< March 21	March 23 >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The duplicate article has already been redirected to the one it is a duplicate of. This doesn't need to be handled via the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Swami[edit]

Article Radha Swami is a copy of an existing article (see Radha Soami) --Singh194 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hulk_Hogan#Personal_life, anything encyclopedic can be merged there (not a lot, I don't think). Black Kite 13:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Bollea[edit]

Hulk Hogan's wife, famous for being married to Hulk Hogan and... and.... and.... er... well, nothing else, actually. A few tabloid stories about the divorce, and that's about it. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a merge and redirect to Hulk Hogan#Personal life be appropriate? -- saberwyn 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Hulk Hogan's page would do. Pinkadelica (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hulk Hogan.
Merge and protect the redirects here and at Linda Marie Hogan and Linda Hogan (TV). Note previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Hogan (TV). Amusing that at one point this short article mentioned "filed for divorce" three times, twice with the wrong date. Gimmetrow 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability at all. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus (non admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JASS[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and could be easily covered in a sentence or two in the WarCraft III article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the article is a list of external links. Agree with nom - although maybe there are two sentences for the Warcraft article. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into MPQ as per that article's AfD
Keep, I don't know how the nominator thinks this article could be covered in a sentence or two. And WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but WP:V is, and this fails that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't your reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup, nomination incomplete. [1] 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right! It isn't clean up, its deletion for articles that do not demonstrate notability. And unless references are added to the article to demonstrate that, it hasn't been demonstrated and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While WarCraft might be notable, its programming language is most likely not. I see no evidence of notability of the code. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A programming language underlying a major commercial product should be seen as presumptively notable; the necessary pro forma sources are presumably rather arcane and the difficulty in specifying them should be taken into account. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unique to that product, the presumption would be erroneous unless independent sources discuss the code. The presumption is a type of crystall balling, which, by the way, is a Wikipedia no-no. B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPQ[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this is an important file format used by notable games created by a notable company. Due to the nature of this topic, the sources are of a different variety, but this does not mean that it is less reliable. Rilak (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's pretty well established with all the references. This amount of work would not have happened for an unimportant format. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references, so you cannot claim its notable unless you can establish its notability through reliable sources. Just because Blizzard and its games are notable doesnt' make this notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references now, not no reference exists in the entire universe. The references just need to be found and other editors need to be notified of the need to find them. Your arguments are invalid. If I went into the physics section, found an obscure (to me as I don't have a degree in physics) article which currently has no references and tagged it for deletion as all I did was perform a one second Google search and found nothing, I am certain that I will be criticised by more knowledgeable experts in that field. And I'm sure that if I had simply asked for references instead of ignorantly tagging the article for deletion, a more positive outcome would have prevailed and the references provided eventually. If the article is deleted, then there will be no chance for improvement. Rilak (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the question, does this have any references in existence? It needs to prove they do exist by adding them to the article. If you could find 3 reliable sources that discuss this, then we would have established notability. Also, if there are no reliable sources, then there is also no chance for improvement. Further, if a physics article was at AFD, I'm sure a few reliable sources could be found as it is a field full of reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Cleanup - sources are scarce and will take time to locate, but it is possible. An article similar to Doom WAD should be possible, drawing on many similar sources to Defense of the Ancients (a recently promoted featured article). Additionally, I would suggest a merge or redirect from JASS, .BLP and MDX (file format) to this file. The balance will be finding information that is notable without descending into guide or fan based material. I'll see what I can do over the next couple of days. Gazimoff (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a file format used in all kinds of games. And WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but WP:V is, and this fails that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section appears to have links to many sources — which would make the topic of MPQ verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even looked at them, they could all be blank, or broken, or just be plot repetitions. You have to actually Prove this article is notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup [2] 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep (NAC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.BLP[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least there's no violation of WP:BLP Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - File format used by a major game. There was a tech spec on the file, but the site is gone. I found a copy on Archive.org here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CyberSkull, no WP:BLP issues to be seen here. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge into appropriate article, as this is an important file format used by popular game(s), created by a very notable company. Rilak (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Unless there are second party source to assert that this is a file type of note it has to go. Being created by a notable company is not a valid criteria for notability. Notablility is rarely inherited. --neonwhite user page talk 04:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not a big fan of technical components of notable things having their own articles. Suppose we gave all components of all turbofan engines articles... User:Krator (t c) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge into an appropriate Blizzard-related article. Considering the MDX article recently created, we could make an all-new article about file extentions used in Blizzard games. FusionMix 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a compromise can be reached through a merge of this article along with others of similar nature as one editor has suggested? (Why didn't I think of that???) Rilak (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion for the other article, which is related to this one, is here. It hasn't been whacked yet. FusionMix 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into MPQ as per that article's AfD
Keep, WP:N is not a policy and this article provides background information on Blizzard game design. --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but WP:V is, and this fails that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This particular version of the article or the topic itself? --Pixelface (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup [3] 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to say I don't see any real evidence of notability here. Terraxos (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WoW (and previously Warcraft 3) has a pretty active modification scene. One of the major ways modders work is by modifying game textures. To the people who support that scene by creating tools (such as my BLPConverter, has 10,000 downloads from it's primary site), this article is incredibly useful. Beyond my word, though, "evidence" might be hard to come by. Blizzard frowns on people modifying their game and thus modding sites try to keep a low profile. Wwdandelion (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete G1 Patent nonsense by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caneball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

was nominated for speedy deletion, tag removed by author. page is total nonsense. ninety:one 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes dumb can be funny. In this case, it's just dumb, and the author has no talent in trying to make people laugh. P.S.-- You missed the obvious joke about caning and one's nuts. Dumbass! Mandsford (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G1 and A1. Additionally, authors are not allowed to remove speedy tags for pages they created. You are allowed to revert their tag removals and post a warning to their user page (Speedies only, not prods) Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 as originally tagged. The CSD tag has been reinserted. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinlone, the traditional sport of Burma, which is sometimes called 'caneball' in English. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no facts or sources at all, tag removed once Thisisborin9^talk/_contribs 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Consensus to delete due to the inability to clearly define the criteria in an objective manner consistently with reliable sources.. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Geordies[edit]

This article has 153 sources, yet I believe it would be a good idea if it were deleted. The reason is quite simple - it is a List article, yet the contents of the list cannot in the main be correctly defined, because the term "Geordie" is extremely disputed, as can be seen from its article. "Geordies" are either people from Newcastle, or from Newcastle and the surrounding area (but which surrounding area?), or people from elsewhere who have lived in Newcastle at some time or another, or people who have lived in this undefined area of the North East for an undefined amount of time, or recently, and somewhat surreally, people who support Newcastle Football Club. Of course, very few editors agree about the exact definition. Therefore, on this sub-article, this has led to a long period of edit-warring, sockpuppetry and vandalism, as can be seen from the article history. This is further confused by the amazingly lazy tendency of the British press to call anyone from anywhere in the North East of England a "Geordie", thus creating completely spurious "reliable sources", such as the ones supporting the inclusion of Heather Mills or Tony Blair. Whilst there are undoubtedly people who do belong on this list, the inclusion of others is incredibly tenuous and in some cases may actually be insulting to those people. I can only see two ways of fixing the problems here - either tightly define the definition of Geordie, or delete the article. Since the former would appear to be impossible, I can see no other option but the latter. Black Kite 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the nomination, a seemingly interesting but disputed, impossible to decide topic, only causing problems on wikipedia. AndreNatas (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I normally don't think it would be appropriate to delete an article based on content dispute, but this is an exception - this is only a gigantic target for sockpuppetry and edit warring between anons/puppets/well-meaning editors. No prejudice against a compromise or re-creation once the definition of Geordie has been established. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Interestingly enough, Mackem (referring to the folks across the other side of the Tyne) has a "List of Mackems"... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Geordie is used in the English language, it can be defined. Disagreements of definition can be sorted out with nuances in the text, etc, etc. If lack of agreement is the justification to delete, shall we nominate Copernicus? Of course not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep - There is no official definition, but this is not a reason to delete the list. Nowadays, it is as much a matter of self-identification than of geography. This applies to all UK regionalisms. The disputes are easily solved by looking at the reverse case, those who wish to remove people from the list should provide a source or direct quote that that person by name is not a Geordie, which will exist if it is being applied offensively. Dubious cases are easily debated in the normal way, case by case, and can even be marked as such, because in the absence of an official definition, it is not for WP to make one up to make life easier and deny there are no notable Geordies at all. On a final note, I strongly believe that most of the disruption is coming from the actions of one user, User:Molag Bal and socks, and cases are pending. Finally, for the per nom voters, I have no clue about Heather Mills, but there are numerous sources for Tony Blair (claiming) to have been a life long Newcastle United fan, and a billion reliable sources assigning the term Geordie to Newcastle Fans. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, are you seriously suggesting that people should only be removed from the list if there are reliable sources showing that this person is NOT a Geordie? That's not how Wikipedia works - you don't have to prove a negative! Many of these entries are sourced from appallingly bad sources - the Heather Mills one is laughable, for instance. (Incidentally, Mills is also in the Mackem article, because she claims to be a Sunderland FC fan - a bit unusual for a Geordie, no? Paul Collingwood is also in both lists - his Mackem entry is sourced from the BBC as well!) Do you see the problem now? Deleting this list is not saying "there are no notable Geordies", it's about removing disruption from the encyclopedia, because the definition is never going to be agreed upon, and therefore nor is the list. Incidentally, claiming someone who supports Newcastle FC is automatically a Geordie is not only plain wrong, but also insulting. Black Kite 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just cutting back in here, I draw your attention to [4] which is a BBC column written by Durham born Collingwood himself where he says he has a Geordie accent. The Mackem source [5] is an interview with a Sunderland born cricketer, where the journalist writes, "and fellow mackem Collingwood....". Now are you seriously going to continue this farce that there isn't a clear obvious choice as the preferred source in that case? As an aside, you will see here [6] that Tony Blair in an interview admits to being a long time Newcastle fan, which equates to Geordie in many sources. Seriously unverifiable and disputed? I realy don't think so, merely a requirement to explain the different uses of the word that as another editor says is a widely used term in the language, so nothing new to Wikipedia, it's standard practice. MickMacNee (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you want it all deleted to remove disruption? That is absolutely ridiculous and against all precedence. And please show me any source where any Newcastle United fan has taken offence at being called a Geordie, this is frankly nonsense. One or two debated entries is not a reason to delete. This Afd is what is offensive. At the end of the day, you are not the spokesperson of any of these people, and you are not in a position to state what they believe. Sir Bobby Robson was born in Durham, are you going to go and add an entry to his article to state he is not a Geordie? Do you not see how all you have done is just plant yourself firmly on one side of two ridiculous POV's and lost all sense of what wikipedia is, NPOV and verifiable. MickMacNee (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point totally. I am not saying that all these entries are not valid or verifiable. Some are - a lot aren't, and there can therefore never be a stable article. Incidentally, the "insulting" part of the "Newcastle fans are Geordies" claim is, of course, not Newcastle fans being insulted, but "real" Geordies being insulted that someone can somehow become a Geordie by buying a replica shirt and a scarf. Oh, and you need to read WP:CIVIL. Black Kite 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that derivation of offence to be extremely contrived. I have never heard of any fan being upset by this, and I would again ask for you to provide a source for this. They presumably must be equally offended by their own current chariman, as he wears the shirt and is from the south. Back on point, stability or not, this is never a reason for deletion, and if it has been, I would ask you to provide an example of such a case where it was. I realy do fail to see how you cannot accept there will be disputed entries and these will be treated the same as any other disputed content on wikipedia, through factual based debate, and not resorting to personal opinon. Frankly, I doubt anyone has even tried that hard to present evidence to debunk the Mills entry, rather all they have done is make general points, from their own POV, without a source. Frankly, the fact that most outsiders refer to north easteners as Geordies does not invalidate anything, it is a proveable fact, and merely adds another detail to the article, and you will find even that outside impression is limited to a definable area, to claim the London press is wrong and you are right when there is no official definition is again, total personal opinion. The main article actually fully points out these differences in perspective, as well as very good sources for self confessed Geordies from Durham etc, so why not do the sensible thing and let readers use their own brains to judge for themselves using good content, the way the rest of wikipedia works, rather than remove all sight of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous articles deleted because the edit-warring wasn't worth the trouble? Plenty of precedent. Daniel Brandt, Brian Peppers, Gay Nigger Association of America (18 AfDs!!), Liancourt Rocks (since re-created), etc. Your last point sums up the main problem - "self-confessed Geordies from Durham" - except that many people (and reliable sources) would claim that someone from Durham can't by definition be a Geordie. Black Kite 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think the disruption here is anywhere near (and I mean not even within 1%) of the level of that rocks article, I followed that for a while, I think you've over-reached here. Frankly, per BLP, if someone self identifies as a Geordie, you cannot deny this claim on any level whatsoever without bringing in another personal opinion and attempting to tell the world what someone else believes about themselves is wrong. Similarly, in the case of Pavel Srnicek, a Cech!, if the vast majority of 'proper' Geordies consensualy identify him as an honourary Geordie, there is not much you can do to dispute that fact. The only people telling you otherwise will again be working from a personal opinon. This is quite obviously not a situation that results in a 'draw' and a constant instability, at best it ends up with two contradictory sources, with quite an easy explanation in footnotes or text. And no, the 'southern press are mad' is not a suitable footnote, that is a personal opinion. This happens all over WP, and is a central policy enshrined as NPOV. I realy can't see how you even come close to justifying deleting the whole article on the back of some minor but controllable sock puppetry between 2 people. MickMacNee (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually justifying deleting the article now - a constant instability is exactly the problem. People can "self-identify" themselves as anything; it does not make them one. Pavel Srnicek is not, has never been and will never be a Geordie - you just nailed that one yourself by using the word "honourary". And the southern press are not "mad" - they're just regularly uninformed and inaccurate. This list is not maintainable - unless you can fix - and gain support on - the actual definition of "Geordie". Black Kite 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Please provide a factual counter to the statement, 'Pavel is regularly termed a Geordie', that is not your personal opinon. Google the phrase 'Pavel is a Geordie', find me a contradictory source to that statement. Just as you assert he is not a Geordie, you will never prove he isn't, but you can prove beyond doubt that he is regularly termed a Geordie, and the reason why - this is the standard of entry of information to wikipedia, not your personal opinion, and not on whether joe bloggs disagrees but can't tell you why. And please provide me with a factual reason why your opinon is more accurate than the regularly "uninformed and innacurate" press. Tell me exactly what are you comparing their accuracy or level of information to, bar your opinon? There is no definition, these facts you assert are nonsense, the only truth here is that there are different interpretations according to different sources, for documentable reasons. This is absolutely 100% not a valid reason to delete this article. Just come to your senses and accept, like 99.999% of all other WP articles, it can be maintained with a NPOV and verifiable sources, and to assert anything else is personal opinion, and in this case highly dependant on where you yourself come from. Are you willing to state this by the way for a full and frank disclosure? MickMacNee (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm not entirely sure why it matters where I'm from (apart from you assuming bad faith), but if you insist I was born in Leeds but have spent most of my life in the West Midlands. The important thing here is accuracy, so can I explain *again* why you're missing the point. Just because you can find a press source that says "Pavel Srnicek is a Geordie" doesn't mean he is - it's not, and never can be, a verifiable fact because it's always someone's opinion. Obviously, if Srnicek had been born in Newcastle, it would be a reasonable assumption; and as such a number of entries on the list are quite reasonable. But the problem arises when you extend the list too far - in fact you are basically extending the list to people who have anything to do with Newcastle. You are never going to be able to say that Tony Blair, for example, is a Geordie with any accuracy. The "source" in the article is a lazy throwaway line in a newspaper column. Google "Tony Blair"+Geordie and you get that column, one other reference and a few blogs ([7]) - and that's it. If Blair was really a Geordie there'd be hundreds of references. Equally, Bruce Welch (born in Bognor Regis) exists in the list purely through the fact that he once played in a band called the "Geordie Boys". This is Geordie-ism by association, and is necessarily POV, and is the main problem with the article. Black Kite 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly dubious reason for deleting the entire article when there are verifiable sources to support any definition of geordie you can find. The only personal opinion here is yours that people cannot understand that given this information. Basically, you are getting wikipedia to define the term, not reflect the term, ultimately an extreme violation of basic principles. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is my last posting on this, because you clearly don't get it - Wikipedia cannot "reflect" a term when the term is not accurately defined, and when people use it so loosely for it to be meaningless. To have a "List of X" article, then yes, we must define exactly what X is, or the article is, and always will be, fundamentally inaccurate. For instance, there is a list of cockneys in that article, because the term is tightly defined. You will not, however, find a List of Brummies or a List of Scousers (which would suffer from the same problem, because you could probably find an inaccurate quote about anyone who comes from anywhere near Liverpool) though you will find a list of people who speak with a scouse accent (because that's verifiable). And WP:V is policy, and that's the difference. Black Kite 11:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have of course verified that every listed cockney in that article was born within the Bow Bells (per my personal opinion)? You will note that not a single entry in that list has a single reference, as opposed to this list. This illustrates what a joke this nomination is.

And this point is outrageous, you are claiming this article does not meet WP:VER, a complete and utter lie. Just because the verification does not meet your personal opinion DOES NOT mean they are not verifiable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Factually inaccurate. A "Geordie" is someone born along the River Tyne, but this lists people from Northumberland and County Durham - up to 100 miles from the river! It even lists Tony Blair, who was born in Scotland (Yes, he did spend some of his childhood in Durham but, even Durham-born people are NOT Geordies)--Seahamlass (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Doc^g 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm trying to think of an American equivalent, a demonym with an undefined geographical scope and at least sometimes negative connotations, and I came up with hillybilly and redneck. We don't have a list of rednecks and we don't have a list of hillbillies for good reason. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no association between the usage of hillbilly and geordie. Think of it in terms of a talk show, you wouldn't get David Letterman introduce a guest as 'the famous Hillbilly/Redneck...'. It just doesn't compare. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have heard of Jeff Foxworthy. I don't hold it against you, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, please stop this AFD disruption by causing arguments with everyone who wishes to delete the article, Black Kite is right the 1) article has ripped with opinions, 2) there are so many different opinions it is impossible to verify, 3) there is no definition of the term so it is impossible to verify, 4) Tony Blair, do you hear him speak in this "accent" on the TV?, 5) some of these people on the list are from the region of Wearside which has its own dialect and nickname Mackem which is sometimes unreconized and marked by libelous ignorant sources as "geordie" when it isn't 5) people from county durham have their own dialect too, Pitmatic, now stop this disruption. AndreNatas (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If you could actualy provide some evidence of a libel case arising from someone being called a Geordie, that would be fantastic. If you could find an example of someone sueing WP per BLP for the same reason, that would be even better. I ask you now for a full and frank disclosure, shall I sue the cricketer Paul Collingwood for having unfortunately been called a mackem by a reporter despite his own words being on record, as per Black Kite? I await your advice. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of similar US lists: List of African Americans, List of Italian Americans, List of German Americans and many more, I dare say. I expect that the exact definitions and borderline cases can be equally contentious. Is Barack Obama an African American when his mother was white and from Kansas? If he was born in Hawaii, why isn't he on the List of Native Hawaiians? The case of Geordies is no different. And the answer is to see what the sources say. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the master list now - Lists of Americans - and so we see that the idea that there are no similar US lists is quite mistaken. It's ok to call George Bush a Texan and/or a WASP but not to call Tony Blair a Geordie when the newspapers regularly do so? Gan hyem!. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point - newspapers don't regularly call Blair a Geordie and nor does anyone else - do a Google search for "Tony Blair"+Geordie and have a look ([8]). Black Kite 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already searched Google News and found plenty of hits. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can hardly find any, even searching the archives ([9]). You would have thought that someone who was British PM for 10 years would generate thousands of hits, but I can find practically none. Most of those 448 hits above are merely stories that have the words "Tony Blair" and "Geordie" in the same story, with no link between them. Black Kite 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Lots of good reasons given above; I'll just add that this is dumb. nb: Letterman would be a Hoosier; do we have a List of Hoosiers? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever created a list of Hoosiers? If so, did it last as long as this list without conflict? I am disgusted that Americans wish to frankly poke their noses in this debate and tell actual residents of the UK what a Geordie is. I would never presume to take the same liberty with their culture. A complete revision of history and fact. I won't insult these yanks by linking the source that has George Bush referring to the Geordie accent, they of course are already fully aware of this fact. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, and no idea. You're making rash assumptions about who editors are and where they're from. Ya, I know what a Hoosier is; so? FYI, bickering with everyone that doesn't see an AfD in the same light as you do is not known to sway the discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept my opinion on an Afd about Hoosiers if I had no clue what a Hoosier was bar the content of the wiki article? Tha fact that David Lettreman is a Hoosier means nothing in this debate, it is irrelevant to the subject, unless you wnant to start creating comparisons where there are none. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- too disruptive to be kept on wikipedia and this isn't anything new as there have been other pages that have been removed as a reason due to disruption and verifiablity see Brian Peppers, Daniel Brandt, libel, MickMacNee is a disruptive user. 86.154.197.75 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)— 86.154.197.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~A highly suspicious post given that this is the 3rd post of this user. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~The closing admin will take that into account. Black Kite 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)~~Struck as a double !vote of User:AndreNatas. Black Kite 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the nomination. This subject is clearly controversial, and so by its very existence edit-warring, disputes and unfriendly relations are resulting. This is by no means a full reason why it should be deleted, and I would not expect anyone to delete an article on this basis. However, this subject is slightly different in two distinct ways. One, is described in the nomination above by Black Kite: there is no definition of who is a Geordie and who isn't, which is encouraging enough to create all these tensions. Two, is the fact that most 'Geordies' (who are by my definition, people originating from Newcastle) are actually listed at List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne, and if they are 'even more' notable, they are at Newcastle upon tyne#Notable people - this pretty much renders the list redundant, and due to all these troubles its causing, its best to delete at this time. Rudget. 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is absolute and total rubbsih. It is not for you do dictate who is a Geordie and who isn't. If you want to do so you are clearly not a wikipedia editor. For the last time, there is no definition, your statement "who are by my definition, people originating from Newcastle" is complete original research. You will find that Sir Bobby Robson, probably the most famous Geordie in the world, is not included in either of the lists you quote. Stop trying to create definitions when they are not reflected IN REAL LIFE. If you do, it is again, frankly original research. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMN this is not a responsible way to act when an article of your creation is put up at AFD. I understand your concerns, but quoting original research and using capital letters is never to going to change anyone's mind, in fact it could compound someone's decision. Let the AFD play out and make any subsequent comments then. Rudget. 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I used OR? Please say so and I will gladly correct myself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dhartung's argument. Daniel Brandt comes to mind, too. Tan | 39 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of this Daniel article, but suffice to say, the term Hillbilly has absolutely nothing to do with Geordie. It is completely different. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have great sympathy with MickMacNee's POV. "Geordie" is regularly misused by those from outside our region. It's not exactly a synonym for "someone from Newcastle"; nor does it refer only to a person who uses Geordie accent and dialect; it's certainly not shorthand for someone from the North-East, or who has a more general NE regional accent. Try calling someone from Durham or Sunderland a Geordie - then step back in a hurry! Having said all that, you then end up with a category which it is possible to define in general terms Geordie but about which it will never be possible to be definitive in every individual case, because it is so much about cultural belonging. The nearest you can get is a List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne and we have one of those. We don't have lists of Mackems, Scousers, Hoosiers and so on for the same reason. The nearest you can get, I think, is to keep the Geordie page and list links to individual Geordies there in a separate subsection. Some will also be on the List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne. No doubt it will run and run. -- Karenjc (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list was spun out of Geordie by me precisely to enable better protection through information, what a joke that has obviously become. There is right now a list of mackems, and above is a contrdictory source for Paul Collingwood. So Afd yes? Along with notable cockneys? It is ridiculous to view this Afd and article as an isolated incidant. I will repeat, in which category will you place Sir Bobby Robson, and on what grounds will you go against 100% public and verifiable opinion that this man is a self confessed Geordie. He has not given you or wikipedia the right to tell him what he is and isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about Cockney so I went and had a look, and we don't have a separate list of Cockneys either. OK so there's a more hard-and-fast rule about what defines a Cockney (Bow Bells), but that makes it easier, not harder, to select candidates for inclusion in a list. (And I bet there are plenty who think of themselves culturally as Cockney even if they don't technically qualify as such.) If Cockney can get along fine with a list of Cockneys on the article page and no separate list, then I think Geordie can too. -- Karenjc (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Geordies was spun out out of the Geordie article, so I take it you advocate just a merge back in?. It is irrelevant. There is a list of mackems and cockneys, even if they are not standalone lists. Perhaps some article Afd's are in order then, where the information is not in a list article, but nevertheless is a list. These lists are actualy even worse sourced than Geordie, so let's have a massive Afd for the entire country, rather than this pointed nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(insert)Just to clarify, what is the point in having the same information in an article or a list, or both? Why does a list in an article carry more weight? WP linking conventions make no difference between articles and linked content, and this is content originaly copied from an article, word for word, if you apply Afd standard to a list, they apply to an article as well. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed nomination? Another attack on me. Did the warning you got on your userpage mean nothing to you? Anyway, the difference is that the other lists are contained in the articles themselves and can thus be deleted by any editor willing to be bold enough - AfDs are not required for them. Personally, I'd agree with you and certainly remove the one in Mackem because some of the sources are poor and most aren't sourced at all. Black Kite 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud this list existed quite happily within the Geordie article for years, I listed it precisely to allow better vandalism protection, arguments of list v article are pointless if you truly understand the nature of wikipedia. Frankly you have allowed just one prolific and proven sock puppeteer to destroy an entire article by having it deleted. What an absolute joke. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility again MickMacNee, this AFD nomination is not a joke, and why are you calling "Black Kite" a sockpuppeteer for nominating the article for deletion, since he is apparently "destroying" the topic. AndreNatas (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AFD should be closed per WP:SNOW and the article deleted, as. It's pretty obvious what the general concensus is and it isn't going to change, at the same time you are doing nothing but making the process more disruptive and annoying. AndreNatas (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't merge of it, I would get rid of any list completely until it can be understood properly that people from county durham and wearside are not geordies, and until some concensus of what a geordie is etablished. A list like this shouldn't exsist, the sources it provides are simply POV pushed, they do not understand "what a geordie is" they are all disputed and different. Thus making it impossible to identify a geordie, and you MickMacNee are clearly out of order. AndreNatas (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I await your proof that Sir Bobby Robson, born in County Durham, is not a Geordie. I await your personal opinion as to why he is wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick's main concern here seems to be that a separate list of Geordies is required in order to ensure Sir Bobby Robson is identified on Wikipedia as a Geordie, whereas he wouldn't appear on a List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne, because he was born in Sacriston. I agree that if you're going to list prominent Geordies anywhere on Wikipedia it would be a travesty to omit the great man, because he's got Geordie written all the way through him like a stick of rock. I just don't see it as necessary to maintain a separate article, (which will of necessity be a focus for the kind of AFD wrestling we now see), when you can list such people in a subsection of the Geordie article, as with Cockney. -- Karenjc (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My exact point in the original nomination, where I said "Whilst there are undoubtedly people who do belong on this list"... Black Kite 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't wrong, but he isn't right either. There is no real definition, people have different views on the term hence why a list like this is inapropriate, its too disputed, useless. AndreNatas (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content = delete? That's pretty much the point. It might be easy for you to easily dismiss content you don't understand, but for people who know what they are talking about, this whole process, and the excuse of confusion, is totally offensive and totaly not supported by the conventions of wikipedia.. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obviously unmaintainable list. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because? I don't see you ever trying to maintain it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be difficult or impossible to decide who should be on this list; at the moment, there are a number who have only the most tenuous reasoning for being there. Is it those who self-identify as Geordies? Those who have been called Geordies by someone else (but who may not agree with that description)? People who would like to be Geordies for one reason or another? The idea that someone who supports The toon is automatically a Geordie because there are a "billion reliable sources assigning the term Geordie to Newcastle Fans" seems like WP:SYN to me, for instance. --Kateshort forbob 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article quality or innate contentiousness is not a reason for deletion, anyone who has been involved in the trenches of many pages from homeopathy to just about any controversial biography can attest. Once a definition can be agreed upon, the rest should be easier. An innately notable subject. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can you have a "List of X" when no-one can come to a decision what "X" is? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined category, no reasonable inclusion criteria, and Dhartung makes the best arguement for deletion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as lazy as this reason is, for everyone's reasons above. I'm not going to rehash them all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that this article should be deleted because of some edit-warring seems absurd. AFD is not dispute resolution. As an example of how to work this out, see List of massacres. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring isn't the main problem - if you read the nomination, it is the fact that it is impossible to set a fixed guideline on who should and shouldn't be included in the article - and that means possible WP:BLP concerns. The article you mention is actually called List of events named massacres, and as such it is easy to say "this event was labelled a massacre in multiple reliable sources". Here, we have a list where practically every editor seems to have a different concept of what "Geordie" actually means. Black Kite 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The massacre article didn't get to its current state without a good deal of warring (and a title change). This matter of Geordie seems simpler since you already have the entries well-sourced. The only problem seems to be some bad-tempered editors who refuse to accept what the sources say. The answer is to make the editors go away, not the article. In the case of AndreNatas and his other socks, this seems to be happening. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was as simple as that, I would never have nominated the article. Not only are a lot of the entries not well-sourced (see below), but the main problem is that the sources that define the content are contradictory, not just that editors cannot agree on them - the parent article shows that quite clearly. You will see that I gave at least six different "definitions" of Geordie in the nomination, and sources can be found to back up any of them, and a number of other definitions too. The Heather Mills and Tony Blair entries are typical; practically no-one who knows the subject would define either of them as Geordies, yet they are in the list because some editors insist that a throwaway line calling them Geordies from a journalist who plainly doesn't understand the term is enough to include them. Black Kite 15:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no big deal. Just include the basis for calling each person a Geordie in the list - whether it's because they were born on the Tyne, drink Newcastle Brown or whatever their claim is. Provided there's a reliable source to back this up, it's fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everyone agrees (including this article's staunchest defender) that the criterion for inclusion on the list cannot be defined. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list has 153 references; however, the criterion for inclusion on the list cannot be defined. Just look at the article Geordie. User:Black Kite has given some very good reasons why this list should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a clear criterion to the list is easy. I would add one immediately if the article not protected. It would say something like:

Inclusion in the list is determined by the existence of reliable sources describing the person as a Geordie.

Note that this is the only way that we should include people in any list since making our own determination would be original research. The idea that a special definition has to be constructed is contrary to our principles and so arguments based upon this misconception should be ignored.

Note also that deleting this article will not resolve the dispute - it will just push it back into the Geordie article where the prominent examples will be listed. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I explain why this wouldn't work? Imagine, for example, that we had an article List of the current best footballers in the world. Now, lots of journalists, in very well respected papers, say on a regular basis "X is one of the best footballers in the world at the moment". On that basis, X would belong in the list, because it's technically a reliable source. But that reliable source is merely someone's opinion, and it is the same with the definitions of Geordie here. Whilst some of the entries will no doubt be unarguable, many more will, and can only ever be, original research. We wouldn't have the footballers article, and the same should go for this. Black Kite 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a problem because it is not our goal to present The Truth. Here's how the second pillar puts it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

STRONG KEEP Not only is there irrefutable evidence that Black Kite had been uncivil toward a news reporter 1 hour before this AfD nomination, there is also clearly an informal fallacy / false dilemma within the conclusion of Black Kite's nomination reasoning above. Moreover, Black Kite's unwillingness to accept the news reporter's more general defintion of Geordie and his or her subsequent nomination for deletion is a complete derailment of wiki-policy guidlines (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete). --Firefly322 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm rather speechless, but I'd just point out this editor's previous edits here and here in relation to another contributor to this page. Black Kite 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of well-known informal fallacy's--i.e. both an ad hominem and an association fallacy (both have been listed under WP:ATA#Other arguments to avoid). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually going to provide a rationale for your Keep vote here, or just continue to attack the nominator? Because at the moment, that's all you've come up with. Black Kite 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My general reasoning (i.e., rationale) is that the article is encyclopedic and has been constructed in such a way that it more than satisfies wikipedia guidelines. For improvement, the current lead-in should be changed to indicate the variety of definitions in use (or vague approximations), explaining (with references) their history and acceptance or lack of acceptence. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. My response would be that the place for that information is in the parent article Geordie (indeed, some of it already is) and if we really must have a list of possible Geordies then some of the better referenced ones could be listed there. Black Kite 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response displaying understanding as to a good article's reason for existence (such as this fine article) should not be taken as a retraction of the evidence showing Black Kite's incivility and biasin making this AfD in the first place. Nor should a pointing out of such mistakes per WP:ATA#Other arguments to avoid over the course of this debate be taken--to paraphrase Black Kite--as attacking the nominator. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep. The term "Geordie" is not as disputed as one might surmise from the introduction to the Geordie article. The use of "Geordie" to refer to Newcastle United supporters is definitely non-standard (if not flat-out wrong, no matter what Sky TV may say). Geordies are people from Newcastle upon Tyne and the surrounding area, and the term is no more unclear or ambiguous than any other regional designation. As to how long one must live in the area to be considered a Geordie, that's a problem that's shared with every other "people from place X" list, and it should just be handled on a case-by-case basis. Klausness (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "strong keep" to just plain "keep", since there's already a List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne into which many people on this list could be merged. Still, I do think it should be kept, since "Geordie" is not the same as "born in Newcastle, and the list certainly has plenty of reliable references. Klausness (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Ignoring my earlier over reactions, this is what I hope is a more reasoned and rational objection to this Afd. There are a lot of statements being made that this article has attracted a large amount of disruption: it should be noted that this has been down to one extremely persistent sock puppet, who is so desperate for this article to dissapear he was the first to vote, within 3 minutes, and for some reason, despite his preferred method of regularly deleting and generaly disrupting talk pages or edits from 'banned' users, his comments remain all over this Afd, despite being outed as the owner of over 120 IP and named socks, and being recommended to be denied of all recognition here. This sock is extremely deceptive, and the talk page and article history of both this article and Geordie should be viewed in light of this, especially with his habit of going to the lengths of replying to himself to support his case, which is characteristicaly (now made worse by apparent support through this nomination) always claiming this article is disputed so should be deleted, when he is basically the only source of the disruption, consisting of only personal opinion to support his arguments. In view of this, I believe this content in reality has come nowhere near the what must be less than 0.005% of articles that get deleted due to unreconcilable disputes.

When I came to this page, I was possibly a bit too naive in reflecting the previous debates at the top with tags and links, as now I am aware of the number of socks he has used, these discussions should probably be more thoroughly checked, a brief look shows the sock was active in some or all of these. As I see it, the only reasons left for deletion in light of this one person sock are absolutely a question of a content dispute, which is not the venue for Afd, as has been pointed out here, and this should be handled on the talk page and by dispute resolution, but this has not been possible with the only notable objector against consensus being the prolific sock, until, as he wants, it has been brought to Afd, where it is now subject to very few opinons compared to the number of editors who might have viewed the article before Afd, and never seen the need to raise anything on the talk page. By its nature, the Afd opinions possibly see the issue as being more widespread than it actually is, by virtue of a brief look at the history. I haven't recognised many voters that have actually edited this article before. The very recent edit wars are basically all due to the one sock, with possiby multiple apparent views posted until you look closely - additionaly, many socks were not confirmed till after this Afd was filed and was already proceeding.

As for some of the Afd votes, the comparison of Geordie to Hillbilly is frankly not something any Geordie would recognise, it is simply a very very bad comparison to make, but that would ironically only be obvious to a native, and not an Afd voter. One voter even has English down has his second language, not the best standard to be deciding the fate of such an obviously notable and in use term of the English language. As for any possible offence that the term might cause (I find this highly dubious as compared to some of the things that can can be sourced and added to bios on WP), you could only make a proper case for someone from Sunderland proper, and not one of the people on the list are from Sundlerland (it should be noted the sock is). Any other case comes from the overlap of usage, which despite some objections, does exist, especially in places like Washington, which can contain both. This is not definable, but it is sourcable, just like cockney or any other subjective term. Mackem is a very recent term when compared to the history and evolution of Geordie. It should be noted the example given by the nominator, Paul Collingwood, tries to discredit a direct quote from the person in question calling themselves a Geordie. What more of a reliable source could you want?

As for objections of the separate nature of the list as a standalone list, it should be noted that this list was spun out of Geordie to offer more protection from the sock, who uses usernames and IPs alike, to allow temp anon protections of this page without preventing the natural evolution of Geordie which is one of the oldest articles I have seen on WP. Since the spin out, it has only increased from 79 to 89 entries, and hours before this Afd was filed, its existence had been supported by a third opinion. And a list of some form (actually unsourced) has existed in Geordie until spunout from at least since 2005, without attracing any kind of extreme hammer fist measure like an Afd. Any votes of the nature of a return to Geordie are effective merge votes, not delete, and would achieve nothing more than bringing inconvenience back to the main article if the sock ever returns. {Main} tags exist precisely to allow separation of this sort. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or someone please annotate the socks in this discussion. AndreNatas seems to be one of them but his suspect comments have not been tagged in an appropriate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Andre and an IP on here as far as I know for now, but given his desperation and the lengths he goes to, it could be more. The point realy is the Afd judgements being made here by people who have never worked on the article might be going with the nom on the false impressions given by the talk pages and edit summaries. A full list is at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Molag Bal, where Dr Nat was a very recent one. Being from Sunderland, his account ZogontheTyne (NZogbia is a Newcastle player) shows how obsessed he is with this article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Quinn (writer)[edit]

Non-notable author, fails WP:BIO. A weirdly-structured article (referenced only to Quinn's own website) which appears to consist mostly of some promotional blurb, probably copied from somewhere. A Google search for Mick Quinn throws up plenty of hits on New Age websites, but no sign of anything in reliable sources. A GooglNews search gives only two hits, both in subscription-only sites: a brief mention in article on a school massacre, and a possibly longer piece in Investor's Business Daily. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable Brunon ia 03:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Izzy007 Talk 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and not even a decent attempt to make him LOOK notable. House of Scandal (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. DS (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rayburne Show[edit]

No evidence of notability through significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Without any reliable sources the information contained in the article cannot be verified The page for the network the show airs on (WebbEFX (TV channel)) was speedied (criterion A7). Guest9999 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author has made similar pages many times that have been deleted. This shoud be too. Grassfire (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominating the related page:

If the main article is deleted, so should this one. Hqb (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:V unless independent reliable sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 22:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero Google hits (other than Wikipedia pages), so doesn't even look close to being notable. Hqb (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaha Hussain's clock-work formula[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual; and this formula is elementary mathematics, not worth an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial application of trigonometry. All online usages of the term appear to be directly connected to Hussain. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above; it's not a standard name, for something that's trivial trigonometry. (And, uh, PI /= 3.14159, and is probably stored in a standard header for whatever programming language you use, to much higher accuracy.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, WP:SNOW, and probably a speedy category too. Mr. Scienceuncle, thank you for contributing this creation, but I must tell you that Wikipedia is not a collection of source codes, so Wikipedia is not the best place to contribute articles of this kind. And if you could, please, do not erase the comments of others, as that does not help. You can move this page to a name like "User:Scienceuncle/Clockwork" and it will probably be better off there. Then read links like WP:NOT and learn about how Wikipedians work around here. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lush![edit]

Non-notable, no reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references and will be doing a restructure of the article based on the new sources. I think notability is established and we should give the article a little time to develop.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- references are reliable. AndreNatas (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvement and sourcing. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved, sourcing is a non-issue at this point and the nominator might want to consider withdrawing. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, and there are sources. --85.134.182.22 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing is adequete now. Lawrence § t/e 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rodby Santini[edit]

Appears to be non-notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources and his only claim to notability is both unidentified as to importance and in the future. Crystallina (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to even indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the content can be verified with reliable sources as the only links that seemed useful after a google search were links to this article and mirrors of wikipedia. So I guess that's assumption of notability gone out the window. I then tried to google the movie "Face of Fear" which the article says the subject is apart of but even those google searches for the film itself were unsuccessful. AngelOfSadness talk 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable. AndreNatas (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any sources on him either. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above. Non-notable Thisisborin9^talk/_contribs 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Team Success[edit]

A contested PROD. I'll just copy what the nominator said because I agree. "This is an indiscriminate and arbitrary list with no encyclopedic value. It is unreferenced and serves no obvious purpose. The grouping together of 4 sports and ignoring of all others seems particularly arbitrary. It might also be original research." Eóin (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Combining stats from different sports in this way has no value. Individual articles for each sport would have merit, but this doesn't belong here.--Michig (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Note: I am the original PRODer). --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely pointless list full of OR. I also like the awesome American generalisation that "these four leagues are generally considered to be the longest established and most well-known for professional team athletics." ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting, but it's nothing more than original research. "Success" is not always clear cut. It's subjective. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a hodgepodge of information with nothing holding it together except narrative provided by the author. Johntex\^talk 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning Palms Baguazhang[edit]

None of the content can be verified with any reliable sources or even any sources for that matter after multiple Google searches failed to show up anything. Apparently this article is about friends of the author, so therefore presents a conflict of interest(Not a reason to delete, I know) but more importantly it seems it is all original thought or something made up one day. And even the articel itself mentions that "not is much known at all about the style" and therefore can't even assert notability of the subject. AngelOfSadness talk 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Utter nonsense and unverifyable. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete junk. JuJube (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. And soon. Lawrence § t/e 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete (non-admin closure), the article was deleted by User:Maxim with the reason "housekeeping". AngelOfSadness talk 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005-06 Vancouver Canucks[edit]

Page already exists at 2005-06 Vancouver Canucks season – Nurmsook! (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green copy[edit]

Apparent neogolism by the article's own admission ("idea introduced in 2008"). Did a quick google search, and nothing related to this term came up, all I found were copy services that used recycled paper. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This article already has speedy deletion on it. It is just an idea the author has had himself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up while taking out the recycling, no matter how laudable -- or practically unworkable -- the idea (or both). --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you Google Josh Ruderman, the guy mentioned in the article, all you get is lost parrots and leaf blowers from amazon. <K F> 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bleh. JuJube (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn neologism. MalwareSmarts (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongol Army[edit]

Article was created in 2006 and still remains in the sorry state it is currently in. It's un-categorised, un-referenced, and barely contains any information. I'm nominating it for AfD but only lean weakly to deletion; mostly I want to bring it to other editors' attention to determine if it ought to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced. I am unable to find any reference to such a force under this name. Perhaps it has another formal name, or is not a notable subset. Seems to fail WP:V at any rate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously I was looking the wrong places with the wrong search terms. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep existed [10], [11], [12], [13] but not much of an article. JJL (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This unit existed, and is certainly large enough to be considered automatically notable. I agree that the article needs a ton of work, but this is a viable stub. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are sources, it can be expanded. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State of the article notwithstanding (as that can be improved and fixed via methods other than deletion), the subject was large enough to be considered notable and did in fact exist. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be improved not deleted.LZ (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a poor stub is not grounds for deletion, but for improvement. Alternatively merge with the puppet state whose national army it was supposed to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. It should also be noted that non-English sources, while not necessarily preferable, are explicitly allowed on English Wikipedia, and that a lack of English sources is thus not a valid argument for deletion. See WP:V#Non-English sources for more information. --jonny-m t 14:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of New Songs[edit]

Non-notable music festival for new and unknown musicians. J3az6u (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no English reference is found and moreover not available in any search engine hence it fails its notability . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it appears to be broadcast on several of the major Slovenia channels (TV and Radio), it sounds like it is notable.StephenBuxton (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could the result of this AFD be passed on over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeus (band)? That band's inclusion on Wikipedia depends on whether or not the music competition of this festival is notable. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The FENS is a major Slovene festival. The main evening of the festival is broadcasted by TV Koper and Radio Koper, TV Slovenia, Radio Slovenia. The competition of children and teenagers is broadcasted twice independently on Radio Slovenia, Radio Koper, Radio Maribor etc. These are notable Slovene national and local TV and radio stations. Even though the sources are still missing (the festival has been presented by television and radio, search here) I am astonished the article has been nominated for deletion. Perhaps this has something to do with my recent nomination of PureH and some other articles created by User:J3az6u for deletion? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Major Slovene festivals are (or were): EMA, MMS, Metalcamp, Rock Otočec and Novi Rock. I am from Slovenia and never heard of this Festival of New Songs. Where can your statement about national TV be verified? Maybe your deletion of many Slovenian groups like Racija, Pudding Fields, PureH, Coptic Rain, Devil Doll and others has something to do cos you're blocked from Slovenian wikipedia (you called other Wikipedia editors hyaenas and fools, remember?) - J3az6u (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I remember and do regret. This is not the topic of this discussion. You may verify my comment about the festival e.g. here or just search for FeNS from the RTV's main page. As for the articles that I proposed for deletion you could have prevented it if they are really soooo important. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many groups that you deleted appeared on legendary festival Novi Rock, which was broadcasted on national TV and national radio (complete festival, not just news item), but this obscure "Festival of New Songs" pop festival is more important to you. - J3az6u (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needless to say, but anyway: I don't agree with your personal notions of what is legendary and what is obscure. You seem not to have read the link I provided: the festival itself was broadcasted, not just a news item published. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not my personal notion - you can read that Novi Rock is a legendary festival (three times) at the International Association of Music Information Centres which is a member of the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage. Or here in Mladina (most influential political magazine in Slovenia - the prime minister Janez Janša begun his career in Mladina). Or here in Delo, one of the major daily newspapers in Slovenia. Where can you read something in english about the Festival of New Songs? Or in italian or german, if it is really sooooo important international newcomer festival? I can't find even a news item in Delo, Dnevnik or Mladina about that festival. - J3az6u (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the mentions in media for the year 2007 are available here. Many of these are very influential Slovene media. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The link you provided is an official page of the festival. You can't find the actual mentions of the festival in this mostly local radio and TV stations and local newspapers, the links on the page are: listen to the radio, or TV listings etc. You said that the festival is international - so, where can we find something in other languages? J3az6u (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So you're implying the list is faked? That Slovenija 1, Val 202, Žurnal, TV Pika, Radio 1 etc. etc. are mostly local? Yes, many of the stations are local, but they operate all over Slovenia. Ok, feel free to say whatever you like. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The national radio and TV is only TV/Radio Slovenija. All other stations are local or regional stations and they not cover the whole country. And there's no evidence that the show is broadcasted or just a news item, and as i said, the links are only to "listen the radio" and "see the tv listings" - of today. - J3az6u (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should check your information about what is local and what national. By the way: "posnetek festivala" means "the show is broadcasted" in Slovene. And the printed articles are available as clips. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok. Radio 1 - cover about the half of Slovenia - check the map on their site: http://www.radio1.si/radio1.php Žurnal - only 20 cities in Slovenia - check their site: http://www.zurnal24.si/cms/home/informacije/mojizvod.html etc. About "posnetek" - you don't know if it is a 15 minutes "posnetek" or 1 hour. BTW, any english references?- J3az6u (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event which lacks verifiable sources. TV schedules are not "more than trivial mentions" and a single foreign language websites is not meaningful. IF this article existed on the Slovene Wikipedia space, then I might be willing to accept it here. But as the user admits above to being blocked. If the Slovene Wikipedia doesn't see this subject as notable enough for an article, when they can read the resources, then I can't see how it can be. Deferring to Tones' judgment below.Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a flawed criterion. The Slovene Wikipedia is small and lacks articles on many important topics: see, for example, its Vital articles and Vital articles for the Slovene Wikipedia. What about press coverages like [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (more can be found here)? Do they not qualify as verifiable sources? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. First, it is in a foreign language, thus for all I know the articles could be talking about the man in the moon. Second, news coverage does not guarantee notability. My parents live in a small town, less than 1000 people, every year they have "OctoberFest." OctoberFest is a huge event for the community that attracts people from around the region... every year it is written up and published in local newspapers---even the "big city" paper (a city of about 50,000) covers the event. That doesn't make "OctoberFest" anything more than it really is, a small non-notable carnival.Balloonman (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should assume good faith and not imply that I'm lying without presenting hard evidence. Second, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize the words FeNS, festival, Nova scena etc. in the clipings even if they are in a foreign language. Third, if you still have doubts there are plenty of Wikipedians who speak Slovene - you can ask them to translate it for you.

As for the "big city" paper, the FeNS is broadcasted by national TV and radio stations, and the newspapers I have provided cover the major part of Slovenia (e.g. Primorske novice covers all the Littoral region, Žurnal covers the twenty largest cities, TV Okno and Pilot are among the most widely read printed media in Slovenia[19] [20]). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I did just that. I asked a person who is an administrator on both the Slovene and the Eng wikipedia to come by and give his two cents worth. We simply have no way of knowing what kind of evidence you are providing.Balloonman (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking Slovene - the first link [21] is from a local newspaper Primorske novice. In the article you can read that "the festival was discussed in scornful tones in domestic media" - in proof of the festival is obscure. The second link [22] is also from a local newspaper Primorske novice. The third link [23] is from one free local newspaper, it is full of non-notable articles. The fourth link [24] is from TV Okno - the paper which comes with some local newspapers (again Primorske Novice and others) and you can read about some unknown singers in this short article. The fifth link [25] is again from local newspaper Žurnal, again one short article.

As for the national tv broadcast - you don't have any evidence except the notice on the festival page (Agencija Plahutnik). How long was the festival broadcasted? 1 minute in or 30 minutes?

My opinion is - if the Festival of New songs meets Wikipedia criterion, then every single newcomer festival in Uzbekistan, Kazahstan, Etiopia or Waikiki meets Wikipedia notability. If you find any single reference in English about that festival, or any single reference in Slovene that the festival is somewhat important, i will withdraw this deletion nomination immediately. All the best, J3az6u (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad that Balloonman contacted Tone. Tone is a fine and honest person.

As for the commentary above: The first link is from the regional, not local newspaper. It says the following: "The similarities between Melodije morja in sonca and Fens are pretty scarce. If the first was won by money and scandals, the second was won first of all by music." You should reread it if you think this means the festival is obscure and was discussed in scornful tones. The second link is from Primorske novice too. The third is from a free newspaper Žurnal that is more informative than Delo IMO and is distributed in all large cities of Slovenia. The fourth is read by 635.000 raders.[26] The fifth is from Žurnal again.

As for the tv broadcast - "Posnetek finalnega dela festivala, ki sta ga popestrila lanskoletna zmagovalka Vika Zore in skupina Kalamari, si lahko ogledate na TV Koper 29. julija ob 22.30 in na 2. programu TV Slovenija 30. julija ob 22.00. Radijski poslušalci pa bodo novim glasbenikom lahko prisluhnili 7. avgusta ob 20.00 na Radiu Slovenija in Radiu Koper."[27] This means the whole finals were broadcasted. I'm sure it didn't last for only 1 minute. I won't comment your opinion. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Žurnal is more informative than national major newspaper Delo? That's a nonsense and it is only your personal notion. Žurnal is a free garbage. That's my personal notion. All the press is from a local or regional newspapers, and NOT NATIONAL.

"S posmehljivimi toni obravnavan v medijih" means what i said in previous post.

As you don't have any single reference in English or any other non-Slovene language, the article don't belong to English Wikipedia. Start an article about that festival in Slovene Wikipedia. (oooops, i forgot you're banned there) - J3az6u (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the next sentence: "A časi se spreminjajo in po skromni beri z MMS lahko mirno zapišemo, da je bilo sobotno večerno dogajanje na odru koprske Taverne neke vrste popravni izpit za domačo pop glasbo." As for Delo, it is most often a garbage you must pay for a lot (Sobotna priloga is interesting sometimes). But most importantly, please, be aware that WP:CIVIL is a policy here no matter whether I'm blocked. That goes for the comment you have deleted too.[28] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're so funny. One non-intentionally deleted char (space) is not a deleted comment. - J3az6u (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a deleted comment.[29] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But on my user page. - J3az6u (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's about name calling (silly, funny etc.) and your caustic remarks even after you have been warned repeatedly. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you blocked me, hope you're satisfied now :) Have a nice evening!

Adding my two cents. I don't follow music festivals too often so I'll try to comment the arguments presented already (I appologize for not verifying every case separately, I trust you guys did this correctly).

Media coverage. Delo is one of the biggest daily newspapers in Slovenia and as such pretty much relevant. Žurnal is available country-wide while Primorske novice is available in the Littoral region that has a significant percentage of country's population. National TV and radio broadcasting the finals (although not live) seems pretty significant as well. Judging from 2007 press clipping, at least parts of the festival appeared on most of Slovenian TV and radio stations. Not bad. Press clipping isn't so impressive but the magazines in question usually don't make profound analytical articles (at least I wouldn't want them as sources). What I find amusing is that we can't find a well written reference in a relevant newspaper (like Delo, Dnevnik, Večer, Mladina) while the festival obviously appears in the media on national level. Surely articles exist, I get 35 000+ ghits on "fens". I would not prefer agencija plahutnik's website as a source since it is a clipping, not an article by itself. (after some more checking, this article is quite ok as a reference).
The artists starting their professional way at the festival (those presently listed in the article) are notable, most of them in fact deserve an article at the English WP (maybe all? can't say now...). So, if a criteria of notability is participation of established performers, this is a good point here. However, I would like to have some references for Siddharta or Nude participating (makes the point stronger).
I see there was an argument between two users here. Eleassar, my advice, never block a user if you are involved in a quarrel. There are many admins that can do this and stay uninvolved at the same time. (this does not have much to do with this discussion but anyway.)

To summarize all this, on the basis of the evidence given, my opinion is Keep. However, in order to avoid possible renomination in future, I would prefer having some stronger references than those already in the article. I hope it helps. --Tone 21:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that it would be probably very hard to obtain any references in foreign languages for this festival so the only sources we have are in Slovene. And regarding sl: wiki, there are articles about more important topic than this missing so the nonexistent article there can't serve as an argument here. --Tone 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Maybe merge it in a list Nothing 444 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No english references. May also fail WP:NOTE.--RyRy5 talk 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was bollocks. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 21:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser sunday[edit]

Non-notable, unofficial holiday. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search got 43 results, and I'm guessing only about five are related. Mm40 (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's first sentence is "A somewhat unknown holiday", which shoots it in the foot on notability, it seems to be made-up and/or only has notable to only a few people. Also proclaims "Laser Sunday is quite unorganized, and the significance of the date is unknown" which also doesn't help with notability. No reliable sources to confirm notability. Google gives me absolutely nothing when I search for "laser sunday"+Maiman. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-the wording itself sounds fictional. This falls under WP:NN.--TrU Co -X 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-admittedly non-notable and unsourced. Acroterion _(talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article in its present state fails WP:V and WP:N. Wiw8 (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Openly and unambiguously asserts its own lack of notability is hence eligible for speedy deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete lacks in notability and fails in search engine's . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per comments above. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged A7 per WP:SNOW Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does sound like fun, though. -- MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouze Merham[edit]

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep.

AfD is a forum for establishing consensus about whether an article should be deleted or not. Just about the only certain thing that can be said about this discussion is that it has not produced a consensus for deletion. Also, no issues have been raised that would mandate deletion (as opposed to redirection or merging) in accordance any of our core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR), irrespective of consensus. Accordingly, the article is kept. (I'm not calling it a "keep" consensus because of the substantial number of policy-based "delete" opinions, but that's just a matter of semantics.)

For the benefit of the less experienced contributors to this discussion, I would like to note that this outcome does not rule out any solution that does not require deletion, such as redirection or merging. However, editorial consensus is also needed for any such solution, and I don't think we have already established that, either. This would need to be done on the article talk page, or in another appropriate forum. Sandstein (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original AfD rationale

This information has been placed in a collapse box to improve readability..

This article seemed to be very thinly sourced when I first read it. Having carried out a Factiva search which produced only negligible coverage of the topic, I believe it fails the key criterion of Wikipedia:Notability - "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article is merely a list of episodes of minor or negligible notability which have been stitched together to suggest that the overall topic is notable. The propositon that the "Ouze Merham" hoax is, in itself, notable is not supported by any source cited in this article or anywhere else that I've looked. I've not found any reliable third party sources attesting to the story's significance. I suggest either deleting the article or merging it with either Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict or Ariel Sharon.

The first section of the article, Ouze Merham#The alleged quote, has no sourcing at all. The second section, Ouze Merham#A hoax, relies on a partisan advocacy group called the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Its reliability has been discussed recently at WP:RSN#CAMERA may not be a reliable source. We would seem to be on shaky ground in using this as a source, considering what WP:V#Questionable sources says. The third section, Ouze Merham#Islamic Human Rights Commission award, is cited to an obscure British group's website and an Australian media interview with a member of that group. I've been unable to find any other coverage of it in reliable sources, so the notability of this particular episode seems very suspect. Finally, the last section, Ouze Merham#Other Media Usage, refers to a controversy on a student newspaper. My Factiva search found a single Chicago Sun-Times story mentioning this controversy (cited in this article). Again, the episode's notability seems very suspect.

Additional points to consider:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; to quote, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia... News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own."
Neither of the two incidents mentioned in the article would warrant an article of their own, and they don't somehow become notable by stitching the two together. That's effectively original research by synthesis, which isn't permitted.

As the article has been substantially rewritten since I first nominated it for deletion or merging, I feel I need to update this rationale to reflect the current state of play. I've put the old rationale in the collapsed box above for ease of reference.

The article as it stands now concerns a disputed quotation said to have come from an individual who allegedly interviewed Ariel Sharon in the 1950s. The principal source for analysing that controversy is two articles by a pro-Israel advocacy group called CAMERA, quoted as citations 1 and 9 in the current version of the article. [30] The remainder of the article consists of a list of a series of occasions on which the quotation was used.

This raises questions of notability, NPOV and original research. The original research aspect is straightforward: the list of uses of the quotation has been compiled by individual editors trawling Google. Those uses are mostly not discussed by other sources. (There are two exceptions: a Chicago-Sun Times story which mentions the Daily Illini use of the quotation, and the very brief mention in an ABC interview of the Islamic Human Rights Commission's use of the quotation). The rest are primary sources which have not been analysed or discussed elsewhere and so fail a key requirement of Wikipedia:Original research: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The question of notability is more complex. CAMERA itself is notable. As a source, however, it is not entirely reliable given that it is a self-acknowledged partisan advocacy group. Nor is everything it says notable; it is merely one player (not even the biggest one) in a very complex political dispute involving many thousands of actors. The fact that CAMERA has written an analysis of this disputed quotation is not in itself notable, and there is no indication that CAMERA's analysis has been picked up by external sources. Nobody has found any reliable sources that state something like "according to CAMERA, the Ouze Merham quotation is a notorious hoax..." CAMERA does assert that the hoax is "a staple of anti-Israel propaganda" but this assertion is not supported by any other source. This raises a red flag in terms of the neutral point of view policy, as it is a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources". No mainstream source has discussed the quotation (as opposed to using it) in any detail and there is certainly no mainstream sourcing to support CAMERA's claim about the quotation's importance. The topic's notability therefore rests on a single, highly partisan source with an interest in exaggerating the importance of its claims. This seems to be both very unsatisfactory in terms of meeting notability requirements and also a breach of undue weight, given WP:NPOV's requirement (per Jimmy Wales) that "if viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not".

I therefore recommend that the article be deleted or merged to either of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict or Ariel Sharon. The closing admin should note that the current version of the article differs very substantially from the version originally nominated (see diff). Most of the editor comments below will relate to old versions of the article, so are not necessarily applicable to the current version. Given this, it might be worth re-listing the AfD to obtain views on the article as it now stands.

I appreciate that some editors may have strong opinions about the subject of this article. However, please remember that AfD is not a vote and confine any comments to the question of whether it meets Wikipedia's notability, neutrality and verifiability standards and any other standards that apply. Please do not make political arguments, as these cannot be taken into consideration by the closing admin. And please provide verifiable evidence for your recommendation. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO's revised argument belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top. There's nothing wrong with leaving a note at this spot saying "I've revised my argument, please see below", but the new argument itself should be in a spot where rebuttals to it are easily accessable, otherwise it's that much more difficult for the closing admin to read this already messy page. ChrisO, you don't get a pass for this kind of thing just because you're the nominator. It's still bad form. I'll respond at the bottom. Noroton (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arab-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's a "meme" that has spread around in a number of ways during the last six years, at least (though not usually in the "mainstream media" of the English-speaking countries). All we have to do is verify that the alleged quote has been promulgated in various places, and that no one who has conducted any research on the matter has been able to factually verify the existence of any Israeli general named "Ouze Merham". Furthermore, I've seen coverage of the "Islamophobe of the year" etc. award several times (in contexts unconnected with Ouze Merham) in the on-line version of the English newspaper "The Guardian" (this is what I can turn up right now with a quick Google search: http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/islamophobia_guardian.html ). 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood the point I'm making above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and as the page I just linked says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." There have been any number of hoaxes, frauds and scams throughout history. Some are clearly notable, having been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (cf. Wikipedia:Notability). We need to satisfy that criterion to pass the notability test. I'm afraid it's not good enough simply to assert that it's notable, without citing any sources to prove your point. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent notability is available [31] , [32] . but if fixing is needed then we may place a tag over it which should be sufficient .--Pearll's sun (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both websites that mirror Wikipedia. You can't cite Wikipedia articles to validate other Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it may be better retitled to something like Ouze Merham hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but that's not relevant to the question of whether it's sufficiently notable to warrant an article. If it's not notable it's not notable whatever it's called. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Sharon/ Media coverage article. Interestingly, Hassan Nasrallah also has quotes attributed to him, quotes which seem to be fabrications, see this. Unlike the Merham "quotes" the Nasrallah "quotes" seem to be "alive and kicking." Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom by ChrisO (talk · contribs), who laid out the delete rationale very very well. Also agree with previous comment by Huldra (talk · contribs). If consensus is not to delete, then Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict might be the best place to merge to - but this article's topic fails the "significant coverage" of WP:NOTE quite obviously. There simply aren't enough WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly delve into this topic in enough detail/analysis to satisfy notability for an article on one quote/hoax. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per WP:BIAS. Lack of media coverage does not necessairily imply lack of notability, especially for a subject that naturally would have less western/english-language coverage. Even so, there are a couple legit sources, and it won an award from a legit organization. Unverified sections can be cleaned without deleting the article. Z00r (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how WP:BIAS applies in this instance? I'm afraid you haven't really addressed the points I made above. As a source-based encyclopedia we have to rely on reliable sources, which in this instance is likely to mean media coverage, to corroborate the matter's notability. That's a canonical requirement: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). If we aren't able to attest the topic's notability through reliable secondary sources, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. If you know of any such sources please cite them. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Sources are required to verify facts. Sources can demonstrate notability, but they are not required to do so. As you are probably aware, WP:N states, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." It appears that this is one of those articles that is notable, but not covered widely.

My point about bias is that this is a subject where the demographic and cultural group of english wikipedia editors is largely distinct from the demographic and cultural groups who would have knowledge or interest in this topic. We have to be extra careful not to delete something apparently "non-notable" to us but yet notable to lots of other people.

Additionally, if you take this article and compare it to a US-centric article of equal note, a-priori we would expect that the US-centric article would be covered by more sources. Thus the fact that there are only a few english sources is not as bit a hit against notability here as it would be for other articles.

Finally, I think that the 2 sources already in the article, combined with the award mentioned, establish notability by themselves anyways. Z00r (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about possible non-English language sources - it's quite possible that it's been discussed in the Israeli Hebrew-language media. Having said that, it's still only a hypothetical proposition; we can't act on the basis that information may exist, we can only use that information which we know does exist. As for the issue of notability, it's something that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information addresses: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia... News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." What we have here are two independent incidents, five years ago, of negligible notability; there's no way either one of them would warrant an article of their own, and they don't somehow become notable by stitching the two together. That's effectively original research by synthesis, which isn't permitted. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you and I appear to have different thresholds for notability. Nothing in policy explicitly excludes topics like this~~, but likewise nothing makes a slam-dunk case to include it either~~. I would ask that you carefully consider your own natural biases (we all have them), and also factor in the the award given to the topic in addition to the sources. [edit: avi's source-based argument for inclusion is pretty airtight]Z00r (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge. Material is notable and properly referenced. The fact that the Islamic Human Rights Commission awarded Sharon one of its "Annual Islamophobia Awards" based on the quote, and the fact that they were taken to task over it by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation but still refuse to correct it, make it even more notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, why is the award notable? There appears to be no independent coverage of it other than one brief mention in that ABC interview. Second, why is it notable that ABC questioned the award? Your entire case rests on one sentence, spoken in one interview in one source, on one occasion. How is this notable? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you've just asked me not to respond to you any more. You can't have it both ways. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you not to stir the pot concerning an entirely separate matter on an entirely separate page. That doesn't prevent you from responding to my questions here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either I respond to all of your statements, or none. You don't get to decide which I can or cannot respond to. It's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously not in the mood to play games with you, Jay. Cut it out, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Yes, Jayjg is always consistent. How often haven´t I been told that you cannot link to "private websites", specifically "geocities", over at Israel Shahak [33][34]. So that policy is also valid here, right? Oh, wait, strange: [35] Chris: some can have it both ways! Laughing, Huldra (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that link to the article; as I recall, as part of re-formatting several references, I simply re-formatted that one too. I certainly didn't object when you removed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Jayjg; you didn´t only re-format it, you also reinserted the geocities-reference [36], and reinserted it again [37]. This while you -at the very same time -upheld a total ban on linking to geocities-pages which had Israel Shahak-material on it. Huldra (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, Huldra. That was an IP vandal who removed all of the article but the hoax quote itself, and stated that the interview was true. Reverting vandalism isn't the same as "reinserting a geocities reference". And please stick to discussing the deletion of the Ouze Merham article, rather than other editors - that's what this page is for. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, if Jay doesn't want to answer User:ChrisO, which is perhaps understandable given what appears to be a difficult relationship, perhaps he will answer if I ask the same question? How does one sentence, spoken in one interview in one source, on one occasion, make this subject notable? Relata refero (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I said that they make it even more notable. The fact that one of the founders of the IHRC was challenged on this point by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is just one of the things that makes it notable. That is also why merging it to the IHRC article wouldn't make sense, since only 3 of the 19 references in the current Ouze Merham article are actually about the IHRC award. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jay, that won't do. Other than the one tangential line in one interview on ABC, and one non-notable little series of events about a student newspaper covered in the CS-T, there's nothing. So you're just going around in circles here. You can't focus on one particular source and then say "but there are others" when that one is dissected. If this is not considered important enough for a real article in a reliable source on it, why should we have an entire article on it? Relata refero (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"that won't do?" I don't think you get to decide that, actually. I consider the wide reproduction of the quote on the internet, the controversy and apology in the Daily Illini, the Chicago Sun-Times article, the CAMERA exposure of the hoax, the IHRC award to Sharon, and the ABC grilling of the IHRC on this point, to collectively meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:V (and the more controversial standards of notability, which some Wikipedia die-hard inclusionists still insist is not a Wikipedia requirement at all). I used to be much more of a deletionist; but after some rather bruising experiences, in which articles which I considered manifestly unsuitable for any serious encyclopedia were kept, I've come to realize that Wikipedia has standards that are mostly based on WP:V - and frankly, standards that are much lower than the ones you demand. There are probably several hundred thousand articles on Wikipedia that I would consider to be less significant than this one. Would there be an article in Britannica on this topic? No. But, of course, there wouldn't be a Britannica article on Poké Ball either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand a little bit more now. It seems you're saying that you agree that this is not really encyclopaedic, but WP has lowered itself so many times, that not keeping this one would be unfair, or wrong, or something. OK. Relata refero (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm saying is that it more than meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple citations from six separate sources. CAMERA is as valid as site as CAIR when it comes to montioring the press of their ideological targets. We have used CAIR as a sources, IIRC, so CAMERA should be no different. CAMERA is not the only source, either, so we have multiple citations from multiple sources. This is as, if not more, notable than any porn actor or actress we have, as it was a hoax perpetrated by certain ideological groups to portray their “enemy” in as bad light as possible, similar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the blood-sucking sharon etc. I can see merit to adding "hoax" to the article, but I see no merit in its deletion. Also, the volume of results on Factiva are not measures of notability in wikipedia, multiple citations from multiple reliable sources are. As per WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Presumed means that personal viewpoints must be checked at the door, so please leave any pro/anti Israel/Arab stuff out of this discussion. "Significant coverage" means that the subject is discussed directly in the sources. The daily illini quotations, the CAMERA quotations, the Australian Broadcasting Company, and the Jewish Press all serve to fill this criteria. "Reliable" is obvious, and the daily illini quotes and the Jewish press have been considered reliable numerous times in the past.As I said, CAMERA should have the same reliability that CAIR does, but even if you wish to follow that path (and that would mean a potential violation of the "Presumed" clause - for why would you otherwise differentiate between CAMERA and CAIR. Has one proven to have lied in the past?) The others more than suffice. "Sources" - we have multiple. "Independant of the subject" None of these sources are related to Ariel Sharon or the Arab papers that perpetrated the lie/hoax. So we have the textbook definition of notability. Not as notable as George Bush, perhaps, but as notable as Don Murphy in the grand scheme of things. Avi (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly disagree with the nominator's claim of lack of either notability or verifiability. There is no serious problem in either of these fields with the article, and if there are, they can be fixed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind what I said in the nomination - "please provide verifiable evidence for your recommendation." A recommendation based on a personal assertion isn't much use. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article relies heavily on a particular advocacy source and a letter to an editor in a student newspaper. In fact, other than that, its got nothing. Merge to Sharon#Media. A general article on anti-semitic tropes in coverage of Sharon would certainly be encyclopaedic, but this article is not. Relata refero (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, Huldra, Cirt and Relata Refero. Changing to redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission##Award to Ariel Sharon for "interview", as per the efforts of editors from all sides of the debate below. Well done! Those who want to preserve the material that is sourced to the student newspaper are encouraged to include it in either in the article on Ariel Sharon or Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict before this AfD expires. Ouze Merham is not a real person and the "hoax" itself surrounding this name is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own entry. Tiamut^talk 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable instance of prejudice. The malignant hoax is sufficiently notable. Some part of the article needs editing to clarify the nature of the "prize" , etc. NPOV editing, as usual, is the cure for articles as sensitive and liable to misinterpretation as thisDGG (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, please bear in mind that you need to "provide verifiable evidence for your recommendation" (WP:AFD#AfD Wikietiquette). If you believe that it is notable, please provide evidence of its notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, what on earth does the nature of the prize have to do with anything? Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's case for non-notability is compelling, and as yet unanswered. Edited, per MPerel below: redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission#Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview. --G-Dett (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article easily meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The controversy over the use of the hoax by The Daily Illini is sourced to both the DI and the Chicago Sun Times, both reliable sources, one a mainstream newspaper. The controversy over the fact that a notable organization, the Islamic Human Rights Commission not only fell for the hoax, but awarded it a prize, was covered by a leading Australian TV station. I would not object to re-naming the article Ouze merham hoax, but I suggest the nominator re-familiarize himself with what WP:Notability says, and that the commentators claiming the article has nothing but a reference to a student newspaper actually read the article, before !voting. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and the sources it cited. I don't consider CAMERA to be a reliable source and most of the sources cited are from them or rely on their report. The exceptions are Mariam Sobh's piece in the student newspaper and an interview with a representative of the Islamic Human Rights Commission in The Religion Report. Besides that there are no other sources establishing notability. (The piece you refer to in the Chicago Sun Times is not available for viewing, so I don't have an opinion on its content.) My concerns remain that the "hoax" is not notable and the name of the fictitious Ouze Merham doesn't deserve an entry at Wikipedia. The information is interesting, but can be covered in the articles I suggested above. Tiamut^talk 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles you refer to really establish notability, then this article should be about the student, Mariam Sobh, not the fictitious general; the few news items that have been dug up for this focused on Sobh and her paper. My guess is that this article's promoters decided not to do that because it would mean being reigned in by WP:BLP, which can be a bit of a straitjacket on propaganda pieces like this. At any rate, if the notability of Mariam Sobh is a stretch, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that "Ouze Merham" is a notable subject for an article. Hopefully the closing admin will understand the game being played here.--G-Dett (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe what is notable here is the fact that the media was caught perpetrating a lie to defame the leader of a sovereign nation, which is why "Ouze Merham hoax" may be a better name, but Mariam Sobh is not, in my opinion, G-Dett. -- Avi (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which media? The only one cited is one article in a student newspaper in the US. And I agree with your opinion that Mariam Sobh is not G-Dett. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL. Whoops, that was too funny. Sheesh, for someone who likes to pretend a command of the English language, I do have this tendency to rudely remind myself of my own personal shortcomings. -- Avi (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about we make the article about G-Dett, I won't raise BLP objections and we'll call it a draw. Avi, your point is taken but this is still your read on the notability; the cited sources focus on Mariam and her paper. The Chicago Sun Times piece doesn't appear to mention Ouze Merham at all, and even the CAMERA article, which is obviously the muse, model, and mentor for ours, only mentions Ouze Merham only once – in the fourth paragraph of a 12-paragraph piece. Sobh, by contrast, is mentioned thirteen times.--G-Dett (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is interesting information. Merging and redirecting to Ariel Sharon may be an option, but even in this case the redirect should remain, so readers searching for Ouze Merham can find the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a bit irritated at having to repeat this point: "interesting" is not a criterion, notability is. What evidence can you cite to support the proposition that it's sufficiently notable to warrant an article? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Ouze Merham hoax. The References and External links combined easily establish notability through reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any sources on the "Ouze Merham hoax" (google it – zero results). Rather, there are one or two sources with ephemeral back-page mentions of the student and her paper. A number of partisan bodies, including CAMERA and some Wikipedia editors, have tried to put legs on this story that mainstream media have taken a pass on.--G-Dett (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just added The Nation, Pakistan's most quoted newspaper, and IslamOnline. Even without the Annual Islamophobia Award that makes for notability. --tickle me 06:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Aside from the fact that your assrtions that the quote has been used there is unsupported by a reference, the mere use of a misquote does not imply that an article on the hoax is encyclopaedic. If the paper had discussed the hoax, then it would have been encyclopaedic. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> is unsupported by a reference

The link was missing due to a mishap, I added it now. How many do you need?

> If the paper had discussed the hoax, then it would have been encyclopaedic

The paper uses the hoax to make its climactic point:

"Sharon at present the darling of the White House is the greatest rogue cum terrorist going on this planet who has corroded the breast of humanity like not even a beast has ever done and this he has with great pride and pomp boasted about."

The Jew is corroding the breast of humanity like not even a beast has ever done, and Ouze Merham succinctly and extensively makes the case for it. Notable. --tickle me 09:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many do I need? Just a couple that actually discuss the hoax and its use. Not those that actually use it. I call this the "Jayjg on Lobbies" argument.

The "climactic point" does not address or use the hoax specifically. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this notable hoax that has all the required sources and references. It's also an example of a notable updated blood libel against Jews. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A notable example of the blood libel would have a couple of notable sources making the claim that it was a notable example of the blood libel. I don't see that here. As I said before, it would be worthy of a mention in an article on anti-semitic tropes in the coverage of Sharon, which has received enough attention to be encyclopaedic. This particular article, however, is not, and repeating that it is notable without substantiation isn't going to help. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Relata: I am clarifying here in case there is any doubt about the alarming nature underlying the hoax. Just read the words in Ouze Merham#The alleged quote: In the quote, Sharon allegedly says "...I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area... I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her..." By definition this is nothing but a blood-libel and as the article states: "The quote is still widely cited on anti-Israel and anti-Semitic websites." IZAK (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, I completely agree that it is alarming, and I certainly think that there is a place on WP for debunking such quotes. That being said, I still don't think that we have in any way enough sources to write a complete article, or for it to justify having one, regardless of my personal feelings about such propaganda, and my agreement that its resonance with the blood libel is the reasons that it is widely disseminated in anti-Semitic circles. Relata refero (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One look at the page makes it clear that the topic is obviously notable. The sources do seem accurate and reliable. Yahel Guhan 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keep votes dont address concerns raised by nominator. Noor Aalam (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noor, I believe I did address the nominator's concerns, and Chris and I seem to disagree on, as G-Dett puts it, a "reading" of notability. So while you may disagree with my concerns raised above, I believe it is fair to say that a number of the Keep votes did address the nominators concern, and the question is one of relative, rather than absolute, measure. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, my point was that your "reading" of the notability of this subject does not appear to be supported by reliable sources. That is, you write that "I believe what is notable here is the fact that the media was caught perpetrating a lie to defame the leader of a sovereign nation, which is why 'Ouze Merham hoax' may be a better name," whereas in fact the few quality sources here (the Chicago Sun Times and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) say nothing about lies, defamation, sovereign nations, etc., and they don't even mention the title subject of this article.--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Avi and IZAK -- perhaps with the addition of "hoax" to the title. This is notable enough and adequately sourced. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "hoax" to the title would certainly round out the Wikipedia hoax this article represents, a hoax wherein Wikipedia becomes a de facto arm of CAMERA.

Let's go through the actual reliable sources; it won't take long, as there are only two or three of them that have ever mentioned this episode (neither mentions the actual subject of this article at all). Stephen Crittenden of the Australian Broadcast Corporation said that the quote "comes from an interview that can’t be verified for its authenticity." The Chicago Sun Times, a Murdock-owned tabloid not known for stylistic restraint, would only say that "Jewish groups say there is no evidence Sharon ever made the statement." That's it. "Ouze Merham hoax" gets literally zero hits on Google. The only organization to come out and call this a hoax is also the only group promoting this episode as significant, the fringey propaganda oufit CAMERA; they do this in one of their own "research" reports and in an op-ed for The Jewish Press. CAMERA keeps saying this is (a) a proven hoax, and (b) a significant episode illustrating the range and penetration of Arab propaganda. The mainstream press isn't biting, or even taking notice of this cheap flashing lure. Nor are scholars. So Wikipedians are trying to get this in through the back door.--G-Dett (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, the appropriate policy that covers these contentious topics, be it Ouze Merham or Palestinian people is verifiability, not truth. We have verifiable sourcing in multiple sources. You may not like the fact that CAMERA has discussed this hoax, I may not like the fact that the Arab media has perpetrated this hoax. Both feelings are irrelevant. Does this article pass WP:NOTE or not? I proposed above, in a step-by-step reading of the sentence that it has. You are saying that because it was not listed publications that you like, you feel it not notable. While you may not appreciate the Chicago Sun Times or the Jewish Press, the fact that they are both considered reliable sources is not challenged. Further, the CST says more than just "Jewish groups say there is no evidence Sharon ever made the statement" although that is sufficient to count as one of the two required sources, they also say "Wednesday, the paper's editors apologized for running the 'inaccurate information.' What's most disturbing, some said, is the same quote appeared in an opinion piece by student columnist Mariam Sobh last year. In the spring, Sobh admitted the quote was false and apologized." So the hoax itself has multiple discussions in reliable sources. As I said above, it is obviously not as notable as George Bush, but it does meet our minimum standards, which is all that is required here. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avi, thanks for your comments. Of course I'm aware the relevant policy is verifiability, not truth, but – with respect – I should be quoting that to you, not vice-versa. I don't think the interview is genuine, but the fact remains that the reliable sources have not come out and called it a hoax; rather, they've played it safe and presented it as unverified and hotly contested. The Chicago Sun Times, in the very quote you've provided, is careful to put the phrase "inaccurate information" in quotes. They attribute to various people the belief that the interview was false, while pointedly refusing to report it as an established hoax. What I find so confounding is that you want Wikipedia's standards of verifiability to be looser, lower, and laxer than those of a sensational tabloid; you want an encyclopedia to come out and state as fact what the Murdoch rag was careful to attribute as opinion.
I like The Jewish Press just fine, thank you, but the citation you refer to is a guest op-ed written by Ricki Hollander, "a senior research analyst at CAMERA." The Jewish Press did not report this as a hoax in its news pages. CAMERA's dubious credentials aside, Wikipedia does not present in its neutral encyclopedic voice material sourced to opinion pieces. Period.
Verifiability, not truth Avi.
A final point. While I appreciate your conciliatory tone, I don't appreciate your ideological assumptions. I don't believe in the veracity of this "interview," I think it was indeed a hoax, and I am dismayed by the bad faith and/or credulity of those disseminating it. We are together on that. And I understand why an organization like CAMERA, which is devoted to English-language public-relations work on behalf of the Israeli occupation, should wish to magnify the significance of every instance of perfidy on the part of critics of Israel. The problem is simply that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a different mandate from CAMERA's. Ouze Merham is an article on a non-notable subject (a subject not even mentioned by the Chicago Sun Times piece you and I have been discussing), and it relies on non-verifiable claims.
I would be happy to think that our disagreement is a principled one about so-called "inclusionism" and "exclusionism." You probably know that MEMRI (group that feeds pro-Israel information and stories to the media) has on several occasions provided material that was subsequently discredited (a transcript of a "phone interview" with Saddam Hussein, a "translation" of a militant's explanation of his support for suicide bombing, etc.). These "hoaxes" have received fleeting attention from the mainstream media but a good deal more from CAMERA's counterparts on the other side of the ideological divide (Counterpunch, Electronic Intifada, et al). I'll tell you right now I'm opposed to the creation of an article on MEMRI hoaxes. I trust that you'll now tell me you're in favor of it. And then we can continue our principled discussion of whether "scandals" ignored by the mainstream media but flogged by minor partisan online outlets should be given their own articles in Wikipedia. I think they shouldn't, you think they should; very well, I'm interested to hear why.--G-Dett (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, G-Dett. Wow, and I thought I exhibited anti-compendiousness tendencies . To attempt to restore some of my own sanity, I'll try to be somewhat more succinct than I have been. Your points, if I am interpreting them correctly, can be reduced to three major ones:
  1. The phenomenon has not been called a "hoax".
    I can, and must, concede that point. However, all that implies is that we cannot title the article "Ouze Merham hoax", which while perhaps a better representation of the topic, would not be acceptable. However, it does not cast aspersions on the topic's own notability—merely the use of the term "hoax".
  2. Wikipedia does not present in its neutral encyclopedic voice material sourced to opinion pieces.
    This is not a "letter to the editor," this is a major US publication which saw fit to report on the greater phenomenon of media misrepresentation of various quotations, of which this was one, in a section called "Media Monitor". If you are suggesting that because Ricki Hollander works for CAMERA, she is unreliable as a source, would you be willing to extend such unreliability to Rashid Khalidi since he once worked for Wafa? Or Nihad Awad of CAIR? Personally, notwithstanding my own personal disagreements with their ideology, I would think that if a reputable third party source brought the aforementioned, as long as the quotation was in-line with WP:NPOV#Undue weight vis a vis the article in question, they would be allowed. In this case, we are sourcing an article from the Jewish Press, which is sufficient per WP:V and WP:RS. As you say I say that we all say "verifiability, not truth .
  3. "The problem is simply that as an encyclopedia Wikipedia has a different mandate from CAMERA's. Ouze Merham is an article on a non-notable subject…and it relies on non-verifiable claims."
    Firstly, I am appreciative of your agreement with me on the fundamental issues of any media outlet of any persuasion needing to guard themselves against allowing personal opinions get in the way of their duties to report accurately. I think we are both in agreement that articles begin as non-notable and must prove their bona fides. That has been a philosophy of mine from early on in wikipedia, although my staunch deletionism of my first few months has been mollified quite a bit, especially now that I have access to the delete buttons, I find myself more careful as one person's trash may be another's treasure. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the wikipedia project should, and must, have much stricter guidelines than CAMERA, as we cannot become and advocacy group for ANY opinion, else we are guaranteed to devolve into a hopeless morass of balkanized special interest groups. That is happening enough already, to my chagrin. Both of these reasons are exactly why we have guidelines and polices. And both of which are why we need to check our opinions at the door and apply them from a neutral perspective. Now neutral does not mean lobotomized, but it does mean that if other policies and guidelines allow an article, our opinions should not stand in its way, and if other policies and guidelines forbid an article, our opinions should not prevent its removal. I still maintain that the phenomenon of the "Ouze Merham" quotation has been quoted in multiple reliable sources, and discussion about its being a fabrication has also been quoted in multiple reliable sources, which (together with the other conditions, which I have addressed above, is all that is needed). In order to say that this topic fails notability, one of the following needs to be shown to exist: 1) The topic has not received significant [read multiple sources] coverage, 2) the sources are not reliable, 3) the sources are not independent of the subject, 4) the coverage requires further original research to support the article. I believe it demonstrates this, and you do not. I believe that the Jewish Press is reliable, and you feel that since the author of the article also works for CAMERA, that creates an unreliability. Now it is up to the rest of wikipedia to opine and a neutral admin to make a decision.
- As for further articles on hoaxes of all types, I believe they should be approached on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps the phenomenon as a whole should be addressed, provided it passes the same standards applied to this, and every, article. Thank you for the stimulating conversation! -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and thank you for the stimulating discussion. To your points. (1) You're right, the issue of sourcing for the "hoax" claim is different from the issue of notability. I do think however that the problem of what to call this article is symptomatic of a larger problem which connects these two issues. "Ouze Merham" is obviously a dubious choice, because many of the sources here (especially the better ones like the Chicago Sun Times and the Australian Broadcasting Corp) don't even mention this allegedly fictitious general. Naming it on the other hand after the student (Mariam Sobh) who wrote a sloppy piece in a student newspaper would create a cloud of BLP and UNDUE problems. Finally, we've seen and apparently are now agreed that Ouze Merham hoax fails because of sourcing issues around the "hoax" claim. Now, my experience is that when one doesn't know what the hell to name an article it's an indication that notability has not been crisply established; if three guys jamming together haven't figured out what to call their band it's probably not yet time for a WP article on their music. This is why I find MPerel's solution (redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission#Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview) elegant and apt. (2) You say "This is not a 'letter to the editor,' this is a major US publication which saw fit to report on the greater phenomenon of media misrepresentation of various quotations." Hold on. There's something in between letters to the editor and news "reporting" – namely, op-eds, of which the Jewish Press piece in question is one. I am not saying that the fact that the op-ed's author works for CAMERA "creates an unreliability"; I'm saying that op-ed pieces – whether written by senior research analysts at CAMERA, or university professors like Khalidi – are appropriate sources for how we report views, not how we report facts. (3) Interesting points here, but I hope my clarifications to #1 and #2 obviate the need for a detailed response. I'll close by noting: how droll that you should be a deletionist by nature, and me an inclusionist! I do think anyone who hears of this episode ought to be able to locate information on it in Wikipedia, whether they type in "Ouze Merham" or "Mariam Sobh" or even the name of the student newspaper, so I think both Jossi and MPerel have made excellent suggestions about redirects. But organizations like CAMERA and Electronic Intifada (and off the Israel-Palestine beat, groups like Media Matters, FAIR, and so on) are constantly putting out reports on media distortions, fabrications, and credulousless. We don't and shouldn't create a separate article for every one of these. In this case, the section on the Sharon interview in the article on the Islamic Human Rights Commission will more than suffice.--G-Dett (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am somewhat concerned that merging it into the Islamic Human Rights Commission article may cause a loss of some of the information. Would you be willing to accept the this version of the IHRC as a redirect from Ouze Merham? -- Avi (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've revised that section here. I still have some questions about it, but in terms of tone and level of detail this is +/- what I think is appropriate.--G-Dett (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I still don't understand. I am glad to see that we are no longer relying on CAMERA. (Incidentally, I don't understand the repeated references to CAIR; is there an article based entirely on CAIR releases somewhere?) To look at the two examples you mean, the "Jewish Press" article is an op-ed from CAMERA; very well, perhaps if the Jewish Press considers it notable, it is a notable point. Not that I have any idea how notable the Jewish Press is - it calls itself the largest independent Jewish weekly, which means that there are just enough qualifiers in there for it to be meaningless. Anyway.

The CST have the two lines on the quote. Seriously. That's it. They quote the student newspaper's editors. Is this an article about this hoax? Apparently, its an article about antisemitism in U of I. (About which there is probably another op-ed somewhere, which would make Antisemitism at University of Illinois considerably more encyclopaedic by our standards than this article.)

So, to repeat, we have a couple of releases from a well-known advocacy source, an op-ed written by that source in a marginal weekly of unknown reliability, and two lines in an op=ed about the rampant antisemitism at the University of Illinois that report on a kerfuffle at a student newspaper. Am I correct about the levels of notabiity we are dealing with now? Relata refero (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, please dont actually create that red-link. Apparently not as absurd as I thought it as - or at least CAMERA has enough time to collate material for us to dutifully regurgitate on WP about that as well. See here. Relata refero (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say redlink?

. I will reiterate my position, Relato, with which you are invited to disagree. This phenomenon does not have to be Very notable, nor does it have to be somewhat notable. It needs to be minimally notable (thank goodness I stopped at three, I was running out of text decorations ;) ). Minimally means:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
— Wikipedia:Notability

As I described above, I believe the topic discussed in this article meets the <blink>bare minimum</blink> of each of the requirements listed in our guidelines, and therefore may not be deleted for notability reasons. I am all too happy to admit that outside of various Islamic publications, and the Gulf News of December 4, 2004 (Yes, G-Dett, I can access factiva too, but a subset of the entire database, I am afraid :( ), most news sources were wise enough not to quote the original hoax, that would require correction, as I would firmly hope that future such lies, if they should ever occur, will be soundly ignored, if not repudiated, by honest people, and any future such lies would hopefully be immediately relegated to the vast circular in-box, but, unfortunately, this phenomenon was picked up in publications and websites that we accept for wikipedia, and as it demonstrates passage of our notability standards, even in a minimal fashion, it cannot be deleted as "lacking notability". (And I claim first-prize in the annual "worst use of a run-on sentence in wikipedia" for the previous statement") -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission#Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview. --MPerel 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea.--G-Dett (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the excellent arguments put forth by the nominator, Huldra and Cirt. At best it can be merged, and even then fairly carefully. I am not convinced that the sourcing is adequate or that it meets our notability requirements. ~~I'm also concerned about the meatpuppeting going on here, but I guess that's something I'll have to live with.~~ -- Naerii 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Naerii. Haven't seen you much around either . Accusations of meatpuppetry are serious. I would appreciate it if you could expand on them so I and others can look into the situation. Of course, I presume you are taking the fact that this AfD was cross posted on five separate noticeboards into account? -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more interesting, Naerii, is your accusations. You have barely 1000 edits (1028 as of now to be exact) and started on wiki as of October 2007, or a scant few months ago. Wheras I have been around for, say, 30+ months with 22K+ edits. Furthermore, you have very few Israel/Palestine/Arab/Jewish related edits under your belt. How did you come across this AfD, may I ask ? Can you point specifically to those editors you feel are meatpuppets, because according to my quick skimming of the page, you are the most-likely meatpuppet, and we both know that is absurd, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I suggest you re read my user page. It's interesting that you're tying to debase my opinions by pointing out my tenure here. As for the accusations, pretty much everyone's aware by now that you're part of Jayjg's mailing list since he accidentally sent that hilarious email to the English Wikipedia mailing list. -- Naerii 23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~P.S. I found this via Wikipedia Review.~~ -- Naerii 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naerii, I suggest you read what I wrote below. Reading an entire conversation usually helps. Furthermore, I believe your comments above construe a personal attack and would request that you review our core polices, but I'd be glad to take that to your talk page. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify that I am not accusing you of meatpuppetry, even though I may have gotten carried away with my overestimation of my own wit in the previous edit summary, but instead am trying to point out to you that I believe your accusation/raising the topic of meatpuppetry here is incorrect. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, if you had taken the time to look at Naerii's userpage as well as her contributions list, you would have the answer to your question. And there are an awful lot of us who remember Jayjg's accidental post to wiki-en-L. Now...can everyone cut out the meatpuppetry smears please? Risker (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire Risker. As I said, I was not accusing Naerii of meatpuppetry, but pointing out how her unsupported allegation could be easily turned against her. I obviously did take the time to analyze her contributions, did I not? -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Risker, can you please tell me the relationship between the enwiki e-mail and this AfD? Because if you cannot, that does imply you are treading very close to a personal attack on JayJg, which is completely against any policy we have, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~And further, Risker, she admitted to being canvassed off-wiki. Interesting, no?~~ -- Avi (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Avi - I was simply pointing out how easily even a fine, upstanding member of the community such as yourself can be susceptible to the meatpuppetry accusation. I am sure that one day someone will accuse me of being someone's meatpuppet; it just seems to go with the territory around here anymore. As to Naerii, I've noticed an unusually high number of people have been using the "you haven't been around long enough" argument to discount his/her opinions in various on-wiki venues, despite the clear claim of prior editing experience on the userpage. I find that very odd - nobody seems to have a problem identifying other users who have changed their names. Naerii has not admitted to being canvassed, but to being made aware of this debate through Wikipedia Review. I caught it because the userpage of one of the editors involved in this discussion is on my watchlist. Up at the top of the page, there's a whole list of Wikiprojects who've been notified. People wind up at AfDs like this through all kinds of different routes. Risker (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Risker. As I said, I was not accusing anyone of meatpuppetry; rather, I was pointing out how such accusations are just as credible if reversed, so it is likely that there is no such evidence. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's not a personal attack to point out that leopard's do not easily change their spots. -- Naerii 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
You mean "leopards...spots'" as the apostrophe belongs on the plural possessive (spots belonging to leopards). But more to the point, as I said, for someone who admitted to off-wiki canvassing to make such an accusation is somewhat....interesting, no? -- Avi (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete per the nominator's arguments, or smerge and redirect to Islamic Human Rights Commission#Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview, per Mperel. A straight keep would give this undue weight. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lar, I appreciate your concerns, but I'd like to ask you why you believe there is an undue weight issue here. The policy says:
  NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.
- Lar, here the article is about the hoax, Undue weight refers to the weight given to various aspects about an article within that article. The issue here is notability, but if the article is notable, to talk about it is no more undue weight than talking about Flat Earth is in the Flat Earth article! -- Avi (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoting policy like this, in fancy boxes and indenting, etc, tends to make these pages bigger than they need to be... it's my view that while this hoax no doubt happened, that to give it an entire article gives the hoax undue weight in the grand scheme of things. It's a minor footnote (the sources are "slight" that it is much of anything big) in the overall Ariel Sharon story, not one of the 2.5M (or even 10M, or 100M) most important things the world has ever seen that need writing about in their own articles. Merging it to Ariel's article seems the best thing for now. When we are at 100M articles, then maybe. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means to say your concern is that of notability, which is eminently understandable. However, while ancy indentation and boxes may take up extra serer space, I do prefer precision in the application of policy and guidelines,especially on contentious topics, as any loosening of the precision will, in my opinion, lead to a poor combination of misunderstandings and misapplications—situations that we cannot afford with 1M OR 100M articles. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No on all counts. as I replied to you on my talk page. Why are you arguing this point with me in two places? It seems wasteful of my time and yours to repeat yourself. Repeating what I said there, and please don't respond there any more if you respoid here:

Well, no, I actually meant undue weight, which is why I said it rather than saying notability... The WP:UNDUE policy may speak to the way an article is written but to my way of thinking, the intent of the policy, the spirit, in accordance with practice, should also apply to a collection of articles. In the category of Ariel Sharon articles, this topic now has more weight than it should. Ditto for the category of blood libel, the category of islamophobia, etc. It's bigger than it should be.

As for your use of boxes, it's giving your words more weight than the words of others by doing that. Say lots, sure, but don't make your words stand out. We don't normally use boxes to make points, and we don't normally use red blinking text to make points either. Note well that I just now violated that principle in the Brandt DRV... ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I reverted Avi's removal of my remarks here. Avi, the place for this discussion is here, not on my talk page. Feel free to review your comments and move anything you said from there to here, as needed but do not remove my remarks from this discussion, please. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as you wish, Lar. I reiterate that I believe that your conflation of the policies of WP:NOTE and WP:UNDUE (a subset of WP:NPOV to be precise) will lead to greater ambiguity and potential misunderstandings and misapplications of either or both of those policies in the future, but your point should be clear enough to the closing admin. As for boxes, we will have to agree to disagree. I agree not to reformat your text into blinking red Comic Sans if you agree not to slap Courier (typeface) on everything I type

. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in kinda a belligerent mood today so... boxes? no. I've half a mind to do what Tony used to do to signatures... remove the formatting but leave the words, because really, there is no reason you should get to use big fancy boxes... talk about undue weight. I suggest you do it yourself, instead. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic Human Rights Commission##Award to Ariel Sharon. The notability of the subject is adequate but somewhat weak independently from the award. Since the principle notability appears to come from the award, and there isn't a huge amount to say beyond it, a merge appears to be a reasonable outcome. --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per sources. Doright (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (No merge) - Notable by itself even if fictional. Would anyone suggest we delete Harry Potter ? . off course this article has less sources on it than those who discuss Harry Potter but that is to be expected as this fiction never took off to become the world top best seller. still it is notable and the issues around it (including fake use of the quote) are sourced. Zeq (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone partipating thinks that's strictly relevant, and we all agree that fiction if, notable belongs on the pedia. In fact, we have a board on it. I am uncertain whether to award this !vote the Most Irrelevant Hyperbole of the Week award. 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Note: the post I am responding to has since been edited.Relata refero (talk)

convenience break[edit]

Keep For reasons on different levels, all valid:

The practical, real-world argument: This encyclopedia performs one of its most profound functions in debunking widespread hoaxes, and although we shouldn't have articles on non-notable hoaxes, we should lean in favor of including articles on them. Please see the fifth comment down and then the one just above it at this Web site for a Dutch newspaper with 300,000 circulation. One person posts the quote, the next person posts a link to the ENGLISH Wikipedia article (this page I'm linking to is Google translated). If that doesn't make you a little prouder to be associated with this encyclopedia you should do some self-reflection. We should want articles that help our readers get closer to the truth of a matter.
The technical, Wikipedia "rules that aren't really rules" argument: Chris O's argument relies in large part on calling CAMERA an unreliable source. The Wikipedia page he points to in order to justify that determination does not justify it at all. Those in favor of deletion have the burden of proof in calling it an unreliable source. It seems to me that while CAMERA (and every other source) might get some facts wrong, it's generally reliable. We're not citing them in detail on all sorts of minor points but rather simply and directly on one major point, which they are much less likely to get wrong. Wikipedia:Reliable sources does not forbid or even discourage sources that themselves have an opinion, so whatever CAMERA's agenda, that doesn't rule them out as a source (although we should be careful, and we have been careful as mentioned in the previous sentence). WP:Notability does not actually require more than one source that treats the subject with non-trivial coverage, as WP:N defines "trivial": The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. WP:N also states up top that it is a guideline and therefore should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Common sense tells you that the rabid commentators who have been using the quote are spreading a lie and that CAMERA is fighting a lie (simply look at what else the commentators say and consider their use of facts). We're not required as Wikipedians to drop off our common sense at the door but to keep it and use it. I don't see concerns in this discussion so far that CAMERA is actually inaccurate. What I see is a strong adherence to rigid standards that are not so rigid when you actually go back to WP:N and WP:RS, and not at all to their spirit. It sounds like a case of wikilawyering (definitions 2,3 & 4).
It's merely news coverage: The quote has been used from 2001 to at least 2007, as is sourced in the article. This is ongoing, not passing.
Merge this into some other article: I worry that if that happens this won't be covered with the detail it deserves. It's a bit too long now for a section and there is at least a bit more I want to add to it.
This is original research/synthesis Oh, come on. The point of the sourcing is to say that the quote has been used and the quote has been called a hoax. Sources that mention the Illinois controversy or the award from the London group are talking about the same subject as CAMERA is, and that's the subject of the article.

Conclusion: CAMERA is a reliable source as far as this article uses it; WP:N and WP:RS have not been violated; even if you believe the case is marginal (I don't), then it's a justifiable exception well within the competence of this forum to implement because this article is a good, encyclopedic subject; we are supposed to use our common sense. Noroton (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge per nom. This article is a stitching-together of various and sundry nonreliable websites; it is essentially a recapitulation of an old "action alert" by a questionable activist source. In my estimation, it greatly exaggerates the importance and impact of this highly obscure bit of cyberpropaganda. <eleland/talkedits> 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Al Hayat is obscure? The Daily Star of Beirut is obscure? The Nation newspaper in Pakistan is obscure? What they print on their opinion pages is obscure? Noroton (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Daily Star is certainly not obscure, but did they print this? I can't find any Daily-Star cite in the article.--G-Dett (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the link. I'll look again. I thought I added it. I got it from Google News Archives. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whoa, looks like it's in Bangladesh. Wrong Daily Star. Noroton (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, different Daily Star :). The Beirut Daily Star is edited by Rami Khouri, has some excellent journalists and columnists of international renown (Nicholas Blandford, Michael Young), and is partnered with the International Herald Tribune. I'd be very surprised indeed if they ran this quote. You make some excellent and eloquent points above, but I do think we need a better sense of proportion here. If the article is a good indication of the scope of this, the "interview" has been taken at face value by the IHRC, two Arabic-language websites, a Pakistani op-ed, an op-ed in a London-based Arabic newspaper, and two columnists in student newspapers in the U.S. Over the course of six years. The mainstream Western media, in other words, was neither (a) snookered by this sorry hoax, nor (b) interested in the meager success and/or supposed "controversy" of this sorry hoax. This is what everyone means when they say it's not notable. CAMERA's flogged this but the mainstream media, never having fallen for the thing in the first place, hasn't found sloppy fact-checking on the part of two student op-ed columnists to be a compelling or significant story in its own right. CAMERA is fine for sourcing views; it's less good for sourcing facts (it and other partisan media pressure groups have come up on the RS noticeboard, and this is generally the upshot); and it's terrible for sourcing the general weight and significance of a thing. You write that "Common sense tells you that the rabid commentators who have been using the quote are spreading a lie and that CAMERA is fighting a lie." I disagree. There are many lies and myths about the I-P conflict and this one never spread very far. In fact those in the West who have heard about the Sharon "interview" probably heard about it because of CAMERA. CAMERA is not so much fighting the spread of a viral lie as it is exploiting an obscure backwater rumor in order to propound its own agit-prop message (about Arab dishonesty and Western credulousness). Ample redirects (the fictitious general's name, the name of the student newspaper, etc.) can route to the article about the IHRC, and Wikipedia can keep on myth-busting (for those who float in here from backwater rumor channels) without simply supplying CAMERA with an on-Wiki bulletin-board for its action alerts.--G-Dett (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        (It's taking me a little longer to respond because when G-Dett and Relata Refero are on the other side, I have to be more cautious. ;) ) I'd like to see some proof that CAMERA is unreliable. If someone can point me to something, I'd consider it. CAMERA is fine for sourcing views That might actually be the better approach here, because it would eliminate any possible WP:RS concerns. Rather than Wikipedia calling it a hoax, we should say that the matter is controversial and that CAMERA calls it a hoax, that the Australian TV network questions it, that the Chicago Sun-Times has reported on a local controversy involving it. That's three sources, with CAMERA and (it seems) the Sun Times offering substantial coverage. Every publication that printed an op-ed that took the quote at face value thereby asserted, in effect, that it was true, and they all lend more support to notability (WP:N recognizes additional sourcing as strengthening notability). CAMERA is not so much fighting the spread of a viral lie as it is exploiting an obscure backwater rumor in order to propound its own agit-prop message Two points on that: If we simply report what CAMERA said as if it were merely CAMERA's opinion, then we don't care about it's so-called "agit-prop message". CAMERA has its objectives, we have ours. And again, it really is not possible to believe that Sharon would have said this (52 years ago!) without major Western and Israeli media reporting it, so the WP:RS aspect is essentially a technicality (that we've overcome). Second, you're calling Al Hayat and The Nation "backwater" publications? The frontline of the terror war is Pakistan (a/k/a Corporate Headquarters for Terrorism Inc.) and the Arab world in general. The Nation is an influential newspaper in Pakistan, and Al Hayat is one of the most influential newspapers in the Arab world. Back in '97, the New York Times reported (I hope this isn't behind their subscription wall): By world standards, Al Hayat is a newspaper of modest circulation. Printing in London, Frankfurt, Bahrain, Cairo and New York, it has a distribution that does not exceed 200,000 copies a day at most. But it is regarded as by far and away the best and most intensely read Arab newspaper. G-Dett, we are the backwater, they are the frontlines. What they put on their op-ed pages is important. Noroton (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The story got pretty wide play. The article is well sources. And it is an interesting example of how easily a fake fact can enter mainstream conversations.

It seems to me that the way this particular "fake fact" is entering "mainstream conversations" is through CAMERA and now through Wikipedia. The Western mainstream media never touched the stuff. I can't even find evidence that the mainstream Arabic media ever touched the stuff. Google gets a couple thousand hits, the first few of which are mirror sites for the Wikipedia article. Did Al-Jazeera drink the Koolaid? What about Abu Dhabi? How about Al Arabiya? If this whole thing were a cocktail, its recipe would be:

1 part obscure internet rumor
1 part poor fact-checking by three or four obscure op-ed columnists
1 part ill-advised spoof award
10 parts hyperventilations by CAMERA "senior research analysts"
10,000 parts Koolaid

Shake and stir for six years, and serve to the gullible.--G-Dett (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with ChrisO's rationale. By the way, has any off-wiki canvassing occurred here? Just wondering because some of the participants in this discussion have been caught doing it before. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nothing could ever be proven. -- Naerii 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Well, Naerii herself admitted to being canvassed off wiki Does this mean that we should repudiate Naerii's opinion and all those who concur with her?~~ -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're possibly confusing notification of something happening, without a particular advocacy that a particular position be taken, with "can you watch my back". ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not canvassing; that's commentary from the peanut gallery, who aren't very well informed as usual. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sure they would disagree with you, Chris. Regardless, I am not for treating Naerii's opinion any differently than your own, outside the fact that you brought valid arguments that required a rebuttal and she merely voiced a support, which is perfectly legitimate. My point is that unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry of any kind do not belong in this discussion, which should continue on its merits, no more, no less. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How about founded accusations of meatpuppetry? (<--- am I the only person who finds these annoying and distracting? Why are these necessary? Undue weight, I think.) ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have any founded accusations, Lar? I'm sorry you find them annoying, I find them helpful in conveying information that is normally conveyed by body language. Feel free to ignore them ;) (<-- See just for you, an ASCII version) -- Avi (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but no objection to merging to Islamic Human Rights Commission##Award to Ariel Sharon for hoax interview. It's verifiable information, so no point in losing it. Merging into a mainstream article like Ariel Sharon or one of the main conflict articles would certainly breach WP:WEIGHT. Sometimes less notable things about very notable people are better having their own articles rather than being detailed (or mentioned) in places where they would not be particularly significant.--Doc^g 01:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doc, given that only 3 2 of the 19 17 references used in the article are actually relevant to the IHRC, what would you propose doing with the other 80% of the material? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea that we start with a clutch of "references" and then try to figure out how to accommodate them all is silly and back-assward, of course. Rather, we go to sources to find information on notable subjects. But anyway: there are in fact 18, not 19 references, and of those only 12 even mention the nominal subject of this article. These twelve do not include the better sources (such as the Chicago Sun Times, the Financial Times, or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) among this rather dismal lot. They consist rather of seven obscure op-eds used as primary sources, the IHRC website used as a primary source, and three CAMERA pieces along with a fourth CAMERA op-ed. Not a single hard-news article covering this "Ouze Merham." Make no mistake about it, Ouze Merham is a CAMERA article imported into Wikipedia, with a bunch of primary-source-based original research supplementing it. Using fewer of these "references" will be an improvement, as we move salvageable material to its appropriate place.--G-Dett (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good, then we both agree that the "idea that we start with a clutch of "references" and then try to figure out how to accommodate them all is silly and back-assward". I'm glad we've found common ground. Now, the actual issue, that the actual topic of the article (a false and inflammatory quote attributed to Ariel Sharon) isn't covered by the proposed re-direct, is indeed a serious issue. For example, the Daily Illini incident and apology, duly reported by the Chicago Sun-Times (among others), doesn't really have a place in the IHRC article. That's why the re-direct can't work. P.S. I count 17 references at the bottom of the article, but the number does keep changing, not long ago it was 19. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jay, if a weeklong controversy at a student newspaper is not included in our compendium of knowledge for the ages then we shouldnt be upset about it. That is not really a good enough reason why a redirect won't work.

About the 17 "references", do note, by your well-known and extremely useful "lobby argument", only three of them actually discuss the hoax, the remainder use them, and so aren't really relevant. Relata refero (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count 6 references that discuss the hoax. Also, the Ouze Merham article isn't about a term, so I'm not sure how closely the analogy holds. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if you count the four CAMERA pages separately, but then you have to be trying really hard...

"About a term"? Jay, make up your mind and don't quibble like this. Can you give me a single reason why it should be different for a "misquote" and a "term"? Thought not. (in fact, since a "newly formed expression" is a neologism, and a "deliberately created misquote" is by definition a "newly formed expression"...) Relata refero (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RR, if you're going to ask me questions, and then answer them for me, then there's little point in my responding, is there? Please carry on having that conversation with yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, you may be right that the Chicago Sun-Times piece "doesn't really have a place in the IHRC article," but it doesn't have a place here either, since it doesn't mention "Ouze Merham" even once. You keep presenting the problem of what to name this article as if it were an incidental quirk – "If you can think of a better name for the article, I'm all for it" – whereas in fact the naming problem is a symptom of the fatal notability problem. There is no such thing as the "Ouze Merham hoax," and there is no proper name for this precisely because it never got legs and became a story. That's a notability problem. As I said above, if your three friends who get together and jam on the weekend haven't figured out what to call their band, that's one indication that they're not ready for a Wikipedia article on their music. You don't just sort of pick one guy randomly – let's say the bassist, one Kelsey Crookshanks – and then write an article called the "Kelsey Crookshanks Trio," and then when challenged on notability issues stemming from the fact that the sources don't even mention this entity, respond by saying "if you can think of a better name for the article, I'm all for it."--G-Dett (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Name change ideas at 15:50, 25 March, below. Noroton (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted several times, the title of this article might not be the best; however, the actual topic of this article is the hoax quote, which the Chicago Sun-Times article does indeed discuss. When the Daily Illini publishes an article about the "Kelsey Crookshanks Trio," and then is forced to apologize for it, when the Chicago Sun-Times, the Islamic Human Right Commission, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and CAMERA all discuss the group, and when the songs of the group are reproduced in major international news sources, then your analogy might fit better. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck convincing editors of the notability of this subject if you could begin by properly naming it. Noroton has some good suggestions below. I continue to maintain that the difficulty of naming this is a symptom of its lack of independent notability. That does not mean the information gathered here is non-notable or non-encyclopedic. On the contrary, the Daily Illini flap might merit a mention in Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict#Accusations_of_Bias, and the ABC/IHRC exchange certainly merits a mention in the IHRC article. The question is whether this deserves an independent article, and the fact that you're at a complete loss what to name such an article is telling. As for the Kelsey Crookshanks Trio, that may have been something of an anamorphic analogy but I think you've missed the point. The "Kelsey Crookshanks Trio" equals the "Ouze Merham hoax" in that it's purely a Wikipedian's coinage, with zero google hits. As for Kelsey/Ouze himself, neither Chicago Sun-Times nor the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has even mentioned him.--G-Dett (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The hoax has not been repeated by "major international news sources"; that notion is itself a minor hoax. It appeared rather in a handful of op-eds run by hokey online outlets that appear to be the international equivalent of WorldNetDaily, and two crappy student newspapers. The "major international news sources" have fact-checking, remember. They were neither snookered by the original fake quote, nor by CAMERA's attempt to magnify the success and significance of it; hence no coverage, hence your notability problem.--G-Dett (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article isn't outrageously bad; it's informative enough anyway, you can tell from the name exactly what the article will be addressing, since "Ouze Merham" only exists in the context of the hoax quote - he's an otherwise fictitious character, and not mentioned anywhere except in relation to the hoax quote. I suppose Ouze Merham interview or Ouze Merham quote might work a bit better. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there a reason why you don't want this article's name to reflect what you call its "actual subject"?~~--G-Dett (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mu. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jay, somehow I missed the last sentence of your last post. I guess I still don't get why you prefer "Ouze Merham interview" to Noroton's suggestions, given that many if not most secondary sources ignore the fictitious general's name altogether.--G-Dett (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise attempt[edit]

Between User:G-Dett and myself, we have merged what we believe is the pertinent information into this paragraph. Would having Ouze Merham redirect to this paragraph, as it stands above (hard-linked oldid) be an acceptable compromise? -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that paragraph gives nearly as much information as necessary to adequately cover the subject, but let consensus rule.Noroton (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite attempt: I've rewritten parts of the article to remove statements to the effect of Wikipedia calling this a hoax and simply reporting that CAMERA calls it a hoax. I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to simply state it's a hoax, no matter how hard it is to believe that the quotes are in any way accurate. Without stronger sourcing, we simply are left with having to call it an opinion that Sharon didn't say it. Noroton (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisO has also made some changes to make the article more neutral, all of which I support. Noroton (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work everyone. This is succint, NPOV, and does not seem WP:UNDUE. Kudos on working to find a compromise solution! Tiamut^talk 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, are you referring to Chris and Noroton's re-write of Ouze Merham or the redirect into Islamic_Human_Rights_Commission? -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the redirect you linked to above. I will however check out the article again now and consider the (many) options we now have. Thanks for alerting me to the difference between those two proposals (I missed it the first time around.) Tiamut^talk 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure

-- Avi (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've read it and it reads much better than it did before. But the problem remains that Ouze Merham is not a real person and the "hoax" phenomenon remains rather limited and non-notable (despite the addition of a few more sources who erroneously reprinted the material as is). I think the redirect to the IHRC article is still the best option for now. Tiamut^talk 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a re-direct would be two-fold; one, the current consensus is to Keep the article, not re-direct, and two, the vast majority of the article doesn't belong in the IHRC article. As pointed out several times, only 2 of the 17 footnotes in the (current) article are actually relevant to the IHRC. One cannot re-direct an article to another article that doesn't actually cover the topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only about 2/3 of the footnoted sources even mention the nominal subject of this article, and the vast majority of those 2/3 do so only once and passingly. References are what you gather for information about notable subjects; they're not some precious resource you carve out articles to preserve and showcase. See my comment stamped 03:26, 25 March 2008 above.--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that "nominal subject of the article" isn't a particularly relevant objection, since all of the sources are about the actual subject of the article, the hoax quote attributed to Ariel Sharon. If you can think of a better name for the article, I'm all for it, but re-directing it to an article that doesn't actually cover the topic isn't helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I've suggested Sharon#media as a better redirect. Thanks for agreeing, Jay.

Note: as endlessly pointed out all the sources are not "about" the "actual" subject of the article. Nearly all of them merely use, in one form or another, a particular quote that CAMERA wishes to demonstrate is invented. That is not the same as "reliable, independent articles about the subject." Jay, you really need to stop making this argument now, it has been endlessly corrected.Relata refero (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual subject of the article is the hoax quotation falsely attributed to Sharon, is it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not as titled. And please note that a crushing majority of the references are not about the hoax quotation falsely attributed to Sharon. Relata refero (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouze Merham interview might work better, or Ouze Merham quote. I currently count 8 references in the article that are about the quote, most of the rest seem to be examples of its use. Of course, the article seems to be changing fairly quickly right now, your numbers may vary. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Jayjg argue the opposite in WP:ORN#Providing examples of use of a term? I quote (note the bit I've bolded):

"A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific uses of a term, and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the term. I have cited the rather clearly stated argument from WP:NEO: An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). I have pointed out that the original research argument is true whether or not the term in question is a neologism. They, however, insist that if a term is used by reliable sources, and is not (in their view) a neologism, then this point no longer applies, and they can search for any number of uses of the term they wish in order to support their thesis."

I agree with Jayjg's position there, by the way, but the fact that he's arguing the other way here seems like a double standard to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, I haven't argued the opposite here. I specifically referred to the Daily Illini incident and apology as material that was relevant to the actual subject of this article, but not to the IHRC article. Also, I don't recall adding any of the sources that just reproduce the false quote to the Ouze Merham article. I would point out, however, that Ouze Merham article is not about a term. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's splitting hairs that aren't even there. See above.

And if the only reason to keep this article is to preserve a mention in this encyclopaedia of an incident with student newspaper that only appeared in reliable sources as an aside in an article about something else, we are, with all due respect, done here, I think. Relata refero (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's actually a significant distinction, and the quote, the award, the Illini incident, the MIFTAH accusation, etc. all combine to make the topic notable, significant, and verifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jay, as I'm sure you know well the principle set out in WP:NEO comes straight from WP:OR and is thus generally applicable. Let me recast the first sentence that I quoted from your earlier post: "A number of editors on an article are searching the internet for specific [things], and then using them as primary sources to advance arguments about the [thing]." It's original research if the arguments about the [thing], whatever it is - a neologism, a hoax or whatever - have not been published by reliable sources. That leads on to the second consideration, which is whether the publication of that argument is itself notable. Reliable sources publish all sorts of arguments and statements, but many of them - probably most of them - are of no particular historical significance. I note that the article has now been rewritten as, effectively, a commentary on claims by CAMERA, but we have no secondary reliable source to verify the underlying assumption that CAMERA's claims are significant. Don't forget that WP:V requires third party sources. CAMERA is a primary source. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a neat trick; claim the article is actually about the CAMERA reaction to the quote, and not the quote itself, in order to then claim that CAMERA is a primary source. However, in reality, the article is about the hoax quote, and CAMERA is a secondary source. The sources that actually reproduce the quote are primary sources, the sources that discuss it, or the controversy surrounding it, are secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The article, you claim, is about the hoax and its rebuttal. Given that, all sources taken in by the hoax are primary sources, as is the single source that is leading the campaign for its rebuttal. Or are you denying that CAMERA is "very close" to the issue being discussed? That would be a big leap even for one with your superpowers. :) Relata refero (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's another neat trick. I say "in reality, the article is about the hoax quote" and you respond "The article, you claim, is about the hoax and its rebuttal." No, as I said, the article is about the hoax quote, and sources like CAMERA which discuss the hoax quote are secondary sources. Full marks, though, for your attempt to convert secondary sources into primary. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, read the article again. None of it is about how the quote came into being, it is about occasions when people have been called out for using it. So the article is about the hoax, and even more, about the campaign against it. So the organisation leading the campaign ("close to the origin" of the campaign against it), closely identified with most of the instances, etc., is obviously a primary source.

Precisely. Not that we need other secondary sources, ~~but we have them in, first, the Islamic Human Rights Commission: When confronted with the fact that their award was based on a hoax,~~ the IHRC put this statement on its website: Whilst this quotation can be found on several reputable sites, we could not independently verify its authenticity. If you know the source please do let us know. (this IHRC quote is now in the article). Note that the statement looks at the subject as a whole and by responding to it, IHRC at this point becomes a secondary source. The matter has also been part of testimony before a European Union committee (see the footnote related to Hanan Ashrawi in the article). The EU written testimony comes from NGO Monitor, a secondary source. The subject itself is not something concocted on Wikipedia, so there is no WP:OR violation. No matter how partisan the sources may be, they are certainly reliable enough when they clearly identify the subject of the article. All three of these secondary sources agree with each other on what the subject is, no matter that they disagree on everything else.Noroton (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. IHRC's testimony, as a source taken in by the hoax, is a primary source. What the relationship is between NGO Monitor and CAMERA is I am not sure, though I do note that they have nicely complementary missions, and apparently share many of the same donors. The more I see of the "references" being dredged up, the more I am convinced that we are beginning to serve as free web hosting for these spamlords. Wikipedia is not a soapbox in which people can endlessly drum up indignation about the level of duplicity of their political enemies. Our Google power is such that if the quote was in any article, along with the name and a couple of details, it would be at the top of a Google search, being debunked. If that's the only reason, we don't need a separate article. No, the reason is to document in detail who has fallen for the hoax, and how CAMERA bravely exposed it. That little story is utterly and completely non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Compare some truly notable misquotes - say Lenin and his "overripe fruit" one, which various people starting with the John Birch Society and ending with Reagan repeated, and which significantly shaped policy responses in the world's most powerful country. That has got extensive secondary sources, mentions in books of misquotes, long articles in several reputable newspapers/magazines, and so on. (Of course, no Wikipedia article.) Compare this one and the feeble, feeble synthesis and use of primary sources required to argue for its inclusion. Dammit, are we running an encyclopaedia here or someone's propaganda project? Relata refero (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I hate being on the other side of a debate with Relata refero or G-Dett. I took another look at how WP:OR describes secondary sources and, as Relata points out in the first two sentences above are correct: the other sources I mentioned are not secondary, so I'm striking all that. But the comments above on the focus of the article are inapt: The true subject here should be reflected in what should be the title: Alleged 1956 statement of Ariel Sharon, and that makes CAMERA a secondary source which comments on the use of this quote. It is the consensus on this page that our use of CAMERA's statements are consistent with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Every single one of these policies and guidelines is to be used with common sense and an appreciation of the complexities that come with individual articles/situations, as is stated in the policies themselves (and not just at the top). The consensus believes that we're using information from CAMERA responsibly (that CAMERA is reliable for the purposes we're using it for). I left the IHRC quote alone in my statement above. It clearly supports the CAMERA contention that the quote is unsourced, despite the fact that the quote continues to spread in notable publications and online. That is the big-picture, encyclopedic, serious matter, and it remains more important than all the concerns expressed on this page. And we can keep the article without bending a single Wikipedia policy or guideline. Noroton (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable. The article has numerous sources independent of the subject. The hoax was covered in considerable detail in mainstream media and other reliable sources including the Chicago Sun-Times and teh Jewsih Press. The award by a notable Islamic human rights group caused controversy that was covered by a major Australian TV station. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ?[edit]

Some people suggested to merge the article here but overthere, there is some summary of the article and there is already a link directing to it... We should conclude that the article we are discussing here is already sufficiently expanded to deserve to exist by itself. It gathers complementary information to the other one and the information it contains could be used also in other articles about propaganda, Ariel Sharon, wars of words in the I-P conflict, ... So keep the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - NO MERGE This is a well-sourced article about a small but surely not trivial falsehood perpetrated on a major political figure (hate him or admire him, Sharon was a major figure) this falsehood, moreover, appeared in a significant number of reputable publications and was apparently widely disseminated on the web and widely bleieved. Thomas Babbington (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

Keep as stand-alone article. This article should remain as is for the simple reason that people will continue to come across the old Ouze Merhamquote and want to know who Ouze Merham is/was. Keeping the article makes it simple for people to discover that simple fact. I think that sometimes the most dedicated editors get too caught up in the debate, and forget that Wikipedia is about making information available to people . American Clio (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio[reply]

Keeping Ouze Merham as a redirect leading to a brief write-up of the section at the Islamic Human Rights Commission page would suffice in providing readers with the information they require on the subject. A stand-alone article remains unwarranted due to the non-notability of the subject. Tiamut^talk 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamet, wikipedia is precisely the place for precise, well-sourced articles on issues that were something of a big deal to some group at one time, though they have passed that moment. Take a look at the Georg Paul Thomann Tawana Brawley rape hoax Ovsianniko-Kulikovsky's Symphony No. 21 Great Moon Hoax Rosie Ruiz De Grote Donorshow all of these are hoaxes, now largely forgotten. I submit that Ouze Merham fits this category, and that the objections are largely because it is - sigh - aobut Israel. Thomas Babbington (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

With all due respect Thomas Babbington, this was not a notable "hoax", even at the time it enjoyed its heyday. It's also rather sad that you would assume bad faith about the many editors who have challenged the appropriateness of this article, using well-reasoned policy-based arguments, rather than succumbing to emotional appeals, hyperbole or speculation. The fact remains that Ouze Merham is not a notable subject. Evidence that he even existed is lacking, the so-called "interview" he conducted with Ariel Sharon has been scantily re-published in mainstream sources, even by those who believed it to be a real interview. Many of the sources used in the article do not even use the name "Ouze Merham", focusing instead of the student who published the interview (Mariam Sobh) or the Islamic Human Rights Commission's award to Ariel Sharon for Islamophobia based on their perception that the interview was real. Also, of those sources that do use the name "Ouze Merham", many are primary sources, who are quoting the interview as fact. While I appreciate that people want to retain the article so as to allow those searching for information on the subject to be made aware of the controversy surrounding it, this can be done by retaining Ouze Merham as a redirect to either the Islamic Human Rights Commission section of the subject and/or to a section discussing it in Ariel Sharon's article. The subject is related to both topics and both articles could use some expansion. Retaining an article on a man those who few people in the world are familiar with believe doesn't even exist, seems rather ridiculous. Tiamut^talk 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamust makes a good point, Merham is not a real person. The opening of the srticle should probably be rewritten to reflect this.Susan Sowerby (talk)Susan Sowerby

KEEP - still relevent. I just typed Ouse Merham into google blogs. There are 2008 entries using it as a valid quote. I bleieve that Wikipedia performs a useful service in making it bery easy for an honest blogger to check this sort of information and prevent him/herself from looking foolish by using a bogus quote.Thomas Babbington (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

TB, please don't !vote "Keep" more than once -- you're just going to confuse the closing admin. Noroton (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC

Name change ideas At several points here the point has been made that the name of the article doesn't quite match the subject, and that promotes a lot of confusion in this discussion. The article is about the use of a quote supposedly of Ariel Sharon that has been called a fabrication. The name Ouze Merham has been useful in that it's distinctive and searching for that name on the Worldwide Web points to absolutely nothing else but this quote and versions of it. A good name should get to the point and cover the breadth of the subject. I suggest Controversy over an alleged 1956 Sharon statement or Alleged 1956 Sharon statement or replace "statement" with "quotation". The "1956" element should separate this from any other controversial statment attributed to Sharon and eliminate confusion. Since Ouze Merham's name needs to be in the article, the search engines should pick it up. Sound good? Noroton (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. I think this can be done without long discussion if the final decision is keep. Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. I think Ouze Merham needs to be in the title, since people are still citing him as though he was a real person.

Moreover, I have a problem with the word alleged. No evidence has been produced that Sharon every issued this statement. I mean nothing. This is not a case where a journalist or some other witness says that a person said something. It is just a quote that first appears decades after the purported date of utterance, and it is internally suspece (I mean this in that the quote itself makes little sense, using the term Palestinian in an anachronistic manner, and the rest of the language - burning babies, enslaving women - would be reallly wierd for a young israeli officer to use.) Merham, moeover, is certainly bogus because Israeli generals don't just disappear from the historical record without a trace. If he existed, we could find him.

So, I could go for something like Ouze Mersham / Ariel Sharon 1956 bogus quotation.

TB, please sign your post with four tildes. We're not allowed to come to that conclusion since the sourcing isn't strong enough for us to say which is the majority view or minority view on the subject, which we'd need to do on a controversial topic, as per WP:NPOV. We're not allowed to use just our common sense to take sides if we're not forced to -- unlike the way we're allowed to use our common sense to judge whether sourcing is strong enough to meet the notability test. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge - current version doesn't cover the entire topic. Most importantly, it doesn't provide information on why it's probably a hoax like the individual article did (namely, it's unclear why a general would interview a major, and that there was never a general named Ouze Merham). The current version states that it was 'thought by many to be a hoax', although a careful read determines that the paragraph doesn't actually provide any meaningful evidence to the hoax claim, therefore the quote could very well be true (this is especially apparent with the part about the IHRC's defense). If the paragraph is re-written, I may change my vote. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, you already voted "Keep" above, which is essentially the same as "No merge". Also, you are welcome to make the changes you feel need to be made to discuss the subject more thoroughly in the IHRC article, or to add whatever you think needs to be added about it to Ariel Sharon's article. Tiamut^talk 08:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different section and therefore a different vote. Some users who voted 'keep' above might still vote 'merge' (or vice versa) in this section due to an acceptable compromise in their opinion. In any case, if the article is merged, I will attempt to make the necessary changes, but for now it doesn't look like it's going to be merged, so I won't waste my time. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge - a fabrication this widely cited deserves an article of its own. Evidence-based (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Evidence-based[reply]
Keep - Do Not Merge Merging it would swamp the Islamic_Human_Rights_Commission article. I think the short paragraph that exists there combined with the full article more or less as it now stands is reasonable.Susan Sowerby (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby[reply]

No Merge KEEP I have read through this discussion page and confess to being puzzled. This fake quote obviously caused something of a stir, it slandera a major political figure, and, since the fake quote and fake General Merham are still out there orbiting in cyberspace, it seems reasonable to shoot them down by posting on wikipedia this article so that an honest student journalist will not be snookered into using a fake quote at soe point in the future. (these things do not die, they need constant refutation. There are poeple who cite the Portocols of the elders of Zion as an authentic document, for Pete's sake.) Putting real information up is a useful service. We're not short of space. What's the big deal? You leave a solid page up. I really don't understand the opposition to doing so. You want to have solid refutations of canards of this kind readily available and easily discovered by google searches. Roger Warren (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren[reply]

Roger, there's a pretty strong consensus here that Wikipedia should include a solid refutation of this canard. The question is whether to do so with an independent article or whether to do so in relevant places like Ariel Sharon, Islamic Human Rights Commission, and Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, all with ample redirects so that anyone who comes here to find out about "Ouze Merham" (or any other search term key to the fake interview) will find the canard refuted. The ease, rapidity, and clarity with which the reader is disabused is not greater in one or the other of these solutions. The only difference will be in how significant, notable, and influential the reader comes away imagining the canard to have been in the first place. The problem with a separate article is that the only media outlet to give this "story" independent coverage is CAMERA, which is a highly partisan media pressure group with a vested interest in creating the impression that this was a significant, notable, and influential canard. In fact, even saying that CAMERA gives it independent coverage is a stretch; they discussed it twice as part of a larger pattern of alleged distortions and fabrications, and twice as part of a story on allegedly pervasive antisemitism in an Illinois school newspaper; never as a story in itself, which is what we are doing. No other reliable source anywhere has found it worthy of more than a passing mention, and even these can be counted on a single, badly injured hand. We are following CAMERA's lead as to the significance of this, and in fact going much further than they do. With respect, your post is an excellent example of why we should delete this article. You write that "this fake quote obviously caused something of a stir" and you compare it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, you have been snookered by CAMERA and by this Wikipedia article, which includes statements like the following:

The quotation has been part of anti-Israel commentary in influential publications with readers in Arab and other Muslim nations, including The Nation,[2] Pakistan's most quoted newspaper,[3] and IslamOnline,[4] one of the two most visited Islam-related websites on the Internet.[5]

The first claim, that The Nation is Pakistan's most quoted newspaper, comes from that hokey outlet's own promotional blurb, which also boasts of its "firm and constructive views," its "huge network of correspondents at home and abroad," and its "special Log On section for those interested in IT, whether rank new beginners or hardcore professionals." I have written to Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy to ask them how they like the special Log On section, and will let you know when they reply; in the meantime if you know any rank new beginners you could get their views, which I hope are firm and constructive. Grain of salt or will you be needing a bucket? As for IslamOnline being "one of the two most visited Islam-related websites on the Internet," the source given is simply the home page of www.alexa.com, which says nothing of the sort. The fact-checking at Ouze Merham, I'm sorry to say, rivals that of the outlets we purport to be debunking.

You might fairly ask at this point, bad fact-checking on Wikipedia calls for editorial intervention, not article deletion. Yes, in principle, but remember that in this case the bogus "facts" are precisely what's being cited as evidence of notability. Take away the bogus assertion that "major international news sources" reproduced the bogus quotation, and all you're left with is CAMERA trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and Wikipedia supplying the manpower, bandwidth, and search-results-rankings to complete the job.

By way of conclusion, the following should give you a sense of perspective about The Nation's appraisal of its own enormous influence. WorldNetDaily (the U.S.-based online outlet that maintains that global warming is a hoax and homosexuality is caused by soybeans – no, I'm not kidding) describes itself as "a leading Internet newssite in both traffic and influence, which has broken some of the biggest, most significant and most notable investigative and enterprising stories in recent years." It goes on to claim that:

WorldNetDaily.com consistently ranks as the "stickiest" newssite on the Internet, meaning readers spent more time on it than on any other - including giants CNN, MSNBC and ESPN.

WorldNetDaily.com often ranks at the top of the news pack in number of pageviews per user and minutes per page - two other important categories measured by Internet ratings agencies.

It is a Top 500 website, according to Alexa.com, the search and ratings agency affiliate of Amazon.com, and the No. 1 independent newssite.

When Jayjg and others claim that the fake quote was "reproduced in major international news sources," they don't mean the BBC, the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, Al-Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Abu Dhabi TV, or anything even remotely like that. They mean the overseas equivalents of WorldNetDaily.

Wikipedia should not debunk one hoax by promoting another.--G-Dett (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, however, there is only one hoax, a fake interview attributed to an Ouze Merham, of Ariel Sharon, and reproduced in all sorts of places, including the MIFTAH website, Al Hayat, The Nation, the IHRC website (where it was the basis for an Islamophobe of the Year award for Sharon, The Daily Illini, etc. The fake quote is the hoax, and the fact that it is a fake quote is not a hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't understand (why would you, you weren't there) what a big deal this was at Champaign-Urbana when the Mariam Sobh articles ran in the Daily Illini. It was a big deal. The columnist did not apolgize immediately. she first wrote a new column claiming that her sources for the quote were good. The alumni were up in arms. The editors defended her and her bogus quote, published a couple of other virulently anti-Semitc pieces, and even maintained in public forua that this sort of language waa plausible for an Israeli leader. The administration finally had to sit down with the paper's editors and I seem to recall a seminar of some sourt with J-school professors about fact-checking and journalistic standards. Finally, after months of this, there was a half-assed apology. The nastiness of the incient was unforgettable to those of us who were present. It was not a minor incident at Illinois.

I am no wikipedia expert. I do feel that the article ought to be strengthened. to make clear the bogus nature of both the quote and the generalRoger Warren (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren.[reply]

GDett, your continued trashing of the importance of some of these publications that have used the quote just doesn't hold up on examination. An article in The New York Times said Al-Hayat "is regarded as by far and away the best and most intensely read Arab newspaper" (I just rewrote our article on Al-Hayat and included the quote there). The UK government Trade & Investment office listed The Nation second when that office said on its Web site: "The principal English newspapers are Dawn, The Nation, The News, The Muslim, The Frontier Post, Financial Post and The Business Recorder." Pakistan is important. It's commonly thought to be where Al Qaeda leadership is hiding and it's the only Islamic nation with nukes. The Nation is not a high-circulation newspaper, but it appears to have some influence. It is unquestionable that Al-Hayat is very influential. This is the English language Wikipedia and these are English-language publications (and yet, they're influential in the Islamic world). Influence does not necessarily equal quality, and your bringing up the unrelated World Net Daily website is simply distracting. I get the impression from your comments that the fact that CAMERA has flogged this is crucial in your opposition to WP having this article. I haven't seen proof that CAMERA is unreliable, and the points CAMERA makes that we mention in the article seem pretty strong. Anyone who reads the quote should consider whether, if it were true, we wouldn't see something in the Israeli media about it. Has the Western or Israeli media been particularly protective of Ariel Sharon? Somehow, I don't get that impression. And yet influential publications in the Islamic world print this quote. To me, this fact deserves to be covered by WP with the 12K of space this article gives it. (The Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is already above 42K.) Noroton (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That CAMERA has flogged this is not crucial to my opposition to a separate article on this; that CAMERA exclusively has flogged this, however, is. The fact is this has been ignored by the mainstream media because the mainstream media (having regular fact-checking mechanisms) never fell for the bogus quote in the first place. No, I don't think mainstream Western and Arab media outlets have been protective of Ariel Sharon, which is precisely why I think it's significant that none of these outlets ever printed this incredibly incendiary quotation in their news pages. Pretty big deal – pretty newsworthy – if a sitting prime minister said these things, and yet, kinda like with WorldNetDaily's tofu-homo scoop, no one significant went with it. Do you not see the danger of Wikipedia exaggerating the significance of a hoax that resulted in a handful of badly fact-checked op-eds in obscure news outlets? Do you not see that CAMERA has an agenda of their own, beyond correcting the record? Let me put this in more familiar terms. I am an Obama supporter, but I don't imagine that Obama surrogates flogging Hillary's Tuzla exaggerations are merely 'correcting the record'. And while I would support adding a sentence or two about the flap surrounding those exaggerations to the Hillary Clinton article, I would not support an article devoted to the Tuzla business, especially if its secondary sources consisted entirely of opinion pieces written by Obama surrogates.

Have you ever heard Nasrallah quoted as saying ""if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide" ? Well, Alan Dershowitz has. CAMERA has. A couple thousand other blogs and news sources have. Guess what: the quote has never been independently verified, and is thought to be a fabrication. It was printed in the Lebanese Daily Star, and not corroborated by any of the other major (Lebanese or otherwise) newspapers covering Nasrallah's speech. The Daily Star's managing editor has said he has "faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator" (Badih Chayban), and the Daily Star's editor-in-chief and publisher has said Chayban was "a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else." Chayban subsequently left Beirut and the Daily Star for a job in Washington.

That episode is mentioned in the Hezbollah article. I know because I added it a year or so ago. I did not create an independent article about it, and if anyone else does, I will argue for its deletion. People who take at face value factual claims by discredited student columnists, obscure bloggers, "IslamOnline" or Alan Dershowitz do so at their own risk. Wikipedia can and should help such benighted readers by debunking nonsense, but there is a difference between debunking an obscure rumor on the one hand, and magnifying and exploiting it for the purposes of spin on the other.--G-Dett (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, we don't need an article about the Nasrallah pseudoquote encouraging Palestinians to "take their suicide bombings worldwide - and don't be shy about it" (or words to that effect,) which appeared in the Washington Times, led to a Candian government decision to ban aid to Hezbollah, and was promptly debunked by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The reporter Paul Martin, previously best known for discovering anti-Christian pogroms in Bethlehem that nobody in the city seemed to be aware of, admitted that he got it from a Maronite activist in the States, not from al-Manar TV as he'd implied in the story. I'm not aware of "Ouze Merham" having had any influence on a government policy, but this little tidbit did. If the people arguing for an "Ouze Merham" article can explain why it's more notable than a "Don't be shy about it" article, I'd be interested to hear it. <eleland/talkedits> 04:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Jewish newspapers, (print weeklies which do not have online archives) covered the story of the Daily Illini running this quote, and the reaction of the university administration.

Re: CAMERA. Yes, they are partisan, but, they are also well-known for accurate fact checking and they are a very large organization, respected for accuracy even by those who hate their politics.. Moreover, CAMERA was hardly the only organization that took notice of this fake quote. There were , at least, the Jewish Federation of Chicago, a very stogy mainstream organization, Front Page Magazine, The Jewish Press in New York, the chicago Jewish weeklies, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Daniel Pipes in his syndicated column.Roger Warren (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren[reply]

G-Dett, eleland, the Nasrallah quotes, even if erroneous, are not out of character given this Commons page, where he's quoted supporting suicide bombings and the destruction of Israel, whereas the Sharon quote is out of character for Sharon. It would also be out of character for the Israeli and Western media not to have picked up on the statement if any reliable sourcing for it existed, especially after Sharon became Prime Minister. No one in this discussion has suggested that the quote is correct or that, in fact, it isn't ridiculous to believe it's correct. Therefore criticizing the article as weak on sourcing is an argument that relies heavily on a technicality of a Wikipedia guideline -- a technicality we are empowered to override with our common sense. Sources often are considered reliable for some things but not others. The CAMERA citation relies on that group's authority as being reliable enough for the very reasonable point that the interviewer-general Ouze Merham doesn't seem to exist and the quote can't be found in any reliable source. No one can argue that Al-Hayat is not very influential in this important part of the world. The Nation likewise appears to be influential in Pakistan. The Bangladesh statement mentioned in the article was written by a retired Bangladeshi brigidier general. The elites of these countries (who speak English almost as their mother tongue) are reading these accusations in widely respected publications, and a Google search will show that they keep being repeated around the world. Noroton (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That I put little stock of any sort in CAMERA's reliability (because of their habit of mendacious "corrections" and disseminating flimsy "quotations" of their own) is a secondary matter; I, like everyone here, agree with you that the Sharon quote is almost certainly a hoax. The question is not whether the quotation is false or whether Wikipedia should let the reader know that; the question is simply one of weight and proportion, to wit: how big a deal should the reader come away imagining this to have been? Do we want him to think, like Roger thinks, that this was comparable to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? We are the first information entity to give this matter exclusive attention in an article. Period. Not even CAMERA has done that.

You were very eloquent and persuasive about Wikipedia's role in debunking nonsense, but I have yet to hear you concede that a sense of weight and proportion is relevant in carrying out this duty. That the line between the public-service impulse to debunk a hoax on the one hand, and the partisan impulse to hype its significance on the other, is a line worth maintaining.--G-Dett (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've been intending to say for several posts now, you are quite right that Al Hayat, one of the news outlets that published an opinion piece citing the interview, is indeed a relevant and influential paper. I wonder if they ever published a correction or an acknowledgment that the quote is disputed.--G-Dett (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say and do not believe that this is on a level with the notorious Portocols. My point was that even a book that has been debunked as thoroughly as the Protocols has huge numbers of believers. Type Ouze Merham into google blogs and you find people still citing this as a real quote. Leaving the page up will make it easy for honest people to discover that it is a hoaxRoger Warren (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Roger Warren[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. You do realize that the solution I and others have proposed – multiple redirects to relevant sections of articles on the IHRC, Sharon, and media coverage of the I/P conflict – will lead readers just as quickly and easily to a debunking of the quotation? The reader types in "Ouze Merham" (or any of several related search terms) and is taken directly to a paragraph explaining the dubious quote. The principal difference being that he doesn't come away with the impression, courtesy of CAMERA and no one else, that this was a major episode in the history of Israel-Palestine media wars.--G-Dett (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, my previous post supported the idea that this was worthy of the space an article affords, consensus here also thinks so, and no policy or guideline disallows it. If at some point in the future we find too many Mideast-hoax-debunking articles that are no longer relevant, we can revisit this (at some point in the future, I'm sure we will), but the quote keeps coming up year after year in influential publications (never mind the 1,000+ ghits). So far, this is of continuing value and we have no idea how long this Merham meme will last. Wikipedia is disproportionate in its coverage in so many ways, that proportion in coverage has been called a deletion-argument fallacy. Your argument about proportion is close to WP:ALLORNOTHING or WP:OTHERSTUFF, although neither quite captures it. It isn't our duty to debunk all nonsense, but pernicious, dangerous nonsense that's also notable and touches on a profound subject -- Arab public opinion and how it's formed -- is one helluva valuable topic for a Wikipedia article. Opinions are like ah, bellybuttons but IMHO this is Wikipedia in its glory. Noroton (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly our current way of framing this as an "Arab public opinion" issue rather than a two-sided propaganda issue that will need to be addressed, and addressed aggressively, tenaciously, and uncompromisingly by honest and well-informed editors; I do however realize this is a larger problem than a single deletion debate.--G-Dett (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If at sometime in the future we find..." - no, Noroton, the problem is that we have to stop the takeover of the pedia by the paid POV-pushers now. Look at this page. Look at WP:COIN#Edit warring on CAMERA sourced to CAMERA's office. This has all the hallmarks of an effort to use this project to push an agenda, to bend and warp our standards until every minor issue that people want to push can be hosted for free with tons of traffic on this project, which will eventually bring this project into so much disrepute that articles will be written on "Wikipedia and Geocities: What's the Difference?". Frankly, we are either strict about notability especially for things that have organised campaigns behind them, or we just give up and focus on the Pokemon articles. Relata refero (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, Relata, and possibly worth looking into. Partly in response to this AfD, I've been looking into CAMERA's pattern of fake "corrections," its organized rhetorical strategies and general tactics of propaganda dissemination, and the dovetailing of these with propaganda strategies on Wikipedia is striking enough to merit a preliminary COI inquiry.--G-Dett (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That COIN case is troubling, Relata. By itself it doesn't overthrow the reasons for keeping the article. Also, we shouldn't be bending the content of the encyclopedia against those who are trying to influence it. All of our decisions should be to adhere to NPOV in as straight a line as we can, ignoring all illegitimate pressures. We need to deal with this in non-content decisions on non-content pages.Noroton (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep First, there isn't any NOTNEW issue here. This got coverage in a variety of sources such as the Chicago Sun Times. I agree that CAMERA is not by itself a reliable source but this has been covered elsewhere, so that's more of an NPOV than a notability concern. The primary proposed merge target Islamic Human Rights Commission is not persuasive since they were not the only organization taken in by this and adding additional information unrelated to the IHRC award on their page would place undue emphasis on events that the IHRC is only somewhat connected to. This apparently is a hoax that became notable by its surrounding coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All arguments not based on policy should be ignored. Jtrainor (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Meets the WP standards of notability and verifiablity. See references in and under the article, and this Google search string of its media archives. Among the uses of the hoax is an editorial in the most circulated English language newspaper of Bangladesh. gidonb (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying a comment somebody wrote half a lifetime ago and half a page up:

This phenomenon does not have to be Very notable, nor does it have to be somewhat notable. It needs to be minimally notable. Minimally means: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. So, can we keep the article and close this interminable discussion? Susan Sowerby (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Susan Sowerby[reply]

Half a lifetime? I'm not that old :D -- Avi (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is a false quotation. The only vaguely reliable source which has gone into any detail on the false quotation is the activist group CAMERA; they devoted one section of a brief article entitled "Exposing False Zionist Quotes." People, that is it. That's the only coverage, and not even in a truly reliable source. None of the supposed coverage is actually coverage of the quote or the hoax; it's just lazy editorial writers using the false quote. Well, I can find scores of examples of much more significant sources using the quotes "You see what I did there" or "The goggles do nothing" or "no matter where you go, there you are" or "make you an offer you can't refuse" or "pass the bong." None of those quotes are notable, regardless of their use, because there is no significant coverage of the quotes themselves in reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the Chicago Sun and a number of other sources have covered this quote being false and the resulting fall out from some uses. Thats ben dealt with already. Incidentally, if you can get enough good sourcing to write an article on The goggles do nothing I don't think many people will object to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction – the Chicago Sun-Times covered the quote being disputed; Australian TV covered it being unverified. Only CAMERA has called it outright a fabrication, and only CAMERA has gone into any detail about it, as Eleland correctly says. I tend to agree that there won't likely be objections to The goggles do nothing, but many of the editors here probably will object to freestanding on articles on MEMRI hoax translation and Fabricated Nasrallah quote.--G-Dett (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland, you mention "reliable source" but your argument is really about notability. Nowhere in this long discussion have I seen anyone express concern that CAMERA might actually be wrong here. We all seem to believe its assertion and for good reasons that boil down to common sense. Who outside Wikipedia has disputed CAMERA's contention that the quote is a fabrication? Really, CAMERA's assertion is a lot closer to 2+2=4 than to some contentious political claim, which is what makes it reasonable to use CAMERA as a reliable source. WP:RS is concerned with reliability so that the encyclopedia is correct. WP:N wants enough proper sourcing to ensure notability, but it allows use of a single secondary source giving substantial coverage combined with use of other secondary sources that provide more than "trivial" coverage (the Chicago Sun Times, the Australian TV source fit the bill). So we have a very credible claim that the quote is a fabrication and we have solid proof that it gets used in influential publications in the Islamic world for year after year. The subject itself is serious, not frivolous like the examples you bring up. You don't like CAMERA? I'm not too fond of it either for what it appears to be trying to do on Wikipedia, but all that is secondary to the encyclopedia's mission. Noroton (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton, none of us really doubt CAMERA is right here, because what they are rebutting is so outlandish. However, I think that in general its reliability is questionable. What this mean is that we have a generally unreliable advocacy source pushing a the rebuttal of a particularly outlandish quote. The rebuttal of a quote belongs on here somewhere; the long disquisition on the perfidy of quote-inventors sourced to CAMERA, and the OR performed by editors bringing other examples of the quotes use, does not. Relata refero (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we focus on the purpose of this discussion, then what matters is whether CAMERA is a reliable source for the specific information we attribute to it in this article, and it is. We don't splash "Hey Wikipedians, use your common sense!" in a little box on top of all our policies and guidelines for nothing. Common sense + consensus = a powerful way to interpret the application of a policy, in this case the ~~WP:NPOV~~ WP:N guideline for what is an acceptable level of sourcing. As WP:OR explicitly states, it isn't original research to add instances when the quote was used by primary sources, that's just research unless we were using that string of examples to draw our own conclusion within the article. We can't use those primary sources to support our argument in favor of ~~WP:NPOV~~ WP:N either. But we can use it to bolster our argument on this page that CAMERA is, for this, a reliable source. The Islamic Human Rights Commission's response to the fabrication charge is particularly helpful here. The confirmation now in the article that the quote was used in influential newspapers is also helpful because the very outlandishness of the quote tends to make us want to say it's not notable (since many of us would doubt it would be used by influential publications). I'll take another look at the article, but a long disquisition on the perfidy of the quote inventors isn't what we need here, just sufficient space to present the relevant information as we would in any other article. Noroton (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Response to ChrisO's revised argument at top: Actually, my 15:51 March 29 response to Relate just above pretty well answers ChrisO's argument as well. The article can and does cover the subject without a WP:OR-violating synthesis. The existence of primary sources in the article does not mean they are used wrongly. Of course a red flag should be waved for CAMERA, but that starts discussion, it doesn't stop it (that would be a checkered flag). CAMERA's own notability is irrelevant, only it's reliability in relation to the subject at hand is relevant, which is the case with all reliable sources. Scientific American for instance, is not a reliable source for Misty Poets, or if it were, a case would have to be made for it, in just the way that a case has been made here for it that uses common sense and consensus. The use of CAMERA in this article has been as a secondary source addressing the usage of the quote elsewhere. ChrisO is wikilawyering when he links CAMERA's coverage to the ~~WP:NPOV~~ WP:REDFLAG passage "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources". The purpose of the ~~WP:NPOV~~ cautionary statement is to be careful about a fringe claim. There is no fringe claim here that the quote exists and is used (the primary sources prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt and no one here doubts it). The claim that the quote is fraudulent is a claim that the article covers, not a claim essential to the existence of the Wikipedia article. WP:NPOV is therefore a matter for that article's talk page, not AfD. ChrisO states, No mainstream source has discussed the quotation (as opposed to using it) in any detail and there is certainly no mainstream sourcing to support CAMERA's claim about the quotation's importance. ChrisO should reread WP:N and reread the parts of this discussion where that has been laid out: We need one source only to address the subject in detail in order to meet the minimum WP:N requirement. We need other secondary sources to round it out, but their coverage simply needs to be more than what you'd find in a phone book listing. The Sun-Times and Australian TV report give us that. Calling CAMERA's treatment of this quote as a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority is ridiculous. Somehow everyone commenting on this page agrees with CAMERA's "vastly limited" minority viewpoint. As Relata refero says a couple of posts above (08:17, March 29) none of us really doubt CAMERA is right here. Noroton (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noroton, what Chris and Relata and I and others are saying is not that CAMERA is wrong about the validity of the quote, but rather that CAMERA does not constitute a solid RS-basis for the notability of this apparent hoax. An article on Hillary Clinton's misstatements would be a bad idea if sourced almost entirely to www.barackobama.com, coupled with one or two equivocal passing mentions in non-partisan secondary sources and a smattering of primary sources (googled up by Wikipedians) where the apparent misstatements were repeated as fact. This would be a bad idea even if www.barackobama.com was probably correct about each of the misstatements. The relevant violations would be WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOR, exactly as in this case. Again, speaking as an Obama girl.--G-Dett (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance and sing all you want Obama girl, WP:N does require reliable sources, but you can't dance around the fact that at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources#Reliability of specific source types It Is Stated: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment. Thus Sayeth the Guideline, and it can be used to exclude or include a source. It is the common sense editorial judgment of the consensus on this page, and that includes your opinion, that In CAMERA We Trust On What We've Cited Here. We don't even have to endorse what CAMERA says, we just have to believe it's reliable on this subject. CAMERA doesn't receive the attention of the Obama campaign, so it's difficult to draw the same common sense conclusion about lack of coverage in other sources. For the Obama/Clinton example you give, we would still have to rely on a consensus of editors using their common sense if the matter turned on reasonable interpretations of policy and guidelines, since the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context ... Noroton (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether CAMERA is right or wrong. As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia... News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." We only have one source - CAMERA - to support the assertion that the Merham story is "a staple of anti-Israel propaganda." If that's so, how come no mainstream sources have documented it? There are plenty of other pro-Israel advocacy groups out there; how come none of them seem to have mentioned it? The bottom line is that something is not notable simply because CAMERA says that it is notable; that's why I referred to the red flag of a ""surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources." If it is notable, how come CAMERA is the only source to have devoted any time to debunking it, and then only in the form of one article about it and another one mentioning it in brief? The viewpoint being promoted here is that the controversy is important or significant, and the very limited sourcing indicates that this viewpoint is indeed "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" of our reliable sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The passage you cite in WP:NOT#INFO distinguishes between newsiness of passing events and historical notability. The Merham quote has been used for years, going beyond news-outlet sourcing of mere passing events. That's the context of that part of policy, so it doesn't apply to this case. 2. You complain that we only have one source covering the subject in depth. Welcome to WP:N, where that amount of sourcing is allowed if we have other secondary sources giving more than trivial telephone-directory-like coverage but not necessarily in-depth coverage (and we do). Is this the 16th or the 17th time I've repeated this same point? 3. With WP:N only requiring a rivulet of sources, you won't always have a mainstream. "Mainstream" in context is meant to remove fringe sources. We don't have a basis for calling this a fringe source in this context. 4. Other pro-Israeli groups have mentioned it. Please consult the footnote where Hanan Ashrawi is mentioned in the article. I didn't think it was worth explaining in the article, but follow the link to Google Books for that. 5. Red flags, by definition, are not bottom lines, but I repeat myself. 5. The viewpoint being promoted here is that the controversy is important or significant, Well if "here" means the AfD discussion, that would be true for every single AfD where WP:N comes up and there is a single Keep vote. If "here" means the article, that would be true, implicitly, for every article. If "here" means CAMERA, then the point is irrelevant because we're not editing an encyclopedia to support or oppose CAMERA but to cover what we believe for our own reasons is notable as WP:N defines "notable", not the different definitions of individual editors. Noroton (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. --Salix alba (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener sausage[edit]

clearly a parody of the Wiener process. Udonknome (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nom changed !vote to "keep" here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 19:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails in notability and in search engines . --Pearll's sun (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with some mathematic topic , but a separate page for this will sure confuse users while more than one such reference exists [38].
Keep wish to be better late than never , but the admin must decide how to handle this page/article since more than one such reference is found [39] --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Ok, I just gotta respond to this one. Do you just crank out this response even if you haven't actually used any search engines to check notability? I mean, the most popular search engine is Google, and if you put in Wiener sausage into Google, on the very first page you see several technical, mathematical papers discussing Wiener sausages (as described in the article). How on earth did you conclude from this that it "fails notability"? Furthermore if you tried Google Scholar, it would have been even clearer! --C S (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
good argument and a nice explanation . kindly see my vote =) --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an old joke, not encyclopedic in itself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Wiener sausage is an important mathematical object which is in the title or abstract of countless, serious mathematical papers, e.g. search "Wiener sausage" in Google Scholar. I'm puzzled by how all of the deletion comments seem completely unsubstantiated. Perhaps the nominator should have done his/her homework, as obviously here, many people are willing to just follow the nom's lead without checking any further. --C S (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment i not always follow the nom's lead and always search the same in search engines before commenting nor voting . this short article might be merged with some mathematic topic and may be re-directed but as a separate page , just check the size of its content , should we keep creating separate pages for every single ?? --Pearll's sun (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Are you familiar with the concept of "stub"? Articles don't have to be born as full-length articles! Unless you have the expertise to determine that the Wiener sausage should be merged to another article, what is the basis for your decision that this stub should be killed? In my humble opinion, the fact that major papers have been written specifically on the Wiener sausage (rather than on the broader topic of Wiener process), e.g. it's asymptotics and volume, there is certainly enough for a much longer article. --C S (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - well if this is so then kindly check this [40] , aren't we confusing users ??.--Pearll's sun (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[unindent] Are you joking? How are we confusing users? The search link you gave me, on the very first page, shows a mixture of food and mathematical links. The confusion already exists in search engines. You do realize there are ways to handle when a term refers to more than one object, right? It's called disambiguation. In this case, I would say the primary topic for "Wiener sausage" is actually the mathematical object. The food is usually just called "Wiener", although it often appears on pages that also discuss sausages (try searching with "Wiener sausage" in quotes). This is why nobody has bothered creating a Wiener sausage page until now. So the proper thing to do is add a note at the top saying if you are looking for wieners, look here, etc. --C S (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- well then if that is the case then we must point out that this term refers to more than one topic and add a "mathematic" info to it and the article topic as well so that we wont be confusing any . im sure if we allow an article in a single name while it refers to more than one . kindly check this page too [41] --Pearll's sun (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm well aware of disambiguation practices, although you don't seem to be, as my comments about primary topic disambiguation went over your head. In any case, this is irrelevant. You argued to delete the page but now you are arguing to keep it under a different title while turning this one into a disambiguation page. That is a discussion that takes place on the talk page of the article, not here. The discussion here is about whether to delete this article/content. And you've already changed your mind, so really there is nothing more for me and you to discuss, except possibly the disambiguation issue on the talk page. --C S (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you do a search result for "Wiener sausage" in quotes, taking out the math results, you will only find a very few hits, generally related to Asian food. This is because in English "Wiener sausage" is not a term that is generally used. What people in Japan, for example, refer to as "Wiener sausage" would be called a "Vienna Sausage" or "Cocktail Wiener" here. "Wiener" is also an alternate name for hot dog, and probably what most Americans would think of when they heard "Wiener". So the primary topic for "Wiener sausage" (if you look at Google, for example) really is the mathematical object. So it's not as confusing you may think. In any case, I don't see the need for creating a disambiguation page here, so I'm not going to start the discussion on the talk page. But if you feel that is the case, you should start the discussion there. --C S (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - many thanks C S . you are doing a pretty job .--Pearll's sun (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Wiener sausage is an important mathematical object, because it is one of the simplest examples of a non-Markovian functional of Brownian motion. ..." Many, many refernces to this subject in google scholar, google books and just plain google (if you separate out the food object from the mathematical one). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that it links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (W), which indicates that it is a legitimate mathematical topic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a joke. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly not a hoax or parody, if perhaps a funny name. Nominators and delete !voters seem to be misinformed/clueless. If anything, maybe merge instead (although I'd say give the stub a chance). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep funny name indeed... Mct mht (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...wow how ignorance can be funny..SORRY!! I guess I learned something today! Udonknome (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --CSTAR (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "delete" voters just haven't done their homework. Let's take a look:
- Jean-François Le Gall, "Fluctuation Results for the Wiener Sausage", Annals of Probability, 1988, volume 16, number 3, pages 991–1018
- M. van den Berg, E. Bolthausen, F. den Hollander, "Moderate deviations for the volume of the Wiener sausage", Annals of Mathematics, 2001, volume 153, pages 355–406
- E. Bolthausen, "On the Volume of the Wiener Sausage", Annals of Probability, 1990, volume 18, number 4, pages 1576–1582
- Uwe Schmock , "Convergence of the normalized one-dimensional wiener sausage path measures to a mixture of brownian taboo processes", Stochastics An International Journal of Probability and Stochastic Processes, Volume 29, Issue 2 February 1990 , pages 171–183
- T. Eisele and R. Lang, "Asymptotics for the wiener sausage with drift", Probability Theory and Related Fields, Volume 74, Number 1 / March, 1987, pages 125–140
- Yuji Hamana, Harry Kesten, " A large-deviation result for the range of random walk and for the Wiener sausage", Probability Theory and Related Fields, Volume 120, Number 2 / June, 2001, Pages 183–208
- A. S. Sznitman, "Some bounds and limiting results for the measure of Wiener sausage of small radius associated with elliptic diffusions", Stochastic processes and their applications, 1987, volume 25, number 1, pages 1–25
- Isaac Chavel, Edgar A. Feldman, "The Lenz shift and wiener sausage in riemannian manifolds", Compositio Mathematica, volume 60, number 1, (1986), pages 65–84
- M. D. Donsker and S. R. S. Varadhan, "Asymptotics for the Wiener sausage", Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 28 (1975), pages 525–565

...and a large number of others found by Google Scholar. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment yup i agree , wish to be more careful next time . --Pearll's sun (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Originally a silly joke, this has become a notable mathematical term. Google scholar has 294 hits for the combination of "Wiener sausage" and "brownian". --Hans Adler (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise article to show the sources mentioned. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I copy-and-pasted Michael's refs in. To unstub it, someone would need to actually read and digest all that sausage, but I think in its current stubby state they are more than adequate to show that this concept is notable mathematically. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to call for snow now - despite hating this horrible cold weather, I think this one is all snowed up. Two delete votes remain (and not the nom), and they are obviously mistaken about the nature of the subject of this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge ~~and DELETE~~ (NAC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content was merged to Tsubasa:_Reservoir_Chronicle. History was not deleted. (admin) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle story arcs[edit]

Similar to List of xxxHolic Story Arcs, this is a proported list of story arcs in the Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle manga and anime series. The list essentially constitutes an extended storyline (i.e. plot summary) with classification of these various fictional events and sequences as deliberate story arcs that do not exist within the original works. This is pure personal synthesis based on editor and fan preferences rather than real arcs that exist within the works. The series plot is already better covered in the main Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle article and in the List of Tsubasa Chronicle episodes, without the OR splits.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is basically a duplicate of the story arcs list and has the same issues:

Collectonian (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the similar xxxholic article, this should be replaced with manga chapter lists, following the standard format. If any of the plot summaries here can be used into the manga chapter list, great; otherwise, Delete and make a new page. Doceirias (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these can, as they seem to span multiple chapters without regard for volume, making them fairly useless. Collectonian (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to original research issues and this site not being a place for simply regurgitating plot. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research galore present. Largely unnecessary when there are plot summaries at chapter lists and episode lists. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete The timetable differences between the manga, anime, movie, and OVA are not clearly shown anywhere else, without having to read the actual episode plot itself. Scrap this page's arc descriptions, they are amateur and inaccurate. Many fans who are trying to watch the anime series and make sense of why a split exists, won't be able to accurately understand the timeline without the table on this page. I could not make heads nor tails of where the "Tokyo" arc was, without spoiling the ending of the anime itself, until I came to this page. -Spydyrman 24.243.24.144 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete I also found this article useful in regards to when different supporting characters show up at what point in the manga. Each world in Tsubasa features a very different cast of supporting characters. I think that the chronology of clamp character cameo appearences should be included somewhere in a list of manga chapters. I will say that even though the story arc summaries are not an accurate way to present the information, they are much easier to wade through than a long list of individual chapter summaries. Mizi (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals of European Union by area[edit]

Fails WP:V - no reliable sources showing third-party notability (ie, that anyone outside Wikipedia has ever considered the connection between EU capital cities and their area). Thus, neither verifiable nor notable. Biruitorul (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the size of the cities are certainly verifiable, and the subject encyclopedic, if a bit odd and unusual.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "List of national capitals cities by area"? That would be a little more representative. Biruitorul (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. But it has nothing to do with this article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing"? This article is based on an artificial selection of countries, while that one would cover the whole world. So I say let's get rid of this one until we write the other one. Biruitorul (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm a little skeptical that this is needed, even though I like the gazetteer aspects of Wikipedia a bit more than some, but it certainly has no reason to be limited to the EU. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate subject. On the one hand, it would be weird if the list excluded, say, all EU capitals where French is spoken. On the other hand, of course you could include anything and everything, but that's not the title of this article either. <K F> 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has notability and highly impossible to merge with European Union due to its size so a speedy keep is good . --Pearll's sun (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is, um. Well. Contra the nominator, the information is verifiable -- it's trivially easy to look up the members of the EU, their capital cities, and those areas. I agree with the concern that this collection of information is not particularly notable, and is even a little odd. At least as it stands. Here's my proposal: Keep and rename List of capitals of the European Union or something similar, and expand by adding a sortable column for Population. And possibly other information that might be useful, like per capita income or date of founding/settlement if that can be sufficiently established with any reliability -- but that would be for the editors to discuss on the talk page. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while we're at it, replace the Rank column with Country, since with the flags, that's really what it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and verifiable, though this is rather specific and lacks much future expansion. I would strongly suggest the creation of List of national capitals by area (as List of capitals by country), and at that point editors could decide whether the two would warrant a merge. Joshdboz (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be a bit of a radical proposition, but wouldn't just make sense to have a single "List of capitol cities" in a sortable tabular format with all of the data such as country, population, area, etc.? That way, the information could be sorted alphabetically by country, or numerically by population, by area, or whatever, all within a single page without having to duplicate information. Just a thought... LaMenta3 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but my openion is that such a separate list is needed for a better information . --Pearll's sun (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but then you run into another dilemma: what do you do with Oslo, Berne, Minsk...capitals of European countries not in the EU? Make a List of capitals of European non-European Union members by area? Better to start with a List of capitals of European nations by area and then expand to the rest of the world. Biruitorul (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 21 Member States listed, why not the other six? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, while we're at it, the EU (which is what the title refers to) has (let us say) just two capitals, Brussels and Strasbourg, not 21 or 27. Biruitorul (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm a little confused to how this is important enough to have its own article. Brokenspirits (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep per the sources added by Klausness which establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nekropsi[edit]

Prod removed without comment but with the addition of a trivial mention in LeMonde. I don't see any evidence of RS coverage or anything to verify they meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~Keep. There is some coverage of this band out there, but it all seems to be from sites run by fans rather than professionals. The best I found is this, but I'm not sure it's enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. A few professional reviews could swing it to a keep, however.--Michig (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the additions by Klausness are good enough for me.--Michig (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be at least somewhat notable in Turkey. Added some reviews from major Turkish newspapers. Klausness (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coin snatching[edit]

Pretty much a how-to guide for a parlour trick with no indication of notability. Created about a month ago by an SPA. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we're not a guide for magicians. Biruitorul (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Guinness Book of Records has been keeping track of coin snatching feats since 1990, if not earlier. The article certainly needs some cleanup, but this parlor trick does have a minor claim to notability. Zagalejo^^^ 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Zagalejo. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Zagalejo. Definitely needs rewording though, including reference to reliable sources. Wiw8 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if valid references can be added to the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above; seems notable enough. ♠TomasBat 16:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unreferenced, and deadend issues have been resolved: [42] & [43]. ♠TomasBat 19:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TomasBat, who has a wonderful signature file. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotten Boroughs
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was convert to redirect to Rotten borough. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rotten Boroughs[edit] Rotten Boroughs (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Article currently contains no informative content, and is instead a vast list of examples listed verbatim from various issues of Private Eye magazine. There is no scope for expanding the informative content, since this topic is a very minor column in Private Eye magazine, with nothing to say about it. All informative content here is duplicated in the main Private Eye article. The article title itself is not a useful search term; anyone typing "Rotten Boroughs" into the search box would almost certainly be seeking Rotten borough instead, and anyone looking specifically for information about this column itself would almost certainly go straight to the main magazine article itself. The series of articles related to Private Eye suffers from excessive splitting, and as such I propose deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as nominator. Jdcooper (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as an unexpandable one-paragraph summary. Reprinting their yearly awards lists (verbatim?) is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Disagree with every point made by Jdcooper, who is a rogue editor, it is a valid article. As for what is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, this is a subjective statement - article provides accurate and relevant information therefore it is encyclopaedic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GWP (talk • contribs) Inappropriate content is objectively defined by WP:NOT and other Wikipedia policies. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:COATRACK. Most of the incidents do not pass notability criteria, so this is an end-run around WP:N. There is no third-party coverage to indicate that a Rotten Boroughs "award" had any impact outside the readers of the publication. --Dhartung \| Talk 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep/merge The column is notable.Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I can't see that any of those nine articles meet the "significant coverage" of WP:N - they're just clarifying which section of the Eye stories have appeared in, and aren't giving us much raw information about the column itself. And the only big story in there is more about the magazine than the column; it seems more appropriate for the Private Eye article, if we're going to write about it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment If this article is deleted, it should then be redirected to Rotten borough, an important article about English history and politics. If someone types the phrase "Rotten Boroughs" into the search box, that's probably what they are looking for. * Crotalus * 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Reverted to no copy vio version This article is listed in Wikipedia:Copyright problems, on review the only option available appeared to be revert to a version without a copyright problem, which is the redirect to Rotten borough. I will leave it to the community to decide to delete the redirect, rebuild the article or speedy close this AfD. Jeepday (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Close this AfD per Jeepday. Redirect solves problems of original article and is a valid redirect. Elvis has left the building. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Spin Starts Here[edit] The Spin Starts Here (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Article is about a blog that no longer exists. The only argument put up for notability is it is included on The Australia Index. The problem there is there are thousands of blogs listed on that site, and most don't look any more notable than this one. Armyable (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as nom--Armyable (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment As AFD is a consensus process and not a vote, "delete as nom" is redundant. The mere act of nominating suggests your position. --Dhartung \| Talk 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, no independent attribution of notability. (Inclusion in an archive with many other websites is not much of an indicator of anything.) --Dhartung \| Talk 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete It violates WP:Notability Delete per nom, nn. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hackwatch[edit] Hackwatch (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Article currently contains no content, and has no scope for expansion since the topic is a minor column in Private Eye magazine with nothing to say about it. All informative content here is amply covered in main Private Eye article. A redirect has sufficed until now, but is not strictly necessary since the article title itself is not a plausible search term; anyone looking specifically for information about this column itself would almost certainly go straight to the main magazine article instead. The article has recently been recreated, still with no content, and as such I propose deletion. The series of articles related to Private Eye suffers from excessive splitting (I am nominating another similar article immediately after this). Jdcooper (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as nom. Jdcooper (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment As AFD is a discussion and not a vote, "delete as nom" is redundant. The act of nomination indicates your position. --Dhartung \| Talk 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Noted, thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as unexpandable, it's just a magazine's title for one of its pages. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:COATRACK, just an excuse to include potshots from the column. --Dhartung \| Talk 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. All of the reasons so far cited are irrelevant. The fact is that the article contains no material pertinent to its title. The column in Private Eye focuses upon a particular journalist each week and lists articles which they have written which are absurd in some way. It is impossible to see, other than giving a list of the writers who have been featured, how to give the article substance without relying exclusively on cuttings from the magazine. Wikipedia is a little precious about using cuttings, even though this is valid within copyright law in certain circumstances (which would include Wikipedia). However, this article cannot exist without reproducing big chunks of the magazine, which is why it needs deletion, never to be resurrected. Guy (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Swinton circle[edit] Swinton circle (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) This is a minor (500 member) British political pressure group of whom I (a Brit and regular reader of British political journalism) have never heard. There are around 150 unique ghits for "swinton circle" of which many are unrelated [44]. The article is essentially unsourced, only one quote from the New Statesman (a magazine pretty much guaranteed to hate this subject on ideological grounds alone) is independent of the group. The history of the article strongly suggests a political axe being ground. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to the unrelated Magic Roundabout. Sorry, that was in Swindon, not Swinton. Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Obscure but (once) influential groups should be listed. It is not just the New Statesman that reports on them but The Independent, the Mirror, The Guardian and Progress Magazine are among the 571 Google hits for "Swinton Circle". This all argues for the article to be cleaned up rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 571 ghits, of which 150 are unique, yes. And not all are related, of course. None of those articles is actually primarily about the subject, though. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] My mistake on the Google, I went to the end and it was 152. However The Independent (and an unrelated Independent on Sunday article) was mainly about the Swinton Circle and the fact that it was addressed by Tory frontbenchers. The Swinton circle is also a non-trivial part of the other articles listed. I also found that it is listed in the Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations. JASpencer (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This far-right group is notable, having been discussed in numerous national periodicals. It is particularly notable because, unlike other far-right groups such as The Monday Club, it remains close to, and approved by, the Conservative Party and has been visited and addressed by leading members of that party, including David Davis and Ann Widdecombe. (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please see WP:BLP and be moderate when referring to living individuals. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] As far as I can see the only potentially controversial statement regarding a living individual concerns the fact that the LSC Chair is a former member of the National Front but he has admitted this himself. However, I'm quite happy to balance this by adding the fact that he says he has more recently called for the BNP to be banned. Of course it's important to get facts right about the dead also. The late Mr Binding was certainly a BNP activist as shown in photos available on-line. The Ku Klux Klan link was reported in a range of national journals (as well as Searchlight) during Mr Binding's lifetime. Mr Binding did not deny or refuse to answer the allegation but gave detailed reasons why he had resigned from the KKK so it seems pretty conclusive to me. Mark Hasker (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep, passes the heard-of-it test (considering I'm American) and probably had its heyday prior to the internet, of which there are very few British periodicals searchable online. The article probably goes into much more detail than is warranted by sources and could use a good trim. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete this, it's not notable and as JzG pointed out, the New Stateman is hardly an appropriate source/reference/whatever. John Reaves 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I do not understand your objection to the New Statesman, which is a heavyweight centre-left journal of considerable repute. All journals are to some extent biased, but what matters is whether or not they are telling the truth. the late Mr Binding is (obviously) not a living individual but he was an important link between the Conservative Party and the BNP as pictured here Binding(search under 'Binding') Nevertheless, to satisfy your objection I will replace the New Statesman quote with a quotation from The Observer a highly respected and old-established London Sunday with moderate centrist political leanings. Mark Hasker (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Seriously John, what is wrong with the New Statesman? JASpencer (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - I hadn't previously heard of this group either but there is enough information here and via Google to prove that we need to be kept abreast of this organisation. Possibly some more cleaning up may be desirable but if we deleted all entries of which people had never heard there wouldn't be much left on Wikipedia.99.224.28.156 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - But only if someone is willing to do serious work on the page so that the reader will understand WHY they are notable after reading the entry. The goal would be that someone who has never heard of the group, will understand them and why they are notable after reading the article. If someone can do that, then I recommend keep.Helixweb (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - The article is now cleaned up and sourced so as to be almost unrecognisable from the mess it was previously. I agree with Helixweb that the many people who have never heard of this group should be made to understand that this group is plainly now the leading group on the Tory right, having taken over from the better-known but apparently moribund Monday Club. 83.138.172.79 (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, looks a lot better now, good job on those who contributed.Helixweb (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Yet another article nominated for deletion simply because the nominator hasn't heard of the subject. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that you can find things out that you didn't know before. And since when has the New Statesman not been a reliable source? This group has also had significant coverage in the Independent on Sunday [45] , the Observer [46] and an encyclopedia [47]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] speedy Keep Adequately sourced now, no plausible objection to the article has been presented. DGG (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Kurykh 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wave of the Music[edit] Wave of the Music (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Unsourced, crystal-ballism. Spellcast (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, pending sourcing (which shouldn't be difficult). There is no reason we shouldn't have articles about confirmed forthcoming albums by important artists. Jdcooper (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] See WP:V. Without refs, we don't know how valid this info is. Even if there were refs, it'll be too crystal-bally at this stage. Spellcast (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Needs sourcing. If not sourced during this AfD then delete. SilkTork ^YES! 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete* - per WP:CRYSTAL - eo (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Nothing in the article demonstrates that it's a "confirmed forthcoming album" - i.e., no references. Delete under crystal ball principle and for failing to meet the verifiability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Gator Golf[edit] Gator Golf (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) ~~Non-notable children's toy. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply] Withdraw, thanks to the added sources. Product was more notable than we were aware of. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, does not source what makes it "popular", and half of the article is the advertisement jingle. FusionMix 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep, thanks to the sources. FusionMix 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep A couple of sources here describe the game as "popular". Unfortunately, I'm not finding much of substance at the moment, besides a couple paragraphs in the book Rookie Teaching for Dummies, but I'm sure any American child who grew up in the nineties would remember the commercials for this thing, so I'm going to go with weak keep. Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well, I've added some refs to the article. I actually found the name of the guy who invented it: Robert B. Fuhrer, who also created Crocodile Dentist! Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A potentially decent topic, but the current article doesn't cut it and there's no good version to revert to. It will have to be rewritten from scratch, as there's nothing salvageable here. faithless (^speak) 08:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Numbers as religious symbols[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Numbers as religious symbols Articles for deletion/Numbers as religious symbols (2nd nomination) Numbers as religious symbols (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Article contains nothing but original research and unverified claims. Also, it's very one-sided, discussing only negative symbols. Possibly falls under WP:CSD#G4 but I can't prove that the deleted article is anything like this one. PeterSymonds \| talk 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. This article needs cleanup, and lots of it, but not deletion. Much of what it currently states is common knowledge, and it is unfortunate that it does not go beyond the basics. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. If a number is holy or unholy, this information is presented in the number's article, not here. Fails NPOV. In the former AfD, the article is deleted. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I think this comes down to whether the consensus is that this is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. If so then perhaps this article is in need of a rescue flag to help with the serious cleanup and referencing to secondary sources that it requires, before this AFD is closed. If not then delete and distribute the information (if it can be referenced to reliable sources) amongst the articles on the individual numbers per Zero Kitsune above. Wiw8 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete This article has never been much, and it's been around for more than a year, never rising beyond original research and bored speculation, and never sourced. Summary: 666 is bad, as everyone already knows. 13 is bad. 9 can be bad. Assuming Hitler's followers were practicing a "Nazi Germanism" religion, 88 is bad. Might be a good topic in the hands of someone who knows what they're writing about. Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete massive POV problems, and total original research. Six is not a pretty number; eight or three are definitely better. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Not even sure why this is flagged for rescue. While normally I'll see if an article is worth saving, but even if I do clean up the POV it will just be a collection of other persons POV. ANy information worth saving in this article can be included in other articles discussing religion. -Jahnx (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep The topic of the article is inherently encyclopedic; it allows for more general and po-mo references to be incorporated that other competing articles--e.g.,Gematria and Theomatics--cannot. The former article's topic Gematria must primarily be about Hebrew religious alpha-numeric symbols, while the latter article's topic Theomatics must primarily be about the Christian Bible (Hebrew and Greek religious alpha-numeric symbols).--Firefly322 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. If this is to be "rescued", it must be scraped clean and started anew as a list of numbers as religious symbols organized by religion... and only if it is very well sourced. B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. OR variation on numerology. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge/Redirect. The article itself is a valid topic. The content at present is dreadful, and appears to have already been deleted once before. But I think that merge-ing/REDIRECT-ing it to another article (e.g. Numerology or Numbers) would do more to discourage its recreation in its current state than deletion would. The other alternative to prevent recreation would be salting, but I don't think that's appropriate given that this is a valid topic. --SJK (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Improper nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Tanoli[edit] Tanoli (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Page is in a ~~awful~~ poor state. ~~No source of any kind~~. ~~Doesnt even look like a wikipedia article.~~ Its very hard to read. It's other templates are also (IMO) a reason to Delete. TheProf \| Talk 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ~~:Page is also (again IMO) not notable. TheProf \| Talk 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply] Weak keep. Just because it's difficult to read and "doesn't even look like a Wikipedia article" doesn't mean it needs to be removed of entirely. Some cleanup and work from an expert on the topic could turn it into a decent article. FusionMix 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~:The article has been on wikipedia for three years. Its a pretty safe bet, that "expert" doesnt exist. TheProf \| Talk 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply] Comment ~~Are you sure that the whole content is not a hoax?~~ No, there appears to exist a tanoli arab surname --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] This page was edited by the likes of Sahil4ubest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Taj_Mohammed_Khan_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Khalidpervezshaheen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Afghantanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Pakhtun_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) he has a whole category for his sockpuppets Tanoli_blogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wikitanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Keep. The only part of the nomination that was anything like a valid reason for deletion was "no source of any kind", but there are in fact 12 book sources listed in the article. The only reason they were not there at the precise time of the AfD nomination was because they had been persistently removed by vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Firstly, i totally respect your opinion and this is not a personal attack. Secondly, let me just defend my reasons for this AfD nomination. The templates placed on the page by other users are a fair enough reason for me to nominate it for AfD. ~~The page really does need a mass clean up and i can't see anyone being able to do this.~~ Also i can't help what vandals do to the article. I can only revert it if i see it. Thanks and have a nice day! TheProf \| Talk 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Tanoli page needs improvement not deletion I have been working on the Tanoli page to make it look presenatable for wikipedia with guidance from Prof and finally it is in a presentable state now. Tanoli is a tribe of more than a few hundred thousand people who reside mainly in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, they have had a great contribution to the history of that area and have been noted for that in many books, articles and national and international documents. I have just today added a few more books to the article's further reading section. If anyone has doubts as to the notability of this page, please type Tanawal (the homeland of Tanolis)in Google Books and you will find lots of literature on the subject matter. So please this is an encyclopaedic sight and deletion of this page will not help the cause of Wikipedia. Thank You Wikitanoli (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Article is now in a much better state than when i nominated it for deletion. This is not a nom withdrawl. However, i am now quite satified with the article. It still has a few issues, but it is notable because of the number of google hits. I've struck all comments i feel are now out of date. I now suggest that an administrator review the article and this AfD. This will be my last word on the subject. Cheers! TheProf \| Talk 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] This nomination for deletion does not meet the nomination for deletion policy of Wikipedia, which states: Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the speedy deletion criteria and process. For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the proposed deletion process. For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers. Therefore I think this stub for nomination for deletion must be removed of the page as the nominee Prof himself believes that the page has been considerably improved and it is notable. Cheers!!! Wikitanoli (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per nom retractal, and because the page has been improved to the point that it no longer merits deletion. Also, I have to say that the page was nominated right after a vandal reverted to a vandalised version --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Kurykh 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sluagh (World of Darkness)[edit] Sluagh (World of Darkness) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Not notable -- 9 hits (5 to Wiki) Jim62sch^dissera! 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom SGGH ^speak! 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete only 6 hits on google for me. 2 were wikipedia! So basically, per nom! TheProf \| Talk 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm getting a lot of hits, I don't know what terms you guys are using. For context, World of Darkness refers to the D&D-type pen and paper game/universe by White Wolf, and there is a fairly extensive collection on wiki of White Wolf stuff. Abstain, as I don't know how notable Sluagh is specifically. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Poemhemia[edit] Poemhemia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Disputed prod. Non-notable student magazine having had only one issue published so far. nancy ^(talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No hint of its circulation. No prejudice against recreation once the magazine becomes stable. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Nothing here yet to indicate its worthiness of inclusion. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was redirect to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups. Sandstein (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 9th Carrier Air Group[edit] 9th Carrier Air Group (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) An article about a unit that never existed and therefore never participated in any military campaigns can hardly be notable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete this not formed group need not be in a encyclopedia . failed in all search engines --Pearll's sun (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. For the reason outlined in the nomination. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete That it never existed isn't an issue, but I can't find anything at all about it. So not notable Hobit (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, assuming this is verifiable, it is certainly not notable, not even to the extent of a redirect to Operation Downfall. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I've just created List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups which will be a suitable redirect if this article is deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] comment well if this article is notable then a suitable redirect may be considered after merging the same with any existing ww2 article under a separate heading so this these non formed groups may be made available . wikipedia musnt go lack of any info . moreover if this article creator produces some notability then i might consider to change my opinion .--Pearll's sun (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge all content to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups and then delete. 4th and 5th Carrier Air Groups are in exactly the same situation - never formed. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge/Redirect to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups. --SJK (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I've now done that for all the non-existent ones except the 9th, so it would seem logically at this juncture to REDIRECT the 9th as well. --SJK (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Brenna Lee Roth[edit] Brenna Lee Roth (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Not much claim of notability here; no sources to show notability. IMDb has her in bit parts in 4 films; gsearch not coming up with notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, a couple of mentions in Ohio papers and on Luke Ford's site don't add up to notability. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Brenna has been in over 60 horror and independent films, is the daughter of David Lee Roth and has over 11 thousand pages found on google. The original flag was placed by a jealous ex lover who is on a crusade to slander her name. He doctored her IMDB results and deleted many legitimate movies she had been in. Her notability stands for itself, and is easily verifiable. This flagging is obviously the result of jealous motives, and not done out of the best interests of information. (Re-added comment by IP user 99.164.109.187 -- user had inadvertently overwritten other comments)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, notability not established through multiple independent reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete as copyvio. No prejudice against a new, original version that demonstrates notability from reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Charlie Kaye[edit] Charlie Kaye (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Biography of a behind the scenes broadcasting person. I don't believe he is notable to a general audience. If he were on-air or on a broadcasting version of Wiki he might be notable, but just because he has a high profile job doesn't make him notable to the average person. I think only broadcast people like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather or other notable ON-AIR people are the only ones who should have pages. Also I believe major contributor to article is User:Dfmock who has been making many COI edits. The User:69.22.248.44 could be his. Just a hunch on that, but most importantly I find a one paragraph page about someone in the broadcasting field is not necessary. UWMSports (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep notable per Google search [48], [49], [50]. JJL (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Those are far from reliable sources other than the Hofstra.edu one. But that's sort of biased in its own right as he is an alumni of the school. Many non-notable people go back to their university to speak in the field they work in. By the way, my tax attorney will show up on a google search. That shouldn't make you notable. -UWMSports (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete; I'm a broadcasting major and I've never heard of Charlie Kaye. Therefore he isn't notable. Hopefully he isn't reading this though, when I start looking for a job next Spring! -FancyMustard (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:COPYVIO of this. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete copyvio. Even if there were no copyright problems, there was no indication of any notoriety beyond that of the local level. B.Wind (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G3, blatant hoax. It doesn't qualify for G4, by the way, as it is completely different from the previous deleted article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Christopher Hoffman[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Christopher Hoffman Articles for deletion/Christopher Hoffman (2nd nomination) Christopher Hoffman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Can't confirm a single "fact" in article in IMDb. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete as per fate of related articles. DS (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Rayburne Show: Backstage Adventures[edit] Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Nothing 444 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Appears to be a video looking to advertise its existence on Wikipedia. Delete as per WP:V unless independent reliable sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Merge, with List of The Wire writers and directors. It has been established that no notability has been established for a complete article on this subject, but general agreement exists that it would be suitable if the subject was listed on the relevant list of writers and directors. Hopefully this outcome will benefit the subject and the project's readers as much as possible, whilst also satisfying Wikipedia's policies. Regards, Anthøny 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] David H. Melnick[edit] David H. Melnick (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Part of a long series of articles on writers of the series "The Wire", most of whom appear to be notable; however this person has co-written one episode of this series and appears to have no other claim to notability (I don't believe "assistant writer" is such). PROD removed with explanation of "he's notable". Black Kite 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge the article doesn't currently assert notability. If it is unable to do so then the content should be merged into List of The Wire writers and directors.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge per Qpark 77. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was move to Off-page optimization. Notable, main thing that needed fixing was the title. *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Off -page optimization[edit] Off -page optimization (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Article is a little over two years old, has been tagged orphan since Nov 2006. Article may have been originally created as adspam (since cleaned up) (see User_talk:UKsaunders ). Article is basically redundant and useless. (-- Note: Odd style of hypen in article title --) Writtenonsand (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Judging by Google, this is clearly a significant operative function of search engines. It isn't exactly orphaned either - five articles link to it, one of which is an FA. WilliamH (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The name can be fixed by anybody, and is solvable by other methods than deletion; thus, not an argument for deletion. The subject is a major part of how SEO companies operate and should be kept as such. There is information around, as well as some news that can at least prove "this does what the article says it does". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs) Comment Possibly notable per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but should be moved if kept to off-page optimization. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Julie James[edit] Julie James (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) per WP:FICT. No references or real-world information. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] See also Helen Shivers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Simply a vast plot summary, not encyclopedic content. WilliamH (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Wikipedia cannot be a collection of all movie characters. If we get an article for all characters in each film Wikipedia's server space would be drained up. Chimeric Glider (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Exterminate, per Chimeric Glider. FusionMix 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Julie James is not Scarlett O'Hara. MovieMadness (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neither is she Hermione Granger. =P Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] ADP Records[edit] ADP Records (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Extremely long and promotional article on non-notable record label. Prodded and speedied already. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Per nom and no notable artists and no meaningful incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well what do you expect it's a DIY/indie record label and there's a bunch of articles of DIY labels on Wikipedia why start deleting this one while the others are non-notable as well. How can it be no notable artists when these guys have their albums selling in FYE, you need UPC barcodes for proof? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.41.79 (talk • contribs) Delete, no attribution of notability of this label to independent sources. --Dhartung \| Talk 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, lack of coverage in sources, no articles exist about any of the artists so no evidence any of them are notable either. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 08:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of fictional aircraft in Ace Combat[edit] List of fictional aircraft in Ace Combat (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) It seems as though a similar article once existed and was brought up to afd. The same reasons for its deletion applies to this one as well. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 30#Aircraft of Ace Combat « ₣M₣ » 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete A whole, whole, whole, whole lot of fancruft. A shame someone wasted their Friday night on this :) —97198 talk 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] So basically, you're saying it shouldn't be here because you're not interested in it? That's patently ridiculous. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, fancruft generally means that it's a collection of indiscriminate information to anyone who's not a hardcore fan. —97198 talk 01:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] In other words, it means that you're not interested in it. Others might be. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:ITSCRUFT 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I would suggest merge, but frankly it's way too long. Therefore, an unequivocal Keep. It's information; therefore, it's relevant to a project aiming to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The telephone directory also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. Advertisements also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. Hoaxes also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. My grocery receipts also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. --Calton \| Talk 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] delete game cruft. Of no relevance or impact outside the universe of the game, nothing even close to anything like evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Arbitrary collection of trivia. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, etc etc etc. I suspect this may qualify for speedy deletion per CSD:G4, can someone investigate similarity to Aircraft of Ace Combat? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom and per WP not being a game guide. --Calton \| Talk 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - huge amount of info, someone's obviously done a lot of work here. Unfortunately, that's no argument for keeping an article, and this indiscriminate collection of information belongs somewhere else, perhaps a gaming wiki?Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Transwiki to a suitable gaming wiki and Delete. This is very much game guide material.Gazimoff (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Transwiki if not covered by a relevant gaming wiki. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. There's plenty of useful information here, but it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was withdrawal of nomination; in the absence of any other delete comments, this is a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] DS PSP War[edit] DS PSP War (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Synthesis, plain and simple. Yes, the article has one section which is copied and cited, talking about sales results as of March 2005. It has no further sourced material comparing the two; it instead branches into a list of PSP attributes and a list of titles for the two platforms. That information is better handled by the respective platforms' articles, so I don't see how this article establishes that the "DS PSP War" notable—certainly not beyond any other case of two products competing. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Could this article be kept with major cleanup? I see a bit of promise in it. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment I would say the article is notable, just not in it's current state or title. If the article was heavily re-written without Synthesis, properly referenced, and included information about other handheld consoles of that generation, it would be notable. As it is in it's current state, I agree with the deletion. Eastlygod (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I see two editors here, plus one at the talk page—separate from the original editor—saying they have a vision for how to improve the article and bring it up to standards. Since there's a pool of support to improve the article, I'm all for good articles. And I don't think the subject is beyond notability; I just don't think the current incarnation of the article does it justice. Nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 07:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Masada (Honorverse)[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Masada (Honorverse) Articles for deletion/Masada (Honorverse) (2nd nomination) Masada (Honorverse) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) This article is a blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. No real-world context or secondary sources have been added in almost one year. A good part of the first discussion centered around the question whether the article is affected by the recent ArbCom injuntion. This injunction has now been lifted, so I'm relisting. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, this is one of many superfluous Honorverse articles. If I'm not mistaken, there are more articles on the Honorverse than on Harry Potter (look at the template). And there is nary an outside source on this fictional planet. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, entirely in-universe, no secondary sources, no sourced real world context or analysis. Fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete now that the injunction has been lifted. Article is almost totally in-universe with no secondary sources; WP:NOT#PLOT applies. --Core desat 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, the books are acceptable primary sources and WP:PLOT is pointless bureaucracy (one of the things Wikipedia is not). Do you need a secondary source to tell you what page X says? No you don't. --Pixelface (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:PLOT is not pointless bureaucracy. It is a well reasoned policy, and without good reason, exception should not be made. All articles must have secondary sources, not just ones on fictional objects. Secondary sources are required to establish notability. With fictional topics, the information must be presented from the perspective of the real world. Simply indicating that a topic is fictional is not real world context. If there isn't information beyond repeating the plot then the article is not encyclopedic, and is potentially copyright infringement as it would serve to replace experiencing the fictional work. It is absolutely necessary to delete articles like this for the good of Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per policy (WP:PLOT). If the policy needs to be changed that can be discussed at the policy talk page or at the village pump. There are more than enough precedents for this to be deleted. —BradV 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete one of too many articles of this ilk. --Stormbay (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] KAFA-FM[edit] KAFA-FM (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Tagged since January for notability. This appears to be an unlicensed station so no FCC records are available. doesn't show up in list of stations reaching the Air Force Academy. Is this station still active? Rtphokie (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Per the article, it is a hobby activity of students at a college (the Air Force Academy) and has no references which are reliable and independent. It is great for college students to have a hobby activity, but no more notable than an intermural softball team. Notability of the academy is not inherited by every student activity at the academy. Edison (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Not FCC, but apparently because they are an arm of the federal government they don't need the FCC. From a blog: "Instead, they operate under authorization from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA. ". I'd want to see what power they broadcast at and I'd like to see something that meets WP:N, but I think it has a chance... Hobit (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] According to RadioStationWorld, KAFA is a 20 watt station.[51] That's not trivial, but it still needs evidence of reaching the surrounding community. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep I've added a few references from reliable secondary sources, an infobox, and done some general cleanup as well. The station, licensed by the US government, has a 44 year history and is clearly a part of both the Air Force Academy and Colorado Springs communities. A quick Google News search [52] shows that the Colorado Springs Gazette has included the station in its general listing of area radio stations for at least the last 15 years. It also shows community involvement and other activities. Could article use continued improvement and more references from somebody with better access to Colorado Springs media archives? Sure, but the station easily meets the notability test and is now at least somewhat referenced. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Dravecky as licensed full-power radio station with an established history. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Withdrawn I'd like to withdraw this, the article has been siginficantly improved with many more references than before.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] speedy keep at this point. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Stakkars Jon (2004)[edit] Stakkars Jon (2004) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Non notable short film. No non trivial independent reliable sources, fails notability guidelines for inclusion and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. If the claim in the article is true, that it did win the Amandus award, I would call this a keep, but I cannot find a reference to confirm that, and for a country like Norway where almost all internet newspaper articles are archived and remain online forever, that is quite telling. What I have found is a catalog entry from the Norwegian Film Institute for a video with the 2004 Amandus entries here and "Stakkars Jon" is not on that list. Appears to fail verifiability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. Not just "no non trivial independent reliable sources", this has no references at all. (I think it's time that unreferenced articles became speediable. The edit page for new articles says at the top "Without references, the article may be deleted", and it's time that was changed to "will be deleted" to deal with the torrent of unreferenced non-notable stuff like this). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment "no non trivial independent reliable sources" means two things - there aren't any in the article and I've looked elsewhere and can't find any either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Kurykh 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Polyhydromethalon[edit] Polyhydromethalon (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) I see no proof. no google results. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Wikipedia policy about verification via Google is very unhelpfull when dealing with information that pre-dates the internet age. Polyhdromethalon was a experimental product that failed over 70 years ago. I am not at all surprised at the lack of information avaiable on the web. I have however quoted a number of published sources. I would content that published sources are far more valuable than web pages of dubious authenticity.Annie Gaylor (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I didn't see any mention of it being 70 years ago. Sorry for any trouble caused. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] That's okay. Are you going to remove it from the Articles for Deletion list? Annie Gaylor (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Only Admins can do that. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete: Polyhydromethalon brings up no hits on Google Books, but it should, because Google Books includes both Fibrous Materials and Munich: The Price of Peace. Fibrous Materials is a limited preview, which means we can directly search inside it, but Polyhydromethalon, Daladier, Dupuis, and Rhône-Poulenc do not show up on searches. Going to page 193 reveals nothing at all pertinent. Fibrous Materials on Google Books--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Interesting. The preview on google Books only goes up to page 172. So how did you go to page 193 to look at it on Google Books? Taineyah (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I grabbed the scroll-bar and scrolled down real quickly until it hit page 193. I think most of the time it's more concerned about how much you view than what.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] It seems to show random chunks - just now it was missing pp.30-38, 40-49, 54-64... Seems to be consistent, the same pages were missing on two tries. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Per WP:AGF. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Smells like a hoax to me. Klausness (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. An excellently written article, but the complete lack of sources makes this look a lot like a hoax. And, if the failure of this material played such a role in international politics, surely someone would have taken note of it online before now. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - see below; changed from Neutral for now, but suspicious; it smells hoaxy. Nothing in the parts of the Chawla book that one can see on Google Books. I can get Munich: The Price of Peace from a library, but probably not till the 27th or 28th. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete in the absence of any mention anywhere else in the world.... DGG (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete There is no mention of "polyhydromethalon" in Chemical Abstracts; therefore the chance that this chemical compound really exists (with this name) is essentially zero. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - within two days I should have access to a copy of Telford Taylor, Munich: The Price of Peace which should settle the question of whether this is sourced or a hoax. Suggest not closing till I report back. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I have now consulted Munich: the Price of Peace. It is a different edition from the one quoted, but the number of pages, 1084, is the same. On the page quoted, p.913, there is nothing about Daladier: it is about the post-Munich German occupation of the Sudetenland. To be certain, I have read the book's passages about Daladier, and its eye-witness account of the actual signing of the Munich agreement. There is absolutely nothing relevant to the story in this article. I have changed my !vote above to Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Monova[edit] Monova (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Non notable company, tagged as G11 and prod'd both removed by single purpose account who makes nothing but links to this company. I see notability issues, advertising and conflict of interest. Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as spam. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep — The company clearly exists. If you have a problem with the CONTENT of the article, the proper solution is not to delete it but fix it up. If you can't be bothered to do that, fine, but that's no need to go trying to nuke it altogether. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean no one else is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] It exists, but does it meet WP:N? I did do a search for records and couldn't find any reliable sources, do you know of any?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Who cares about notability? It's wrong. It's irrelevant. It's unneeded. Sourcing is a different issue, of course, but perhaps right now the proper solution is not to delete. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:N is an accepted community guideline, so who cares? The Wikipedia community does. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge this community-built and community-accepted standard is one thing, but I'm tremendously disappointed by the lengths to which you go trying to inject your unhelpful contrary opinion into every deletion discussion you come across (even otherwise uncontroversial ones). "Keep because it exists" is not and has never been a valid rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Just because it's wildly unpopular doesn't mean it's invalid. The only difference between my position and yours is that yours is more popular. We're both equally entitled (to the extent that concept is meaningful on this project) to participate in discussions from our respective points of view. Public disagreement with consensus is perfectly fine. If I were actually causing problems--if I were actually going around recreating deleted articles, or making gross insults, etc.--you'd have a point; but right now as best I can tell you're just upset because I'm promoting an idea you're uncomfortable with. For something like that, frankly, tough for you. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Come on guys, let's keep it civil and on topic.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - There are no reliable sources - that's just Kurt's philosophy coming through.. As just another torrent site (not anywhere near the top few) it attracts no interest outside its community. Simply cannot write a verifiable article on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as advertising and COI. Biruitorul (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A3) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Pokemon cheats[edit] Pokemon cheats (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) The article is unencyclopedic and gives no substantial information. PeterSymonds \| talk 10:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your comment PeterSymonds This is my first article so if you think it shouldn't be there why don't you help me fix it up you may edit it for me please don't delete it. I appreciate that. However, I don't think a list of cheats is appropriate material for an encyclopedia. See WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Thanks, PeterSymonds \| talk 10:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Delete. Absolutely no notability. Why was this brought here? Surely it's a speedy? WWGB (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's derived from WP:WWIN, and therefore fails WP:CSD. PeterSymonds \| talk 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of doomsday scenarios[edit] AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/List of doomsday scenarios Articles for deletion/List of doomsday scenarios (2nd nomination) List of doomsday scenarios (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) I have no idea what to make of this, other than that it's clearly unencyclopedic in its current form as it is basically an indiscriminate list. The article is a list of some ways the world could end, ranging from 'Atomic war' to 'All women grow penises'. I was close to speedy deleting it under CSD G1 (patent nonsense), but it doesn't quite fit into a speedy deletion category and there may be something it can be redirected to as it's a plausible search term. Note that the previous version of this article which was deleted in 2006 is quite different to the current version, so it doesn't fit into CSD G4 either. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge to Doomsday event which is a better article on the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, do not merge as information is unreferenced. A valid article on this subject could potentially be written, but this indiscriminate, apparently original research-based list is not worth keeping. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] It has a variety of blue-links which may be worth merging. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as duplicate of Doomsday event. 23skidoo (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete It's a pretty lame duplicate at that, as if the author was making a grocery list, or just trying to kill some time. Turns out that "all women grow penises" was one of the author's original visions of the apocalypse. I don't know... I think the effect of a woman on the growth of the male organ is crucial to the continued existence of the human race. Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Though I think it's funny that the only "fictional" entry he could think of was "Take-over by aliens from outer space." Since doomsday hasn't happened yet, aren't these all fictional? Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete This is as close as one can get to a perfect example of a crystal ball. Also, it's a duplicate. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete The article needs an extinction level event itself. Lawrence § t/e 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom's first edits appear to be to nominate this article. Bad faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wayne Grudem[edit] Not a notable author or theologian. Wayne Grudem (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) Strong keep. seems USA Today, pbs, a few religious news sources and the Journal of Psychology and Theology diagree with you about notability. Please do a quick google search before you nominate something for AfD. Also, this AfD seems broken; I'm not sure how to fix such things. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep For the reasons above, with the addition of my personal experience. Grudem is a well known Evangelical scholar. Leon 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep - notable author as above. His Systematic Theology is widely used (as systematics texts go, of course). --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep - per above. As theologians go, he's probably about the most famous in UK evangelical circles at least. See your point about snow, too. TJ (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as above, the WP:SNOW has fallen. The article needs work and better inline references, not deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Let it snow. I was amazed when I saw this nom. StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep the article, delete the quotes. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, not here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Aussie idiots[edit] Aussie idiots (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Unremarkable high school film. скоморохъ 09:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Article says it is an "indie, amateur" movie, made by a couple of students. Article links to a promo that is clearly unprofessional. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:V. Thaurisil^t_c 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete A clearly non-notable amateur film. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as failing any reason to stay. Article simply to plug an upcoming youtubeism - Peripitus (Talk) 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep The video clearly exists. What else is important? Perhaps needs to be moved to a more gramatically-correct title, though. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Just because it exists does not make it notable though. Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] But why does notability matter? Can you even define it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes I can define it, it is called WP:N. Tiptoety ^talk 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] That's hardly substantial--it's just empty generalities. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, as non-notable and pretty much admitting to it. ~~Also, I'm going to be bold and state that just because it exists is not a reason to keep it.~~ I think I can speak for eveyone here when I say that the article hasn't established notability. Just because notability is only a guideline doesn't mean you can ignore it.1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. non-notable high school film. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] "It exists" is not a valid argument because we don't depend on direct observation of the world- that would be original research. Here we're an encyclopedia and this means we use sources. If it doesn't have enough coverage in proper sources there can be no article. Kurt, surely by now you're familiar with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Why would you knowingly vote contrary to policies and the goals of the project? Fork if you want, but you have no chance here of changing such fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] You should know better than most that "policies" are not prescriptive--they are merely statements of what has happened in the past. We are absolutely NOT bound by precedent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] We're effectively bound by the most basic parameters of the project. This includes the notion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". This is not some little detail that may not always apply- it's a fundamental part of what the project is about. Nobody's likely to change this, just for you. Friday (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia. The mere fact of something's existence makes it a legitimate topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is there to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia - Doubtful, since you've botched the meaning of "sum" being used. Hint: it's related to "sum up". --Calton \| Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as OR nonsense. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository for trivial information (WP:NOT). Biruitorul (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I fail to see what the difference is. What's trivial to you is of magnificent importance to someone interested in the subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please let's not waste time playing such games. WP:N and WP:NOT are widely agreed-upon policies, not some parlour trick. Where are the independent third-party sources? Where is the objective evidence of notability? And, let's be serious: "magnificent importance"? Give me a break. Biruitorul (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] So what if they're policies? When policies get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, they should be ignored. They're only a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] True (WP:IAR), but policies are also useful at keeping this sort of junk (you know, like articles about amateur videos) out of the encyclopedia, so that's why we have them. Biruitorul (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] But articles about amateur videos are most emphatically not junk... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] A vast consensus begs to differ with you. Have you considered starting a YouTubepedia, with articles on every video uploaded to that site? Or, for that matter, why isn't your own biography on Wikipedia? Wouldn't you like to put your philosophy into practice? Biruitorul (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] A vast consensus... I believe you're understating things quite a bit. As for trying to enact his "philosophy", he already tried. --Calton \| Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Imagine if WP had an article for every Youtube video ever made. No sign of any notability. Camillus (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Then Wikipedia would be immensely better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] No, it would be immensely useless. --Calton \| Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] How does having more information make an encyclopedia less useful? That idea is absurd on its face. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ever heard the notion "too much of a good thing"? Drink a glass of water and it will help you survive. Drink 10 and you'll feel sick. Drink 100 and you'll die. Biruitorul (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] That analogy totally fails, because it has not been demonstrated that having more information actually is harmful. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] That idea is absurd on its face. Waving your arms frantically and shouting: always a winning rhetorical strategy. It's certainly helped helped you gain that massive groundswell of support you've gathered so far in your time on Wikipedia. Maybe they're all biding their time, waiting for the perfect time to strike. But, in any case, for your edification, a little Jorge Luis Borges: Of Exactitude in Science ...In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography. Nothing new there. People have used it lots of times, and I'll tell you the same thing I'll tell them: all that really means is that it is impractical to fully achieve the goal I have described. That doesn't mean it's an unworthy goal, or that we shouldn't try to come as close as we can. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] --Calton \| Talk 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as non-notable film. See WP:N. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn film. Tiptoety ^talk 05:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No sign of any real-world impact or notice. --Calton \| Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTUPID.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was slight merge to Internet Protocol#Version history. Sandstein (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] IPv9[edit] IPv9 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) This article is an interesting one. It seems it was created based on a misguided 2004 news article and has only gone downhill from there. While I'm all for cleaning up articles that deserve it, the technology this one refers to seems not only non-notable, but vaguely hoax-like (although it doesn't seem like it was intended as a hoax, its importance was, at least at first, seemingly blown out of proportion. There is a Register article that seems to confirm that opinion, as does an admittedly unsourced listhost email. It's just non-encyclopedic and non-notable in my mind. If you read the article, by the way, it feels like copyvio, but there is no source. Maybe more of an original research issue. Shorelander (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Adding that it seems to have been deleted twice before - PROD'd and just otherwise deleted. Also see this article. Shorelander (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment As Vint Cerf got involved, this may be considered notable hype. BUt it probably requires no more than a line in IPv6 or a similar article. (IPv8 -- another failed/fringe proposal -- was already deleted and has no article space invocations.) Maybe a "Beyond IPv6" section? --Dhartung \| Talk 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Condense and Merge to Internet Protocol#Version history per nom. Addhoc (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge into other related article. Notable, but probably not enough for an article of its own --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Smerge as Addhoc has indicated. This is clearly the best place for a brief mention of the topic. --Dhartung \| Talk 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Merge - the article as it reads sounds like it would be highly notable, however it is almost certainly bogus, and once the reality is faced the major claims of importance of this would vanish. It could be left as a redirect to the merged article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Notable enough by far for a stub, by far. And I'll bet anyone $5 or help editing up an article of your choice that the very minute IPv6 actually comes close to wide implementation, the next one (this one? who knows...) will get massive press. Lawrence § t/e 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, that would violate WP:CRYSTAL and possibly a U.S. law or two about online gambling. Regarding the article itself: remove the questionable assertions and there wouldn't be much left. Delete - if Lawrence wins his bet, we can either create the new article from scratch or update an appropriate already-existing one. B.Wind (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - even if this is real, there is no evidence its more than just someone (or some company)'s hairbrained R&D project. How many dozens of people have done research on modifications to the TCP/IP stack? Heaps. Unless they are particularly original, or people start actually using them, then they belong in press releases or citeseer, not here. And there is no evidence this is either original or widely used, so get rid of it. --SJK (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete As per SJK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 06:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Redding-Chico Metropolitan Area[edit] Redding-Chico Metropolitan Area (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) census.gov data does not support existence of Redding-Chico CSA - they are separate MSAs - this page is duplication of the others' content Ikluft (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete This CSA indeed doesn't exist, and any verifiable info on the page is duplicated in Redding's and Chico's pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, I can find no external confirmation that Redding-Chico is any kind of US or California statistical area. Is somebody just trying to get higher on a list, or what? There are several lists that will be affected. --Dhartung \| Talk 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm fairly sure someone was just confused learning their way around Wikipedia. A redirect page for "NorthState" (a local term for the far-northern counties of California) points at "Redding-Chico Metropolitan Area", which makes me think they probably saw terms like CSA used elsewhere and thought they could use them there too. That kind of info could be better represented by starting from scratch (not using the currently duplicated content) with a more recent local name for the area, "Upstate California". Ikluft (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Nobody actually calls it "Upstate." That is an invention of some southern California Chamber of Commerce publicity campaign. It is called "The Northstate" and has been called that by its residents widely for many years. --GB Actually, that's relatively new. The northern counties started marketing the "Upstate" name in 2001. After years of a slow start, apparently they stuck to it because I've been hearing it around lately. So I'm starting to consider the name more credible now. Unlike "northstate", people outside the area seem to intuitively understand what it means (1/3 of the state north of the Bay Area and Sacramento), which was their apparent intent. Ikluft (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I don't see any reason to support some propaganda campaign by some businesses on the Wikipedia. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well, the current page has to go because there's no CSA. If there's enough verifiable material online to support it, that would be the basis for a decision to start a new page for Upstate California. I'm in no hurry on that one so it will be a while anyway. (I lived in the northstate area for over a decade and still have family there.) Google gets over 7000 hits on the term even when quoted. It isn't about opinions - it's whether there's usable and verifiable info. Ikluft (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete -- not a csa, much duplicated content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Dima Haddadin[edit] Dima Haddadin (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Delete nn/hoax. There's a claim to notability so it doesn't qualify for speedy. 29 unique google hits despite claiming to be a prominent, internationally recognized scholar (who is personal friends with Rush Limbaugh). Judging by the Google results it seems she's active in extra-curricular activities at the University of Windsor but that's it. Reads like typical vanity. TM 05:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment What leads you to believe that this is a hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] A) There is nothing to support any of the claims for notability such as tenure as professor, authorship, any recognition. B) The only working link is to her blog. C) She's 22/23. D) The article in its initial creation stated she had already been nominated for 2 Nobel Prizes and that she was engaged to Chuck Norris. Need I go on? --TM 06:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Okay, that works for me. Think it's blatant enough for a G3? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Initially I didn't but since that was its initial creation as written by the main editor who only has edits to this page I'd say it's pretty clear-cut vanity/hoax/joke at this point. The article was tagged for speedy under A7 at one point but that was removed without comment. I think Speedy Deletion is justified now. --TM 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Then let it be so. Speedy delete G3 as obvious hoax per nom's evidence, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete per above. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete it does not meet the qualification for A3, as being indecipherable nonsense. it just makes bviously false claims. I have no objection to deleting it snow, but it is not speedy. DGG (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was pancake-stacked delete :) . Singu larity 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Steven Galvan[edit] Steven Galvan (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) This athlete is not notable and performs in a not notable league. Virtually no reliable sources were found to verify this information. This is a contested Prod. Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: The creator of this article, User:Mr Niebla has removed the AfD tag repeatedly and vandalized three userpages (including mine) by tagging them for AfD. I have reported the issue, but please be on the look out for suspicious edits.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as nn at best, or possibly as hoax/joke.--TM 06:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - no assertion of real notability, possible hoax, only source is a youtube video. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. Notability not established. WWGB (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per nom. iMat thew 2008 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, per nom. Nikki311 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Not even the slightest bit notable, and the only source is a YouTube video (how is that a bio?). TJ Spyke 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per nom. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per nom. --Cahk (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per nom. Ni mi Ti ze 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, no sources to support notability. McJeff (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per nom. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Not within 19,000 miles of notable. Clay4president2 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete A-Dust (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, the subject is notable (the lack of which is a reason to delete, by the way) and it is highly plausible that references exist to back up the information. For anyone who still feels this should be deleted, I'd recommend waiting a couple months - I'll tag this with a ((unreferenced)) tag when I remove the AfD header. If after a few months there are no references, then deletion may be in order. *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rene Alexandre LeMoyne[edit] Rene Alexandre LeMoyne (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) as per WP:N. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I think that being a wealthy landowner and militia captain demonstrates that he was a prominent individual in New France. The article does not have a separate references section, but quotes a reference to him in Vie de Madame Youville (probably one of the following two books) Faillon, Étienne Michel, 1799-1870. Vie de Mme d'Youville, fondatrice des Soeurs de la charité de Villemarie dans l'île de Montréal, en Canada. -- Villemarie : Chez les Soeurs de la charité, 1852. Sattin, Antoine, 1767-1836, Vie de Madame d'Youville, fondatrice et première supérieure des soeurs de la charité ou soeurs grises / par M. Antoine Sattin. Québec : s.n., 1930. as well as the details of his burial from church records. The article was created by Jflemoine , who may be a descendant or relative. --Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Prove it. If I write an article about my grandaddy and add spurious references to an obscure book stating that he was... the Sheriff of Nottingham... how many people would vote Keep? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete, nothing corroborating notability found in Google search. --Dhartung \| Talk 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep — The individual clearly exists. For those who have a notability fetish, I challenge you to the following: (1) Give me an objective standard, and (2) explain why it's relevant in the first place. I fail to see how a topic must meet some arbitrary, currently-undefined (and perhaps undefinable) bar of "notability" to be relevant to a project designed to collect the sum of all human knowledge. The idea is absurd on its face. Deletion of this article, and the advocacy of it, therefore runs entirely counter to the goals of this project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment Wikipedia should be about everything is not considered a compelling argument. --Dhartung \| Talk 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Maybe not to you, but I find it quite reasonable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment WP:BIO is a guideline, demonstrating broad Wikipedia community WP:CONSENSUS.--Dhartung \| Talk 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] That doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree with it, or even to act in accordance with it, necessarily. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] WP:BIO is simply a guideline for trying to ensure WP:NPOV, V and OR can be met. It is not about deciding who is and isn't important; that isn't our job and would be introducing more POV and bias into the process. We simply require it be noted enough to make an accurate article possible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The book or books were not obscure at the time they were published, since the Sisters of Charity (Grey Nuns) were a significant part of the history of Quebec. As other people have pointed out, Google is not the best source of information about dead people. --Eastmain (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Reply So OK, you don't wanna use Google. I tried Google Scholar (no results returned); Academic Search Premier (no results returned), and JSTOR (no results returned). Would you like me to try another database? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep pending a much better thought out deletion reason than "per WP:N". Some searching indicates that the original spelling of his name may be "René-Alexandre Lemoine" or "René-Alexandre Le Moyne" which returns more google hits - enough that I am convinced he's notable and we can have a good Encyclopaedic article. To get good references is going to require someone in Canada go to a library. Google is certainly the worst way of determining notability for a subject like this - The web has little (except for that which google books has scanned) prior to the last 30 years and very very little prior to the 20th Century. It's even worse when you're looking at an Anglicised version of a French name - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Neutral - on the one hand, this article is the only contribution of User:Jflemoine, probably a descendant. Plus, the "individual clearly exists" argument is terribly annoying. And there's no definite assertion of notability. On the other hand, Peripitus hints he may be more notable than the Internet would indicate, and I'm willing to buy that. Biruitorul (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 'keep significant local figure, assuming the refs get added. The infrmation must have come from somewhere, AGF. The information is plausible.DGG (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of computer hardware manufacturers[edit] List of computer hardware manufacturers (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is just a collection of internal and external links. I believe it would be better served as a category. Such as the already existing Category:Computer_hardware_companies swa q 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Categories do not replace lists. Lists do not replace categories. They are separate. Please see our policy on categories, lists and navigational templates. Overlapping between the three types is not a reason to delete; if anything, this list needs to be improved to provide more navigability and read less like it's sister category, but that's not a deletion argument, as it solves the issue without deleting it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment: If you have an issue with the way the list is organized (i.e, this one is by what component manufactured), then you could fork the list to another page and redo the navigation criteria, such as List of computer hardware manufacturers by country or List of computer hardware manufacturers by stock price, or whatever criteria you see fit. This practice is well-documented and used widely in practice, and is able to be done so because wiki is not paper. The List of countries list and it's sister list is an example example of this practice. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Lets just suppose we did simply go with the Category as Nom suggests. Ok , which companies in that cat would be keyboard makers? webcam makers? I believe this Article does add something beyond what a Cat can do easily, thus my Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - This currently seems to be a list of sub-assembly manufacturers for PC type equipment. It excludes all sorts of other computers and components - from large mainframes and handhelds to cables and sockets. Since its focus is ill-defined and not sourced, it should go. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument; this is Wikipedia, so you are free to edit and improve the list to add component types and manufacturers that you see fit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Let me illustrate the problem by listing some of the computers which I possess: a Thornton slide-rule. I think still have a circular one too. a Casio pocket computer a Chinese abacus an Atari 800 and Atari ST a HP 95LX and HP 200LX sundry laptops from Acer, Toshiba and Fujitsu-Siemens a large book containing logarithm tables countless embedded processors in the microwave, oven, clocks, video, DVD player, washing machine etc the trip computer in my car (which will have lots of embedded processors too. my mobile phone which performs computer functions such as calculation much paper and many pens If I made it my life's work, I might list a million or more of the companies which were involved in making such things and the list would still be incomplete. The list only seems sensible currently because it is ridiculously narrow in scope. It has obviously been written for the gamer/hobbyists who build their own PCs in the USA - people who seem to have no clue about the rich history of computing machinery and its current use in business, science and technology. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wouldn't the large mainframes and handhelds type of thing belong on List of computer system manufacturers Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] They would belong on both. The systems list is much better because it refers to the end-product and the companies are well-understood, like IBM. This list is vaguer because it is referring to component parts for which there will be thousands of sub-contractors. And it has a domestic PC focus which seems ignorant of enterprise-level computing - racking, routers, UPS, scanners, SANs, tape libraries, etc, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep this list is necessary . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Necessary for what? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep with a bit of improvement. I don't see any reason why this list should be deleted; in this case a category doesn't replace the list. Although it does need some cleanup/expansion, it's definitely a good list to keep around. --JamieS93 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as above, this list is not being used as a directory, so I'm not buying the argument for deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep, lists and categories are complementary, not redundant. For example, lists can provide alternative sorting (like in this case) or short descriptions or references. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] '"Keep"'I found it useful when doing an industry analysis on computer hardware manufacturers... Gives you an idea as to what's fragmented/concentrated in the industry. Good starting point. Then again, I realize wikipedia isn't a business database either. The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ahfaz-ur-Rahman[edit] Ahfaz-ur-Rahman (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) ~~Lacks any secondary sources and doesn't seem to have enough notability. Less than 100 google hits. Also seems to be an issue with coi here.~~ -WarthogDemon 04:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Withdrawing the nomination. Article seems to have sufficient notability. -WarthogDemon 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] . I am not taking it personally :-) However, please note, that Ahfaz-ur-Rahman is a well-known and well respected journalist, writer and poet in Pakistan. Recently, four of his books were published which are in the news in Pakistan's literary and journalistic circles. Please see all the external links that have been given. . This article i believe is no different, if not better, than the one on another Pakistani journalist on Wikipedia, Nadeem F. Paracha. In fact, if anything my article quotes sources which are reputed Pakistani newspapers and such sites as Asiamedia etc. rz_rahman Keep. The article now has visible references. The references were already present, but were hidden by the way they were coded.--Eastmain (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Chit Swe[edit] Chit Swe (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Looks like it was translated from another language. Really is poor in grammar, and overall structure. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep This one reads so poorly that I may just have to give it the benefit of the doubt. As it stands, it seems he might be notable, although it really needs a cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. National government cabinet minister. Pburka (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong keep. As a major member of a national government, I would say he's pretty much inherently notable. As for the general crapitude of the article, that can be solved via methods other than deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Week Keep - needs a major cleanup, but does assert notability. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Person is notable, but article needs major clean-up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep a notable person, in the top 10% of notability of wikipedia biography subjects. (I have done a bit of cleaning up) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Angel Kyodo Williams[edit] Angel Kyodo Williams (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Is the subject notable? Zlllll (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep marginally notable ([53], [54], 5,330 ghits). Minimal effort nominations like these are unhelpful. JJL (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep A feature in the New York Times and her notability is being questioned? Jfire (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep. You should be asking google first, not those who read and contribute to AfDs. As founder of the Urban Peace Project and someone with a NYT feature, the answer is yes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per above. Articel should be expanded though. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Celarnor. Maxa megalon 2000 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment if this person is notable, then why don't her group and her book have articles on them? Chimeric Glider (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per the sources available, which do need to be added. And to Chimeric, because Wikipedia isn't and never will be complete. A lack of related article doesn't translate to non-notability just as the presence of one doesn't mean another should exist TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep I have added some data culled from a few sources, including the New York Times feature which, it should be noted, is eight years old, as is the only book she has written. MovieMadness (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comind[edit] Comind (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Non notable piece of unreleased software. No reliable, verifiable, or independent coverage of any kind. Subject's own web site is not an adequate source. Google search returned nothing related to the software. Google News search returned absolutely nothing at all. DarkAudit (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete nn, spam. KTC (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete, doesn't exist yet, obvious spam. Tagged as such. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Article was deleted as blatant advertising by User:Anonymous Dissident. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 5th world art[edit] 5th world art (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Blatant conflict of interest and oiginal research. Apparently something the author made up themselves. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleidoscopography. J Milburn (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strong delete Blatant conflict of interest indeed, given the commentary at the bottom of the page. User is clearly new-ish and doesn't understand policies it seems; nonetheless, this is a non-notable neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as WP:OR and self-promotion by User:5thworldart. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleidoscopography. -- Kesh (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - not a notable concept - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Not notable, no evidence of coverage by sources independent of the subject. Massively COI. And um, I hate to break this to you, sir or madam, but there was no web in 1982. DarkAudit (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete a COI with WP:OR on the side and a lack of reliable sources. Possibly hoax or at the very least made up. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Neologism with a healthy dose of self-promotion. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Self-promotion, and OR. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. Singu larity 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] August Franz Globensky[edit] August Franz Globensky (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Doesn't assert notability in any way. Only source appears to be a family history book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material. What constitutes "published work" is deliberately broad. I own a copy of the book referenced and I purchased it in a bookstore. Lkleinow (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The requirement is multiple published materials; I only see one. Either way, I see nothing that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Actually WP:BIO states that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" which implies (in my mind) that if coverage is substantial only one source would be required. Guest9999 (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep An interesting historical biography of one of the first Poles in Canada. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please read WP:INTERESTING. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] It's interesting because it's about a notable early Canadian. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability. The family history book is obviously insufficient to establish notability without such an assertion. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - meets notability criteria so far as I can see. Nesodak (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. I'm afraid I must agree. I don't see anything here that meets WP:BIO, including the mention in a family history book. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per Shawn in Montreal. GreenJoe 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. No assertion of notability beyond being the first to use a particular surname. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak keep given (very short) entry in PWN encyclopedia. Pburka (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note that printed PWN encyclopedia (1995) has more informations about him than electronic one. Visor (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Delete~~ I don't think one book published on the history of a family amounts to the "extensive coverage in secondary sources" required for notability of any single person in that book. I get the impression that the claim to notability is that this person is the grandfather of an elected member of the Canadian parliament... far too weak IMO. That he & his wife had sixteen children is pretty impressive, but not really notable in the encyclopedic sense, plus I guess that it would be his wife that would deserve the historical record ;) . Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC). withdraw "delete", but think a one sentence encyclopedia entry is pretty slim evidence of notability... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment/suggestion One of his sons, Lieutenant-Colonel Maximilian Globensky, was an important figure in Lower Canada though he doesn't have an article as of yet. Maybe Lkleinow can rename the article Globensky family and broaden the focus to include the development of the family and notable members? Since August Franz Globensky is the patriarch, all the information now in that article can be included in an expanded article on the family. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Alternate suggestion Would WP:NOTINHERITED not argue against such an approach? If the son truly is notable, I'd suggest the article be on him, with a merge of some of this content on geneology into a Lieutenant-Colonel Maximilian Globensky article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] My point is that if the family is notable then there could be an article on the history of the family as we do have articles on notable clans. This does not preclude also having an article on Maximilian. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete I could condense this article to "He was born, he lived and he died." No assertion of notability. Reso lute 05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep. I was ready to vote delete when I found him in Encyklopedia PWN ([55]). Hence, notable, hence, keep. PS. He is not in PSB but PWN is enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| talk} 06:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wondering, since the Internetowa encyklopedia PWN entry on him is just one sentence long, if you could do a rough translation of it? (alas Babelfish does not do Polish. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] A machine translation: "Globensky, Globenski, Glanbenkind, August France, właśc. August Franciszek Głąbiński, B 1754, Berlin, ob. 19 IV 1830, Saint-Eustache near of Montreal, one of the first Poles settled in Canada, the doctor; ran the med. practice and the chemist, recognized too first pol. enterprise in Canada." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I've translated and included informations from PWN into the article. Visor (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] As the author of the article, I may be now inclined to agree with Shawn in Montreal, and create an article on the indisputably notable member of parliament, merging this article's information into it as background. Is a redirect from this article's old title to the new one appropriate? I see that Reginald Perrin has created Charles_Auguste_Maximilien_Globensky a couple of months ago. I did, but we don't have an article on his father (and August's son) Maximilian Globensky who was a leading military figure in Lower Canada. Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - I don't know if the Encyklopedia PWN is an RS - but even if so, the tangential mention of him there appears to have concluded that he isn't notable. If a source shows that the subject is not notable, that should influence our decision here. -- BPMullins \| Talk 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per WP:WIN. He's the first Polish drugstore owner in Canada. And yes, Internetowa encyklopedia PWN published by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN is a highly reliable source. --Poeticbent talk 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep - Featured in PWN encyclopedia, hence notable. Notability had been included into article. Visor (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep Notability has been established. CJCurrie (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] There was previously a mention of the subject of the article within the Polish Canadians article, misspelled and not linked, but Reginald Perrin has fixed it. So now two other articles link to the one discussed. Lkleinow (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep as per importance of drugstore in early settlements North America. While house calls and hospitals were not always available, a drugstore was an equivalent of today's outpatient medical center where you got both the prescription and the drug. greg park avenue (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep sufficient materia for ntoability, adequatelysourced. DGG (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep although not outstandingly notable there are sources covering this person, so there must be something to him. silly\|thing ►Charge! 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Pedodontics[edit] Pedodontics (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) I nominated this for deletion because its text is copied verbatim from http://www.aapd.org/pediatricinformation/faq.asp, and it has been under cleanup for several months without action. Lkleinow (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy delete G12 with no prejudice against re-creation. Text is indeed a copyvio of this. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 03:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Lyric poetry of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit] Lyric poetry of the Sports Club Dynamo (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Very little idea what this is actually about, but it doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic topic. Another user kept blanking the page and replacing with ((copyvio)), so I felt it warranted discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I blanked the article because it is most likely a copyright violation. Most likely these poems are not in the public domain, as they were written sometime between 1950 and 1990 and copyright expires in Germany 70 years after the death of the author. They are also not fair use as they are quoted in their entirety. Apart from the copyright problem, they are not encyclopaedic. Novidmarana (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] If not a copyvio, this is probably a candidate for transwiki to someplace else. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as apparent copyvio. While the introduction claims that the poems date back to the Weimar Republic, the last poem on the page makes references to the "DDR" and three athletes who did not gain fame until the 1950s. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - unencyclopedic, and also as a copyviolation. There is no assertion of the importance of the poems, so any new article would have to start completely afresh. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Certainly not information you'd find in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a poetry anthology. --clpo13_(talk) 09:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Incoherent, POV, not noteable. Wiggy! (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete as copyvio and complete silliness -- fight songs might deserve a mention in the parent article, but certainly not an article of their own. (Disclaimer: I blocked the creator of this article before this article was nom'ed.) - Revolving Bugbear 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Dynamo-hall of fame[edit] Dynamo-hall of fame (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Several problem with this article. First, there is no official dynamo hall of fame, the dynamo hall of fame is the creation of the original author (who has been blocked and reappears on other pages inserting pov and deleting facts inconvenient to his pov, the user has also been blocked on other wikiprojects for pov pushing, incivility etc., do a google search for User:Kay Körner or one of his sockpuppet names). Also, the introsection Dynamo-hall_of_fame#Hall_of_fame is completely pov, and some of the facts are just false. For example, the reference for "Spies in the United States has earned the complete knowledge about the martial arts training of the CIA and Dynamo became this informations." is a forum discussion trading rumors. Novidmarana (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment What a colossal disappointment. I expected it to be an article about famous Dynamos. Edison (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete. There doesn't appear to be an official Dynamo-hall of fame, and googling "Dynamo-hall of fame" gives no relevant results apart from those taken from Wikipedia. Even if there is a Dynamo-hall of fame, its notability is questionable as it appears to be a hall of fame for members of the team Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo only. Thaurisil^t_c 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete My findings were similar to the other editors, I can't find any proof that there is any official Dynamo Hall of Fame.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete No such place exists. Likely made up Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per above. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Not notable, doubtful it even exists, riddled with POV. --clpo13_(talk) 09:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Incoherent, POV, not notable. Wiggy! (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no content. Canley (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Charles steiner[edit] Charles steiner (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Delete Non-notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Strait Jacket (novel)[edit] Strait Jacket (novel) (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) The article, Strait Jacket doesn't contain that much information, and lacks notability. Nothing 444 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I agree. This article needs more info and references.--RyRy5 talk 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Weak Keep so add them. It's sold more than half a million copies and has a couple of reviews, I think that passes notability guidelines for books. An article not having info/refs is not a reason for delete if they can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep - a series with an anime adaption is clearly notable; added links to ANN and official site. Just needs expansion. Doceirias (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep: Passes WP:BK 3, for having a dramatic adaptation. (Yes, this is a direct to video release, but the status of such a release is much higher in Japan than in most English-speaking countries -- see the OVA article -- and it is the consensus of WP:ANIME that an anime OVA also counts for this notability clause.) NB: does not quality for speedy keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep per Quasirandom. An OVA adaptation is indicative of notability. Besides, not containing much information is not a reasonable deletion rationale (it is a surmountable problem). Bikasuishin (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Even more, it's official policy that not having much information is OK. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was delete. Singu larity 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cindy Purvis[edit] Cindy Purvis (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Fails WP:BIO, Right now she is nothing more than a candidate for the State Senate (not US Senate). Without making any judgement on her viability as a candidate I have generally worked under the guideline that a candidate has to be pretty notable on their own before they get an article. Perhaps she will win and then we can bring this back. Montco (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep — The individual clearly exists. The nom brings up "notability", as though that were (a) actually definable, rather than an arbitrary anti-standard, and (b) important. It's not. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sure, go ahead. It's perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] delete — The individual clearly exists but so what?. Verifiable existence alone doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.93.118 (talk) The user above had changed Kurt Weber's vote to delete and added their own commentary. I restored the keep vote and took the IP's contribution as a delete vote, placing it here. if not appropriate, please delete. Montco (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [reply] Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians. The bio on her campaign Web site does not suggest that she meets any criteria for personal notability. Deor (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per the above and the fact that ignoring false positives, there's no substantial RS coverage to prove notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete There is not any other information or claim of notability at all, and the policy excludes candidates who have not been ~~deleted~~elected yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I assume -- I hope -- you meant "elected" and not "deleted" --Calton \| Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Yes you are right, we are not voting for the candidate here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete with no prejudice against recreation if substantial coverage by reliable third party sources can be demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - WP:N makes things clear, there's simply not enough substantial outside coverage - and that's how we judge notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't matter how we judge notability, since it's irrelevant in the first place? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] That may be your opinion, but it is relevant according to an overwhelming majority and strong consensus among Wikipedians. Not to mention that you, apparently, would like Wikipedia to be the Library of Babel. Your condescending disregard for consensus and POINTy "notability is irrelevant" votes all over AfD may get you into a mess Kurt, I suggest you wise up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cheeser, this language comes very close to violating NPA. I suggest you reword it. DGG (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'd say, it actually doesn't, but, rather, reflects reality. Note Kmweber's absurd answer above to the question of whether everyone on Earth deserves an article: not just "yes", but the extra absurd and condescending stretch to "...of course". --Calton \| Talk 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - recreate if she wins, but candidates for sub-national legislatures who aren't otherwise notable don't merit articles. Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - Nothing there. --Calton \| Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Fails WP:BIO. However, the article should be recreated if she wins! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stuffed animals are generally not notable. *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Clyde Frog[edit] Clyde Frog (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) "In the season 12 premier Tonsil Trouble, Kyle rips off Clyde Frog's head. It is unknown if this will play a role in future depictions of the toy." Say no more. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete per nom. A stuffed animal character on a TV show? Really? Verkhovensky (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] weak keep the character has appeared far more than just the one time its head was ripped off, however there needs to be a few more references to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Really, this character is about as notable as Thaddeus Griffin. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Note A vandal removed the deletion template from the article a couple of days ago. I readded it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] KEEP THIS PAGE! Clyde frog gives my daughter hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.85.116 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The user above has had only two edits, this one and a threat here. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete - per nom, and non-notable subject. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotten Boroughs

The result was convert to redirect to Rotten borough. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Boroughs[edit]

Article currently contains no informative content, and is instead a vast list of examples listed verbatim from various issues of Private Eye magazine. There is no scope for expanding the informative content, since this topic is a very minor column in Private Eye magazine, with nothing to say about it. All informative content here is duplicated in the main Private Eye article. The article title itself is not a useful search term; anyone typing "Rotten Boroughs" into the search box would almost certainly be seeking Rotten borough instead, and anyone looking specifically for information about this column itself would almost certainly go straight to the main magazine article itself. The series of articles related to Private Eye suffers from excessive splitting, and as such I propose deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Jdcooper (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unexpandable one-paragraph summary. Reprinting their yearly awards lists (verbatim?) is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. --McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with every point made by Jdcooper, who is a rogue editor, it is a valid article. As for what is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, this is a subjective statement - article provides accurate and relevant information therefore it is encyclopaedic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GWP (talk • contribs)

Inappropriate content is objectively defined by WP:NOT and other Wikipedia policies. --McGeddon (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK. Most of the incidents do not pass notability criteria, so this is an end-run around WP:N. There is no third-party coverage to indicate that a Rotten Boroughs "award" had any impact outside the readers of the publication. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The column is notable.Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that any of those nine articles meet the "significant coverage" of WP:N - they're just clarifying which section of the Eye stories have appeared in, and aren't giving us much raw information about the column itself. And the only big story in there is more about the magazine than the column; it seems more appropriate for the Private Eye article, if we're going to write about it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted, it should then be redirected to Rotten borough, an important article about English history and politics. If someone types the phrase "Rotten Boroughs" into the search box, that's probably what they are looking for. *** Crotalus *** 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to no copy vio version This article is listed in Wikipedia:Copyright problems, on review the only option available appeared to be revert to a version without a copyright problem, which is the redirect to Rotten borough. I will leave it to the community to decide to delete the redirect, rebuild the article or speedy close this AfD. Jeepday (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AfD per Jeepday. Redirect solves problems of original article and is a valid redirect. Elvis has left the building. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spin Starts Here[edit]

Article is about a blog that no longer exists. The only argument put up for notability is it is included on The Australia Index. The problem there is there are thousands of blogs listed on that site, and most don't look any more notable than this one. Armyable (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom--Armyable (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As AFD is a consensus process and not a vote, "delete as nom" is redundant. The mere act of nominating suggests your position. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent attribution of notability. (Inclusion in an archive with many other websites is not much of an indicator of anything.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It violates WP:Notability

Delete per nom, nn. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hackwatch[edit]

Article currently contains no content, and has no scope for expansion since the topic is a minor column in Private Eye magazine with nothing to say about it. All informative content here is amply covered in main Private Eye article. A redirect has sufficed until now, but is not strictly necessary since the article title itself is not a plausible search term; anyone looking specifically for information about this column itself would almost certainly go straight to the main magazine article instead. The article has recently been recreated, still with no content, and as such I propose deletion. The series of articles related to Private Eye suffers from excessive splitting (I am nominating another similar article immediately after this). Jdcooper (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Jdcooper (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As AFD is a discussion and not a vote, "delete as nom" is redundant. The act of nomination indicates your position. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unexpandable, it's just a magazine's title for one of its pages. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK, just an excuse to include potshots from the column. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the reasons so far cited are irrelevant. The fact is that the article contains no material pertinent to its title. The column in Private Eye focuses upon a particular journalist each week and lists articles which they have written which are absurd in some way. It is impossible to see, other than giving a list of the writers who have been featured, how to give the article substance without relying exclusively on cuttings from the magazine. Wikipedia is a little precious about using cuttings, even though this is valid within copyright law in certain circumstances (which would include Wikipedia). However, this article cannot exist without reproducing big chunks of the magazine, which is why it needs deletion, never to be resurrected. Guy (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swinton circle[edit]

This is a minor (500 member) British political pressure group of whom I (a Brit and regular reader of British political journalism) have never heard. There are around 150 unique ghits for "swinton circle" of which many are unrelated [44]. The article is essentially unsourced, only one quote from the New Statesman (a magazine pretty much guaranteed to hate this subject on ideological grounds alone) is independent of the group. The history of the article strongly suggests a political axe being ground. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the unrelated Magic Roundabout. Sorry, that was in Swindon, not Swinton. Delete per nom. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obscure but (once) influential groups should be listed. It is not just the New Statesman that reports on them but The Independent, the Mirror, The Guardian and Progress Magazine are among the 571 Google hits for "Swinton Circle". This all argues for the article to be cleaned up rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)

571 ghits, of which 150 are unique, yes. And not all are related, of course. None of those articles is actually primarily about the subject, though. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the Google, I went to the end and it was 152. However The Independent (and an unrelated Independent on Sunday article) was mainly about the Swinton Circle and the fact that it was addressed by Tory frontbenchers. The Swinton circle is also a non-trivial part of the other articles listed. I also found that it is listed in the Encyclopedia of British and Irish Political Organizations. JASpencer (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This far-right group is notable, having been discussed in numerous national periodicals. It is particularly notable because, unlike other far-right groups such as The Monday Club, it remains close to, and approved by, the Conservative Party and has been visited and addressed by leading members of that party, including David Davis and Ann Widdecombe. (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP and be moderate when referring to living individuals. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the only potentially controversial statement regarding a living individual concerns the fact that the LSC Chair is a former member of the National Front but he has admitted this himself. However, I'm quite happy to balance this by adding the fact that he says he has more recently called for the BNP to be banned. Of course it's important to get facts right about the dead also. The late Mr Binding was certainly a BNP activist as shown in photos available on-line. The Ku Klux Klan link was reported in a range of national journals (as well as Searchlight) during Mr Binding's lifetime. Mr Binding did not deny or refuse to answer the allegation but gave detailed reasons why he had resigned from the KKK so it seems pretty conclusive to me. Mark Hasker (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, passes the heard-of-it test (considering I'm American) and probably had its heyday prior to the internet, of which there are very few British periodicals searchable online. The article probably goes into much more detail than is warranted by sources and could use a good trim. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, it's not notable and as JzG pointed out, the New Stateman is hardly an appropriate source/reference/whatever. John Reaves 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your objection to the New Statesman, which is a heavyweight centre-left journal of considerable repute. All journals are to some extent biased, but what matters is whether or not they are telling the truth. the late Mr Binding is (obviously) not a living individual but he was an important link between the Conservative Party and the BNP as pictured here Binding(search under 'Binding') Nevertheless, to satisfy your objection I will replace the New Statesman quote with a quotation from The Observer a highly respected and old-established London Sunday with moderate centrist political leanings. Mark Hasker (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously John, what is wrong with the New Statesman? JASpencer (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I hadn't previously heard of this group either but there is enough information here and via Google to prove that we need to be kept abreast of this organisation. Possibly some more cleaning up may be desirable but if we deleted all entries of which people had never heard there wouldn't be much left on Wikipedia.99.224.28.156 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But only if someone is willing to do serious work on the page so that the reader will understand WHY they are notable after reading the entry. The goal would be that someone who has never heard of the group, will understand them and why they are notable after reading the article. If someone can do that, then I recommend keep.Helixweb (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now cleaned up and sourced so as to be almost unrecognisable from the mess it was previously. I agree with Helixweb that the many people who have never heard of this group should be made to understand that this group is plainly now the leading group on the Tory right, having taken over from the better-known but apparently moribund Monday Club. 83.138.172.79 (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looks a lot better now, good job on those who contributed.Helixweb (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yet another article nominated for deletion simply because the nominator hasn't heard of the subject. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that you can find things out that you didn't know before. And since when has the New Statesman not been a reliable source? This group has also had significant coverage in the Independent on Sunday [45] , the Observer [46] and an encyclopedia [47]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep Adequately sourced now, no plausible objection to the article has been presented. DGG (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wave of the Music[edit]

Unsourced, crystal-ballism. Spellcast (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending sourcing (which shouldn't be difficult). There is no reason we shouldn't have articles about confirmed forthcoming albums by important artists. Jdcooper (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V. Without refs, we don't know how valid this info is. Even if there were refs, it'll be too crystal-bally at this stage. Spellcast (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs sourcing. If not sourced during this AfD then delete. SilkTork *^YES! 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL - eo (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article demonstrates that it's a "confirmed forthcoming album" - i.e., no references. Delete under crystal ball principle and for failing to meet the verifiability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Nom withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Golf[edit]

~~Non-notable children's toy. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw, thanks to the added sources. Product was more notable than we were aware of. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not source what makes it "popular", and half of the article is the advertisement jingle. FusionMix 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, thanks to the sources. FusionMix 00:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A couple of sources here describe the game as "popular". Unfortunately, I'm not finding much of substance at the moment, besides a couple paragraphs in the book Rookie Teaching for Dummies, but I'm sure any American child who grew up in the nineties would remember the commercials for this thing, so I'm going to go with weak keep. Zagalejo^^^ 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added some refs to the article. I actually found the name of the guy who invented it: Robert B. Fuhrer, who also created Crocodile Dentist! Zagalejo^^^ 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. A potentially decent topic, but the current article doesn't cut it and there's no good version to revert to. It will have to be rewritten from scratch, as there's nothing salvageable here. faithless (^speak) 08:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers as religious symbols[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article contains nothing but original research and unverified claims. Also, it's very one-sided, discussing only negative symbols. Possibly falls under WP:CSD#G4 but I can't prove that the deleted article is anything like this one. PeterSymonds | talk 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs cleanup, and lots of it, but not deletion. Much of what it currently states is common knowledge, and it is unfortunate that it does not go beyond the basics. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a number is holy or unholy, this information is presented in the number's article, not here. Fails NPOV. In the former AfD, the article is deleted. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this comes down to whether the consensus is that this is an encyclopedic topic in its own right. If so then perhaps this article is in need of a rescue flag to help with the serious cleanup and referencing to secondary sources that it requires, before this AFD is closed. If not then delete and distribute the information (if it can be referenced to reliable sources) amongst the articles on the individual numbers per Zero Kitsune above. Wiw8 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has never been much, and it's been around for more than a year, never rising beyond original research and bored speculation, and never sourced. Summary: 666 is bad, as everyone already knows. 13 is bad. 9 can be bad. Assuming Hitler's followers were practicing a "Nazi Germanism" religion, 88 is bad. Might be a good topic in the hands of someone who knows what they're writing about. Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massive POV problems, and total original research. Six is not a pretty number; eight or three are definitely better. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even sure why this is flagged for rescue. While normally I'll see if an article is worth saving, but even if I do clean up the POV it will just be a collection of other persons POV. ANy information worth saving in this article can be included in other articles discussing religion. -Jahnx (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of the article is inherently encyclopedic; it allows for more general and po-mo references to be incorporated that other competing articles--e.g.,Gematria and Theomatics--cannot. The former article's topic Gematria must primarily be about Hebrew religious alpha-numeric symbols, while the latter article's topic Theomatics must primarily be about the Christian Bible (Hebrew and Greek religious alpha-numeric symbols).--Firefly322 (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. If this is to be "rescued", it must be scraped clean and started anew as a list of numbers as religious symbols organized by religion... and only if it is very well sourced. B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR variation on numerology. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect. The article itself is a valid topic. The content at present is dreadful, and appears to have already been deleted once before. But I think that merge-ing/REDIRECT-ing it to another article (e.g. Numerology or Numbers) would do more to discourage its recreation in its current state than deletion would. The other alternative to prevent recreation would be salting, but I don't think that's appropriate given that this is a valid topic. --SJK (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Improper nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanoli[edit]

Page is in a ~~awful~~ poor state. ~~No source of any kind~~. ~~Doesnt even look like a wikipedia article.~~ Its very hard to read. It's other templates are also (IMO) a reason to Delete. TheProf | Talk 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ~~:Page is also (again IMO) not notable. TheProf | Talk 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak keep. Just because it's difficult to read and "doesn't even look like a Wikipedia article" doesn't mean it needs to be removed of entirely. Some cleanup and work from an expert on the topic could turn it into a decent article. FusionMix 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:The article has been on wikipedia for three years. Its a pretty safe bet, that "expert" doesnt exist. TheProf | Talk 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment ~~Are you sure that the whole content is not a hoax?~~ No, there appears to exist a tanoli arab surname --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page was edited by the likes of

Sahil4ubest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Taj_Mohammed_Khan_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Khalidpervezshaheen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Afghantanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Pakhtun_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) he has a whole category for his sockpuppets

Tanoli_blogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Wikitanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Keep. The only part of the nomination that was anything like a valid reason for deletion was "no source of any kind", but there are in fact 12 book sources listed in the article. The only reason they were not there at the precise time of the AfD nomination was because they had been persistently removed by vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, i totally respect your opinion and this is not a personal attack. Secondly, let me just defend my reasons for this AfD nomination. The templates placed on the page by other users are a fair enough reason for me to nominate it for AfD. ~~The page really does need a mass clean up and i can't see anyone being able to do this.~~ Also i can't help what vandals do to the article. I can only revert it if i see it. Thanks and have a nice day! TheProf | Talk 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanoli page needs improvement not deletion I have been working on the Tanoli page to make it look presenatable for wikipedia with guidance from Prof and finally it is in a presentable state now. Tanoli is a tribe of more than a few hundred thousand people who reside mainly in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, they have had a great contribution to the history of that area and have been noted for that in many books, articles and national and international documents. I have just today added a few more books to the article's further reading section. If anyone has doubts as to the notability of this page, please type Tanawal (the homeland of Tanolis)in Google Books and you will find lots of literature on the subject matter. So please this is an encyclopaedic sight and deletion of this page will not help the cause of Wikipedia. Thank You Wikitanoli (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is now in a much better state than when i nominated it for deletion. This is not a nom withdrawl. However, i am now quite satified with the article. It still has a few issues, but it is notable because of the number of google hits. I've struck all comments i feel are now out of date. I now suggest that an administrator review the article and this AfD. This will be my last word on the subject. Cheers! TheProf | Talk 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination for deletion does not meet the nomination for deletion policy of Wikipedia, which states:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the speedy deletion criteria and process. For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the proposed deletion process. For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers. Therefore I think this stub for nomination for deletion must be removed of the page as the nominee Prof himself believes that the page has been considerably improved and it is notable. Cheers!!! Wikitanoli (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom retractal, and because the page has been improved to the point that it no longer merits deletion. Also, I have to say that the page was nominated right after a vandal reverted to a vandalised version --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sluagh (World of Darkness)[edit]

Not notable -- 9 hits (5 to Wiki) Jim62sch^dissera! 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SGGH ^speak! 17:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 6 hits on google for me. 2 were wikipedia! So basically, per nom! TheProf | Talk 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm getting a lot of hits, I don't know what terms you guys are using. For context, World of Darkness refers to the D&D-type pen and paper game/universe by White Wolf, and there is a fairly extensive collection on wiki of White Wolf stuff. Abstain, as I don't know how notable Sluagh is specifically. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poemhemia[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable student magazine having had only one issue published so far. nancy ^(talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hint of its circulation. No prejudice against recreation once the magazine becomes stable. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here yet to indicate its worthiness of inclusion. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups. Sandstein (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9th Carrier Air Group[edit]

An article about a unit that never existed and therefore never participated in any military campaigns can hardly be notable. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this not formed group need not be in a encyclopedia . failed in all search engines --Pearll's sun (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reason outlined in the nomination. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That it never existed isn't an issue, but I can't find anything at all about it. So not notable Hobit (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming this is verifiable, it is certainly not notable, not even to the extent of a redirect to Operation Downfall. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just created List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups which will be a suitable redirect if this article is deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment well if this article is notable then a suitable redirect may be considered after merging the same with any existing ww2 article under a separate heading so this these non formed groups may be made available . wikipedia musnt go lack of any info . moreover if this article creator produces some notability then i might consider to change my opinion .--Pearll's sun (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all content to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups and then delete. 4th and 5th Carrier Air Groups are in exactly the same situation - never formed. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Fleet Air Arm carrier air groups. --SJK (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done that for all the non-existent ones except the 9th, so it would seem logically at this juncture to REDIRECT the 9th as well. --SJK (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna Lee Roth[edit]

Not much claim of notability here; no sources to show notability. IMDb has her in bit parts in 4 films; gsearch not coming up with notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a couple of mentions in Ohio papers and on Luke Ford's site don't add up to notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brenna has been in over 60 horror and independent films, is the daughter of David Lee Roth and has over 11 thousand pages found on google. The original flag was placed by a jealous ex lover who is on a crusade to slander her name. He doctored her IMDB results and deleted many legitimate movies she had been in. Her notability stands for itself, and is easily verifiable. This flagging is obviously the result of jealous motives, and not done out of the best interests of information. (Re-added comment by IP user 99.164.109.187 -- user had inadvertently overwritten other comments)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established through multiple independent reliable sources. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as copyvio. No prejudice against a new, original version that demonstrates notability from reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Kaye[edit]

Biography of a behind the scenes broadcasting person. I don't believe he is notable to a general audience. If he were on-air or on a broadcasting version of Wiki he might be notable, but just because he has a high profile job doesn't make him notable to the average person. I think only broadcast people like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather or other notable ON-AIR people are the only ones who should have pages. Also I believe major contributor to article is User:Dfmock who has been making many COI edits. The User:69.22.248.44 could be his. Just a hunch on that, but most importantly I find a one paragraph page about someone in the broadcasting field is not necessary. UWMSports (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per Google search [48], [49], [50]. JJL (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are far from reliable sources other than the Hofstra.edu one. But that's sort of biased in its own right as he is an alumni of the school. Many non-notable people go back to their university to speak in the field they work in. By the way, my tax attorney will show up on a google search. That shouldn't make you notable. -UWMSports (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I'm a broadcasting major and I've never heard of Charlie Kaye. Therefore he isn't notable. Hopefully he isn't reading this though, when I start looking for a job next Spring! -FancyMustard (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO of this. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. Even if there were no copyright problems, there was no indication of any notoriety beyond that of the local level. B.Wind (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#G3, blatant hoax. It doesn't qualify for G4, by the way, as it is completely different from the previous deleted article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hoffman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Can't confirm a single "fact" in article in IMDb. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as per fate of related articles. DS (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rayburne Show: Backstage Adventures[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing 444 15:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a video looking to advertise its existence on Wikipedia. Delete as per WP:V unless independent reliable sources are provided to demonstrate verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 22:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge, with List of The Wire writers and directors. It has been established that no notability has been established for a complete article on this subject, but general agreement exists that it would be suitable if the subject was listed on the relevant list of writers and directors. Hopefully this outcome will benefit the subject and the project's readers as much as possible, whilst also satisfying Wikipedia's policies. Regards, Anthøny 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Melnick[edit]

Part of a long series of articles on writers of the series "The Wire", most of whom appear to be notable; however this person has co-written one episode of this series and appears to have no other claim to notability (I don't believe "assistant writer" is such). PROD removed with explanation of "he's notable". Black Kite 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article doesn't currently assert notability. If it is unable to do so then the content should be merged into List of The Wire writers and directors.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Qpark 77. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was move to Off-page optimization. Notable, main thing that needed fixing was the title. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off -page optimization[edit]

Article is a little over two years old, has been tagged orphan since Nov 2006. Article may have been originally created as adspam (since cleaned up) (see User_talk:UKsaunders ). Article is basically redundant and useless. (-- Note: Odd style of hypen in article title --) Writtenonsand (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging by Google, this is clearly a significant operative function of search engines. It isn't exactly orphaned either - five articles link to it, one of which is an FA. WilliamH (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name can be fixed by anybody, and is solvable by other methods than deletion; thus, not an argument for deletion. The subject is a major part of how SEO companies operate and should be kept as such. There is information around, as well as some news that can at least prove "this does what the article says it does". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs)
Comment Possibly notable per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but should be moved if kept to off-page optimization. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie James[edit]

per WP:FICT. No references or real-world information. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- See also Helen Shivers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a vast plot summary, not encyclopedic content. WilliamH (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia cannot be a collection of all movie characters. If we get an article for all characters in each film Wikipedia's server space would be drained up. Chimeric Glider (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate, per Chimeric Glider. FusionMix 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Julie James is not Scarlett O'Hara. MovieMadness (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is she Hermione Granger. =P Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADP Records[edit]

Extremely long and promotional article on non-notable record label. Prodded and speedied already. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and no notable artists and no meaningful incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you expect it's a DIY/indie record label and there's a bunch of articles of DIY labels on Wikipedia why start deleting this one while the others are non-notable as well. How can it be no notable artists when these guys have their albums selling in FYE, you need UPC barcodes for proof? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.41.79 (talk • contribs)

Delete, no attribution of notability of this label to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of coverage in sources, no articles exist about any of the artists so no evidence any of them are notable either. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional aircraft in Ace Combat[edit]

It seems as though a similar article once existed and was brought up to afd. The same reasons for its deletion applies to this one as well.

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 30#Aircraft of Ace Combat « ₣M₣ » 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A whole, whole, whole, whole lot of fancruft. A shame someone wasted their Friday night on this :) —97198 talk 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically, you're saying it shouldn't be here because you're not interested in it? That's patently ridiculous. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, fancruft generally means that it's a collection of indiscriminate information to anyone who's not a hardcore fan. —97198 talk 01:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words, it means that you're not interested in it. Others might be. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest merge, but frankly it's way too long. Therefore, an unequivocal Keep. It's information; therefore, it's relevant to a project aiming to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The telephone directory also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. Advertisements also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. Hoaxes also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. My grocery receipts also constitutes information, but Wikipedia is not using that. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete game cruft. Of no relevance or impact outside the universe of the game, nothing even close to anything like evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Arbitrary collection of trivia. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, etc etc etc. I suspect this may qualify for speedy deletion per CSD:G4, can someone investigate similarity to Aircraft of Ace Combat? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP not being a game guide. --Calton | Talk 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - huge amount of info, someone's obviously done a lot of work here. Unfortunately, that's no argument for keeping an article, and this indiscriminate collection of information belongs somewhere else, perhaps a gaming wiki?Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to a suitable gaming wiki and Delete. This is very much game guide material.Gazimoff (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Transwiki if not covered by a relevant gaming wiki. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. There's plenty of useful information here, but it just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawal of nomination; in the absence of any other delete comments, this is a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DS PSP War[edit]

Synthesis, plain and simple. Yes, the article has one section which is copied and cited, talking about sales results as of March 2005. It has no further sourced material comparing the two; it instead branches into a list of PSP attributes and a list of titles for the two platforms. That information is better handled by the respective platforms' articles, so I don't see how this article establishes that the "DS PSP War" notable—certainly not beyond any other case of two products competing. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this article be kept with major cleanup? I see a bit of promise in it. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 13:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say the article is notable, just not in it's current state or title. If the article was heavily re-written without Synthesis, properly referenced, and included information about other handheld consoles of that generation, it would be notable. As it is in it's current state, I agree with the deletion. Eastlygod (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two editors here, plus one at the talk page—separate from the original editor—saying they have a vision for how to improve the article and bring it up to standards. Since there's a pool of support to improve the article, I'm all for good articles. And I don't think the subject is beyond notability; I just don't think the current incarnation of the article does it justice. Nomination withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masada (Honorverse)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is a blatant violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. No real-world context or secondary sources have been added in almost one year. A good part of the first discussion centered around the question whether the article is affected by the recent ArbCom injuntion. This injunction has now been lifted, so I'm relisting. --B. Wolterding (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is one of many superfluous Honorverse articles. If I'm not mistaken, there are more articles on the Honorverse than on Harry Potter (look at the template). And there is nary an outside source on this fictional planet. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely in-universe, no secondary sources, no sourced real world context or analysis. Fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the injunction has been lifted. Article is almost totally in-universe with no secondary sources; WP:NOT#PLOT applies. --Core desat 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the books are acceptable primary sources and WP:PLOT is pointless bureaucracy (one of the things Wikipedia is not). Do you need a secondary source to tell you what page X says? No you don't. --Pixelface (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PLOT is not pointless bureaucracy. It is a well reasoned policy, and without good reason, exception should not be made. All articles must have secondary sources, not just ones on fictional objects. Secondary sources are required to establish notability. With fictional topics, the information must be presented from the perspective of the real world. Simply indicating that a topic is fictional is not real world context. If there isn't information beyond repeating the plot then the article is not encyclopedic, and is potentially copyright infringement as it would serve to replace experiencing the fictional work. It is absolutely necessary to delete articles like this for the good of Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy (WP:PLOT). If the policy needs to be changed that can be discussed at the policy talk page or at the village pump. There are more than enough precedents for this to be deleted. —BradV 15:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of too many articles of this ilk. --Stormbay (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn per nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KAFA-FM[edit]

Tagged since January for notability. This appears to be an unlicensed station so no FCC records are available. doesn't show up in list of stations reaching the Air Force Academy. Is this station still active? Rtphokie (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the article, it is a hobby activity of students at a college (the Air Force Academy) and has no references which are reliable and independent. It is great for college students to have a hobby activity, but no more notable than an intermural softball team. Notability of the academy is not inherited by every student activity at the academy. Edison (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not FCC, but apparently because they are an arm of the federal government they don't need the FCC. From a blog: "Instead, they operate under authorization from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA. ". I'd want to see what power they broadcast at and I'd like to see something that meets WP:N, but I think it has a chance... Hobit (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to RadioStationWorld, KAFA is a 20 watt station.[51] That's not trivial, but it still needs evidence of reaching the surrounding community. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've added a few references from reliable secondary sources, an infobox, and done some general cleanup as well. The station, licensed by the US government, has a 44 year history and is clearly a part of both the Air Force Academy and Colorado Springs communities. A quick Google News search [52] shows that the Colorado Springs Gazette has included the station in its general listing of area radio stations for at least the last 15 years. It also shows community involvement and other activities. Could article use continued improvement and more references from somebody with better access to Colorado Springs media archives? Sure, but the station easily meets the notability test and is now at least somewhat referenced. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky as licensed full-power radio station with an established history. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I'd like to withdraw this, the article has been siginficantly improved with many more references than before.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep at this point. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete --Haemo (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stakkars Jon (2004)[edit]

Non notable short film. No non trivial independent reliable sources, fails notability guidelines for inclusion and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the claim in the article is true, that it did win the Amandus award, I would call this a keep, but I cannot find a reference to confirm that, and for a country like Norway where almost all internet newspaper articles are archived and remain online forever, that is quite telling. What I have found is a catalog entry from the Norwegian Film Institute for a video with the 2004 Amandus entries here and "Stakkars Jon" is not on that list. Appears to fail verifiability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not just "no non trivial independent reliable sources", this has no references at all. (I think it's time that unreferenced articles became speediable. The edit page for new articles says at the top "Without references, the article may be deleted", and it's time that was changed to "will be deleted" to deal with the torrent of unreferenced non-notable stuff like this). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "no non trivial independent reliable sources" means two things - there aren't any in the article and I've looked elsewhere and can't find any either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polyhydromethalon[edit]

I see no proof. no google results. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 11:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy about verification via Google is very unhelpfull when dealing with information that pre-dates the internet age. Polyhdromethalon was a experimental product that failed over 70 years ago. I am not at all surprised at the lack of information avaiable on the web. I have however quoted a number of published sources. I would content that published sources are far more valuable than web pages of dubious authenticity.Annie Gaylor (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any mention of it being 70 years ago. Sorry for any trouble caused. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Are you going to remove it from the Articles for Deletion list? Annie Gaylor (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Admins can do that. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Polyhydromethalon brings up no hits on Google Books, but it should, because Google Books includes both Fibrous Materials and Munich: The Price of Peace. Fibrous Materials is a limited preview, which means we can directly search inside it, but Polyhydromethalon, Daladier, Dupuis, and Rhône-Poulenc do not show up on searches. Going to page 193 reveals nothing at all pertinent. Fibrous Materials on Google Books--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The preview on google Books only goes up to page 172. So how did you go to page 193 to look at it on Google Books? Taineyah (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grabbed the scroll-bar and scrolled down real quickly until it hit page 193. I think most of the time it's more concerned about how much you view than what.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to show random chunks - just now it was missing pp.30-38, 40-49, 54-64... Seems to be consistent, the same pages were missing on two tries. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:AGF. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 15:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like a hoax to me. Klausness (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An excellently written article, but the complete lack of sources makes this look a lot like a hoax. And, if the failure of this material played such a role in international politics, surely someone would have taken note of it online before now. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see below; changed from Neutral for now, but suspicious; it smells hoaxy. Nothing in the parts of the Chawla book that one can see on Google Books. I can get Munich: The Price of Peace from a library, but probably not till the 27th or 28th. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any mention anywhere else in the world.... DGG (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no mention of "polyhydromethalon" in Chemical Abstracts; therefore the chance that this chemical compound really exists (with this name) is essentially zero. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - within two days I should have access to a copy of Telford Taylor, Munich: The Price of Peace which should settle the question of whether this is sourced or a hoax. Suggest not closing till I report back. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now consulted Munich: the Price of Peace. It is a different edition from the one quoted, but the number of pages, 1084, is the same. On the page quoted, p.913, there is nothing about Daladier: it is about the post-Munich German occupation of the Sudetenland. To be certain, I have read the book's passages about Daladier, and its eye-witness account of the actual signing of the Munich agreement. There is absolutely nothing relevant to the story in this article. I have changed my !vote above to Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monova[edit]

Non notable company, tagged as G11 and prod'd both removed by single purpose account who makes nothing but links to this company. I see notability issues, advertising and conflict of interest. Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The company clearly exists. If you have a problem with the CONTENT of the article, the proper solution is not to delete it but fix it up. If you can't be bothered to do that, fine, but that's no need to go trying to nuke it altogether. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean no one else is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, but does it meet WP:N? I did do a search for records and couldn't find any reliable sources, do you know of any?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about notability? It's wrong. It's irrelevant. It's unneeded. Sourcing is a different issue, of course, but perhaps right now the proper solution is not to delete. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is an accepted community guideline, so who cares? The Wikipedia community does. The fact that you refuse to even acknowledge this community-built and community-accepted standard is one thing, but I'm tremendously disappointed by the lengths to which you go trying to inject your unhelpful contrary opinion into every deletion discussion you come across (even otherwise uncontroversial ones). "Keep because it exists" is not and has never been a valid rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's wildly unpopular doesn't mean it's invalid. The only difference between my position and yours is that yours is more popular. We're both equally entitled (to the extent that concept is meaningful on this project) to participate in discussions from our respective points of view. Public disagreement with consensus is perfectly fine. If I were actually causing problems--if I were actually going around recreating deleted articles, or making gross insults, etc.--you'd have a point; but right now as best I can tell you're just upset because I'm promoting an idea you're uncomfortable with. For something like that, frankly, tough for you. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, let's keep it civil and on topic.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources - that's just Kurt's philosophy coming through.. As just another torrent site (not anywhere near the top few) it attracts no interest outside its community. Simply cannot write a verifiable article on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 22:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and COI. Biruitorul (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted (A3) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon cheats[edit]

The article is unencyclopedic and gives no substantial information. PeterSymonds | talk 10:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment PeterSymonds

This is my first article so if you think it shouldn't be there why don't you help me fix it up you may edit it for me please don't delete it.

I appreciate that. However, I don't think a list of cheats is appropriate material for an encyclopedia. See WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 10:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Absolutely no notability. Why was this brought here? Surely it's a speedy? WWGB (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's derived from WP:WWIN, and therefore fails WP:CSD. PeterSymonds | talk 11:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 07:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of doomsday scenarios[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I have no idea what to make of this, other than that it's clearly unencyclopedic in its current form as it is basically an indiscriminate list. The article is a list of some ways the world could end, ranging from 'Atomic war' to 'All women grow penises'. I was close to speedy deleting it under CSD G1 (patent nonsense), but it doesn't quite fit into a speedy deletion category and there may be something it can be redirected to as it's a plausible search term. Note that the previous version of this article which was deleted in 2006 is quite different to the current version, so it doesn't fit into CSD G4 either. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doomsday event which is a better article on the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge as information is unreferenced. A valid article on this subject could potentially be written, but this indiscriminate, apparently original research-based list is not worth keeping. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a variety of blue-links which may be worth merging. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate of Doomsday event. 23skidoo (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty lame duplicate at that, as if the author was making a grocery list, or just trying to kill some time. Turns out that "all women grow penises" was one of the author's original visions of the apocalypse. I don't know... I think the effect of a woman on the growth of the male organ is crucial to the continued existence of the human race. Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I think it's funny that the only "fictional" entry he could think of was "Take-over by aliens from outer space." Since doomsday hasn't happened yet, aren't these all fictional? Matt Deres (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is as close as one can get to a perfect example of a crystal ball. Also, it's a duplicate. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article needs an extinction level event itself. Lawrence § t/e 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Nom's first edits appear to be to nominate this article. Bad faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Grudem[edit]

Not a notable author or theologian.

Strong keep. seems USA Today, pbs, a few religious news sources and the Journal of Psychology and Theology diagree with you about notability. Please do a quick google search before you nominate something for AfD. Also, this AfD seems broken; I'm not sure how to fix such things. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For the reasons above, with the addition of my personal experience. Grudem is a well known Evangelical scholar. Leon 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - notable author as above. His Systematic Theology is widely used (as systematics texts go, of course). --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I'm detecting some snow in this sector. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per above. As theologians go, he's probably about the most famous in UK evangelical circles at least. See your point about snow, too. TJ (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, the WP:SNOW has fallen. The article needs work and better inline references, not deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let it snow. I was amazed when I saw this nom. StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, delete the quotes. Quotes belong on Wikiquote, not here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie idiots[edit]

Unremarkable high school film. скоморохъ 09:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article says it is an "indie, amateur" movie, made by a couple of students. Article links to a promo that is clearly unprofessional. Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:V. Thaurisil^t_c 09:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clearly non-notable amateur film. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing any reason to stay. Article simply to plug an upcoming youtubeism - Peripitus (Talk) 10:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video clearly exists. What else is important? Perhaps needs to be moved to a more gramatically-correct title, though. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it exists does not make it notable though. Tiptoety ^talk 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why does notability matter? Can you even define it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can define it, it is called WP:N. Tiptoety ^talk 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly substantial--it's just empty generalities. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-notable and pretty much admitting to it. ~~Also, I'm going to be bold and state that just because it exists is not a reason to keep it.~~ I think I can speak for eveyone here when I say that the article hasn't established notability. Just because notability is only a guideline doesn't mean you can ignore it.1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable high school film. --87.113.93.118 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It exists" is not a valid argument because we don't depend on direct observation of the world- that would be original research. Here we're an encyclopedia and this means we use sources. If it doesn't have enough coverage in proper sources there can be no article. Kurt, surely by now you're familiar with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Why would you knowingly vote contrary to policies and the goals of the project? Fork if you want, but you have no chance here of changing such fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should know better than most that "policies" are not prescriptive--they are merely statements of what has happened in the past. We are absolutely NOT bound by precedent. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're effectively bound by the most basic parameters of the project. This includes the notion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". This is not some little detail that may not always apply- it's a fundamental part of what the project is about. Nobody's likely to change this, just for you. Friday (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia. The mere fact of something's existence makes it a legitimate topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia, since an encyclopedia is there to compile the sum of all human knowledge. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm quite aware that this is an encyclopedia - Doubtful, since you've botched the meaning of "sum" being used. Hint: it's related to "sum up". --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR nonsense. We're an encyclopedia, not a repository for trivial information (WP:NOT). Biruitorul (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what the difference is. What's trivial to you is of magnificent importance to someone interested in the subject. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's not waste time playing such games. WP:N and WP:NOT are widely agreed-upon policies, not some parlour trick. Where are the independent third-party sources? Where is the objective evidence of notability? And, let's be serious: "magnificent importance"? Give me a break. Biruitorul (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what if they're policies? When policies get in the way of making the encyclopedia better, they should be ignored. They're only a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True (WP:IAR), but policies are also useful at keeping this sort of junk (you know, like articles about amateur videos) out of the encyclopedia, so that's why we have them. Biruitorul (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But articles about amateur videos are most emphatically not junk... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A vast consensus begs to differ with you. Have you considered starting a YouTubepedia, with articles on every video uploaded to that site? Or, for that matter, why isn't your own biography on Wikipedia? Wouldn't you like to put your philosophy into practice? Biruitorul (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A vast consensus... I believe you're understating things quite a bit. As for trying to enact his "philosophy", he already tried. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Imagine if WP had an article for every Youtube video ever made. No sign of any notability. Camillus (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Wikipedia would be immensely better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it would be immensely useless. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does having more information make an encyclopedia less useful? That idea is absurd on its face. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ever heard the notion "too much of a good thing"? Drink a glass of water and it will help you survive. Drink 10 and you'll feel sick. Drink 100 and you'll die. Biruitorul (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That analogy totally fails, because it has not been demonstrated that having more information actually is harmful. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That idea is absurd on its face. Waving your arms frantically and shouting: always a winning rhetorical strategy. It's certainly helped helped you gain that massive groundswell of support you've gathered so far in your time on Wikipedia. Maybe they're all biding their time, waiting for the perfect time to strike. But, in any case, for your edification, a little Jorge Luis Borges:

Of Exactitude in Science

...In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.

- - - - Nothing new there. People have used it lots of times, and I'll tell you the same thing I'll tell them: all that really means is that it is impractical to fully achieve the goal I have described. That doesn't mean it's an unworthy goal, or that we shouldn't try to come as close as we can. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable film. See WP:N. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn film. Tiptoety ^talk 05:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of any real-world impact or notice. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTUPID.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was slight merge to Internet Protocol#Version history. Sandstein (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPv9[edit]

This article is an interesting one. It seems it was created based on a misguided 2004 news article and has only gone downhill from there. While I'm all for cleaning up articles that deserve it, the technology this one refers to seems not only non-notable, but vaguely hoax-like (although it doesn't seem like it was intended as a hoax, its importance was, at least at first, seemingly blown out of proportion. There is a Register article that seems to confirm that opinion, as does an admittedly unsourced listhost email. It's just non-encyclopedic and non-notable in my mind. If you read the article, by the way, it feels like copyvio, but there is no source. Maybe more of an original research issue. Shorelander (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that it seems to have been deleted twice before - PROD'd and just otherwise deleted. Also see this article. Shorelander (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Vint Cerf got involved, this may be considered notable hype. BUt it probably requires no more than a line in IPv6 or a similar article. (IPv8 -- another failed/fringe proposal -- was already deleted and has no article space invocations.) Maybe a "Beyond IPv6" section? --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and Merge to Internet Protocol#Version history per nom. Addhoc (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into other related article. Notable, but probably not enough for an article of its own --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge as Addhoc has indicated. This is clearly the best place for a brief mention of the topic. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the article as it reads sounds like it would be highly notable, however it is almost certainly bogus, and once the reality is faced the major claims of importance of this would vanish. It could be left as a redirect to the merged article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough by far for a stub, by far. And I'll bet anyone $5 or help editing up an article of your choice that the very minute IPv6 actually comes close to wide implementation, the next one (this one? who knows...) will get massive press. Lawrence § t/e 18:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that would violate WP:CRYSTAL and possibly a U.S. law or two about online gambling. Regarding the article itself: remove the questionable assertions and there wouldn't be much left. Delete - if Lawrence wins his bet, we can either create the new article from scratch or update an appropriate already-existing one. B.Wind (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this is real, there is no evidence its more than just someone (or some company)'s hairbrained R&D project. How many dozens of people have done research on modifications to the TCP/IP stack? Heaps. Unless they are particularly original, or people start actually using them, then they belong in press releases or citeseer, not here. And there is no evidence this is either original or widely used, so get rid of it. --SJK (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per SJK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 06:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redding-Chico Metropolitan Area[edit]

census.gov data does not support existence of Redding-Chico CSA - they are separate MSAs - this page is duplication of the others' content Ikluft (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This CSA indeed doesn't exist, and any verifiable info on the page is duplicated in Redding's and Chico's pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find no external confirmation that Redding-Chico is any kind of US or California statistical area. Is somebody just trying to get higher on a list, or what? There are several lists that will be affected. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly sure someone was just confused learning their way around Wikipedia. A redirect page for "NorthState" (a local term for the far-northern counties of California) points at "Redding-Chico Metropolitan Area", which makes me think they probably saw terms like CSA used elsewhere and thought they could use them there too. That kind of info could be better represented by starting from scratch (not using the currently duplicated content) with a more recent local name for the area, "Upstate California". Ikluft (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody actually calls it "Upstate." That is an invention of some southern California Chamber of Commerce publicity campaign. It is called "The Northstate" and has been called that by its residents widely for many years. --GB

Actually, that's relatively new. The northern counties started marketing the "Upstate" name in 2001. After years of a slow start, apparently they stuck to it because I've been hearing it around lately. So I'm starting to consider the name more credible now. Unlike "northstate", people outside the area seem to intuitively understand what it means (1/3 of the state north of the Bay Area and Sacramento), which was their apparent intent. Ikluft (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to support some propaganda campaign by some businesses on the Wikipedia. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current page has to go because there's no CSA. If there's enough verifiable material online to support it, that would be the basis for a decision to start a new page for Upstate California. I'm in no hurry on that one so it will be a while anyway. (I lived in the northstate area for over a decade and still have family there.) Google gets over 7000 hits on the term even when quoted. It isn't about opinions - it's whether there's usable and verifiable info. Ikluft (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a csa, much duplicated content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dima Haddadin[edit]

Delete nn/hoax. There's a claim to notability so it doesn't qualify for speedy. 29 unique google hits despite claiming to be a prominent, internationally recognized scholar (who is personal friends with Rush Limbaugh). Judging by the Google results it seems she's active in extra-curricular activities at the University of Windsor but that's it. Reads like typical vanity. TM 05:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What leads you to believe that this is a hoax? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) There is nothing to support any of the claims for notability such as tenure as professor, authorship, any recognition. B) The only working link is to her blog. C) She's 22/23. D) The article in its initial creation stated she had already been nominated for 2 Nobel Prizes and that she was engaged to Chuck Norris. Need I go on? --TM 06:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that works for me. Think it's blatant enough for a G3? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I didn't but since that was its initial creation as written by the main editor who only has edits to this page I'd say it's pretty clear-cut vanity/hoax/joke at this point. The article was tagged for speedy under A7 at one point but that was removed without comment. I think Speedy Deletion is justified now. --TM 06:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let it be so. Speedy delete G3 as obvious hoax per nom's evidence, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not meet the qualification for A3, as being indecipherable nonsense. it just makes bviously false claims. I have no objection to deleting it snow, but it is not speedy. DGG (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was pancake-stacked delete :) . Singu larity 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Galvan[edit]

This athlete is not notable and performs in a not notable league. Virtually no reliable sources were found to verify this information. This is a contested Prod. Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this article, User:Mr Niebla has removed the AfD tag repeatedly and vandalized three userpages (including mine) by tagging them for AfD. I have reported the issue, but please be on the look out for suspicious edits.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn at best, or possibly as hoax/joke.--TM 06:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of real notability, possible hoax, only source is a youtube video. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. WWGB (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. iMat thew 2008 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nikki311 18:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even the slightest bit notable, and the only source is a YouTube video (how is that a bio?). TJ Spyke 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Cahk (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ni mi Ti ze 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to support notability. McJeff (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not within 19,000 miles of notable. Clay4president2 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A-Dust (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, the subject is notable (the lack of which is a reason to delete, by the way) and it is highly plausible that references exist to back up the information. For anyone who still feels this should be deleted, I'd recommend waiting a couple months - I'll tag this with a ((unreferenced)) tag when I remove the AfD header. If after a few months there are no references, then deletion may be in order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Alexandre LeMoyne[edit]

as per WP:N. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that being a wealthy landowner and militia captain demonstrates that he was a prominent individual in New France. The article does not have a separate references section, but quotes a reference to him in Vie de Madame Youville (probably one of the following two books)
- Faillon, Étienne Michel, 1799-1870. Vie de Mme d'Youville, fondatrice des Soeurs de la charité de Villemarie dans l'île de Montréal, en Canada. -- Villemarie : Chez les Soeurs de la charité, 1852.
- Sattin, Antoine, 1767-1836, Vie de Madame d'Youville, fondatrice et première supérieure des soeurs de la charité ou soeurs grises / par M. Antoine Sattin. Québec : s.n., 1930.

as well as the details of his burial from church records. The article was created by Jflemoine , who may be a descendant or relative. --Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prove it. If I write an article about my grandaddy and add spurious references to an obscure book stating that he was... the Sheriff of Nottingham... how many people would vote Keep? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing corroborating notability found in Google search. --Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The individual clearly exists. For those who have a notability fetish, I challenge you to the following: (1) Give me an objective standard, and (2) explain why it's relevant in the first place. I fail to see how a topic must meet some arbitrary, currently-undefined (and perhaps undefinable) bar of "notability" to be relevant to a project designed to collect the sum of all human knowledge. The idea is absurd on its face. Deletion of this article, and the advocacy of it, therefore runs entirely counter to the goals of this project. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia should be about everything is not considered a compelling argument. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not to you, but I find it quite reasonable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO is a guideline, demonstrating broad Wikipedia community WP:CONSENSUS.--Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree with it, or even to act in accordance with it, necessarily. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is simply a guideline for trying to ensure WP:NPOV, V and OR can be met. It is not about deciding who is and isn't important; that isn't our job and would be introducing more POV and bias into the process. We simply require it be noted enough to make an accurate article possible. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book or books were not obscure at the time they were published, since the Sisters of Charity (Grey Nuns) were a significant part of the history of Quebec. As other people have pointed out, Google is not the best source of information about dead people. --Eastmain (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So OK, you don't wanna use Google. I tried Google Scholar (no results returned); Academic Search Premier (no results returned), and JSTOR (no results returned). Would you like me to try another database? Ling.Nut (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending a much better thought out deletion reason than "per WP:N". Some searching indicates that the original spelling of his name may be "René-Alexandre Lemoine" or "René-Alexandre Le Moyne" which returns more google hits - enough that I am convinced he's notable and we can have a good Encyclopaedic article. To get good references is going to require someone in Canada go to a library. Google is certainly the worst way of determining notability for a subject like this - The web has little (except for that which google books has scanned) prior to the last 30 years and very very little prior to the 20th Century. It's even worse when you're looking at an Anglicised version of a French name - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - on the one hand, this article is the only contribution of User:Jflemoine, probably a descendant. Plus, the "individual clearly exists" argument is terribly annoying. And there's no definite assertion of notability. On the other hand, Peripitus hints he may be more notable than the Internet would indicate, and I'm willing to buy that. Biruitorul (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'keep significant local figure, assuming the refs get added. The infrmation must have come from somewhere, AGF. The information is plausible.DGG (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer hardware manufacturers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is just a collection of internal and external links. I believe it would be better served as a category. Such as the already existing Category:Computer_hardware_companies swa q 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Categories do not replace lists. Lists do not replace categories. They are separate. Please see our policy on categories, lists and navigational templates. Overlapping between the three types is not a reason to delete; if anything, this list needs to be improved to provide more navigability and read less like it's sister category, but that's not a deletion argument, as it solves the issue without deleting it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you have an issue with the way the list is organized (i.e, this one is by what component manufactured), then you could fork the list to another page and redo the navigation criteria, such as List of computer hardware manufacturers by country or List of computer hardware manufacturers by stock price, or whatever criteria you see fit. This practice is well-documented and used widely in practice, and is able to be done so because wiki is not paper. The List of countries list and it's sister list is an example example of this practice. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lets just suppose we did simply go with the Category as Nom suggests. Ok , which companies in that cat would be keyboard makers? webcam makers? I believe this Article does add something beyond what a Cat can do easily, thus my Keep. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This currently seems to be a list of sub-assembly manufacturers for PC type equipment. It excludes all sorts of other computers and components - from large mainframes and handhelds to cables and sockets. Since its focus is ill-defined and not sourced, it should go. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument; this is Wikipedia, so you are free to edit and improve the list to add component types and manufacturers that you see fit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me illustrate the problem by listing some of the computers which I possess:

a Thornton slide-rule. I think still have a circular one too.
a Casio pocket computer
a Chinese abacus
an Atari 800 and Atari ST
a HP 95LX and HP 200LX
sundry laptops from Acer, Toshiba and Fujitsu-Siemens
a large book containing logarithm tables
countless embedded processors in the microwave, oven, clocks, video, DVD player, washing machine etc
the trip computer in my car (which will have lots of embedded processors too.
my mobile phone which performs computer functions such as calculation
much paper and many pens

If I made it my life's work, I might list a million or more of the companies which were involved in making such things and the list would still be incomplete. The list only seems sensible currently because it is ridiculously narrow in scope. It has obviously been written for the gamer/hobbyists who build their own PCs in the USA - people who seem to have no clue about the rich history of computing machinery and its current use in business, science and technology. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the large mainframes and handhelds type of thing belong on List of computer system manufacturers Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They would belong on both. The systems list is much better because it refers to the end-product and the companies are well-understood, like IBM. This list is vaguer because it is referring to component parts for which there will be thousands of sub-contractors. And it has a domestic PC focus which seems ignorant of enterprise-level computing - racking, routers, UPS, scanners, SANs, tape libraries, etc, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this list is necessary . Pearll's sun (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary for what? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a bit of improvement. I don't see any reason why this list should be deleted; in this case a category doesn't replace the list. Although it does need some cleanup/expansion, it's definitely a good list to keep around. --JamieS93 14:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, this list is not being used as a directory, so I'm not buying the argument for deletion. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists and categories are complementary, not redundant. For example, lists can provide alternative sorting (like in this case) or short descriptions or references. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'"Keep"'I found it useful when doing an industry analysis on computer hardware manufacturers... Gives you an idea as to what's fragmented/concentrated in the industry. Good starting point. Then again, I realize wikipedia isn't a business database either.

The result was Withdrawn with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahfaz-ur-Rahman[edit]

~~Lacks any secondary sources and doesn't seem to have enough notability. Less than 100 google hits. Also seems to be an issue with coi here.~~ -WarthogDemon 04:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nomination. Article seems to have sufficient notability. -WarthogDemon 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. I am not taking it personally :-) However, please note, that Ahfaz-ur-Rahman is a well-known and well respected journalist, writer and poet in Pakistan. Recently, four of his books were published which are in the news in Pakistan's literary and journalistic circles. Please see all the external links that have been given.

. This article i believe is no different, if not better, than the one on another Pakistani journalist on Wikipedia, Nadeem F. Paracha. In fact, if anything my article quotes sources which are reputed Pakistani newspapers and such sites as Asiamedia etc. rz_rahman

Keep. The article now has visible references. The references were already present, but were hidden by the way they were coded.--Eastmain (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chit Swe[edit]

Looks like it was translated from another language. Really is poor in grammar, and overall structure. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This one reads so poorly that I may just have to give it the benefit of the doubt. As it stands, it seems he might be notable, although it really needs a cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National government cabinet minister. Pburka (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As a major member of a national government, I would say he's pretty much inherently notable. As for the general crapitude of the article, that can be solved via methods other than deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - needs a major cleanup, but does assert notability. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Person is notable, but article needs major clean-up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable person, in the top 10% of notability of wikipedia biography subjects. (I have done a bit of cleaning up) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Kyodo Williams[edit]

Is the subject notable? Zlllll (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep marginally notable ([53], [54], 5,330 ghits). Minimal effort nominations like these are unhelpful. JJL (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A feature in the New York Times and her notability is being questioned? Jfire (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. You should be asking google first, not those who read and contribute to AfDs. As founder of the Urban Peace Project and someone with a NYT feature, the answer is yes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Articel should be expanded though. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Celarnor. Maxa megalon 2000 13:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this person is notable, then why don't her group and her book have articles on them? Chimeric Glider (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources available, which do need to be added. And to Chimeric, because Wikipedia isn't and never will be complete. A lack of related article doesn't translate to non-notability just as the presence of one doesn't mean another should exist TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added some data culled from a few sources, including the New York Times feature which, it should be noted, is eight years old, as is the only book she has written. MovieMadness (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per G11 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comind[edit]

Non notable piece of unreleased software. No reliable, verifiable, or independent coverage of any kind. Subject's own web site is not an adequate source. Google search returned nothing related to the software. Google News search returned absolutely nothing at all. DarkAudit (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, spam. KTC (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, doesn't exist yet, obvious spam. Tagged as such. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Article was deleted as blatant advertising by User:Anonymous Dissident. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5th world art[edit]

Blatant conflict of interest and oiginal research. Apparently something the author made up themselves. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleidoscopography. J Milburn (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Blatant conflict of interest indeed, given the commentary at the bottom of the page. User is clearly new-ish and doesn't understand policies it seems; nonetheless, this is a non-notable neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and self-promotion by User:5thworldart. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaleidoscopography. -- Kesh (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable concept - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no evidence of coverage by sources independent of the subject. Massively COI. And um, I hate to break this to you, sir or madam, but there was no web in 1982. DarkAudit (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a COI with WP:OR on the side and a lack of reliable sources. Possibly hoax or at the very least made up. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 03:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism with a healthy dose of self-promotion. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-promotion, and OR. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Singu larity 03:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August Franz Globensky[edit]

Doesn't assert notability in any way. Only source appears to be a family history book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material. What constitutes "published work" is deliberately broad. I own a copy of the book referenced and I purchased it in a bookstore. Lkleinow (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is multiple published materials; I only see one. Either way, I see nothing that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:BIO states that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" which implies (in my mind) that if coverage is substantial only one source would be required. Guest9999 (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting historical biography of one of the first Poles in Canada. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INTERESTING. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting because it's about a notable early Canadian. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability. The family history book is obviously insufficient to establish notability without such an assertion. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria so far as I can see. Nesodak (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid I must agree. I don't see anything here that meets WP:BIO, including the mention in a family history book. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn in Montreal. GreenJoe 03:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability beyond being the first to use a particular surname. Pburka (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep given (very short) entry in PWN encyclopedia. Pburka (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that printed PWN encyclopedia (1995) has more informations about him than electronic one. Visor (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't think one book published on the history of a family amounts to the "extensive coverage in secondary sources" required for notability of any single person in that book. I get the impression that the claim to notability is that this person is the grandfather of an elected member of the Canadian parliament... far too weak IMO. That he & his wife had sixteen children is pretty impressive, but not really notable in the encyclopedic sense, plus I guess that it would be his wife that would deserve the historical record ;) . Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC). withdraw "delete", but think a one sentence encyclopedia entry is pretty slim evidence of notability... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/suggestion One of his sons, Lieutenant-Colonel Maximilian Globensky, was an important figure in Lower Canada though he doesn't have an article as of yet. Maybe Lkleinow can rename the article Globensky family and broaden the focus to include the development of the family and notable members? Since August Franz Globensky is the patriarch, all the information now in that article can be included in an expanded article on the family. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alternate suggestion Would WP:NOTINHERITED not argue against such an approach? If the son truly is notable, I'd suggest the article be on him, with a merge of some of this content on geneology into a Lieutenant-Colonel Maximilian Globensky article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that if the family is notable then there could be an article on the history of the family as we do have articles on notable clans. This does not preclude also having an article on Maximilian. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could condense this article to "He was born, he lived and he died." No assertion of notability. Reso lute 05:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was ready to vote delete when I found him in Encyklopedia PWN ([55]). Hence, notable, hence, keep. PS. He is not in PSB but PWN is enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering, since the Internetowa encyklopedia PWN entry on him is just one sentence long, if you could do a rough translation of it? (alas Babelfish does not do Polish. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A machine translation: "Globensky, Globenski, Glanbenkind, August France, właśc. August Franciszek Głąbiński, B 1754, Berlin, ob. 19 IV 1830, Saint-Eustache near of Montreal, one of the first Poles settled in Canada, the doctor; ran the med. practice and the chemist, recognized too first pol. enterprise in Canada." --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated and included informations from PWN into the article. Visor (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I may be now inclined to agree with Shawn in Montreal, and create an article on the indisputably notable member of parliament, merging this article's information into it as background. Is a redirect from this article's old title to the new one appropriate?

I see that Reginald Perrin has created Charles_Auguste_Maximilien_Globensky a couple of months ago.

I did, but we don't have an article on his father (and August's son) Maximilian Globensky who was a leading military figure in Lower Canada. Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know if the Encyklopedia PWN is an RS - but even if so, the tangential mention of him there appears to have concluded that he isn't notable. If a source shows that the subject is not notable, that should influence our decision here. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:WIN. He's the first Polish drugstore owner in Canada. And yes, Internetowa encyklopedia PWN published by Polish Scientific Publishers PWN is a highly reliable source. --Poeticbent talk 18:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Featured in PWN encyclopedia, hence notable. Notability had been included into article. Visor (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been established. CJCurrie (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was previously a mention of the subject of the article within the Polish Canadians article, misspelled and not linked, but Reginald Perrin has fixed it. So now two other articles link to the one discussed. Lkleinow (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per importance of drugstore in early settlements North America. While house calls and hospitals were not always available, a drugstore was an equivalent of today's outpatient medical center where you got both the prescription and the drug. greg park avenue (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient materia for ntoability, adequatelysourced. DGG (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not outstandingly notable there are sources covering this person, so there must be something to him. silly|thing ►Charge! 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedodontics[edit]

I nominated this for deletion because its text is copied verbatim from http://www.aapd.org/pediatricinformation/faq.asp, and it has been under cleanup for several months without action. Lkleinow (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 with no prejudice against re-creation. Text is indeed a copyvio of this. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric poetry of the Sports Club Dynamo[edit]

Very little idea what this is actually about, but it doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic topic. Another user kept blanking the page and replacing with ((copyvio)), so I felt it warranted discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the article because it is most likely a copyright violation. Most likely these poems are not in the public domain, as they were written sometime between 1950 and 1990 and copyright expires in Germany 70 years after the death of the author. They are also not fair use as they are quoted in their entirety. Apart from the copyright problem, they are not encyclopaedic. Novidmarana (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not a copyvio, this is probably a candidate for transwiki to someplace else. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent copyvio. While the introduction claims that the poems date back to the Weimar Republic, the last poem on the page makes references to the "DDR" and three athletes who did not gain fame until the 1950s. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic, and also as a copyviolation. There is no assertion of the importance of the poems, so any new article would have to start completely afresh. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly not information you'd find in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a poetry anthology. --clpo13_(talk) 09:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incoherent, POV, not noteable. Wiggy! (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio and complete silliness -- fight songs might deserve a mention in the parent article, but certainly not an article of their own. (Disclaimer: I blocked the creator of this article before this article was nom'ed.) - Revolving Bugbear 19:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo-hall of fame[edit]

Several problem with this article. First, there is no official dynamo hall of fame, the dynamo hall of fame is the creation of the original author (who has been blocked and reappears on other pages inserting pov and deleting facts inconvenient to his pov, the user has also been blocked on other wikiprojects for pov pushing, incivility etc., do a google search for User:Kay Körner or one of his sockpuppet names). Also, the introsection Dynamo-hall_of_fame#Hall_of_fame is completely pov, and some of the facts are just false. For example, the reference for "Spies in the United States has earned the complete knowledge about the martial arts training of the CIA and Dynamo became this informations." is a forum discussion trading rumors. Novidmarana (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a colossal disappointment. I expected it to be an article about famous Dynamos. Edison (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't appear to be an official Dynamo-hall of fame, and googling "Dynamo-hall of fame" gives no relevant results apart from those taken from Wikipedia. Even if there is a Dynamo-hall of fame, its notability is questionable as it appears to be a hall of fame for members of the team Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo only. Thaurisil^t_c 03:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My findings were similar to the other editors, I can't find any proof that there is any official Dynamo Hall of Fame.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such place exists. Likely made up Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 06:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, doubtful it even exists, riddled with POV. --clpo13_(talk) 09:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incoherent, POV, not notable. Wiggy! (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete - no content. Canley (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles steiner[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strait Jacket (novel)[edit]

I agree. This article needs more info and references.--RyRy5 talk 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep so add them. It's sold more than half a million copies and has a couple of reviews, I think that passes notability guidelines for books. An article not having info/refs is not a reason for delete if they can be found. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - a series with an anime adaption is clearly notable; added links to ANN and official site. Just needs expansion. Doceirias (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:BK 3, for having a dramatic adaptation. (Yes, this is a direct to video release, but the status of such a release is much higher in Japan than in most English-speaking countries -- see the OVA article -- and it is the consensus of WP:ANIME that an anime OVA also counts for this notability clause.) NB: does not quality for speedy keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quasirandom. An OVA adaptation is indicative of notability. Besides, not containing much information is not a reasonable deletion rationale (it is a surmountable problem). Bikasuishin (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more, it's official policy that not having much information is OK. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Singu larity 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Purvis[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, Right now she is nothing more than a candidate for the State Senate (not US Senate). Without making any judgement on her viability as a candidate I have generally worked under the guideline that a candidate has to be pretty notable on their own before they get an article. Perhaps she will win and then we can bring this back. Montco (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The individual clearly exists. The nom brings up "notability", as though that were (a) actually definable, rather than an arbitrary anti-standard, and (b) important. It's not. Verifiable existence is all that matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My left pinkie toe exists, I can verify it, let's go make an article about it? --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead. It's perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the Earth's 6.6 billion people deserve articles? Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete — The individual clearly exists but so what?. Verifiable existence alone doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.93.118 (talk)
- The user above had changed Kurt Weber's vote to delete and added their own commentary. I restored the keep vote and took the IP's contribution as a delete vote, placing it here. if not appropriate, please delete. Montco (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians. The bio on her campaign Web site does not suggest that she meets any criteria for personal notability. Deor (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and the fact that ignoring false positives, there's no substantial RS coverage to prove notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not any other information or claim of notability at all, and the policy excludes candidates who have not been ~~deleted~~elected yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume -- I hope -- you meant "elected" and not "deleted" --Calton | Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, we are not voting for the candidate here! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if substantial coverage by reliable third party sources can be demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N makes things clear, there's simply not enough substantial outside coverage - and that's how we judge notability. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter how we judge notability, since it's irrelevant in the first place? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be your opinion, but it is relevant according to an overwhelming majority and strong consensus among Wikipedians. Not to mention that you, apparently, would like Wikipedia to be the Library of Babel. Your condescending disregard for consensus and POINTy "notability is irrelevant" votes all over AfD may get you into a mess Kurt, I suggest you wise up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeser, this language comes very close to violating NPA. I suggest you reword it. DGG (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, it actually doesn't, but, rather, reflects reality. Note Kmweber's absurd answer above to the question of whether everyone on Earth deserves an article: not just "yes", but the extra absurd and condescending stretch to "...of course". --Calton | Talk 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - recreate if she wins, but candidates for sub-national legislatures who aren't otherwise notable don't merit articles. Biruitorul (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing there. --Calton | Talk 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. However, the article should be recreated if she wins! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Stuffed animals are generally not notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Frog[edit]

"In the season 12 premier Tonsil Trouble, Kyle rips off Clyde Frog's head. It is unknown if this will play a role in future depictions of the toy." Say no more. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A stuffed animal character on a TV show? Really? Verkhovensky (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the character has appeared far more than just the one time its head was ripped off, however there needs to be a few more references to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, this character is about as notable as Thaddeus Griffin. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note A vandal removed the deletion template from the article a couple of days ago. I readded it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP THIS PAGE! Clyde frog gives my daughter hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.85.116 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The user above has had only two edits, this one and a threat here. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and non-notable subject. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]