< September 4 September 6 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete - Notability not established. Reviews on softpedia are nice, to be sure- but they review almost everything. No coverage by reliable sources- bloggers, unless very well known, do not count. Who knows, perhaps this might become notable one day. But it isn't now. David Fuchs (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JZip[edit]

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

An unnotable suspicious proprietary derivative of the LGPL 7-Zip, released 2 months (according to Comparison of file archivers) (2 weeks as beta, according to the article; right before the article was created) to ago (right after that point, the article was created), having fewer features. Also, the author's nickname “Archiver 53” and contribution list combination with that makes it more suspicious. AVRS 11:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Delete or Weak Merge into 7-Zip or 7z. --AVRS 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was opened only a day ago. I think it is a bit premature to say that we can't build a consensus! --Karnesky 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • is jZip the first Java-based compression tool (very unlikely)
  • is jZip the first Java-implementation of the PKZIP algorithm (perhaps)
  • is it the first free compression tool (no; consider FreeZip 2000 from PepSoft)
  • is it the first packaging of the 7-Zip compression method in a compression application suite (perhaps)
  • does it have a unique combination of compression formats (perhaps, but that would not be a basis for establishing notability)
  • has it been incorporated as a core component of an otherwise notable application suite or platform (e.g. Office or Eclipse)
  • is it a product of a notable company (that would support a merger into the company's article or into a spinoff 'products' article; Discordia is apparently a company with a single product, jZip (it took a bit of filtering through search results to tentatively establish that))
As it stands, the article does not assert notability on any of these grounds. However, I am willing to allow for the improvement of the article by knowledgeable editors making an assertion of notability. On to the matter of reliable sources. In the software field, in particular the freeware, open-source and shareware fields, coverage by traditional journalistic or literary outlets is more the exception than the norm; blogs and solely-online information outlets play a very important role here, though Wikipedia has a collectively dim view of using blogs as reliable sources, or even sources for verifiability. I'm not too familiar with the sources referenced, so bear with me. Consider Softpedia; the article there has a byline with a real name and an associated title. Further, Softpedia has a published editorial process for software reviews (see http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/); therefore, I would consider this to be a reliable, independent source, even if it has no life on paper. Download.com, on the other hand, has a more directory-style review with software publisher notes and downloader commentary - not a reliable source by my reckoning. By this look the article has a single reliable source ... and really needs more. A search for same by me did not turn up any others - but there might be others out there. Again, I'll give the editors the benefit of the doubt ... for a time. I would expect to see this renominated for deletion or merger within six months if improvements were not made. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not jzip.org the Java GPL ZIP implementation from 2003[1]. Neither it is JZip the OS-independent BSD-licensed John's Z-Code interpreter from 2000[2]. It's a Windows-only proprietary program from 2007. --AVRS 08:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With as little information as there is in jZip now, I'd agree with “Merge” (as a line in a list of 7-Zip derivatives or in 7z), but calling it “merge“ still feels a bit strange. So, what I'd call “merge” here is basically the same as “delete”. Strangely, there is an article on p7zip, though it's just a port of 7z.exe and 7za.exe from 7-Zip. --AVRS 08:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Merging would preserve the current title as a redirect tagged with Template:R from merge in order to preserve the edit history of jZip. Deleting does not preserve the edit history in a publicly viewable form. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Ceyockey - keep it for now and get back to this discussion in 6 months on 1 Feb 2008. Duras2000 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't look like any of the writers actually tried the software.. how about we discuss the merits of the software? Any thoughts? Duras2000 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Rankin[edit]

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

The creator of this article User:Jeremy.rankin is almost certainly the son of John C. Rankin, the subject article. Jeremy.rankin states on his user page that he was born August 3, 1985 and the bio page for John C. Rankin on the Theological Education Institute website states: "He and his wife Nancy were married in 1977 and have three sons (1978, 1981 and 1985) and one daughter (1990)." We definitely have a case of WP:COI. More importantly, there is no notability asserted for Mr. John C. Rankin. According to my google search, notability cannot be established. This meets CSD A7, as it is an article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not assert the importance of the subject, however my speedy was contested, so I am bringing this here. John C. Rankin seems like a nice man that i would like to meet, but he's just not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 00:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. Anarchia 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present Arms (Cast Recording)[edit]

Present Arms (Cast Recording) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn album, was tagged speedy as advertising, which seemed a stretch, and I declined, but still no assertion of notability here Carlossuarez46 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Delooze[edit]

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

Only claim of notability is that he has written 3 books. One of the books is published by a minor niche publisher, "Experiencer eBooks". The other two are self published. I can't find independent reviews of the books. Books do not appear to meet WP:BK, so I don't see how the author does. Mark Chovain 23:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my comment was a bit flippant, I personally think it would be a shame to remove his article as I read one of his books and found it intensely amusing, I know there's no reason he is noteable though apart from if the novelty of hilarious levels of psychosis was considered noteworthy.Merkinsmum 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was dereet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell (Scooby-Doo)[edit]

Dell (Scooby-Doo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn character was tagged speedy, but there seems to be a considerable or vocal number of people who read WP:CSD#A7 to be limited to just those enumerated items and fictional people isn't on the list, so here it goes. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G11 and A7. JoshuaZ 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Bah[edit]

Q-Bah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't appear to outline notability. With claims like The radio-dj also spoke to The Game right after the rapper shouted "F**k Jay-Z" at his first concert in Amsterdam. and Q-Bah has shared several spliffs and hours with Bob Marley's youngest son Damian Marley I'm not seeing importance. The references are just general links to websites like Maxim which in no way references anything in this article. IrishGuy talk 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G12. Acalamari 23:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Gunden[edit]

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

Doesn't read like a wiki article, violates WP:NPOV, doesn't have any cites either. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More copyvio of text from Amazon. Thomjakobsen 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WaltonOne 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Rich List 2007[edit]

Sunday Times Rich List 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible copyright violoation - a list has just been copied from a magazine onto Wikipedia. The article may also not meet WP:NN as it does not state any secondary sources. I am also nominating the following articles for the same resaons:Guest9999 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times Rich List 2006
Sunday Times Rich List 2005
Sunday Times Rich List 2004
Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500)
Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000)
It is not actually clear without further discussion that there is a copyvio here. Article is not reproducing any of the editorial comment from the magazine, only the facts collected. Copyright on compilations of facts is a non-obvious legal issue.--mervyn 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But they're not facts, they're original estimates. The ST list doesn't collate information which is already publically sourcable, they're producing original information and publishing it with a copyright notice. We'd have the same problem if we reproduced a financial analyst's market predictions. The data is not simply being compiled from public sources, it is being produced from scratch in a way that has commercial value and distributed with a copyright notice to protect that value. It would be a different case if, say, they printed a list of the world's tallest buildings, because compilation alone is trivial and we could recreate it from publically-sourceable data. Thomjakobsen 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright notice only works if the claim is valid! But there is a distinction between the author's original contribution and the facts presented; elaborate techniques for discovering facts don't of themselves create an act of authorship. I am not saying the Sunday Times doesn't have a strong case, only that it is not an area where a decision to delete is so obvious that there is no need for a bit of thinking first. However the wholesale reproduction of the lists here goes beyond what could be justified, and I agree about the "original estimates" claim. The articles should be rewritten to be selected abstracts and reports on the contents of the list. --mervyn 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Summaries would be fine, and I'd argue that they would be better off in the main Sunday Times Rich List article. As for the copyright claim, the original lists have a claim of UK copyright, and would be covered under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, which covers even lists/databases of non-original information. For example, someone producing a phone directory cannot take this information directly from another directory, they have to track down the information themselves from other sources. That rule would seem to apply even more forcefully in this case, since it is a list of original estimates, so the copyright claim appears to be valid. Thomjakobsen 18:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the more specific law for this is the EU Directive on the legal protection of databases, but whether this is relevant depends on whether it's policy to respect the laws of the country of origin or those of the US (see comment somewhere below) Thomjakobsen 02:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Forbes's list might be okay, because copyright is claimed under US laws and the precedent (based on a phone directory case) is that lists of publically sourceable information are not copyrightable. However, it makes clear that even minimal creativity can lead to a copyright claim, so it depends on the process by which they come up with the estimates. If it's anything like the Times list, it involves creative estimates and so probably fails for that reason. Thomjakobsen 18:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP actually operates under the law of the country of the person editing the page. If a user in England uploads copyright material they are breaking the law of England. And if WP hosts copyright material uploaded from England they are in breach of the law of England. That is the law - and any statement by WP or its users that it prefers to operate under a different jurisdiction can't effect that. If this is copyright material, then the Sunday Times in England could sue the American based WP in the English courts. And nothing that WP states in its T&Cs can change that. 87.127.44.154 11:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression as per [7] that policy is to respect the copyright laws of the country of origin, even though it would not technically be illegal to host such material on the US servers. As re-use is an issue, and the UK claims are recognized throughout the EU and possibly elsewhere, it would limit re-use (e.g. on CD versions and mirrors) of this material for a pretty sizeable area. Agreed that we'd need someone more expert to take a look at it. Thomjakobsen 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the STRL is widely reported on in other UK media, often as front page stories on the Sunday of publication. See eg "Daily Mail" here: [8].--mervyn 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Carlossuarez46 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decisional analysis of complex systems[edit]

Decisional analysis of complex systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This bizarrely vague (cf WP:BOLLOCKS) article references only papers by one author and fails WP:RS. It may also be redundant to decision analysis. Alksub 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Build Zion in Britain[edit]

Build Zion in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of the article is purported to be a catchphrase important to the Mormon/LDS Church in Britain, but I could not find it used anywhere-- not even on LDS sites. No references cited to any source at all. Unverifiable. Though the concept of "Zion" in the Mormon/LDS religion is notable and David O. McKay (the Church leader to whom this catchphrase is attributed) is notable, notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED). It has been suggested that this article be merged with Zion (Latter Day Saints) or David O. McKay) However, since we cannot verify that this catchphrase ever even existed, there is nothing that we can merge there. The text of the article is written in language that would be used by a Mormon/LDS document that is addressed to Church members already initiated to their terminology and lingo. Possible copyvio from a Mormon/LDS publication somewhere. OfficeGirl 22:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the exact same page, and observed the same things you mention here. That was what persuaded me that an AfD was in order. OfficeGirl 22:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2[edit]

List of animals in Zoo Tycoon 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indscriminate collection of information. This also falls under game guide content, as it says all the animals in the game. RobJ1981 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is turning into a candidate for WP:SNOWBALL
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patch (emo)[edit]

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

Delete belatedly contested prod, restored to bring it here. No sources, little context, not notable. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E2E Technologies Ltd[edit]

E2E Technologies Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Written mainly as an ad for the company, biased, and offers little relevance as to why this company is notable and worthy of an article on wikipedia. Hasn't been improved in these aspects in months since creation. The article is also uncited as to where this information comes from. TheHYPO 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Lynn[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are 2 other scenes in the video (Scene Index). Only her scene was nominated, not the whole movie Corpx 19:04, 29 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, Carlossuarez46 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Kulpati[edit]

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

Fails criteria for inclusion of creative professionals as stated by WP:BIO New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 19:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But she gets only 49 Ghits in Indian Google. Sadly 1/3 of them from Indian porno sites. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 20:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rasaq. WaltonOne 19:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Grass Green Over Here Manye![edit]

The Grass Green Over Here Manye! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape that's not covered by in depth sources. The only sources are trivial ones such as a track listing. Spellcast 20:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtapes are much less notable than albums. With an album, you have background, production, sales, certifications, reviews from music critics etc. But most mixtapes can never have this info. If this mixtape is notable, there should be multiple, reliable sources that discuss this (not just a track listing). Spellcast 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are albums with no sales, charts positions, personnel, etc. And still don't need to be deleted.--Tasco 0 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrocrunk[edit]

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

This isn't a legitimate genre. It was created by one person, Shane Fontane (who appears to be an unsigned non-notable musician), and it practised by exactly one musician...Shane Fontane. IrishGuy talk 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this. It appears to be getting some notice - only 40 Ghits for Electrocrunk + review, but 548 for "Electro crunk" + review: [12]. It seems to be a real phenomenon. And it has a good beat. Bearian 20:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done more research, and it seems to be notable, but may be a neologism. I'm still working on it. Bearian 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, I'm done for now.... I hope this is good enough to keep. 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Bhattarai[edit]

Non-notable professor, president of a company already listed at AfD which only has Wikipedia and its own website for Google hits. Other than being the head of this non-notable apparently non-existent company, nothing in the article to indicate what makes him notable. Corvus cornix 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Keshav Bhattarai has co-authored a historical dictionary of Nepal, which is in the collections of a few university libraries outside his own and has been cited in multiple publications. Not sure if it's used in classrooms, though.--Sethacus 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Campbell[edit]

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

Utterly un-notable freelance director, reads like self-advertising. If this guy gets an article, everybody in the world who's got a job would have to be on WP. Camillus (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not clear that he passes WP:BIO, RS issues aside. He directs commercials. Eusebeus 19:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University Athletic Union[edit]

Durham University Athletic Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject seems completely non-notable; fails to assert any notability, for example through external links to organisations other than itself. TheIslander 14:37, 27 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, TerriersFan 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barts was an arguably sub-university Union--this is the main one for the University--that is a distinction that justifies keeping this even if we agreed with the deletion of Barts.DGG (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Dennehy, Robbie Weir[edit]

Billy Dennehy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robbie Weir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Kay (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gavin Donoghue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

two nn soccer players who haven't played a first team game yet, fails WP:BIO. Delete both Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's obvious that any attempt to engage in a substantive discussion (instead of simply casting "delete" votes because x page says y) is futile. Rather than wasting more of our time, I've gone ahead and deleted the article. —David Levy 23:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Moschella[edit]

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

I see nothing here to justify a separate page for this guy. He wrote some software, which information could go on that page, but other than that he owns a website (big deal) and produces a Tv programme, neither of which make him notable. The rest is just useless trivia. There is some discussion on the talk page, the thrust of which seems to be that he deserves an article because he might become famous. I think not. Chris 06:09, 27 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, TerriersFan 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theological Education Institute[edit]

Theological Education Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable conflict of interest by primary author Jeremy.rankin (talk · contribs). The article advertises a Christian school and gives external links, but does not assert notability and does not address the topic from a neutral point of view. Shalom Hello 19:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight To The Point[edit]

Straight To The Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Article is merely a tracklisting. LaMenta3 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting." MarkBul 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Muzik[edit]

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

Album is crystal ballery. The artist is not notable, he only has 25 "friends" on his MySpace, although not a reliable source it does at least show that not lots of people know him. "A-TRAX MUZIK" or "The Sound of Muzik" bring up no hits related to the album and no hits that aren't MySpace related to the record label. T Rex | talk 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Mainhart[edit]

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

Notability not asserted Spryde 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Spryde, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "hang a tag." Is that HTML talk? If yes, I've looked at the help guide and tried to add what you said but I must be doing it incorrectly. Can you offer any help?

Vpc123```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpc123 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vpc123, the tag ((hangon)) is used when a speedy deletion template (tag) has been placed on the article. In this case, Spryde said on your Talk page that a proposed deletion was going to be the next step, but instead came to articles for deletion, a different process. Please read the guide to deletion as the article creator. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. AFD template removed by IP editor, but result obvious, with only two delete !votes, one an SPA and the other an intermittent editor. Non-admin close. --Dhartung | Talk 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPod touch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IPod touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This product is non-notable, doesn't exist per WP:CRYSTAL and should be at least merged with the regular iPod article. Theklavern 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Theklavern 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't asking you. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The product has not been released and it doesn't deserve its own article. Theklavern 18:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the website: [14]. Max Naylor 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be speedy kept. This is ridiculous. Nothing in WP:Crystal says this should be deleted. MahangaTalk 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. It is out, you can buy it right now. Plus we have a precedent of new iPods getting articles to consider. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“Too early”? The product goes on sale this evening. Max Naylor 18:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles minutes/hours after a major current event all the time. MahangaTalk 18:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Product goes on sale this weekend, add a "future product" template to it
For the record, Theklavern is a new user with his only posts belonging to this AFD. MahangaTalk 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil sandbox[edit]

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

Seems to be totally O.R. "Civil sandbox" yields 3 results on google which seem to be unrelated. Needs to be deleted per notability and OR. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that box before I searched for the notability of the subject. I find it highly unlikely that there could be highly reliable printed sources that don't exist on any search engines on the internet. Even if that were the case, I doubt it would ever meet notability guidelines. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article had been there a week, I'd probably agree. But it was created today, is clearly a stub, and we should assume the author is going to make some attempt to explain where this term is from and why it's notable. Put a notability tag on it, ask for some reliable sources, give it a few days, then if nothing changes it would be eligible for a speedy delete. But to squash it on the day of creation when it's not clear vandalism or spam is far too hasty. Thomjakobsen 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Earlier decision was probably based on the "under construction" box. Wouldn't want to waste anyone's time thinking the article has any supporters... Thomjakobsen 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately, the resulting page is not a valid disambiguation because none of the linked articles mention the term in any context. --Coredesat 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skirling[edit]

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

not an article RepriseRubric 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a dictionary and I can't imagine what more could be said about this term than dictionary-stuff. DMacks 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DMacks. --Djsasso 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It's a synonym. Thomjakobsen 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Not sure even belongs at wikitionary since this term seems like slang. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euan G. Cameron[edit]

Euan G. Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

hoax RepriseRubric 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. No such person listed at that institution. And even if so, no asserted notability. DMacks 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 07:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Morrison[edit]

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

hoax RepriseRubric 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the Scientific American info because I have determined that the columnist was the other Philip Morrison.--orlady 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources do you require for "verifiability"? This article lists several sources now, and the bogus information about birth date and death has been removed. Would you feel better about this article if it included a list of Morrison's technical publications, such as "Noncanonical Hamiltonian Density Formulation of Hydrodynamics and Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics" (1980), "Hamiltonian description of the ideal fluid" (1998), and "Generalized Poisson Brackets and Nonlinear Liapunov Stability - Application to Reduced MHD" (1984)? (As for notability, I figure that if Wikipedia has articles for freshman basketball players at the University of Texas and people from small towns in Texas who had brief careers in minor professional wrestling leagues, it can also have articles for respected senior physicists on the U of Texas faculty.)--orlady 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Judd Bagley[edit]

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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karabad[edit]

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

hoax RepriseRubric 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That would appear to be a different Karabad. The maps linked to in the article, when zoomed out, indicate a village in western Iran. The Indian Karabad appears to be a cave complex in Madhya Pradesh, which is central India. Thomjakobsen 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It doesn't need a notability tag. According to WP:OUTCOMES, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size". Zagalejo 22:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was apparent hoax - delete DS 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhysicsCorp[edit]

Hoax. There are zero Google hits for PhysicsCorp outside of Wikipedia and the supposed company's website. Their own website contradicts the history of the company as discussed in this article. Corvus cornix 16:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doing a little Googling, for the phone number in particular, led me to the residential address of the "headquarters" in the name of... Keshav Bhattarai, who just happens to have a Wikipedia page as of several days ago. He's a real professor, but honestly... this is inappropriate behavior for someone of that standing. I guess I'm open to other possibilities though, maybe it's a child or relative of his doing this? Leebo T/C 17:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Keshav Bhattarai should probably be deleted as well. No claims to notability except for being the president of this "company". DCEdwards1966 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now nominated Keshav Bhattarai for deletion. Corvus cornix 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Randolph[edit]

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

No claims of notability and no claims that the podcast he hosts is notable (I have some severe doubts about the Revision3 article and all of the blue links there and the templates at Systm, but that's for a later discussion which I am trying to get input on on the Village Pump but have received none so far). My db tag was removed as inappropriate, although I strongly disagree, but here we are. Corvus cornix 15:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 02:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with unspecified rules[edit]

List of games with unspecified rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Untidy load of boring, non-notable, unsourced cr*p. It doesn't need to be here. Rambutan (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron-Robert Zieler[edit]

Ron-Robert Zieler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject does not meet the notability criteria laid down in WP:BIO, i.e. he has not played in a fully professional league or competition. PeeJay 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nomintating the following pages for the same reason:

Sam Hewson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Febian Brandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corry Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magnus Wolff Eikrem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Don't worry about it, I've saved all of the articles in TXT documents on my computer for when any of them make an appearance in the first team. - PeeJay 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, Peejay! --Malcolmxl5 22:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Zieler was given a squad number last season, he has not been given one yet this year, and he hasn't made a first team appearance either. Eikrem is barely notable for the circumstances of his transfer to United, but he has done very little since, apart from playing in a pre-season friendly this year. - PeeJay 08:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a player hasn't done anything notable this season (it's only been less than a month - Mark Randall does not have a squad number yet either... nor does Fran Merida...) doesn't mean he is completely not notable. It is quite possible to find verifiable sources about Zieler - for example this article at ARD's website. ugen64 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Acalamari 22:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Crush Crew[edit]

Fresh Crush Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Old school hip-hop crew that doesn't even attempt to meet WP:BAND. Nothing charted, no tours, no record deal. -- Ben 15:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nominator has good reasoning and there seems to be consensus here with the people involved. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Verstraeten[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Lack of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Sources provided generally fail WP:BLP and mention the subject only tangentially or trivially. Any useable material can be merged into articles on vaccine controversy, thimerosal controversy, causes of autism, etc. Article is clearly a WP:COATRACK to present alternative hypotheses on cause of autism, and violates WP:BLP in its current sourcing and state. This in and of itself could be corrected by editing, but there are not sufficient reliable, BLP-appropriate sources to write an encyclopedic article, hence nomination for deletion. MastCell Talk 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River City Theatre Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:
River City Theatre Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article patently fails the requirements of WP:N, with not a single reliable independent source to confirm even local notability. Recreated after it was deleted via PROD, the last AFD resulted in no consensus. I see no reason for this, as it is abundantly clear that the article has not, and cannot, be verified. There is no point in cleaning up an article that fails notability guidelines and lacks sources, as any attempt to verify facts will obviously fall short if no sources exist. Without sources, this article is simply free advertising. VanTucky (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, no consensus on the renaming issue so I will leave it named as-is and that issue can be addressed in another manner (WP:BOLD and/or WP:RM). —Wknight94 (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Martyrs" of the Spanish Civil War[edit]

"Martyrs" of the Spanish Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've started trying to edit this but this strikes me as having no value except as a blatant POV fork. A merger with Spanish Civil War has previously been suggested, but the discussion has since become fairly stale, and I think simple deletion is actually more appropriate in this case Nwe 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the azcentral.com story, and the secular examples a mere reports on a controversial decision by the Catholic Church to beatify clergy killed during the war.Nwe 12:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Bortolucci[edit]

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

Minor actor, essentially sourceless bio (one of them doesn't two of them don't even mention him). No sign of any significant roles, fame, or real-world impact. PROD tag added, but reverted without comment by User:Eagletrust -- his or her first and so far only edit. Calton | Talk 14:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC

  • Comment - The emphasis was on 'high number': I counted almost 10 SPA, many of them adding impressive detail for an allegedly secretive person and none a reliable source. Since we also have a policy regarding living persons and IMDB doesn't count as source there (only for the credits), I've trimmed the article accordingly. --Tikiwont 17:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDB Has him appearing in numerous commercial endorsements, including a superbowl commercial with Muhammad Ali

WP:BIO section on actors. It seems he defiantly meets that criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35mm (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither imdb nor the subject's personal website is a reliable source. Corvus cornix 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems not even not the subject's personal site, but a highjacked one, mentioned above and implicitly also in the article before I removed it. And 35mm seems to be aware of this problem [20]. --Tikiwont 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most defiantly a highjacked site amongst many. Evidentially he is famous enough to have psycho-stalking fans. Never the less the bogus site directly shows notability, in his part by providing various images of him at different events. The disclaimer is a dead give away that there is no affiliation. Leave the poor guy alone people, its evident he has enough cyber problems already. Peace Love Happiness will make you a success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funonline (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because there are people like you trying to discredit him for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.247.214 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 04:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and Voodoo[edit]

Homosexuality and Voodoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and has been so for 2 years. Nothing of value in this article cannot be covered in Homosexuality and Christianity. The only source given is a personal website on AOL. No assertion that this is a notable issue other than what is already found in Homosexuality and Christianity. So, delete per WP:V and to lesser extend WP:N. MartinDK 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Nom withdrawn. Trolling wins. Bye MartinDK 09:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research. Unverfied. No assertion of notability through reliable sources. On top of all that, its probably nonsense--Cailil talk 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent changes I'm sriking my comment supporting deletion. I'm still not sure of the subject's notability but for now I am neutral as regards its deletion. Considering that the sources and notability are thin on the ground, this subject might be better served if the page was merged to Homosexuality Religion and homosexuality--Cailil talk 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we have to merge it (I have asked to keep it below) might I suggest we merge with Religion and homosexuality instead? Fosnez 00:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense - I've changed my position above--Cailil talk 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has a history of edits whose contents or relevance are disputed by the subject. The subject considers the article to be a violation of his privacy, asserting that he is a private, not a public person. Past actions by the subject and others largely outside his control have served to escalate the dispute. Accuracy is not really the issue, he hates the fact that the article exists and the insertion of some facts, and the editing of the article by some individuals he considers "stalkers", cause him quite disproportionate distress. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 1[edit]

  • Actually, I feel that I did ("Having an article doesn't make Wikipedia an inherently better encyclopedia"). The article is about a marginally notable producer who perhaps meets the letter of a relevant guideline, but other than that isn't overly important to have an article about. It isn't a question of whether or not Mr. Murphy likes having an article about himself here or content/editing issues. It is a fundamental "is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia for having this article here", and I happen to think the answer is no.--Isotope23 talk 16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— PrivacySock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SirFozzie 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Of course this is my first edit with this account so far. I'm an active user posting from an alternate account for privacy reasons. PrivacySock 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have to comment about the repeated placement of a template that seeks to tag this account as being a single purpose account. That's certainly not correct, I'm only using this account to provide an additional degree of anonymity, it was not created just to take part in this discussion. Algie The Pig 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbara Schwarz is probably the best sourced article I've ever seen on someone who really doesn't matter. Personally I don't see much of a reason for that article either.--Isotope23 talk 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That we don't publish malicious lies about someone - even temporarily - is very basic journalistic ethics.Proabivouac 19:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well in that case, we need to delete every biography on Wikipedia, and every reference in non-biographies to any living people, because somebody has or will make a nasty edit to every one of them at some point in time. We can rename it DeadPeoplepedia. (btw, this isn't a journalism organ, and we are not journalists, nor are we practicing journalism here.) - Crockspot 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternately, we could change our system. Even semiprotecting all BLP' would prevent edits of this nature:[22] That's over 24 hours that information remained. The only way in which this could not have damaged Mr. Murphy's reputation is if no one actually read the article in that period. Have we learned nothing from the Seigenthaler controversy? There's a real world going on all around us, in which people read Wikipedia to learn things. They don't wait until vandalism is fixed. If they read falsehoods, it's we who have misinformed them (itself unethical,) and in these cases also damaged the subjects of our articles.Proabivouac 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagged revisions would also be fairly effective at preventing the real world from reading vandalized articles. I'd definitely prefer that solution than outright deletion of oft-vandalized bios. Chaz Beckett 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting this article will not change anything here - if you want to change the system there are many discussions about how to move forward. violet/riga (t) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will solve the problem for one living person who's requesting that we solve it.Proabivouac 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except the living person in this case IS the problem. SirFozzie 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did he write this? No, that would have been us. That we allowed User:ColScott to harass editors here is actually part of the same problem: we've no method, or worse, we've not the will, to keep attacks on living people, whether bio subjects, editors, or both, off of Wikipedia.Proabivouac 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going to disengage, since I won't convince you, and you won't convince me, but seriously. It was even agreed that the subject's wishes would be a factor in the discussion in the case of semi-notable folks during the later Daniel Brandt AfD's. This is nothing of the like. The Notability bar has been well surpassed. What's next? Because Don Murphy doesn't like the way he was portrayed in the book about him, he will get the right to pull all copies of the book? Is the system perfect? No. Should we pull any BLP article because idiots, vandals and morons have or even MIGHT screw things up? No. Fix the underlying cause of the issue. And the fix is not giving notable folks veto power over having anything on them. SirFozzie 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And we still havent deleted the thread. So much for oversight. Murphy has complained that his professional reputation has been affected by vandals on wikipedia. Is this in any way acceptable. This kind of stuff has the potential to turn our site into being perceived as a trolling site as to effect somebody's business in such a way and then do nothing to remedy it is simply not acceptable. I am pleased to see that after I was the only delete on the first nomination the community is at least tackling the issue with more maturity now, SqueakBox 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) We don't ever remove an article because it's vandalism target, we deal robustly with trolling, and it's hopefully going to be something we can much more easily control with flagged revisions, tools like Virgil's Wikiscanner and more robust open proxy scanners, so by Christmas, finding and blocking vandals and trolls before their edits are seen by the wider populace is should be a matter of routine. Algie The Pig 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Teenage stalker"? You mean the administrator who was enforcing Wikipedia policy? Corvus cornix 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, Mr Murphy was referring to User:Saturday, who is not an administrator. DS 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that is exactly correct. User:Saturday. I am not casting doubt and malice at any Wikipedia administrator. I wont post Saturdays real name even though I know it. I cant post a link to the thread WR with all the details because its banned. •smedleyΔbutler• 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies. I thought you were talking about User:H who left Wikipedia because some of Mr. Murphy's fans were making threats to himself and his family in real life. Corvus cornix 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
further comment I'm shocked at what I'm reading, but won't endanger myself lol seeing as someone has no qualms about attacking children verbally, and their privacy. Anyway, the latest version by 'Squeakbox' has nothing objectionable in it. It's not illegal to discuss someone or have an article about someone, and I don't see how Mr.Murphy can ever win anything claiming otherwise. As long as we do our best within reason to remove any vandalism of it in future, wikipedia is not liable for anything surely?Merkinsmum 01:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only "vandalism" according to our house terminology. If someone hacks into a site, that's vandalism. Editing the article is exactly what we invite people to do; see the third button from the left. We don't ask if their intent is malicious, but assume good faith and hand them the tools. It's impossible to characterize that as "doing our best" to prevent anything.Proabivouac 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi just to say that I wasn't referring to any recent edits, just that on other sites the subject was saying stuff he considers to be nasty had been added in the article's past. I know the recent edits are more in good faith and anyone can edit. However in the famous words of an essay, most vandals are friends of gays lol and I think one edited this article in the past, such an edit was clearly vandalism as I believe it was unfactual, not that I know anything about the subject of this article.Merkinsmum 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that is clearly not policy and would meet stiff opposition where anyone to attempt to change policy to make it so, SqueakBox 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if this issue is that serious in legal terms it seems higher powers should be dealing with this directly--the whole thing might be beyond the scope of a simple AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 2[edit]

Comment in response - subject doesn't need to have signed anything and given us 'permission', this is just an article which discusses facts in print in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be about all noteable subjects. Subject is not semi-noteable like those who policy has decided can be removed due to their wishes- this is a noteable subject who doesn't fall into that exclusion. There may have been problems in the past but the version by Squeakbox has no problems with it. If this subject has harassed others on wikip and threatened them with 'outing', he should be subject to the same processes as any other user who threatens others in a similar way. If he has threatened or outed others (particularly underage children, which he has admits he has) who have a particular need for privacy and consideration, the boy concerned, or his parents, should report the person revealing the details of children or picking on others to his ISP just as they would do if it had been done by anyone else. I don't know how much luck they would have, but worth a go. This person is in the wrong,not us. As long as we do our best to remove vandalism if it occurs, we are surely not liable. Will we remove anyone's article if they threaten us? Forgive my long reply, but I'm shocked at what's happening.Merkinsmum 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's important to understand that Wikipedia must live according to the rules of the outside world. The outside world is not required to live according to rules of Wikipedia. Randolph Stetson 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any such offensive statements are clearly attributed to those who make them. By removing them from the current version we are doing enough. We need only make a reasonable effort, which we do. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox I'm not sure how your comment is relevant to this AfD (as you essentially admit) which is what we should be focused upon. One of the main points in my comment is that, if we decide to delete this on the basis that it makes the subject angry, we essentially open the door to mass deletions of important articles simply because folks complain about them (particularly powerful people who can easily make themselves heard). You bring up a serious issue which should be discussed elsewhere, but I hope you would agree that my point also relates to a problem that would prevent us from writing an excellent encyclopedia (i.e. anytime someone threatens us, we basically do what they ask us to--journalists and publishers usually avoid being intimidated by threats and I think we should strive for that as well).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think its the fact that Murphy is threatening us but the fact that we (albeit inadvertently) have threatened him by threatening his career and reputation by allowing (again inadvertently) some idiot to vandalise Murphy's article and then failing to revert it which was then (according to Murphy) spotted by people whom he does business with. If we threaten his business by threateneing his reputation we must take steps to remedy that and I believe my comments are relevant here to the extent that if we cant resolve this problem right now we should delete his article till we can and then we could rerstore it or start it anew if notability indicates that would be appropriate, SqueakBox 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then we should delete all biographies of living persons, period, because we can never protect them 100% from vandalism. I would not want to work on such a Wikipedia, but that appears to be the direction things are going. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I dont think we are likely to go that far I think the level of notability should be raised considerably higher, especially relating to people who dont want an article about themselves, and that our level of bn notability should exclude Murphy. We could so easily just have an article on AngryFilms here instead containing exactly the same information. If wikipedia doesnt go far enough in this direction then I am not sure I'll be wanting to work on the project 6 months down the line myself, SqueakBox 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure there is some support for turning Wikipedia into a business directory, but it may not have the same attraction as a project. (It would probably help kick our PageRank back down a bunch of notches, though, once we became just spam.) I don't see how it prevents vandalism or libel by changing the title of articles retaining the "same information", though. Also, Angry Films only exists for part of Murphy's career; what do you propose for the remainder? --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDProductions? Actually we have lots of articles on businesses (eg Microsoft) so changing this article into those of his businesses would not weaken the integrity or quality of our encyclopedia whereas leaving people like Murphy feeling they are being stalked by us is potentially catastrophic for the project, besides we are not as a project more important than these people and their lives and we shouldnt think of ourselves as such (the "what people think doesnt matter as we can write what we want about them" argument). This is supposed to be a noble project, SqueakBox 23:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I eagerly await your merge of Steven Spielberg into Amblin Entertainment. (This is not an idle choice, as Spielberg and Murphy co-produced Transformers, which has earned one third of a $billion. Murphy may say he feels stalked, but I lost my ability to extend him good faith long before he even began to harass User:Saturday. He has inserted bad-faith edits into articles himself and libeled people on talk pages, so he obviously speaks from experience when it comes to the weaknesses of our project. I'm sure he'd like to get a USA Today editorial, too, but then all of his own juvenile behavior would come to light, so it's a Mexican standoff in that regard. And if you think that I've argued "we can write what we want", I have not. I am arguing for sourced articles compliant with our policies on neutrality, which several other editors have said this article is. That is as noble as it can be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A man sees what he wants to see …" And I do not see a striped shirt, so you must not be the Ref. Randolph Stetson 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should the fact that he expressed his wishes via a large, organized campaign to harass Wikipedia editors--and that we are apparently considering capitulating to that--be taken into account, or do we honestly not care about that? Do we have a new WP:N guideline (to be applied only after a subject has complained about an article and harassed our editors) called "not so notable that we will look silly without an article about them" of which I am unaware, or are we just making up new policies on the fly here? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with capitulating, it's whether we should or should not have an article given that the subject does not want one. Would it leave a conspicuous gap in our coverage of the films he's been involved with? Would it look odd not to have an article? Are there good sources to draw on? That kind of thing. We mustn't punish him for not wanting an article. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I think it ignores the points that several keep voters are making. Murphy--by his own admission elsewhere on the web--engaged in an organized campaign to harass editors here and also asked that his article be deleted. Some of the delete voters are suggesting that we should delete this in order to end the harassment, and it seems odd to me that we would not see that as a huge problem and a bad precedent for reasons already described. Whether or not a subject of an article wants the article to exist is something we can and should consider in certain cases, but our policies on notability, verifiability, etc. are simply more fundamental and important since our goal is to write an encyclopedia--an undertaking which is bound to make some people angry along the way. As to sources, gaps etc.--yes, clearly there are a large number of sources about Murphy--including a full-on book--and yes, it would look odd if we did not have an article about him as he is a significant Hollywood producer (it would look even odder if we salted the entry to prevent re-creation, which we would probably have to do). The subject is notable, and thus the rationale for deletion amounts to "this guy does not like it and he is bugging us and the article is not super-duper important." But, and I ask this quite seriously, upon what policy is that based? What policy do we use to decide that it's acceptable to delete the article on this person or any other person because they have not achieved some kind of uber-notability? That is, how do we determine if it would "look odd" or "leave a conspicuous gap in our coverage" if we throw our notability guidelines overboard and essentially just rely on instincts/our level of annoyance at the consequences of the article's existence? Just as disturbing, do the wealthy and well-connected like Murphy get more say over our content simply because they can do a better job of badgering us? The ramifications of deleting this in the fashion being proposed go well beyond the simple fact that the content will be gone. I'm trying not to over-dramatize here, and my apologies for what is obviously a bit of a rant, but I find this all extremely bizarre and, for lack of a better word, "unencyclopedic."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete it, it should be out of respect for the subject, and for no other reason. I have no control over what others think or advocate, but I told Murphy that I would make a sincere attempt to get the article deleted, and I have done that. Some people agree that this is an issue of human decency; others (hopefully with the intention of participating in the effort to keep the article free from crap) are of the view that we should respectfully decline the request and instead give our undertaking, as a project, to do our very best to make the article as good as it can be. Sadly that is probably doomed because (a) we've said that before, or words to that effect anyway, and (b) the article existing at all is his problem. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I watchlisted the article yesterday (and encourage others to do so as well) and will certainly do my part to help keep it free from crap, which is obviously a problem on a huge number of articles here. I still stand by my other comments above which relate to completely different issues than the ones you bring up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3[edit]

  • It's questionable whether what you call a "biography" is even possible for any article due to NPOV and NOR. Why are you so worried about the semantics? It's a collection of neutrally-presented, verifiable and notable information about Don Murphy. You can type all that out each time you mention it if you like. And we already do "maintain "stubs" ... to offer what little information is available regarding a topic", but it isn't clear to me what this has to do with Murphy's article (there's plenty of information available about him). Everyking 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is simply insufficient sources with which to maintain a biography. You haven't looked very far. Murphy's work on Natural Born Killers was extensively documented in a book by his partner and he has been profiled in detail in LA Weekly, as well as many other books, news stories, and magazine articles sufficient to maintain a biography. The question is whether anyone dares edit the article without playing the bootlick. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now, see, when you say that, you are illustrating the very violation of WP:NOR that many good Wikipedians are worried about when Wikipedia strays into the business of publishing first biographies on a subject. If any subject's notability were determined predominantly by the fact that Wikepedia elects to publish an article about it, then Wikipedia is originating the opinion that the subject is notable — and that is something that Wikipedia is specifically forbidden to do, by the spirit of our principles and the letter of our policies both. The overarching policy of WP:NOR expressly trumps the practical guideline of WP:CONSENSUS here. We are not allowed to take an opinion poll among ourselves — or any other population, for that matter — in order to form the synthetic judgement that so-and-so is notable or not, because that would constitute Original Research on our parts. Randolph Stetson 14:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR refers to the content and claims we make, it does not refer to our editorial practice which has always been internally decided upon. The external verification we use to determine if it meets our criteria is our notability criteria, and it is based on reliable sources. This is also not the first biography for Don(Killer Instinct). ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a matter of article content. The article has to contain the statement that the subject is notable, or else the article is supposed to be speedily deleted. And if the article contains a statement to that effect then it has to be WP:VERIFIABLE on the basis of something more than a procedural finding of Wikipedia editors who happen to turn up at a given AfD. The book that that you mention is not a Biography of Don Murphy. It looks more like the Anatomy of a Movie, that is, a documentary. We have ways of distinguishing documentaries of controversies, episodes, events, and incidents from the biographies of the people who are naturally involved in them, and this book does not qualify as a biography. Morever, if Don Murphy were here trying to argue for his notability on the basis of a book written by one of his business partners, you know that it would be disqualified as a vanity publication, or more broadly on conflict of interest grounds. Randolph Stetson 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has to be verifiably notable by our own criteria. We don't need a source that says "Don is famous", we need sources demonstrating he has achieved things that meet our criteria, and by having a major role in several major motion pictures he has, verifiably. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we do, or else we violate WP:NOR. Indeed, it would take a whole lot more than one source saying something to that effect. It would demand a consensus of public opinion, represented by multiple reliable sources, independent of each other, independent of the subject as a source, and independent of Wikipedia as a source of opinion. Randolph Stetson 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We only need a source that says "Don is famous" if we say "Don is famous". We are not, we are claiming he has done things that we consider to establish notability, internally. If we claimed he was famous then yes we need to source that. But if we claim he played a major role in several major motion pictures, then we don't need to source that he is famous, because we are not saying that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to fuss about the word "famous", as opposed to "notable", "notorious", "significant", or whatever. Unless it's a whole lot of other sources besides Wikipedia originating the opinion that someone is notable, then we are doing something wrong. Moreover, unless we are applying the same standards to all comparable subjects then we don't really have any policies, rules, or standards at all. Can anyone really claim that Wikipedia should have full-fledged Non-OR Biographies on everyone who ever "played a major role in several major motion pictures"? The idea is absurd. And the absurdity of it shows anyone who is looking that there is a whole lot of special pleading going on to keep this case, not the fair and unbiased application of a criterion across the board. Randolph Stetson 15:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary: this entire nomination is a special pleading. Murphy meets WP:BIO regardless of what word you choose to use. Please understand that the standard uses the word notability for particular reason: Persons who have been noted in published works with a high standard of credibility. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an uncharitable reading of what I said. I meant that notability is determined by following the WP:N guidelines by us editors, not asking the subject whether they feel or don't feel notable. Reinistalk 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Reinis: calls for deletion based on notability are almost certainly going to fail in this case, and in general, calls for deletion based on subject's personal preference, campaigning, or harassment set a very bad precedent for WP. Further, I think this whole sub-thread is subtly weird. WP has guidelines on notability precisely because we, as editors, are supposed to make a decision as to what is notable. Consider the following:
  1. An article on subject S containing the text "S won a Nobel prize[RS]" is the subject of an AfD.
  2. RS is a reliable source which says subject S won a Nobel prize.
  3. WP:N says Nobel prize winners are notable.
  4. Therefore, S is notable and the article should not be deleted.
Statement 4 is not a violation of WP:NOR nor of WP:SYN. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one point: I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to whether Murphy is a nice man or not from this article and his reaction to it. I'm told that Daniel Brandt is a nice man, but his reaction to the article was out of all proportion (albeit with probably better reason in his case). Don Murphy has some fans who are every bit as mature as you'd expect of fans of the maker of the Transformers movie, and as far as Murphy is concerned he believes (wrongly, in my view) that what he has done is not different from what we do by having this article and allowing the notorious "stalker" User:Saturday to edit it. Me, I think that's horsefeathers, but it's what he thinks, and we can't know what it feels like to stand in his shoes. I don't think he's an abuser of the project, like some people we've come across lately, and I don't think he's evil. Odd, yes, by my understanding, but then I'm rather odd myself. My boss looked at me like a martian when I reacted joyfully to Ricardo Chailly's announcement that the Leipzig Gewandhouse Orchestra were going to give us the Academic Festival Overture as an encore. Takes all sorts. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He presented a desired outcome, but has not really presented an opinion on why it should be deleted. That is why it will not be given much weight. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably academic anyway as there are more than twice as many keep votesd as delete votes and it would take a bold admin to actually delete in the current state and then would just go to DRV anyway, but I do agree that TDC should explain his position, SqueakBox 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 4[edit]

  • "Did we really drop the ball?" (1==2). Yes, we did. Real harm was done. That harm is not reversible by any number of edits after the fact, but compensation can be demanded by those who were harmed.
  • "We need only make a reasonable effort, which we do" (1==2). We can say that until 1 = 2 or the cows come home, whichever comes first, but it will not be us who referees our own play, and the outside world will have its own ways of judging whether we make a "reasonable effort" or not. One of the ways that Society has of judging whether some producer's effort is reasonable or not is by comparing that producer's success at assuring quality and controling harm with the success of other producers in doing the same thing. I hate to tell you, but we are not looking so good there. Randolph Stetson 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're only legally required to remove vandalism as soon as we see it, no more than that can be done on any site. As to it damaging the subject, he hasn't proved that and as far as I know he's just said someone asked him about it, then it was laughed off, it certainly hasn't noticably lost him work as he's just produced transformers. You can try and claim 'libelous' edits on this site, by a child, which was removed, are something wikipedia can be sued for, all you like. They're not, as long as the edits are removed and the user reprimanded (or sources added for the claims, if there's anything to them, which I doubt.) It would be the same as something 'libelous' being written about someone on proboards or other sites. They'd just remove that particular content, end of debacle. It need be, the oversight facility can be used to remove the disputed edits. If nothing remains of the nasty edits, what's the problem? This article is only similar to those on IMDB or any profiles of producers, there's nothing tendentious about it. I could call this what it is, but I won't.Merkinsmum 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a lawyer, so I don't know with any kind of authority what we are legally required to do. From an everyday common sense standpoint, what the Law demands is just a somewhat imperfect barometer of what Ethics demands. So I am really talking about what we are ethically required to do, and that is something that we keep failing to do over over and over. I am talking about what Society expects us to do, now that the GeeWhiz Honeymoon is over, if we want to maintain a good reputation as an Encyclopedia, and not just another fad forum that flies way beneath the search engine radar, where no rational person loses sleep worrying what someone might be saying about you there. I did work for an organization that got hit with a discrimination suit one time, and I learned a lot about the kinds of things that an organization has to do in order to prove that it's making a bona fide effort to act in accord with its letterhead-emblazoned advertisements of its policies. So I do know that most of the defenses I've been reading here are complete no-starters as far as that goes. Randolph Stetson 01:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't give our volunteers any training let alone training in libel law, SqueakBox 01:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read this fine, if somewhat tagged article on "Public figure". Merely speaking in public does not make a person a public figure. And Murphy did not get that Nobel Prize everyone about town keeps buzzing about — he didn't even get nominated — I know, I checked. Randolph Stetson 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And do we really want people rejecting the nobel prize because they dont want to be outed by us? Do we want to be the Outrage! of the encyclopedia world? We deserve beetr and its in our own hands, SqueakBox 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not considering Mr. Murphy a public figure in the strictest legal sense. However, Mr. Murphy has produced for a number of notable projects, including the aforementioned Transformers, and it would not be appropriate to shun his article. I don't know what you mean about this Nobel Prize, anyway -- I never said that the article should be kept because of anything like that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently the subject of the article doesn't like it to be here. The nom in part says this "he hates the fact that the article exists". As for the problems about accuracy it's our job to keep the article free of unsourced, less than fully documented information and especially in line with WP:BLP.--Sandahl 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 5[edit]

"Thank you Guy, but replying through you would tend to indicate legally that I find anything that your cult does okay - and I don't and it isn't. You have all been misled by Porno Jimbo and his dimestore lawyers that, as one crestfallen user writes here "as far as defamation goes the law says we only have to delete it when we see it." But that is simply false on the face of it. He is confusing the DMCA act which refers to copyright. The moment you PUBLISH or allow to be PUBLISHED defamation you are liable. The law is a slam dunk in the UK, which is why you hear about settlements all the time. The author and the publisher ends up paying. The law is less severe in the States, but still very enforceable. In any case, NOT ONE SINGLE VOTER on the page has taken in to account real world experience. Makes me think they are the same losers crawling in the Talkbacks at Ain't It Cool news. Maybe they don't have a real life. Notable does not mean public figure. Wikipedia law is not real world law. If being involved in Transformers means I have to be abused on your site, then where are the other 600 articles for the rest of the crew? Why is it okay to gather information on me and yet some of you flip out when your identities are revealed? Do you really think Jimbo and his foundation will protect you when lawyers come? I don't know Guy, you run with a dangerous crowd." - Don Murphy
  • On Having Long Arms. The Law is just the brass knuckles on the fist of Ethics, and sensible people learn to work things out in the kid gloves stage, if they can find any way at all of doing that. One more time we have turned a neutral-to-positive bystander into a Very Indignant Person, and he's behaving just like everyone I know does when they are Really Pissed Off. Maybe that's just my Bad Company, I don't know. But people who dream that the problem is solved when you stuff a WP:GAG in the mouth of a really pissed off person probably need to start reading past the plot spoilers a few more times. Randolph Stetson 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable Effort. When Society judges whether we are making a "reasonable effort" to assure the quality of our publication and to prevent undeserved harm to persons, it will not accept the excuse that "We are doing the best that we can with the system that we have". It will take a look at other systems that address the same tasks and say "Why can't you do as well as others have done?" Over the centuries, Civilization — that's the thing that defines what it means to be "civil" — has developed ways of dealing with the kinds of problems that we face here, and Civil Society will ask us "Why aren't you using anything like the 'best practices' that are currently known?" Randolph Stetson 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness to wikipedia it is on new ground (callaed teh Internet) and the problem goes far beyond wikipedia alone, eg the privacy concerns re Google as one other example (I am not talking about cookies but people being able to easily find out about others through search), SqueakBox 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that, probably more than you know. Being a Conservative Revolutionary — no wait, it's an odd-numbered day (UTC), so I must be a Revolutionary Conservative today — I would never be content with "best practices" that stifle innovation. Still, it's a simple fact that Society requires would-be innovators to prove that the new rites are really better than the old routines. My main point here is that "reasonable effort" is not an absolute term in practice, but involves a comparison with the qualities of other efforts. Randolph Stetson 02:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special Pleading. Maybe I can explain what I mean by this in terms of a real-life experience. Despite what Don Murphy says, I know that some of us have them now and again. Randolph Stetson 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part 1. The more that Wikipedia comes into the public eye — and isn't that what we've all been working for? — the more it will have to validate its claims in the court of public opinion. One of the most memorable experiences I had with that was when I took a job with an organisation that got sued for job discrimination the very week I started, so I learned a lot about what an organisation has to do in order to convince a judge and jury that it's making a good faith effort to act in compliance with the policies that it so proudly advertises itself as honouring. And when you come right down to it, the very same principles are involved even if you are lucky or smart enough to stay out of courts of law, since the public eye is upon you all the live-long day. Randolph Stetson 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part 2. I'll make one last try at tying up what I was trying to say here, and then I'll make the obligatory penitential pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Fu. Back to the feature. The outfit that I worked for got sued for unfair hiring practices by a job candidate that did not get hired for some position, and the first thing that I remember happening was that everyone in our organisation within a couple of grade levels of the job in question had to submit our CV's to a court-appointed accountancy firm. Why was that? Randolph Stetson 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part 3. Here's the moral of the story. Judging whether a person is qualified for a job and judging whether a person is notable for a body of work are very similar types of judgements. The judge in the discrimination case did not focus on the absolute qualifications of the candidate at all, if indeed such a thing can be defined, because absolute qualifications did not really matter. The judge focused on the comparative qualifications of the candidate relative to all of the people who did get hired at comparable grade levels. When push comes to shove — as it looks more and more inevitable that it will — the only way that Wikipedia can prove that it has meaningful standards at all is to show that its decision-making procedures apply equally to all comers in every given category. If there are a whole lot of producers without Wikipedia articles who are just as qualified for recognition as Don Murphy, then that would constitute prima facie evidence that the editors of Wikipedia have chosen, for whatever reason, to "pick out" or "pick on" Don Murphy for special treatment. Randolph Stetson 03:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't continue — this is not contributing to the discussion. violet/riga (t) 18:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for contributing an object example of WP:GAG to the discussion — lucky for you I'm not the VIP in question — but it's Saturday (Saturday day, not User:Saturday), so I'm in no Rush. Randolph Stetson 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with violetriga that your comment here is not at all constructive. This is not an attempt to "gag" you, merely an observation. It will not be taken seriously as it seems you are trying to make some kind of opaque point. I recommend that you remove it or at the least add nothing further. Just friendly advice, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you both for sharing your opinions but my own opinion is that I am making constructive comments with regard to how Wikipedia can avoid the types of troubles that we have seen in this case. It is precisely because several participants in this discussion have asked me about a couple of the points listed above that I think it's worth a few more words to clarify what "opaqueness" may happen to remain. Randolph Stetson 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to talk about your opinions on such troubles, but in your own userspace or as an essay rather than trying to stuff this page full of your own garrulous text. violet/riga (t) 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garrulous? — Ouch! Fair enough, even if I really have time to expatiate like that only on weekends. But thanks for making your criticism more constructive, as that helps me to make my comments more to the point — and I mean the discursive, non-disruptive kind of point. Sadly, though, I don't have the kind of time that would allow me to particpate in abstract dilatations on policy pages, especially if no one is really going to follow those policies anyway. But I do find that nothing focuses the mind like the type of object example that we are discussing here, in a place where our Brave New Words might actually make a difference to many living persons' real lives. Randolph Stetson 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

§ 6[edit]

  • Comment. It's a funny definition of "perfectly good" that allows for such repeated and spectacular failures. Randolph Stetson 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any vandalism on this article now? No, it's been dealt with. That's a success, not a failure to deal with vandalism, it would be a failure if the alleged vandalism was still here. But it's not.Merkinsmum 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merkinsmum, I know that all human beings have some kind of real world experience, if only they would make a reasonable effort to reflect on it, so let me appeal to those humane resources now. This "Do Overs!" argument has been repeated untold times, both here and elsewhere. But a moment's reflection on our everyday experience, not to mention what little acquaintance we might have watching Judge Judy or old Perry Mason reruns, should tell us that this defence is a complete non-starter in the overwhelming majority of cases where the effects of harmful speech cannot be called back as easily as we "Undo" — or far less easily "Oversight" — a bad to noxious edit. I know that I've had many such rueful and regret-filled experiences and I'm sure that others must've had theirs. To err is human, after all. The question is — What does it take to make it right? And I'm afraid that the answer is slightly harder than "Do Overs!" Randolph Stetson 15:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to what Murphy said it is clearly a spectacular failure, he is saying his reputation has been affected by previous vandalism, how could that not be a spectacular failure by any measurement. That Murphy is unlikely to have a legal case against us is of no importancce, we arte not trolls like the GNAA buut a noble project (in theory) and we need to ensure that people like Don Murphy are not totally pissed off with us because we sullied hi reputation, SqueakBox 17:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the project is international in scope, I believe it falls under the legal jurisdiction of the United States, and the state of Florida. - Crockspot 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be true for the foundation but many editors have no relationship with US law and my point is that the whole internet is on new territory and therefore we cannot think in the old ways as if everyone editing is somehow subject to US law, because we are not, SqueakBox 18:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are holding the individual editor responsible for the libel he inserts, then yes, it would fall under that editor's jurisdiction. But in such a case, the foundation is not liable, the editor is. (I believe the foundation has made past statements that if it came down to legal action against the foundation, they would roll over on any editor who was found to be inserting libel.) - Crockspot 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course my own view isnt relevant in the sense that it is Murphy who will be pursuing legal action if anyone does, not me. I think if Murphy were to opursue legal action against individuals who made good faith edits and the foundation failed to supportt hem that the foundation would be at fault. I get the impression Murphy wants to pursue "any" editor who edits the article, not merely those who have committede obvious libel, SqueakBox 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I was using "you" in a generic sense.) Such a broad based legal attack would be very costly for the plaintiff, and would probably be futile. The costs associated with finding the identity of anyone who added so much as a comma would not be small, and such actions would have to take place in a broad number of venues. You can file a suit against anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the judge will find merit in it. - Crockspot 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it would fall under American law, not where the editor lives. At least in the UK as an example, and I think UK laws are stricter than in the US, it is only libel if the editor knew it to be false and still wrote it, if they were passing it on from somewhere else and believed it's true, it's not. Aside from that, at least one of the first editors to insert the disliked comments, was only 15 at the time, as Murphy himself says. I don't think and editor who was underage at the time would be easily given very grave punishment, or possibly wouldn't even be punishable at all, in law. Which of us hasn't written something silly, especially as a child?Merkinsmum 20:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And extradition laws don't apply to libel so there is no chance of the long arm of the libel law touching, well at least 50% of wikipedians from what I can see. The idea of being extradited because one has edited a wikipedia article in a good faith way is hilarious, SqueakBox 20:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a subject complains about a comment that was in an article at some point, just that comment is barred/dealt with with great circumspection, rather than the whole article. This was the case with Tony Robbins, who it is believed instructed his lawyers to complain about statements that were in the article at one point. Just the one tendentious statement was rewritten/removed, rather than the whole article. That would be proportionate and in line with how we deal with the rest of the articles about notable subjects, surely?Merkinsmum 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article that has been re-written by me would hopefully meet those criteria except that (a) anyone can still insert vandalism and (b) anyone can still disagree with me and edit war to that effect. I think the article needs further trimming (to remove the details of people he collaborates with and to remove outing info from other articles (ie pursuing what links here as I did yesterday somewhat) but if the community must have an article on him (as appears to be the case from this afd) then it should really be salted, ie permanently locked at a suitable version, then he cant really complain, SqueakBox 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree there - this is still a wiki. violet/riga (t) 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Differences in permissions don't make us not a wiki. What they (already) do is violate our motto, "anyone can edit." That's what Murphy is up against: we're insisting on 1) the right of random anonymous people to write whatever they like about Don Murphy 2) our right to publish it before vetting it. I sure wouldn't want anyone publishing my biography under those rules. Would you?Proabivouac 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, SqueakBox 02:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if you feel that way, Proabivouac and SqueakBox, but then you should be over at some other part of the encyclopedia proposing fundamental changes in how this place operates--i.e. proposing that we do not let anyone edit and that we vet every edit before actually publishing it. This would be a fundamentally different place if those were our policies, and of course you're welcome to make suggestions along those lines. I just don't see what the relationship is between your concerns and this AfD, which is proceeding under established Wikipedia norms rather than the norms of some radically different project which to me sounds more like Citizendium. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read your comments I can only assume that you are in favor of radically altering our procedure for creating articles, at least those which deal with living people (which is a hell of a lot--far more than simply "biographical" articles).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if no more than 1 in 10 articles is a bio (I have no idea what the number is) many more than that contain references to living persons and are therefore equally bound by BLP concerns. Furthermore, to Proabivouac, of course not any and every living person will be upset by their bios, but would thousands? Hell yes. And even if most of our BLP articles still existed, to lose a thousand or two thousand articles (and no doubt we would lose the ones on people with money and power like Murphy--a fact which keep voters seem to be studiously ignoring) would fundamentally compromise the quality of this encyclopedia and its encylcopedicnessosityesque. Deleting this article would put us on a very slippery slope as it suggests that we will delete any article about a living person that has been vandalized in a defamatory manner so long as that person tells us they were harmed by that version of the article and therefore want us to delete the whole thing (though not one keep voter has yet explained how deleting this would right the original wrong done to Murphy and there are all kinds of remedies other than "delete the article"). I'm not even saying that folks who agree with that course of action (i.e. deleting a bio if it got screwed up and defamatory and somebody got mad and told us to delete it) are wrong. I'm just saying we would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place (or shut down shop entirely) if that's how we decided to operate whenever a BLP concern came up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm just saying we would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place (or shut down shop entirely) …" (Bigtimepeace). That's the smartest thing anyone has said here in a long while, humbly excepting myself, of course. We would need to fundamentally alter the way in which we run this place, that is, we would need to start running this place the way that responsible publishers of reference materials do. Randolph Stetson 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, I strongly urge to the people who are arguing for keeping below that they add to the article the appropriate citations and explanations of how this event changed laws. JoshuaZ 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joseph Wallace[edit]

Since Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a newspaper, and since the amount of murders per year in the USA alone ranks in the 10,000s, I do not believe Wikipedia should have an article on every single murder. Fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) isn't. >Radiant< 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You don't think four years of news coverage makes a murder notable? --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There are thousands of murders a year. Corvus cornix 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, then, what your standard for keeping an article on a murder would be. Don't run in circles, please. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a particular standard, I would have to judge each article individually. Corvus cornix 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to a non-in universe article being written. Arguing for keeping an article on a "procedural fault" in the nomination is not usually a very productive avenue of argument; especially when the "procedural fault" amounts to your personal interpretation of what a game guide is, or is not. --Haemo 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paptimus Scirocco[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Captain panda 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sounds like it (Speedy criteria are at WP:CSD) - especially A1: definitely no context provided (It does sound like a Gundam thing). It doesn't even start off with a complete sentence. ALTON .ıl 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, there's an article for Adenaur Paraya, but he was only in one movie. Paptimus appeared in more than one episode of Zeta Gundam. His final confrontation with Kamille Bidan was very epic to say the least. Even Paptimus ultimately died, he delivered a crippling blow that fired Kamille's brain. So yes, this article should be kept. It just needs to be fixed. Shaneymike 13:46, 6 September 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 ♫ 13:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of articles on Wikipedia dealing with anime characters. Obviously, this one needs a little work, but I see no reason for its deletion. And as I said, this character is pretty important considering his final confrontation with Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason they called it a game guide was because whoever started it did a very poor job. I just added that opening paragraph describing him as a fictional character in Zeta Gundam today. Shaneymike 16:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WaltonOne 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Duttons[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Duttons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion id s a failure to meet WP:BIO. Incidentally, this particular article had a prior AfD in June, which closed as no consensus. Xoloz 05:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

 Uh, look at the producer for Mission Impossible 2, it's gasp, Tom Cruise. Do you know what "producer" means?

138.210.196.190 16:33, 10 September 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 ♫ 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


KEEP - Good Lord. They have been a headlining act in Branson for years. Have had their own PBS special. Covered in hundreds of magazine and newspapers. 138.210.196.190 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete lack of independent sources indicating notability, despite a DRV and a two-week AfD to provide these. Fram 08:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe (performers)[edit]

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

This is one in a series of articles speedy deleted as CSD A7, regarding an entrant in the TV show America's Got Talent. DRV overturned these deletions, finding an appearance on the show constituted an assertion of notability. I considered a group listing for all of these, but decided that each entrant might have a different degree of press coverage, and have so listed separately. The argument for deletion is a failure to meet WP:BIO. Xoloz 05:10, 27 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 ♫ 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have closed this as "delete" rather than "merge/redirect" because there is no evidence that the term is actually in wide use in the BDSM community, and proponents of the article have had two weeks to come up with sources. Retaining it as a redirect would be misleading and violate WP:V. --MCB 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supplicant (BDSM)[edit]

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

Not notable, no references Hornet35 05:37, 27 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 ♫ 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on the Gulen Movement[edit]

International Conference on the Gulen Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No independent sources, no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. The world is full of conferences, they run at the rates of hundreds a week in most cities. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, the notability as an academic conference seems fairly simple to establish, as Eileen Barker and Tim Winter are notable scholars. The question seems to be which academic conferences are notable? It is rare for academic conferences to get coverage outside of their specialised areas. Does this mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover them? Carcharoth 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially all the individual conferences lsted in the category are political conferences of one sort or another, and of course the likelihood of notability is very different--because they are intended to have a major political impact. The Wanseee conference is an example of this--very few conferences of any sort except the major peace conferences have had that kind of effect on the world.
Series of conferences are another matter entirely--all of the academic ones you mention above are in fact conference series, with a great many sessions over a long period of years, and their collected proceedings over that period are major information resources. We need articles on more of the major ones. I think the category needs some sorting out. 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by JzG as patent nonsense (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 15:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3oclockfuntime[edit]

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

Very little substance, seems to be neologism. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Rai[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant. Article seems self-promotional in nature, and it's all unsourced. It looks like a previous editor managed to source evidence of his existence, but nothing for all the bio details, nor notability. Thomjakobsen 13:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted by JzG (A7, no assertion of notability). Non-admin closure. Hut 8.5 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm (Georgia Tech)[edit]

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

I can't see how this could possibly be notable or vaible as it's own article. Possibly merge or redirect to the Georgia Tech page itself, though not as it's own atricle. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Mike Rosoft. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singat[edit]

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

Very little context, seems to be only a definition of a foreign word. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 ACC Baseball Tournament[edit]

2009 ACC Baseball Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wizardman 12:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 1redrun Talk 14:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by JzG (A7, no assertion of notability). Non-admin closure. Hut 8.5 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm (Georgia Tech)[edit]

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

I can't see how this could possibly be notable or vaible as it's own article. Possibly merge or redirect to the Georgia Tech page itself, though not as it's own atricle. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Squitti[edit]

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

The subject of the article is a published medical researcher. However, she does not seem to have been the subject of significant third-party coverage from published reliable sources, and therefore does not seem to pass the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Karada 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Mall[edit]

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

Non-notable, tiny 70s mall. From the article text, it sounds like it's pretty run-down and struggling financially. Only source is the promotional site run by its current owner/developer. Thomjakobsen 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete As a resident of Laurel, MD, I have followed the saga of the mall. It is slated for major renovations and the centerpiece of the downtown area, which will also include restaurants and residential areas. The opinion of the original petitioner is inaccurate. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to the masses, not censor it.--Mrferrante 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment But that doesn't establish notability: you'd expect the WP to include coverage on a major local redevelopment, so by that argument all malls are notable as we could source articles announcing their construction. From WP:OUTCOMES: While the notability of large malls is in dispute, strip malls and individual shops are not generally notable. By the article's own admission, this is not a large mall, and its lack of notability among local shoppers seems to be what has triggered its planned redevelopment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomjakobsen (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Washington Post article about it does establish notability. Citing the trend described in the non-binding WP:OUTCOMES does not negate a topic that passes the core WP:NOTABILITY guideline whereas if something is the subject of secondary reliable sources, notability is established (in this case, the source is very reliable). The deletion of non-major malls in WP:OUTCOMES applies to those malls that have no reliable sources written about them. --Oakshade 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not questioning the reliability of the WP, but it's the local newspaper for this mall. I would imagine that every mall in the world generates some local press coverage when it's built or pulled down, so wouldn't this mean that all malls are notable? Or only malls that happen to be in the locality of a big-name newspaper? Thomjakobsen 22:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Local" newspapers are reliable sources. Besides, the Washington Post's market covers a vast area; not only Washingdon, DC, but the large heavily populated Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area. Even in Baltimore, it has a high subscription rate. Not every mall in a given region is covered by their respective newspaper(s), but this one was. There's no escaping the fact that this passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I'm guessing that every mall does generate coverage in the local press, especially at the start and end of their existence. Given enough time, we could track down such articles for every single mall that's been deleted as "non-notable". It seems arbitrary to give this non-notable mall a free pass because its local press happens to be a respected publication with an online archive. Thomjakobsen 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the most ass-backward thing I've heard all week, dude. Burntsauce 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomjakobsen, every mall doesn't have their local (major) newspaper writing about it. You're still avoiding the fact that it passes WP:NOTABILITY as it's the primary subject of secondary reliable sources like the Washington Post and the Associated Press. WP:NOTABILITY doesn't discriminate against a "reliable source" because it's "local" to the topic. --Oakshade 23:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's where we disagree, then. My hunch is that every mall does get local coverage for building/demolition/huge revamp events, and that the WP article is of that nature (it's in there for local interest, rather than the big stories on which the WP's reputation is built. the NY Times wouldn't cover this mall's story, for example). WP:N mentions that depth and nature of coverage of sources needs to be considered, and I think that an article about a local mall getting largely pulled down and replaced isn't the kind of article that establishes notability, otherwise virtually all malls would be notable. It's a subjective judgment; reading the main article here screams "non-notable" to me, which is why I'm unconvinced by the WP source. Thomjakobsen 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Washington Post article is three pages [25], very in depth and the nature of the coverage is exactly about the mall. Not making this up, but I don't think I've ever seen such in depth coverage in a single article about a mall before (that actually screams notability). Any way you look at it, it passes the letter and spirit of WP:NOTABILITY. I hate to say this, but your arguments for deleting this article are looking more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than being based on our actual guidelines. --Oakshade 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Renovations include expansion. Read the External Links and you will see that. No, it is not a HUGE mall. But it is not tiny either. The mall flourished through the 80's and early 90's. Nowhere in the article does it say "lack of notability among local shoppers." The mall was in decline because of mismanagement. Local papers have been covering this for years. Back your argument up with factual information, not words like "seem" which are opinion based. As for it's notability, repeated newspaper articles in the Washington,DC area and Baltimore papers over a number of years is noteable enough for this entry to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrferrante (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment References in the local press do not establish notability. By "notability" we mean whether it is sufficiently worthy of notice to justify its own encylopedia article. There are thousands of malls, and only a fraction of those count as notable. This one, despite references in the local press - which probably applies to every single mall in the world - doesn't seem to be noteworthy compared to all the other small malls out there. The Washington Post article seems to support this: The halls of Laurel Mall are lined with vacant storefronts. Some are empty shells; others are masked by new drywall and paint. Even the food court was deserted on a recent afternoon. And the enormous parking garage that sits on Route 1 and is supposed to serve as the mall's grand entrance is almost never full, a testament to decades of neglect and the fickleness of retailers. Thomas P. Falatko looked at the property and asked the tough question: Should Laurel Mall even exist? Another of the linked articles, on the proposed name change, talks of the "stigma" associated locally to the name "Laurel Mall". If "the notability of large malls is in dispute" - presumably thriving, well-maintained, profitable ones - what claim for notability does this one have? Perhaps the new "Laurel Commons" will be notable in the future, but that isn't scheduled for completion until late 2009. Thomjakobsen 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local press articles do establish notability as they are independent secondary reliable sources, as stipulated in WP:N... A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'... The Washington Post and the Associated Press are major national news organizations anyway. Even if the Washington post calls it a "small mall", it's still notable by our guidelines as a major secondary source has written about it, critically or not.--Oakshade 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B1FF[edit]

B1FF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears this editor has already been on one deletion spree (although perhaps that one was justified) regarding non-notable pornographic actresses/actors. While I might agree that every single porn actor (like regular actors) does not require a page, these Usenet articles are not indiscriminate lists of users or fanpages/advertising for pornstars. It was even mentioned in some of those AfDs, despite the fact that they went through, that this user appeared to be trying to make a point or something. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source in the article, and it is notable. Your blanket minor-flagged boilerplate responses to several peoples' votes are disruptive and rather disingenuous. Tarc 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL. The Jargon File isn't reliable. Epbr123 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take your own advice, and yes, it is. The Jargon File has been around for over 30 years, it is not some random newbie fan site. This is the problem that I and others have with your mass nominations, is that you appear to have a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding Usenet and its history. Anyone that knows anything about this area of computing history would not be nominating this, Joel Furr or Serdar Argic for deletions, as they eould be well aware of their respective notability. Tarc 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how old it is, it's still unreliable. Epbr123 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. No other way to put it. Tarc 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in 30 years, Wikipedia will be a reliable source? Epbr123 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apples & Oranges. Tarc 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark V Shaney[edit]

Mark V Shaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard I was asking for was: "has any publication ever written an article about this hoax?" And newspapers were not taking nearly as much notice of Usenet in those days because there wasn't much going on there that was newsworthy or notable. Some newsworthy and notable stuff, but not much in those days. It wasn't the influential medium that it is now, either, and that may lend credence to the assertion that the subject of the article now being discussed is not going to be very notable.OfficeGirl 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should "reported in (general interest) newspapers across America" be a standard for notability? There are a lot of things that are notable within their sphere without being notable enough for general-interest news organizations to cover. A "Turing Test" experiment in Markov chains, foisted on an unsuspecting public, and generating the response it did, is mostly certainly notable... even though nobody at the NYT or USAToday likely ever heard of the concept of Markov chains, let alone this particular example. Jeh 02:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that last part. The "Usenet personality" point is indeed misplaced. Jeh 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sounds like you've got hold of two good sources. If you can get those in to the article and clean it up a bit for clarity so that regular folks can understand what it's all about, you'll convince me to change my vote to keep.OfficeGirl 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OfficeGirl, the Scientific American reference has been in the article since April 2005. —David Eppstein 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between saying that there's an article out there somewhere in Scientific American and telling us what issue and page number that we can look at to verify the information. Also, other than saying that the article discusses Mark V Shaney we are given no report of what this alleged secondary source material actually said about the subject. That doesn't count as being "in" the article in the sense of appropriate editing. If the Scientific American article turns out to be just a passing mention or a small blurb, that would not be what we are needing in the way of reliable sources to prove notability. OfficeGirl 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS We can't justify having an article on a topic just because it was mentioned in Scientific American. There needs to be real coverage or it's not evidence of notability.OfficeGirl 04:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article required more sources, or clarification on sources, or more reliable sources, it should have been tagged {unsourced}, not nominated for deletion. WP:N and WP:RS are two different policies, with two different procedures to address problems. Articles with WP:RS problems are not (necessarily) subject to deletion. --Cheeser1 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No reliable independent sources to support his weak claim to fame, most opposes are procedural only. Fram 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bottomley (Usenet innovator)[edit]

James Bottomley (Usenet innovator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¿Qué? It's been tagged with ((unreferenced)) since July, and there are absolutely zero reliable sources listed. Extremely unclear on why you assert that WP:V is met. Nearly all available sources seem to be usenet posts and mailing list entries. Delete, MrZaiustalk 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One keep !vote is based solely on the notion that the nomination was flawed. That notion is incorrect and the !vote is therefore disregarded. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleusis/Zwitterion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eleusis/Zwitterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Furr[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joel Furr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of music releases featuring a vocoder[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of music releases featuring a vocoder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - deleted based on a prod, restored by an admin. Similar to innumerable "lists of songs by special sounds" that have been deleted, in fact so many such lists that the category holding them was also deleted. This is a directory of loosely associated items. The songs have nothing in common past the use of a particular instrument/vocal effect. The use of a vocoder says nothing about the songs, nothing about the vocoder, nothing about any relationship between the songs (as there is none) and nothing about music in general. Otto4711 12:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Squitti[edit]

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

There seems to be no verifiable information about this person anywhere; only web hits for this link are in Wikpedia and its mirrors, and all of them seem to have been generated by a the same editor that submitted this article. The "Nobility of Italy" book cited does not have a sufficiently specific cite to find it in a library, and the web link is a broken link. Karada 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serdar Argic[edit]

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

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 21:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Conrad[edit]

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

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name)[edit]

Gharlane of Eddore (Pen-name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not at all "silly stuff." Gharlane's knowledge of science fiction was, to coin a phrase, encylopedic, and he never hesitated to share that knowledge with questioners. Jeh 07:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I ignored those commentary which attacked the nominator, and didn't see a satisfactory response to the lack of multiple, independant, reliabe sources argument. Daniel 00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xinoehpoel[edit]

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

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myke Amend[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:V; no sources cited or found, a total of 57 unique GHits for artist name, most of them leading to blogs and other self-published sources, or else places selling prints, etc. ~Matticus TC 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Usenet personalities[edit]

Notable Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and non-notable list. Epbr123 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the world thus knows Uncle A"I" is a computer program with John Baez. Note the AL is really Ai for artivical intelligensia. 216.16.56.201 07:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nether-Realm[edit]

Nether-Realm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax anime series. Various speedy/PROD tags added, with the last PROD tag removed by User:DGG in some sort fit of bureaucratic excess: correct tzag, speedy does not apply to hoaxes, though apparently not concerned enough to bring it here. See also Hellsing Death Nether. Calton | Talk 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zerg[edit]

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

This overlong article about fictional race has no independent references to demonstrate notability per WP:Fiction and as a result reads like a WP:POV fork from the computer game Starcraft, from which it is featured. --Gavin Collins 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: WP:FICTION states that "non-notable information should be deleted only when all other options have been exhausted". All other options have not been exhausted, a full rewrite is underway in sandbox that will address the notability, in-universe style and "game guide"-like information (although I fail to see how it can be "game guide" when it doesn't mention anything about gameplay). WP:RUBBISH states that "just because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia". WP:UGH states "arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopaedic should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects". Right now though, I'm thinking that the final paragraph of WP:RUBBISH may be a good reason for deletion, particularly due to the afore mentioned rewrite: "Sometimes the current article is so poor that deleting the whole article and history, and starting from scratch is the best option." -- Sabre 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RUBBISH "However, because the current article is poor does not necessarily mean that the subject is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia." As with Protoss, the significance of Zerg as a fictional race is debatable. The significance of Zerg in StarCraft gameplay is not. This article is not "History of the Zerg". This article talks about the Zerg as a whole. Refer to the discussion and the conclusion reached in the Protoss AfD; this is no different. taion 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fictional race is non-notable outside of Starcraft and gaming circles. The Protoss AfD ended with no consensus, so there weren't any conclusions reached there. In the end, all that can be attributed to reliable sources is "Zerg = cannon fodder". This is a worth a sentence in StarCraft, not an entire article of plot summaries and cruft. This is not a "surmountable problem". Unreferenced material must be attributable to reliable sources, or it must go. --Phirazo 00:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're aware that StarCraft is televised in Korea, right? The number of people who are actually interested in StarCraft and the various races is quite large. You're making a statement analogous to saying that the Sicilian Defense is not notable outside of chess circles. True, but irrelevant. There should not be an entire article of plot summaries and cruft, you're right; but this is not all there is this topic. Again, note WP:RUBBISH. I'm not arguing that I like how the article stands presently. Your apparent assumption, however, that this article is not missing large chunks on much more notable topics than are presently covered is, well, wrong. taion 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are arguing that this article could be useful as game guide material? The only future I see for this article is a game guide or a plot summary, which is unfixable rubbish. If there are usable Korean sources, show them, or better yet, integrate them in the article. The sources given are insufficient for an encyclopedic article, and this article does not inherit notability from StarCraft. Yes, Korea loves StarCraft, but that isn't an excuse for unverifiable articles. --Phirazo 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on now. Taion's been around for a long time, he knows his way around, there's no reason to assume that he's making such fundamental errors and no way that it helps this discussion. In fact, are you all right over there? You've been testy and snappish, knowing when to take a breather is not one of our strong points on the whole, and those things tend to feed themselves. This is not a ploy to discredit your judgement or play to the admins, that's way too difficult anyway, I'm concerned because an editor blew his top just above and by the time I came to talk to him he'd scrambled his password and logged out.
    Taion is free to hit me with a fish if I'm wrong, but he's definitely not arguing that (fill in later). If you need more sources, note from the link below that a single particular player received multiple articles in major Korean newspapers. Organizing an effort with WikiProject Korea should be more doable when the article is not in immediate danger. --Kizor 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An addendum: I don't know if "chess cruft" is a term in usage on Wikipedia, but Sicilian Defence would certainly qualify. That article is horrible. --Phirazo 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize that there is a distinct risk of these articles devolving to game guide material, which is undesirable. I would optimally like the article to look like something of an equivalent of shortstop or first baseman, which give adequate descriptions of the underlying things without being guides. Perhaps for a closer analogy, the article on the Queen's Gambit gives a capsule description of the opening but also does not serve as a guide. This seems pretty analogous to doing things like covering basics like ultralisk + zergling combos or mutalisk tech without adding irrelevant levels of detail that would turn the article into a guide. The plot summary should be cut down to a paragraph or two at most, with the rest of the article giving an appropriate description of gameplay (but specifically not a guide) and a reference to prominent Zerg players and games. StarCraft is a bit unique in this space, yes, as it's really the only video game that has reached this level of popularity and professional development. However, if you're so unimpressed by Sicilian Defense and similar articles, I suggest putting them up for AfD as well. taion 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Pulver[edit]

David L. Pulver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO for inhouse copywriter for various publishers. Long list of works for gaming instructions is not independent source. Notability to come. --Gavin Collins 08:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've added even more information, linking in other existing Wikipedia articles. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors (true and mentioned in page)
  2. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (I think true in field)
  3. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (true: Transhuman Space by itself would be that.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transhuman Space[edit]

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

This article is for gaming instructions does not demonstrate notability under WP:NOTABILITY. The article content fails WP:POV for lack of references and identifies this as WP:FANCRUFT.--Gavin Collins 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Amir E. Aharoni 10:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet 26[edit]

Alphabet 26 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It is presented as a proposal for an educational reform, but it seems to me that in reality it is little more than a non-notable font design. I found it mentioned on a couple of blogs and that's it. Amir E. Aharoni 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I agree. It's so stupid of me to miss the fact that there's an article about him. I think that i can withdraw this proposal now; what's the best way to do it? --Amir E. Aharoni 09:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an admin will probably come along and see your comment, but informally speaking, I guess you can also close it yourself (at least based on my reading of Wikipedia:Speedy keep). Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page. Cheers, cab 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kushmire[edit]

No references. High on a tree 07:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning event[edit]

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

This idea is a combination of common sense and OR. The improvements made after I PRODed it make it seem worse. I don't think Wikipedia needs a article on this topic in addition to the pages on reason and reasoning. I would be interested to know what other people think, though. Anarchia 07:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find the phrase on the referenced article - am I missing something?Anarchia 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it's in there. Just search the page for "reasoning event". —AldeBaer 01:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I did, I promise! Suspect that capitals and plurals caught me out! This is not an inspiring reference/use of the phrase. I know you did not suggest that it justified an article. I do not think that it should be merged into natural deduction - which is a philosophical term/concept. This reads like a researcher came up with the definition purely for the sake of his research project.Anarchia 01:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the article should be deleted as non-notable and non-verifiable. Interesting though that there is a reference for the term itself and some definition of it at all, although the concept is still non-notable and the reference has nothing to do with any of the content of the Reasoning event article (which reads more like it's cult-related). —AldeBaer 17:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teabag (billiards game)[edit]

Procedural AfD. ((prod)) and ((prod2)) removed without comment. Content is WP:MADEUP  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was huh, wouldja look at that. Good work, people. Keep. DS 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong in popular culture[edit]

An unsourced cluttered and trivial list of items involving King Kong. RobJ1981 06:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How, exactly, does a mention of every reference that reminds an editor of a big monkey on a building meet notability or reliable source standards? --Calton | Talk 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Wikipedia policies are created by humans and not machines, there are no "non-subjective reasons" for deleting any article, so the notion that the lack of a "non-subjective reason" qualifies an article for inclusion would effectively bring AFD to a halt. Your argument does not address the policy arguments advanced by the nomination and in support of the nomination. Otto4711 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 17[edit]

Non-notable band. No sources, feels hoaxy. May be a candidate for a speedy. LaMenta3 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't nonsense as defined by G1 - I removed the tag. Definitely delete, but G1 doesn't quite cover this. Nihiltres(t.l) 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rulers Back[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no sources. Article is just a track listing. LaMenta3 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fanlistings Network[edit]

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

Big claims but zero sources, fails WP:WEB Deiz talk 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lincoln[edit]

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

This person is not notable enough. He is only notable for being Abraham Lincoln's ancestor. Even though Honest Abe was famous, this is not true for his ancestor. CheckeredFlag200 05:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why Hingham, Massachusetts commemorated him was because he was Abe's ancestor, not because he founded the church. There must have been others who had a greater role in founding the church.CheckeredFlag200 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittyloaf[edit]

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

Non-notable 'thing'

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unforgiven (Apocalyptica Single)[edit]

The Unforgiven (Apocalyptica Single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A cover released as a single does not need its own article unless the song itself is somehow notable, which this one does not seem to be. Its presence on the entry for the album is plenty and this article is redundant. LaMenta3 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Spring (90's "soft rock" band)[edit]

Beijing Spring (90's "soft rock" band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure if this is notable, so I'm putting it up for a discussion. Makes possibly spurious claims about being in the top 40. Notable? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 05:35, 30 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, Carlossuarez46 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if the sources (the UK top 100 search engine linked in the article) is to be trusted, this group has had a #43 & a #53 on the UK charts and would pass WP:BAND, information not provided before the majority of the "deletes" were recorded, so relisting. Carlossuarez46 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete both. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lessner, Darling Darling (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Basically just a smalltime filmmaker with a couple of awards under his belt. ghits: [36] NMChico24 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive objects[edit]

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

WP:NOT#IINFO; indiscriminate mix of "things"; a one-off object such as Hubble Telescope can't be compared to a mass produced object like a bottle of beer, or a film production, which can't even be considered an "object". Hubble cost $1,175,000,000 to produce, but Jackson Pollock's painting was sold for $140 million. These are different concepts of "value" which shouldn't be combined like this. Masaruemoto 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive rock bands and musicians[edit]

List of progressive rock bands and musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list adds nothing a category cant Corpx 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Criteria for inclusion in lists

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."

Also:

"Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying

So as I read it, you need both an explicit definition for the list and a reference for each entry. Without those, it's just original research. MarkBul 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, what does this list that the category cannot do? Corpx 02:46, 31 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Carandini[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Matteo Carandini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I would like to renominate this page for deletion because this person has only 30 publications, not very notable, and a definite lightweight in neuroscience. This person definitely does not meet notability per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 publications sure sounds notable. Edward321 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete 30 publications is quite a normal production for a scientist in neuroscience, nothing above average. --Crusio 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed a good solid scientist, like thousands of others.... --Crusio 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That redlink was h-index, presumably? Tizio 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- John Reaves 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami Memorial[edit]

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

Article was created by what appears to be a single-purpose account and is written in a very promotional tone. The same information is repeated on the creator's userpage. The article is strongly POV, is unsourced and it would be very difficult to fix without starting over entirely, which I would not be opposed to if this event is in fact notable. LaMenta3 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As above. A badly written essay. Also, the final paragraph does not even makes sense. It's blaming human greed and abuse of the planet for... an earthquake?! Global warming? Sure. Loss of rain forest? Yup. Death of Dodos? Fo' shizzle. But is our capitalism really the root cause of making plates of the Earth's crust to collide with one another? And someone ought to tell him we are already living in the Third Millenium CE...--Agamemnon2 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair it has been rewritten quite a bit. It's obviously based on that webpage, but it's not a cut and paste now. The problem is in the title perhaps, it's not an actual monument memorial, more a kind of religious service and so perhaps isn't notable because of that. Nick mallory 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and Rename to List of measuring devices. ELIMINATORJR 22:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of -meters[edit]

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

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR; the main problem with this list is the indiscriminate inclusion criterion; grouping words together just because they are "formed from the suffix -meter." These do happen to be instruments, but sharing the same sequence of letters isn't an encyclopedic way of grouping instruments. Masaruemoto 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 13:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keahiwai[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Records for localized label, no evidence of charted songs or much of anything else. Fails WP:BAND. Separate articles about their albums are also up for a group AfD. Realkyhick 03:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirected to dolly zoom, most of the important films (Vertigo, Marnie, Jaws) are already mentioned in the main article, though editors are obviously free to use the history to expand on this. ELIMINATORJR 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that use dolly zoom[edit]

List of films that use dolly zoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO, this is a more common technique than the list implies. The first few films are well-known and notable uses of the zoom, and should be mentioned in the main article, the rest are just there for the sake of adding films. Masaruemoto 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by user:Alkivar Corpx 04:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gay Card[edit]

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

Gay cards are "mythical" according to the article. A possible treatment of a fictional "gay card" would amount to a definition of something like the expression "card-carrying" and would therefore be a dicdef. Suggest delete. Alksub 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Heroes[edit]

Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"It's a work in progress, and I doubt it'll ever be an actual video game." When the article itself reads like an AfD nomination, I don't even think we need wait for winter. Daniel Case 03:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn — Caknuck 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Davis (halfback)[edit]

James Davis (halfback) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non-notable college football player. Very little context, no sources of any kind, reads like it was written by a friend or at least an avid fan. Realkyhick 03:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Article has been massively overhauled. I think the only thing remaining from the original version is the subject's name. Subject is now clearly notable, sources are provided, and there is no point in continuing this procedure. (I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't know about this guy before. Need to watch more ESPN.) Realkyhick 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prettied it up :) Corpx 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bedroom communities[edit]

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

This is a list of commuter towns, of which there are potentially thousands worldwide, so it's WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Close as duplicate nomination. Original is here. Bfigura (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Vocabulary[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chemistry Vocabulary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. Consists of a loosely connected list of chemistry terms that are probably better defined elsewhere on wikipedia. (Basically a bad list that doesn't call itself one). It was prodded, then halfway AfD-d, but the tag was removed by a vandal. Bfigura (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is completed (I am original nom). Sometimes they take more than zero minutes to write...probably best to close this as a dup. DMacks 02:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adams-Ricci Volleyball[edit]

Adams-Ricci Volleyball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, town sports organization. Few G-hits, referenced only to a blog. Alksub 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chungliang Al Huang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chungliang Al Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article clearly fails WP:BIO. Most of the keep arguments in the previous AFD were based on a simple Google test, which is not an acceptable barometer of notability. Though plenty of Google hits may be found, and you can find his books on Amazon, there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources to verify his biography with (no references section has been added between this AFD and the last in May 07). One reliable source (provided in the last AFD) about his performance at an Oregon music festival does not verify that he is notable within the Taijiquan or Taoist communities, which is his field according to the article. If he has not accomplished anything notable other than authoring some equally non-notable books, and no sources can be found to verify his bio, then Wikipedia should not have an article on him. VanTucky (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Vickers 15:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Vocabulary[edit]

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

Rather indiscriminate/open-ended dictionary-esque list that doesn't provide any redeeming benefit for Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Might be a school project? DMacks 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (and redirect to Volvo XC60)CitiCat ♫ 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volvo XC50[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Volvo XC50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Renomination. Dates given for the introduction of this car have passed, and all avaliable sources suggest it has been renamed the XC60. Delete or Redirect. Bduddy 21:56, 27 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Isaacson[edit]

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

The author of one book, just published; I'm not certain whether it is even from a major publisher. Non-notable. Brianyoumans 22:41, 27 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millie and Monkey[edit]

Millie and Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article fails to state why this cartoon strip is notable. Google gives no hits whatsoever for its name. It also gives no hits whatsoever for the magazine it is supposed to be "currently appearing in". I did manage to find the webpage of what looks like its alleged creator, here, and it has an up-to-date CV etc., but there's no mention of the comic nor the magazine. If the cartoon strip exists, along with the magazine, then there appears to be no evidence anyone has seen it apart from its creator. In a nutshell: it's about as non-notable as a cartoon gets, but the speedy deletion guidelines don't cover comics, so that request was knocked back. Should also note that the page has already been speedily deleted once (3 Sep) and has been recreated. Thomjakobsen 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Humpar[edit]

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

Delete nn band, no evidence that it meets WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bärnis[edit]

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

Delete possible hoax - was tagged speedy as a hoax, but hoaxes aren't speediable - I don't have access to the reference cited but nothing much turns up on google, so if real probably fails WP:BAND. I am also nominating the band's members:

Carlossuarez46 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Estonian and have never heard of those persons/bands. Either hoax or non-notable bands. Sander Säde 08:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern group[edit]

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

It's just a term - no reason to suggest why it should merit its own stand-alone article. Expansion of this would probably require synthesis violating WP:NOR. A merger could be appropriate if anyone can suggest a place. See the talk page for a minor critique of this term. There's no southern group article, and the two citations are inadequate for an encyclopedia article addressing the topic at hand.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC) h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:52, 27 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fram 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMIS[edit]

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

Non-notable spamming group. —ptk✰fgs 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied (Keahiwai album)[edit]

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

Delete nn album by barely or non notable group. I am also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Carolina birds[edit]

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

Its meaningless to have a list with only one member (admittedly more could be added, but its had only one member for over 3 months) Davidprior 01:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define native? It's a list of birds seen in South Carolina and it's only just been started really. It can be organised into breeding, migratory, rarities etc but give me a chance here. Ten minutes ago it was a list of one bird - the house sparrow. You're welcome to help organise it but there's nothing about the entries on the list which clash with the title of the article. Nick mallory 04:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By native, birds who inhabit SC, but not as a result of human transplanting? I dont think I'm qualified to define the term any further :/ Corpx 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that would rule out Red Kites in England and Indian Mynahs, Starlings and House Sparrows in Sydney then. This is a discussion about whether or not such a list is valid, which is clearly is, not how that list should be organised. Nick mallory 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly cede to your judgement Corpx 04:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Actually your point is quite valid but like I said that's a question of the list's organisation rather than its overall legitimacy. The Oaklahoma bird list is organised with birds classed as (I) - Introduced: Birds that have been introduced to North America by the actions of man, either directly or indirectly (E) - Extinct (Ex) - Extirpated: A bird that, while it is not extinct, is no longer found in Oklahoma. The only bird marked (Ex) is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker which was, until 2004 presumed to be extinct, but was rediscovered in the wild. However it is not now found in Oklahoma (A) - Accidental: Birds that have been seen only a few times, or only once. (H) - Hypothetical: Birds that have had a credible sighting reported, but have not been documented with a specimen or with a suitable photograph. That sort of organisation can be done here as well as splitting the birds up into families but Rome, or Wikipedia, wasn't built in a day.Nick mallory 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because a category couldn't tell you if the bird was native there, introduced, extinct, extirpated or whatever and the individual bird articles couldn't carry all the information for each state. There are lists of birds for countries and, increasingly, lists for US states. Why not categories for bird lists for countries? It's much more convenient this way for users. Wikipedia is not paper. Nick mallory 07:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think lists are the preferred choice for those reasons and because it sorts the birds by taxonomically and text and pictures can be added. Some times categories are used too, but I am against that because some birds would have 50+ categories attached to them and lists do a much better job because of the given reasons. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics in LaTeX[edit]

Graphics in LaTeX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This content is not encyclopedic; this could (or should) be on the excellent Wikibook. +mt 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California)[edit]

Montgomery High School (Santa Rosa, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Holds a Notability tag since January, and the only notable piece of information is that Tupac Shakur attended it, but that's not even verified. In fact, it also has a two-month-old Verifiability tag. The only source is the schools website. J-stan TalkContribs 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the point bing made there is that a pattern is developing where Elementary and middle schools are being deleted in AfDs, but high schools are being kept, but it doesn't assert that Elementary and middle schools should be deleted, and high schools shouldn't. J-stan TalkContribs 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is about high schools. There was no mention about middle and elementary/primary schools. --Oakshade 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from WP:OUTCOMES#Education: "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted. Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AFD, with high schools being kept.". This doesn't say that High schools should be kept, but that they are being kept. J-stan TalkContribs 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment stands. I'm talking about WP:OUTCOMES as it relates to high schools. Don't know why you're so hung up on this. --Oakshade 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "hung up" on it, I'm just trying to make clear the point. WP:OUTCOMES doesn't specifically state that high schools should be kept, it's just saying that this is a pattern that is developing, it's not policy. You are entitled to your comment, but I'm saying that the point from WP:OUTCOMES isn't to be taken as a guideline or policy, it just states a fact. J-stan TalkContribs 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OUTCOMES is intended to be a summary showing what Wikipedia consensus is on a variety of subjects. It is this broad consensus for retention of high school articles that such articles should be kept, accompanied by the specific claims of notability for this specific school, that constitute an extremely strong case for retention of this article, and of all other high school articles. Alansohn 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't think of that. Thank you! J-stan TalkContribs 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, OUTCOMES doesn't cite specific discussions, so it is not possible to determine whether a) the consensus is that high schools should be kept because they are high schools or b) the consensus has been that specific articles brought before AfD that happen to be about high schools meet general notability criteria. And, of course, it is also impossible to determine whether this consensus is stronger than that for WP:N itself. Jakew 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a high school in itself is an assertion of notability. The Tupac Shakur attendance adds to it. --Oakshade 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is that verifiable? J-stan TalkContribs 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J-Stan, WP:CSD#A7 reads very clearly "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Besides, yes it is verifiable (Shakur biographies, school records, etc.). --Oakshade 16:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities involved in the Kabbalah Centre[edit]

List of celebrities involved in the Kabbalah Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. No clear definition of how "involved in" the Kabbalah Centre a "celebrity" has to be to get added to the list, in David Beckham's case it amounts to being "seen [wearing] red Kabbalah bracelets", so hardly any involvement at all. Apart from that, it's just trivia. Masaruemoto 00:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brauerei Pöllinger[edit]

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

There is no relevance shown in the article, but advertise is. The brewery has only about 50 people who work there. Jón + 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's only other edit was a spam link to the Provincetown article so this may have just been an elaborate bit of spam. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luchima[edit]

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

Delete unless real references are found, consulting google, google scholar and google books there are lots of hits for Luchima - there is a river in Africa and city in Colombia, but only one passing reference to a pre-Columbian princess in google books (Anales de Economía y Estadística - Page 23)- it's in Spanish but the snippet containing the quote "bella y heroica princesa Luchima" is probably understandable by most. But this passing reference to her does not confer notability. Yes there are 3 references cited in the article, but these are general surveys of the Columbian contact - does any one of them mention Luchima? On which page? Or is this article a subtle way to advertise the linked store? Carlossuarez46 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors in Kevin Smith films[edit]

List of actors in Kevin Smith films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

View Askewniverse#Recurring actors deals with these actors in a superior way to this list, and in the correct place (the main article). This list was created after the category was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 3#Category:View Askew cast members, no need for it anymore. Masaruemoto 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! J-stan TalkContribs 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfy and delete. Eluchil404 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914[edit]

List of deaths reported in Who's Who 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was tagged speedy as copyvio, but in the U.S. that which is published in 1914 is apparently public domain. However, is a list like this encyclopedic? We have categories for deaths in any particular year is it really relevant that Who's Who didn't publish the death in 1912 or 1913 until 1914? I think that question answers itself. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns regarding sources stating the subject's notability have not been answered here. CitiCat ♫ 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport (software)[edit]

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

Delete was tagged speedy for copyvio but on discussion page the article's author claims to be the software developer himself. Anyway, no notability shown. Carlossuarez46 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*DELETE No notability asserted. Not verifiable. Not one single solitary reliable source. All original research from the designer of the subject software. Blatant conflict of interest. OfficeGirl 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY Mr. Badger, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your experience participating in the encyclopedic process. One of the biggest problems with the Sport article is that all we have to go on is what you are personally telling us. As the creator of the software there is no way anyone could expect or require you to have a neutral point of view when writing about your subject. But it is absolutely important that all Wikipedia articles are presented neutrally. Also, even though you are undoubtedly an expert on the subject, Wikipedia can't just "take your word for it" on anything that you might be able to inform us about. That doesn't mean that we doubt your knowledge-- it's just the difference between an encyclopedia and a magazine. A magazine can publish Original research and can move very quickly to publish new information. An encyclopedia has to wait until other secondary sources have given the subject some coverage first, and then it reports what happened in the secondary sources.OfficeGirl 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY I have some suggestions for you on your talk page. You might consider userfying this article to work on it some more before publishing it in the main namespace. (to sign type four tilde "~") marks).OfficeGirl 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Misvek. I hope you enjoy participating with us in the encyclopedic process. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this software, but your personal affinity for the subject isn't what we need in the way of reasons to keep this article. However, since you have some knowledge of the subject and you might know where articles about this software have been published, you can be a great help.
Please review the guidelines for reliable sources and get hold of some appropriate articles that show us cold hard proof that this software is well known and well established in the field. That's one of the most important steps to keeping this article from being deleted. And take heart, Mivsek, if the article is deleted you can still research the subject and re-create it later when there is more published work about the subject.
I just checked in our Smalltalk public repository when first version of Sport was published: 20 jan 06. I can provide more info how to prove that by yourself. And Sport was present on ESUG 07 (European Smalltalk Users Group) in at least two talks. See its mention in mine for instance, which is about Swazoo web server, which also use Sport for more than a year: Swazoo. I think that a year and half of existence and usage in projects is already a sign of notability. Also, a grand idea behind Sport is to restart the ANSI standardization process for Smalltalk.Mivsek 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Misvek. I am not an editor of the Sport article, but you can share those resources with Mr. Badger or anyone else who is working on the article, or you can edit it yourself. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia uses its own definition of the word notability that is different from the plain dictionary definition in the regular world outside Wikipedia. A year and a half of existence does not mean that something is truly notable for Wikipedia purposes, and it may be too soon to see whether Sport will have a lasting impact on the software world overall. But sources, sources, sources are key to this process. And the sources need to meet the guidelines in WP:RS. Thanks for starting to do some work on this.OfficeGirl 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the creator of the software is telling us he posted the article in order for more people to learn of its existence, the natural reaction is that this is an attempt at advertising in violation of WP:ADVERT. We are probably going to take a little harder stance on requiring proof that a lot of people already know about this subject. Wikipedia is not the place for new or relatively new ideas and products to be introduced to the world. Not even the greatest new idea in the world. Get us the secondary sources and that will be a really big help. thanks. OfficeGirl 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for joining our discussion. We welcome your input. But the fact that the Sport software is the greatest thing since sliced bread doesn't help us qualify this article for inclusion in Wikipedia. "It is useful" is not a reason we can use to keep an article here. See WP:USEFUL We need sources, sources, sources. See WP:RS. Articles, books, treatises, etc. We have to meet a standard on Wikipedia that is called NOTABILITY. To learn about what notability is for Wikipedia purposes, see WP:N. You can help Mr. Badger work on the article and get it ready for publication at a later date, but it does not meet Wikipedia standards at this time. OfficeGirl 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. It's a copyright violation. I gave Mr. Badger pointers on what he needed to do in order to verify that he is the copyright holder, and he has yet to do so. Regardless of the merits of the subject, until and unless the creator proves that he is the copyright holder, it must be deleted. There is nothing to discuss. Corvus cornix 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the references added adequately establish notability. The article topic does not appear to be discussed in detail in the conference notes; the third reference only mentions Sport briefly in passing as part of a list; and the last reference is obviously not a third-party source. —ptk✰fgs 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, other crap exists. We should delete all of it, rather than letting the encyclopedia disintegrate into a pile of software documentation. The Free and Open Source Software Wiki is probably a more appropriate place for general-interest software documentation. —ptk✰fgs 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a copyvio tag on the article and blanked the page as per instructions at WP:CP, but the edits are all still in the history. Corvus cornix 22:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now you have blanked the page as a copyright infringement despite the fact that I have done what you asked. You are not supporting the creation of great entries in the Wikipedia with this kind of action. Frankly I am very disappointed that a positive action taken to move the technical world forward a bit has been brushed aside without any reasonable discussion - and I don't call the things you have said discussion by any means. How on earth can you expect people to contribute when you treat them in this way? If you had given us just a few days to actually work on the page rather than sucking us into this pseudo legalistic debate you might have a positive addition to Wikipedia - instead you have just wasted our time and your time. Good job there. Bbadger 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Badger, your article is undergoing several very routine processes in Wikipedia. there is nothing personal against you or your work as a software designer. You can have more than just a few days to work on your article if you userfy it. Please check your user talk page. I have given you information on how to userfy there. An article needs to meet Wikipedia's standards before it can be published. Try reviewing Wikipedia:Your first article. Give some thought to this quotation from an old edit by Dpbsmith about going out of the house without one's bathrobe on:
"The other side of that coin is that if people would wait four minutes to write one decent paragraph before creating an article, they wouldn't be so apt to get listed on VfD. Posting something like the first version of this article is like walking out the front door naked, and then complaining that people didn't even give you a chance to get dressed. Maybe the neighbors shouldn't be so quick to call the cops, but if someone doesn't want that hassle it's pretty easy just to throw on a bathrobe first."
I know this process can be frustrating, but the rules and procedures are here for a reason, and they are very important. OfficeGirl 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr. Badger. Well, it looks like you've gotten yourself a baptism by fire learning the way things work in Wikipedia the hard way. It's different than many people expect. Sorry about the culture shock. If I understand well enough what Sport is, I think you can find other Wikipedians to help with your article here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Free_Software#Participants. Take heart. This process really works to make all the articles turn out properly in due time if the subject is qualified. OfficeGirl 10:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Badger has added a GFDL release on the original page, and I have therefore removed the copyvio tag from the article. Since there is now no longer a copyvio issue, I change my participation in this discussion to delete, no notability established. Corvus cornix 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, many thanks to OfficeGirl for directly addressing the copyright issue. Your help was very much appreciated. Next, I have added in references to conferences dating back to 2004 where Sport (not by that name at that time) had it's first public airing. I have re-worded some of the text too. I would appreciate an indication of whether we are heading in the right direction here, and if not then why not. Thanks. Bbadger 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop !voting multiple times. Corvus cornix 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was voting. I guess this is by saying "keep" that I "voted" - is that right? I'm sure you can understand my mistake because I got a message saying that this process was definitely *not* a vote. Now you say it is. Confusing or what? I would appreciate more your view on whether the changes that we are making to the Sport page are trending in the right direction and addressing the issues that you have raised. Thanks. Bbadger 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the current trend is a good one. We still have the author of the software working on an article about his own project and that needs to stop ASAP. —ptk✰fgs 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This process is not a vote, however it is a chance for people to register a (policy-backed) opinion. That should be done once per user. And I concur with Ptkfgs: your continued editing will not help. Especially since the sources added do not seem to address the concerns raised about notability. Also, on an unrelated note, I'd like to register a request for a snowball close to this AfD. --Bfigura (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE REVIEW I have reduced this article to a stub with one valid assertion of notability which can be verified by a reliable source and is properly cited. I have tagged it for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Free_Software and I have posted a note about the article on their TO-DO list. It's not what Mr. Badger envisioned, but it might be worth keeping now. Please let me know what other editors think of these changes. Thanks. OfficeGirl 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a totality of the circumstances, I interpreted the available information in the light that an independent third party which is knowledgeable in the field chose to have the subject of this article featured in its international symposium, analogous to when a third party publication chooses to print a word-for-word interview from a primary subject. The information given does come from the mouth of the primary source, but the independent third party used its judgment to feature that speaker talking about the questions and topics of their choosing and approval, and that's third-party coverage. OfficeGirl 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Carlos said, if the event was notable, maybe, just maybe. However, the even was not a notable event, and not third party enough in my mind, to qualify it as notability creating coverage. A 45 minute speech given among 35 others by the creator of the software does not grant notability. i said 02:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Badger is in fact the founder and leader of a non-profit group of Free Open Source Software developers (OpenSkills) which has been determined to be notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia well before Mr. Badger ever signed on to Wikipedia. The European association brought him from Australia to Switzerland to give his lecture, and he is an annual lecturer with them. Mr. Badger is telling the truth when he says that Sport is well known among SmallTalk users, and it is widely discussed on user forums-- in fact it is mentioned in a ho-hum "everyone knows that software" tone. Those are not sources we can use in a Wikipedia article, but their existence was persuasive to me that the software actually is well-known and has a somewhat wide usage in the field. In addition, this is free software-- not a for profit sales venture, which makes it a lot less like an ad and more like an instance of zealous actions by a confused newbie acting in good faith. Remember WP:BITE. I am inclined to think that a stub is perfectly appropriate in this case.OfficeGirl 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard WP:BITE cited to keep articles which fail our WP:N guidelines. Many people are leaders of something and they produce things: software, widgets, ideas - heck there are over 5,000,000 US patents is each of those inventions that can be verified to the USPTO website notable if a newbie puts up an article? nope. There are 1000s of journals, with 10s or 100s of thousands of articles, is each notable? is the subject of each notable? Is that true if done by a newbie? Is every software that is the subject of a 1/2 hour speech at some non-notable conference notable? Only for newbies? Nowhere has anyone bitten anyone, or acted contrary to good faith. The simple application of WP:N standards to all articles equally leads to the indisputable conclusion that this so far fails WP:N that were this authored by anyone else, no one would really be defending this. Carlossuarez46 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the stub that is in place presently was primarily authored by me, since nothing is left of the article pretty much other than my changes. I have said before and for clarification I will say again, the reason I made reference to "don't bite the newbies" is that I sense a bit of a punitive attitude against Mr. Badger as a person for the mistakes he made (mostly) in good faith, even though those mistakes can be cured. We shouldn't punish the article for the mistakes of a newbie editor, if the article can be salvaged by other editors. I'm not a mind reader, and I am just saying it is possible for such a coloration to influence the votes in part or in full, and that's why I mention "don't bite the newbies." I am not judging your conscience or accusing anyone, just making a general reminder. You are entitled to your views and I respect them. I am convinced that the stub that is here present is now an appropriate expansion of the Wikipedia knowledge base.OfficeGirl 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, I had added referenced to two earlier conferences. One in 2004 and one in 2005 which both had talks about Sport, though the first one did not use that name. Also, again in response to this notability thing, I asked on comp.lang.smalltalk for people to help out with this article but that backfired because the people from comp.lang.smalltalk were deemed to be "meatpuppets". The "meatpuppet" epithet probably also scared off people from editing the article too. The article (as I last edited it) currently:

Is Wikipedia now saying that "notability" is the next big stumbling block now that the copyright thing is out of the way? ... and that, the only real issue is that the article should be edited by more people but that we must just let that kind of happen withot any action on my part?81.86.102.62 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This process reminds me of a line in the film Clockwise in which the character played by John Cleese says, IIRC, "It's not the despair. I can handle the dispair. It's the hope I can't stand.". I feel much like a spectator watching all this happen, but not feeling very sure that I understand any of it. I hope it all works out, and sometimes it looks like it will. But then there is another blow. Unexplained and confusing. Quite an experience. Bbadger 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but could someone please tell me how long this process lasts? I see that a few people have had a nibble at the page now, though nobody has yet re-applied the links to all the conferences that I had, but the threat of deletion is still there. Thank you. Bbadger 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will evaluate the current condition of the article and the arguments given in this discussion which are based on Wikipedia guidelines (not just personal likes and dislikes), and will decide whether a consensus has been reached. If there is determined to be a consensus based on Wikipedia policy, then the administrator will close the debate and report the result. Mr. Badger, even if you don't like the result please remember that you are welcome to remain a part of our community, learn more about Wikipedia guidelines and participate in editing other articles using a neutral point of view and reliable sources.OfficeGirl 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP 3:16. — Caknuck 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling slang[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT#DICT. It's a list of terms, though long, it's more suited for Wikitionary if anything (though some may think it's not period). Also, I don't know of a place to request transwiki'ing, either way, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Kwsn(Ni!) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, that is very true. I've already merged and redirected several stubs into the list, and I just put Turn (professional wrestling) up for AfD with the rationale that it is not notable enough for an article of its own, but could be covered in a few sourced sentences on the list. Nikki311 00:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 13:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOXML Ballot Results[edit]

OOXML Ballot Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 03:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is this an advert, it's a record of votes taken during a standardization process? As to who will care, inclusion is about notability, not whether you or I will care. As long as something is notable & verifiable, it doesn't matter whether you or I like it or not. KTC 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non admin closure). John Vandenberg 07:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uludağ University[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability, but school articles connot be speedily deleted. Arky ¡Hablar! 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Deletion is based on whether the article in concern meets notability criteria or not. If the topic in concern clearly meets notability criteria, then the article should be improved, not deleted. KTC 02:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

And if you're so concerned that it be at least a stub, it is now. KTC 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology, I thought that was an agree on delete. KTC 03:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefsline[edit]

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

It may not meet WP:CORP. It's probably a unverifiable, and maybe not even notable. Best to discuss it here at articles for deletion rather than delete it outright. Notability is weak at best. Lightningjay53 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 last four nominations were also closed as "speedy keep" for lacking a valid deletion rationale, for being disruptive, and for violating WP:POINT. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided by the nominator that the subject wants the article deleted. In addition, the subject's notability (multiple appearances in reality TV shows, numerous awards by magazines) is abundantly clear, and the nature of it does not suggest that the person is trying to avoid public attention which would even raise the suggestion of a courtesy "do no harm" deletion. Non-admin close (though I used to be one, and think this case is clear enough.)Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Conrad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lauren Conrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This should be deleted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination) and the subject wanting her article to disappear, as with Mr. Brandt. Not notable, except within British radio circles (well, for anyone who works at EMAP or GCap Media. Should be deleted. --Lightningjay53 20:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forms in architecture[edit]

A rambling, unreferenced essay that appears to be entirely unrelated to the actual topic. Circeus 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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