for every state and consider a name change to harmonize with the articles on other states. If anyone bothered to read what was cited as: "Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility [sic] and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. (MY emphasis added) This is not raw statistics, but a formated table, and every state should have a table just like this. "Consider moving to "New Hampshire locations by household income" and source better, and add some more explanatory text, as I just did. Note that there is an entire category of statistical data for each state: Category:Economy of the United States by state, and it would be remiss to delete one state's entry. This type of decision should be made at the portal level, not on a case by case basis. See: Florida locations by per capita income and California locations by per capita income --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other crap exists - so what? - I personally think the pages you mentioned should all be deleted for the same reason. Giggy ^Talk 23:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource" (My emphasis) - This article contains no explanatory text, just names and numbers. It contains no proper context. It is purely statistical data. Interwiki it to Wikisource! Giggy ^Talk 23:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does need work, as stated by Bigdaddy, but this is a nonjudgmental listing of the wealthiest and poorest communities in a particular state, which only has ten counties. For larger states, ranking of the counties is the most widely used method. Mandsford 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what it is, but existence isn't a valid criteria for keeping the article. Do you have a reason for it to be kept? Giggy ^Talk 02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it should be kept is that it's an article about the geographical distribution of wealth in an American state where county by county listing would be less useful. It is more than simply a "list of names and numbers". For the same reason, we rely upon lists of the poorest and richest counties, zip codes, etc. One must concede that this is almost as worthwhile as the list of Scooby Doo episodes in season 2 of that series. As Manners says below, the list is the article. Mandsford 12:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question contains a very well formatted list, that obviously took some time to compile and generate. It is well done. This Afd is not a reflection of the hard work put into the article. But policy suggests that it should be moved to wikisource.

description of article as "nonjudgmental": The list in and largely comprising the article was apparently compiled from a web based database. This database contains a variety of fields. The fields selected from the database to compile this list were chosen by one or more contributors, and as such, the ranking is in fact a judgment. I would also argue that it is original research. Another contributor might use the database to write an article titled New Hampshire communities ranked by number of children under the age of five. But in doing so, I would be making a judgment call on which fields were important in a ranking, and probably performing original research. The official policy is clear on this.

"Infoboxes and tables": The selectively emphasized "Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" clearly refers to articles that contain lists that help make the article better. In our case, the list is effectively the article. Without the list, there is no article. If an article existed and there were a dispute about adding a list to the article, the selectively emphasized quote would be pertinent. TableManners 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the OR claim is rather a stretch in my opinion, I have examined the database in question, one simply selects a given town and clicks, a html table listing various statistics (or pdf of same) is generated. One of the statistics is per capita income - which is reported here. There is no OR involved whatsoever - the article's creator, I expect, compiled a list of these per capita statistics for the specific list of New Hampshire communities. I further note that the data in question are hosted on an official state of New Hampshire website and are originally due to the US Census Bureau. Rather a good source I think. Bigdaddy1981 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are confusing OR with RS. I am not questioning the reliability of the data. The OR is with regard to selecting the field (the html generates various statistics, of which, the original contributor or contributors decided that household income was the one to use for rank ordering a list). Again, using the same database, I could create an article titled New Hampshire communities ranked by number of children under the age of five. It would be created using reliable sources. The OR comes in in me deciding that such a ranking is noteworthy, and in the compilation. TableManners 04:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify; it is indeed a reliable source, but not necessarily a notable use of the source - not sure OR is the best call, because it is verifiable - it now verges back on to WP:NOT#STATS and notability of the topic chosen (as noted, you could use it to generate a list of anything). Giggy ^Talk 05:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In general, OR can be verified. In this context, I should note that by OR I specifically mean "synthesis of published material." In any event, the website/database is effectively a primary source ("tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires").

“

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

”

Granted, this is complex, but it is my view that the verifiability and reliability are not in dispute. Compiling the data (synthesis) and selecting which fields (interpretive and evaluative claims) are part of what we're discussing. Consequently, I do think the official policy, Wikipedia:No original research, is pertinent to this discussion.

“

Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.

”

The web based database is the primary source, wikipedia is a tertiary source, and this makes the contributor the secondary source. Hence, original research. TableManners 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that I understand that my interpretation may not be the same as others, so I have asked another person who was involved in an OR discussion on the official page to chime in. Hopefully he/she will, and can articulate for our consideration the error in my or others thinking. 02:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep and expand. I think this is useful info, but it needs text to place it in context and help explain why certain cities appear near the top or the bottom. It might be a good idea, especially for larger political regions, to not include a complete list but just the top/bottom rankings, as these are the more interesting parts that we can write stuff about. I don't believe there is an OR issue here - this synthesis is trivial and informational, not intended to advance a point. Dcoetzee 23:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Move to close, appears to be no unanimity. TableManners 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, and per nom. GreenJoe 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Greenjoe Harlowraman 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (But I'll leave a redirect for each to Nashville...) — Scientizzle 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Nashville[edit]

Little information on any of these related articles, and the last appears to take most if not all from a newspaper. I don't know if these are salvageable or expandable, given that Nashville, Tennessee could simply be added to. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any objection to merging and redirecting as appropriate? If there's common usage of the term for these geographical reasons, it might merit coverage on its own, but if not, let's just split the difference. Somebody can always expand the article later if it's really appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 05:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These are not recognized names for these areas, except to the same extent that most cities can be described as having areas that are "North," "South," "Central", etc. Surely the geographic terminology of "younger scenesters" is not considered encyclopedic.--orlady 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, recognized by who? The Nashville city gov't recognizes at least a few. There's [69] which covers the South part. Then there's East Nashville which has [70]. North Nashville [71] and [72] for the West. I think there's obvious usage, which to me, merits some description in the Nashville page, though I'm unconvinced of articles being supported on their own. I certainly think describing the geographical makeup of a city is valid and encyclopedic. Some cities may merit more than others (for example, New York City and London, but some individual paragraphs would work here. I don't know that "scenester" usage is, but that's not necessarily the case here. FrozenPurpleCube 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Related article Nashville's Cityscape has been marked (by Huntster) for speedy deletion.--orlady 11:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note²: Marked for deletion due to true lack of content, whereas these have the potential for fleshing out. At least, that's what I considered. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as it goes, I'd at least rename the page to something like Geography of Nashville. Cityscape isn't commonly used. this would match up with Category:Geography by city as well. But deletion can work as well. FrozenPurpleCube 12:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Every big city could be split up into parts based on geography. I fail to see any notability for these sections Corpx 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sean William @ 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of Mac[edit]

This article is about three things, a blog, a book and the group of people. There are no sources for notability on the blog. The book does not meet any of the criteria for book notability. As for the group of people, that might be valid, but this article is almost entirely about the book and the blog. i ^said 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but some improvement necessary. The book actually does meet the first criteria as it has been the subject of multiple-other published works. Like [73] and [74]. For the rest, it might be appropriate to link elsewhere, but that's a cleanup issue. FrozenPurpleCube 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Apple Inc.#Users, which this appears to have been split off from. If the book is found to meet our book notability criteria, keep but refactor into an article on the book, rather than on the three distinct things mashed together into one article like there is now. --Krimpet 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article as I started it was actually very different from what it has become today :). That said, the sub culture which today forms an integral part of the computer and technology industry remains very relevant. This was more than aptly illustrated by the iPhone, a gadget hyped beyond anything seen before - and the masses loved it. I agree that a rewrite is in order though. As far as I can see, the book and blog deserve passing mentions only. The focus would best be a piece which cites the loyal user base and their incredible appetite for anything Cupertino releases. Thats my $0.02. Of course, I'd be willing to help out. vIkSiT 05:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit so that this is clearly and strictly an article about the book. wikipediatrix 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Where are the multiple non-trivial sources? I must have missed them. Burntsauce 17:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Krimpet. --Aarktica 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube Harlowraman 16:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 07:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky (2001 film)[edit]

Non-notable homemade film with no reliable sources available. According to this the director was 14 years old when he made this film, so this appears to be a kid adding his Youtube movies to Wikipedia. Also nominating the related Weird Girl, Sé diferente, Hermosa Perversión, and Wonderland? for the same reason. Masaruemoto 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable video with no reliable sources. --Haemo 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for non-notability, and possibly nonsense. From the article "Pinky is also known as the name of many young, intellectuall's nickname. This brings Pinky to be a very popular name for children and adults. Mothers have changed their name to Pinky so that Rashmi can be hidden from their birth ceritificate. This is what happened to my mother and she is rocking her socks of the millions of hip youngsters." Huh?--Sethacus 04:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 07:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.N. Duke Scholars program[edit]

Given that there seems to be a consensus for deletion at this AFD, I also found this page, which covers a specific scholarship program. I am also concerned about its coverage, since the current page doesn't list any third party sources, and I wasn't able to find anything especially convincing about it. The most I found was some people having been described as winners of it getting some other scholarship, or brief bits about the endowment receiving more money. It might be acceptable to mention this on The Duke Endowment page, but is this any different from any of the hundreds of other scholarships that are found around the world? Some universities might have hundreds of scholarships like this. FrozenPurpleCube 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found to attest notability to this program Corpx 03:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through all 310 ghits, a few cvs of the winers, and WP mirrors, and a great many pages from Duke. Every well-established university has many dozens of named and endowed scholarship programs, almost known of which will be notable. We're not a PR agency for Duke.DGG (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like all things related to a university, notability needs to extend beyond the campus. There is no evidence of this here. Nuttah68 12:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per WP:CSD G5 - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial plastic pipe systems[edit]

This is a POV fork of Plastic pipe systems, and the creator and only contributor to this article, User:Kickstartme is a confirmed sock (sleeper) of the banned user Grumpyrob (per RFCU). In short, Grumpyrob thinks WP is a professional reference where he can add pros, cons, and value judgments as well as how-tos on installing plastic piping systems, all lifted directly from installation manuals. Since he was not allowed to do that on the plastic pipe article, he has recreated his version with the title above. So it is a POV fork, copyvio, COI article created by a banned user. I would have CSDed this, but I would like the article salted as well, so I have sent it to AfD instead. MSJapan 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Since the article was created by a sock of a banned user, it may be speediable under WP:CSD#G5. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 05:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with breast implants[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NOT#IINFO based on a non-notable connection. Having breast implants is no longer an unusual, or more importantly, a notable characteristic. This is no more encyclopedic than a List of people who have had facelifts, or a List of people who wear toupees. It's sourced, but who cares? The women who are specifically notable for their implants (ie Lolo Ferrari) should be mentioned in the Breast implant article. Masaruemoto 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Loosely associated topic -- who cares if it's verified? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. It is not a notable linkage. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess there was a certain point at which this would have been novel enough to be somewhat encyclopedic, but it's pretty common these days, especially if (as the article suggests) we're including models, transsexuals, and porn stars. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having breast implants does not make one notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 03:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is worthless without pics. --Targeman 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never knew that Genesis P-Orridge had implants - what a nut. Indiscriminate very partial list of some random people with implants. Non-maintainable, highly skewed to English-speaking individuals and all round worthless crap. At least its sourced though. Bigdaddy1981 04:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia, should arguably have been deleted the first time around. >Radiant< 08:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial connection, not suitable for Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 10:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am pleasantly surprised to find that the list is sourced, but still too trivial of a list. Garion96 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bart133 says all that needs to be said --Malcolmxl5 21:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per uses above. James Luftan ^contribs 23:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Way to many people would qualify for this list unfortunately. It is to common and trivial. Jmm6f488 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The public has a right to know. Mandsford 02:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like this may be snowballing, but I gotta say delete again per WP:IINFO. Goodnightmush^Talk 03:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This issue of breast implants is notable, this article saves a similar list from filling the main article. What also saves it for me is the fact it's sourced, so it's not just a bunch of speculation, rumors and guesses. 23skidoo 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "having fake boobs" is not a useful basis for grouping people in an encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 08:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This grouping is nonencyclopedic and somewhat offensive. Delete -- after adding some notable examples of celebrity implants and unusual implant cases to the Breast implant article, possibly including (but not necessarily limited to) Carol Doda (famous as a topless dancer), Maxi Mounds (holder of the Guinness World Record for "World's Largest Augmented Breasts"), Jenny Jones (talked about the subject on TV).--orlady 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 07:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Tamkin[edit]

Person Lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music)Xpendersx 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --H irohisat ^Talk 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, albeit barely. He has been a member of a notable band if we are to accept Wikipedia articles as indicative of notability. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A band can be notable while its individual members are not, and this is the case here. MSJapan 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to meet WP:Band Harlowraman 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Benchmarking[edit]

This appears to be either unsourced original research or an advertising-essay. The thumbprint image on the page has nothing to do with the subject of the article and appears to be an icon taken from the commercial website whose link appears at the bottom of the article. ~ Infrangible 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. --H irohisat ^Talk 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research and advertising. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly: original research, advertising, and complete bollocks written in loathsome English. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, looks to be a copyright violation from here. --Yamla 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis of Tlön. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all g1, nonsense/hoax (or WP:SNOW, if you prefer). NawlinWiki 03:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, New Brunswick[edit]

Hoax - no evidence that this town exists. Ground Zero | t 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1. GreenJoe 02:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A1 specifically excludes hoaxes. There is a note that some of these can be deleted as vandalism, but without sufficient explanation to act on it. Ground Zero | t 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For another reason then. No need to keep a hoax around. GreenJoe 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I googled it and found no results, whether on the basic Google search or on Google maps. Nyttend 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax. --H irohisat ^Talk 02:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't speedy per se but we can SNOW this if someone comes along and is willing to. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be a hoax... a weird one at that. Also, let's make sure the speedy deletes of this hoax's related pages, CHDU-FM and CHDY-FM, get deleted too. --Gpollock 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt, we discussed this last week already. >Radiant< 08:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Pandemic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreated page that was previously deleted DurinsBane87 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4 --H irohisat ^Talk 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and Salt this time! G4, A7... take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt. It has been deleted before according to the author. Doses not adequately assert notability. Hu 02:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt not notable. Oyster guitarist 03:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow dog (design)[edit]

Probably a hoax. It was created by a single purpose account in 2006 and later wikified by a legit user, no activity since. Google points to a manufacturer of dog leashes. Targeman 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. No proof that this term's used in this context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a hoax, and possibly even patent Nonsense --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it probably is a hoax. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there's a technique in film-making where the editor inserts an out-of-place shot to distract a producer fom a bad edit, so the producer is so busy trying to work out why that shot is in the film they don't notice a continuity error/plot hole/etc. This sounds similar, but I can't find any sources so it's unveriable or too obscure to be kept. Masaruemoto 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds hoaxy to me. The text, if read carefully, doesn't even really make any sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a hoax and doesn't really make sense. Oyster guitarist 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable German movies[edit]

WP:OR-based list with vague and subjective inclusion criteria; "critically acclaimed, commercially successful or otherwise notable." How commercially successful should a film be to get added to the list? What does "otherwise notable" mean? Original research is needed to decide. Also redundant to List of German films, List of West German films, and List of East German films. Masaruemoto 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raus mit dem Quatsch per nom. --Targeman 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:German films is adequate enough. Afterall, the films in that category must already be notable enough to exist here. Spellcast 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, the category is sufficient. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant. The article's reference can be merged to List of German films if it is found verifiable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have plenty of categories and lists to cover this area. This one isn't necessary, and besides to be included a film has to be "critically acclaimed, commercially successful or otherwise notable". Hut 8.5 15:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JodyB and Spellcast.--JForget 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. The vague inclusion guidelines with no definite cutoffs, and especially "Otherwise Notable" indicates that there is not strong criteria for inclusion, and the list can be considered quite indiscriminate. However, if the list is cleaned up, with some guidelines, it could be a valid article. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nature of the list requires POV judgement calls for inclusion, as opposed to having a firm criteria such as award wins and as it currently stands none of this is indicated. Any German film could be listed here if someone made a strong enough case. 23skidoo 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of German films. Kappa 10:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfront Tower[edit]

Contested prod. As I said in the proposed deletion: "This article has no reliable sources, and the data on the tower is speculative at best. Until there is more concrete (no pun inteneded) information available about this building, we shouldn't have an article on it." Powers ^T 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of architecture, buildings, construction, city planning and public spaces-related deletions. —Powers ^T 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Phrases inculded in the article such as "extremely early rendition", "is highly likely that it is not built, ot either built under another name" and "Very little is known about it" confirm that the article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tomj 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I combed the website the article points to and found the project exists... they build low-rise residential and commercial buildings. No mention of any tower, let alone a 600m+ one. Maybe the author of the article has insider information, but until they start mixing the cement, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Targeman 01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. No sources are provided about the construction, and the "Early Rendition" graphic (Image:Waterfront_Tower.png) has no definite source either. The picture could be generic clip art. The article could also possibly be a WP:HOAX --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL,it appears that this building is not built, wait until the actual building is made. Oyster guitarist 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Howarth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brian Howarth

Non Notable Xpendersx 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont feel that he meets any of the following criteria:

The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2 If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3 Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.4 Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products

Howarth yields 786 google hits most of which are not the computer programmer but a few athletes and other people. Hits regarding this particlar Howarth are not relaible, independant, nor substantial. A Lexis Nexus search of all sources from all available dates yields zero references to Howarth.Xpendersx

Keep The links to Atari Users and (I forget the other one) provide evidence of notability. These are two sources in gaming publications where Howarth and his creations are the primary subject. Shalom ^Hello 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:BIO. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone who has designed 11 video games and is mentioned in related publications passes WP:BIO.--Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fojji[edit]

Non-notable video game player. Hemlock Martinis 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertation of notability, spammy tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, tagged. --Targeman 01:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just some guy writing about his video game achievements. Spellcast 01:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7. Oyster guitarist 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shit happens[edit]

There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this expression. And nearly nothing is said, save the long list of trivia. `'Míkka 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a notable term but this will never expand beyond dicdef and trivia if nobody knows the etymology. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time I've becoming across the reason for deletion being given as "not encyclopedic", increasingly often in recent times. I wish I'd stop seeing the word encyclopedic being misused so often on wikipedia, did you know that half the results on google for encyclopedic are to do with wikipedia (indicates the extent of the problem)? Anyway, getting back on track.... encyclopedic is defined as "comprehensive" also "broad in scope or content". If anything, this seems to be the opposite of what you were trying to say. Because you were wishing to instead narrow down the scope and content of the article, making it less comprehensive. Mathmo ^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If anything, it's a dicdef with places the term is used. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's certainly notable, but far from encyclopedic. Not to mention, it's dicdef. James Luftan ^contribs 01:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is more suited towards Urban dictionary. Spellcast 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has 2 published references. It is the philosophical observation that bad things happen to people for no discernable reason. It has been an existential philosophy since at least the 1980's. Edison 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is somewhat longer than the article about "We report, you decide" that I was so negative about. There's no truth to the rumor that this is going to be the slogan for CNN in 2008. Mandsford 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki but it has no place here. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion happens per nom. After discarding trivia, not enough left for an article. Clarityfiend 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is notable it is unencyclopedic and it is a dicdef. Oyster guitarist 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia list and is not encyclopedic. Useight 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to meme (or soft redir to wiktionary), plausible search term but not useful as an article. >Radiant< 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; dictdef, and the rest is merely a list of people and fictional people who have once used the expression. Mel sa ran 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Originally in the media section, there is mentioning of a 1991 case concerning a bumber sticker that read "Shit happens", where the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles was unconstitutional (now sourced). In case no consensus for an independent article develops, we should at least have the dab page with wictionary link here. --Tikiwont 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete happens. Burntsauce 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! So famous people are even using it in delete votes.... lol Ironic. Mathmo ^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not belong here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. C'est la vie. --Malcolmxl5 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tikiwont and world wide famous. Mathmo ^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup simply being a stub that needs cleanup for trivia lists doesn't make the entire topic trivial. The phrase, with its boundless cultural and commercial application, is certainly notable and begs encyclopedic treatment. The argument that it "does not belong here" sounds close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Arguing that, being pop culture, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia is elitism, plain and simple. This is a "piece of commercial culture based on popular taste" (the def of pop culture), not "pieces of information of little importance" (trivia). Don't automatically conflate the two. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because we dont have the etymology now does not mean we wont have it later. It is a notable idiomatic phrase. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's the classic modern social meme, and has sound philosophical meaning; it begs for a proper treatment. Until that happens, stubbify (ie, remove media references). SamBC(talk) 03:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a really notable phrase, even if it has no single etymology. This is the natural home of such information, and there is no reason why we should be ashamed of it. DGG (talk)
Keep per Tikiwont, DGG, Sambc, et al. And yes, a meme is notable. It has three sources and can be improved. Bearian 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 16:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle at Kruger[edit]

I had previously prodded this article because of dubious notability. My main concern is that this article has no lasting notability. It has had its supposed 15 minutes of fame and there really isn't anything else to say about it. Also, it's kind of funny that it even has an infobox military conflict. Aside from that, it isn't nearly as significant as any other internet meme. Axem Titanium 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my nomination with regards to User:Krator's idea to merge the article with Kruger National Park. Axem Titanium 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BDahlstrom the video appeared on the BBC news site. This probably moves it beyond the 15 minutes of fame category.
Delete A popular video on YouTube does not equal notability in Wikipedia. Spellcast 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Profiled in depth on ABC's new iCaught show. 15 minutes of fame is still fame. Clean up the silliness and keep it brief. Fagstein 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spellcast. WP is not a web guide, much less a YouTube guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a popular video on YouTube doesn't make you notable, Oyster guitarist 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jay Bookman writes four or so paragraphs on the video in the Atlanta Journal - Constitution [75] in an opinion piece about our changing relationship with animals.TreeKittens 03:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok Time actually has two articles on the video: [76] and [77] which discuss it in some depth and with some context. I think this video is notable enough for inclusion. TreeKittens 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:N, it is suggested Wikinews cover topics which receive a "short burst of present news coverage." Yet, Battle of Kruger is at least as notable as some of the other videos under Category:YouTube videos, which are not being deleted. Having a video on YouTube doesn't make you notable, but does several months of sporadic media attention change that? Time covered the video on June 7, and it was featured again on I-Caught tonight. With National Geographic creating a documentary on the video, it is probably going to receive even more media attention, so is this video's 15 minutes of fame really over? --Mad Max 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several mainstream media references about this video. Isn't that what deems an entry worthy of inclusion? Moreover, it is not simply a U-tube video, but a significant bit of insight into the animal world. That said, the Wikipedia entry should focus more on putting the content of the video in context. Comments from behavioral zoologists would be welcome. The little "conflict box" belongs in a blog, not in Wikipedia, and should be deleted, or at least the spelling should be corrected. (It's a "herd" of buffalo, not a "heard" of buffalo, and the "heard" of lions is doubly wrong- the correct term is a "pride" of lions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.87.177 (talk • contribs)
Weak delete unless more reliable sources are cited. Once the documentary is released, it may warrant inclusion. Now, however, it's just another Internet meme. Keep. Sources look good and are certainly reliable. YouTube videos, in general, are not notable. However, this one has coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as the BBC and Time Magazine, and an upcoming National Geographic documentary. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Infobox Military Conflict has been removed. YouTube videos are not military conflicts. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom youtube videos should not have articles unless reliable sources are found.Harlowraman 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that reliable sources have been found and are mentioned above. These include an in-depth article on the video by Time magazine, quoting experts in animal behaviour. There is also an article in Atlanta Journal discussing the video. This article topic easily passes WP:N and the content can easily be verified by reference to reliable third-party sources independent of the subject. Please read the sources given above. Best regards TreeKittens 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that there are several reliable sources on the video, and an upcoming documentary, it should be kept. Sxeptomaniac 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 7,500,000 views does seem to make it notable. Also it is an educational subject not some guy lighting his farts like on many Utube movies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmm6f488 (talk • contribs)
Keep I've had time to think about it. I don't think any of the current arguments for deletion are convincing.--Mad Max 01:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the articles, not youtube hits Corpx 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable video with millions of views. Video has received media coverage in notable magazines, television programs, and websites. --musicpvm 09:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- more people have seen this movie than many of the TV programmes with individual episode articles Astrotrain 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Sxeptomaniac. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mondo Keep - per the BBC --Toussaint 18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable - as of today, it is the most read BBC News article. - ARC Gritt^TALK 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its all over the news here in the UK - TV, Newspapers, etc. Robert C Prenic 19:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If the BBC finds it so important, as well as the media, then keep it. Add that this is NOT the only time it has happened.--Simfan34 19:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video is notable --Onceonthisisland 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video is extremely notable, Its popularity has exploded with articles at ABC news, Time and BBC. Not only is it notable as a small look into the natural world, it holds deeper meaning to many people Yearsago 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A month ago I would have said, "internet meme, borderline keep", but it's become much more well known since then and is probably going to be something like the top internet video of 2007. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very important example of the current shift in media towards internet video - this will be cited in many a history of such subject matter, and it is right that facts surrounding the video are recorded.
Keep, notable. Everyking 08:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The widespread media coverage of this seems evidence of it's notability to me. Cogswobble talk 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the fastest growing YouTube video ever. In about only 3 months, has become the most viewed, discussed, favorited, and linked in YouTube's animal category. It has been featured in over a dozen major media outlets, including BBC, ABC, Time Magazine, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail. The owner of the video is a well-respected photographer. National Geographic just received a license to make a documentary about the Battle at Kruger. This is clearly worthy of Wikipedia. Jschlos talk 18:58, 10 August 2007 (EST)
Merge into Kruger National Park, because it will be impossible to expand the article to decent status. Does deserve coverage on Wikipedia though. --User:Krator (t c) 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is a really good idea. I withdraw my nomination. Axem Titanium 01:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that merging to Kruger National Park would be highly inappropriate. I don't even think a mere 'See also' link would be relevant. What relevance does the video have to the park, except that it was filmed there? The cited sources all see the video as relevant as a cultural phenomenon, and as an insight into some rather counter-intuitive animal behaviour. What is your rationale for this merge? Are you suggesting that the cited sources do not establish notability under WP:N? Are the sources not sufficiently reliable or independent? TreeKittens 02:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree with merge for reasons stated by TreeKittens. - ARC Gritt^TALK 11:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep as a separate article the coverage from the National Geographic in particular is more than enough for independent notability. First YouTube video where I've said keep--never thought it would happen. DGG (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that significant improvements have been made to the article since it was listed here. Thanks TreeKittens 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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