< July 5	July 7 >

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. See page 10 of Milton Friedman's seminal 1962 work "Capitalism and Freedom" for his use of the term, which is introduces the core subject matter of the book. You can even read it online at a URL given on the talk page of the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic totalitarianism[edit]

Original research Intangible 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was kept on Afd in May- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_totalitarianism, when it was determined that this is not OR, but a term used by Milton Friedman among others. Nom advances no new arguments. --JJay 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was then determined that the article was deemed a copyright violation, not that it was not OR. Intangible 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the second comment in the afD. The article also turned out not to be a copyvio, which is why it's still here. --JJay 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the fact that the article is not neemed a copyvio now, does not mean that back then there was a consensus that the article was not Original Research. Intangible 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is the comments from the previous AfD stand. You have made no case or argument for why this is OR. Please explain why "economic totalitarianism" gets all these very consequential hits from serious publications in google books: around 90 hits in Google books. --JJay 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- Nikodemos 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article incorrectly listed before this time - the first nom was included in the log for 6 July. Fixed now.GRBerry 01:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Afaict, still copyvio, still unsourced original research, still questionable provenance. If no one adopts this within the coming five days and turns it into a viable article, it has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 02:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Trialsanderrors. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete original reaserch. 72.139.119.165 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; the talk page makes it clear that the article is original reasearch. --Muchness 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is not currently referenced, but the claim that it's original research is not supported by prior AfD logs or any comments here. If this was not used rarely in economics, as has been claimed, that should be verifyable. Verifying that is a prerequisite to the restated claim of original research. This nomination is flawed until/unless the OR claim is substantiated. Though it should be properly referenced, lack of references is not a valid reason to delete. Closing admin is recommended to review whether OR claim has been substantiated in the discussion; if not, it should simply be closed with no action when it times out. Georgewilliamherbert 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The claim of OR is supported by the editor responsible for the article's content (68.19.116.130 (talk • contribs)), who has stated that the definition "was derived BY MYSELF several years ago in response to questions relating to my use of the term in various discussion forums, and in an essay authored by me which may be found at http://www.geocities.com/brittone/eco.html"; in other words, it is sourced to a self-published essay and reflects one editor's coinage and definition of a neologism. If the term exists independently of the editor's usage as a notable, verifiable term, an article can be created to reflect that usage, but as trialsanderrors says, unless someone rewrites this as a viable article, it should be deleted as OR.--Muchness 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JJay - this is NOT OR, it's an economic term that's been in use for decades, the only thing the original editor likely 'derived' by himself is the particular string of words s/he used to explain the concept. (Which is exactly what an editor is supposed to do, as the alternative would be copyvio, no?) See Capitalism and Freedom for example. Arker 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daire Hickey[edit]

Not notable vanity. Coil00 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Reads like he's Trinity College's Tracy Flick ~ trialsanderrors 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Obviously a promising aspiring young chap, but not notable yet. Everyone is famous for fifteen seconds, erm minutes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and ZZuuzz. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it please (oh, per nom) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother deleting it? It's up now, its acurate and Im sure is useful in some sense. If people are talking about, they are clearly using it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.1.194 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result of the nomination was merge and redirect to Brights movement. – Avi 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Geisert[edit]

Notable only as co-director of The Brights Net. Suggest redirecting to The Brights Net, including whatever relevant information about his life that will inform that article. SilkTork 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, but you don't have to bring the article to AfD for that, since no deletion is involved. You can just be bold and redirect it yourself. — Haeleth Talk 13:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Comment withdrawn now that the situation is clearer. — Haeleth Talk 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (or smerge) as suggested. Little notability in and of himself, but a useful search term: it makes sense to lead readers straight to the movement he is known for. — Haeleth Talk 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was murdered by popular demand. Kimchi.sg 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Mancini[edit]

Complete hoax or non-notable. None of the credits turn up on Google. IMDB doesn't list any of these credits for a "Melissa Mancini" - probably not the same one[1] - any actress playing a "Mrs. Salvatore" is more than likely a bit older than 20. Mad Jack 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nod Mad Jack 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Mad Jack said, search IMDb turns up blanks on any of the claims. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Google News doesn't have any results, which seems strange considering she was "brutally murdered" on both August 21 and July 3. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete imdb doesn't list her in the cast] - I'm inclined to beleive it is a hoax or a confusion of 2 different people DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bizarrely the first version of the article puts her murder on August 21st 2006[2]. It then changes to August 21st 2005 in the next version [3] and has only become July 3rd 2006 since the article was listed AfD. Also the article claims she filmed scenes for the last two "Star Wars" movies. But starwars.com hasn't heard of her. Smells very hoaxy. --IslaySolomon 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When I found this article and began to capitalize all the lower-case words that solidbaby had typed. Then, she began to edit under an IP address, changing info...Very fishy... Michael 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax, and user involved needs a strong word from an admin. The IP address version of this user (using the same all-lower-case style as used at User:Solidbaby's user page) has basically done nothing but vandalise pages by adding this article's subject to various lists and categories, as can be seen by examining their contributions. Also vandalised Hayden Christensen into, um, this version.--DaveG12345 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete HOAX.Bridesmill 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious hoax. Death described as being just after her 19th birthday would really be a month before her 20th. --Icarus 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom/hoax.--Andeh 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is an interesting hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Black-Velvet 06:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. As it turns out, Padme's sister was played by Claudia Karvan. Melissa Mancini doesn't turn up anything. -LtNOWIS 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Prodego ^talk 03:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Stevie Thinking?[edit]

Seems to be a mix of crystal-ballery and original research. Google only picks up the IMDB, which is a dead zone of reliability when it comes to upcoming projects (the whole cast could've been fan submitted there).[4] Could not find any official confirmation from the studio or anything else online that would verify this. Oh, and TV.com, also linked, is another fan-submitted Wiki. It's sites like that and the IMDB that kill our reliability when we use them as sources.

• Delete per nod Mad Jack 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete = "unaired television series" + "currently on hiatus" --IslaySolomon 01:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, crystal-balling for seemingly nonexistent TV series. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Come on back when picked up for real. Ironically, IMDB discussions end up linking back to WP to "prove" it ain't all hokum. --DaveG12345 03:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What was User:Dtobias thinking? ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only results Google comes up with about this 'show' is IMDB and the Pedia. Black-Velvet 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you hate it when that happens? :) Mad Jack 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article itself calls the existence of the series into doubt. --DarkAudit 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all unaired TV series. Just zis Guy you know? 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't deserve an article if it's unaired unless it's part of a series, which this is not. Lack of sources.--Andeh 19:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article says "unaired" and "on hiatus." --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 03:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy circumcised from article space, CSD A3/A1/G1. And BJAODN. Kimchi.sg 09:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acucullophilia[edit]

Dick def. Artw 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Respect for best/worst pun ever. --IslaySolomon 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, who should now go and stand in the corner. Tevildo 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly i have very poor self control when it comes to this kind of thing. :-S Artw 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been sitting here trying to come up with a pun to match the nom, but my head is just empty on the subject. Oh, and delete. Opabinia regalis 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, at a glans. --DaveG12345 01:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS Sorry I just had to join in (on the discussion, that is !!) DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 01:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and echo Islay. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete bollocks. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ^{Never mind the} WP:BOLLOCKS HERE'S THE  WP:BjAoDN  ~ trialsanderrors 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Articles like this should prick the conscience of all true Wikipedians. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and BJAODN this AfD. Oh dear. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this discussion is heading towards WP:BJAODN itself ! DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's.. what I meant, actually. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This could give people bad ideas. Black-Velvet 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the good jokes have already gone. :( Jakew 08:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussieschoolmates[edit]

Spam. Artw 00:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam - Australian google hits are very low:[5]. [6]--IslaySolomon 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally WP:NN and WP:SPAM DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{WHAT I MESSED UP} 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:WEB. SM247^{My Talk} 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 01:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Islay and WP:WEB. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to the Google hits, no reports on this site in the Australian media that I can find so definite problems with WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not very significant... Michael 03:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It appears to be spam. --Roisterer 04:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spamish orphan article. —Pengo 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per advertising and nom. --Domthedude001 17:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IslaySolomon.--Andeh 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam - Alias Flood 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Change and Relevance Gap[edit]

Follow on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Surprise. Author contributes only to these articles, only 414 unique for "Relevance Gap", difficult to meaningfully google a phrase as generic as "Fundamental Change" but I am finding nothing that indicates this concept is anything other that an (old) neologism. Delete unless evidence that these phrases in this context are commonly used.
brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn neologusm. As with the last debate a redirect to Cognitive dissonance may be appropriate. Artw 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologusm. Also either original thought or perhaps copyvio from [7]. (Saddly I don't speak Hebrew) --IslaySolomon 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also note that a search of "relevance+gap"+lanir (Lanir being the author of the cited paper) gets 0 google hits. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In B-school we used to call this buzzword whoring. ~ trialsanderrors
• Delete for buzzword whoring (Fails WP:NEO, rather). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. User has also contributed to the similarly-minded:

Situational Surprise and

Jointness.

All these articles cite the same cache of "white paper" material by one author, that makes me suspect original research. --DaveG12345 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I prodded them both. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep fundamental change, Delete all others, the first/second person writing is a bit off, but "fundamental change" is a valid concept and the article explains it, and the article is rescueable. The others are crud. An "old neologism" that has caught on is not a neologism.—Pengo 09:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's an article by someone with a bit more clout but I still want to see that FC is a clearly defined term rather than just a waffly concept invoked by different people to mean different things. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - neogilism. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism -- Alias Flood 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was keep. The references in the article are conclusive in establishing the term's provenance, currency and usage. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoware[edit]

Failed 90s neologism. Artw 00:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A google search for Infoware O'Reilly gives 10,200 hits. -- Koffieyahoo 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. I agree with Koffieyahoo there are a reasonable number of Ghits. However, Google should not be the final arbiter of any notability since it can manipulated by mirror sites and simple reprinted press releases or catalog listings; and, certain word particles lend themselves to endless and pointless variations. Witness "e" and "i" as in e-mail, e-business, and a host of widgets brandnamed i-whatevers. I believe "info" is another one of these, and don't think it worthy of inclusion as infobabble. Tychocat 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tychocat. Alphachimp ^talk 13:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism -- Alias Flood 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It's a 90s neologism, but I'm not convinced that it's a failed neologism because it seems useful in certain contexts to people in the real world. Here's an IEEE Spectrum article http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jun06/3655 from last month that uses the term to describe "Web 2.0 database-driven sites." The tone of the article is to mock the terms and their usage, but if published articles are still mocking the term so many years after it was coined, I see that as an indication that it's still being used and still should have an article here. Flying Jazz 08:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is almost established, anyway, it is way past neologism status. --Ezeu 13:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. A bit of web trivia, adequately sourced by the Wired article which cites Gennero, who was there. The copyright status of the image is another matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First image on the Web[edit]

This article seems like a hoax.....for being such a monumental topic, it has one source, that being the website of the guy who uploaded the image. The website claims the uploader knew the guy who invented the internet in 1992. It smells a bit stale to me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless published verification surfaces. The claim doesn't seem obviously false, but it does seem far-fetched enough (for reasons given on the talk page) that it needs a lot more verifiability. --Allen 01:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. The JFIF format wasn't published until September 1992, and it took a good few months before any applications started to use it. Tevildo 01:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article claims this is the original image, but not that it's the original file. In fact, per the talk page, it can't be. (IIRC it was a GIF.) Opabinia regalis 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment "Hoax" may be the wrong word, considering other comments. However, I can still put my hand on my heart and swear that _this_ image couldn't have been on the web, such as it was, in 1992. The first image on the web might have been _similar_ to this one, but, whatever it was, it wasn't _actually_ this one. Tevildo 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Weirdly this may actually check out. Artw 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more debate over the veracity or otherwise of this claim at slashdot. Artw 01:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my vote is Merge and redirect, regardless of veracity it's an interestinmg story but one more properly told on the Les Horribles Cernettes page. Artw 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if sourced I saw Les Horribles Cernettes at CERN a few years ago and this claim was made during the performance, but that's no better of a source than what's already there. I'll look around if I get a chance. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge to Les Horribles Cernettes as a notable internet legend, but I can't find any online sources that don't ultimately trace back to Silvano de Gennaro. (I know Robert Cailliau has mentioned it in talks, but haven't found any transcripts.) Opabinia regalis 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've previously heard of the "Cernettes" as having the first band website. Also, Silvano de Gennaro isn't just some guy, he's a Ph.D. in Computer Science at CERN who has been there since 1977. So it is safe to say that he knows something about the early days of the Internet. On the other hand, it may depend on what you mean by "first picture." Here's the discussion about this image that appeared on Slashdot a while back. Crypticfirefly 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Les Horribles Cernettes, but do not merge unless the claim is verified (it seems to be in doubt according to Crypticfirefly's post). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or cite. WP:V not met. --Chris (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:V in its current state. I have no problem with merging this to Les Horribles Cernettes, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Les Horribles Cernettes. --DaveG12345 04:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:V cannot be met until mentioned in peer-reviewed reputable venue. -Seidenstud 05:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I actually tried to contact Tim Berners-Lee about this, but he apparently has better things to do than answering to research queries on, ahem, rather minor topics. The article content is pretty much unverifiable, but the topic itself is interesting enough that a Merge and Redirect to les Horribles Cernettes cannot hurt -- Ferkelparade π 11:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect per DaveG12345 --Alphachimp ^talk 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V... I knew I'd seen this somewhere before, covered on (and picked apart) slashdot a while back. Redirect if, and only if, it gets sourced.--Isotope23 14:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - except if it can be verified. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless can be verified. If verified, Merge and Redirect --Domthedude001 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without WP:VER it counts for nothing and the onus is on the article's author to provide references. -- Alias Flood 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or Merge/Redirect - the claim was published in Wired Magazine in 1999; the link to the article was in the article for Les Horribles Cernettes - See An article in Wired magazine, from 1999, 2nd page. This also was discussed on the talk page.KWH 06:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Ikiroid - of course it's a monumental topic/claim with only one source, here's another. ;) KWH 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Les Horribles Cernettes, not because the image isn't notable but because there's not really that much to say about it, seriously. (We have articles on notable photographs but this isn't exactly "memorable", unless you count the fact that CERN physicists can pick some awful background colors for supposed promo pics =) =) =) Too bad Wayback Machine wasn't invented yet... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The Wired article claims that it was one of the first five images published on the Web. Just for the record. Their mp3s are pretty damn good, though. No vote. DS 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a new section to the talk page, I think I 'may' have disproved the claim. However I was never connected to the internet before the web came along, and need to confirm a few points. As there is discussion as the the factual accuracy of this article in the talk pages, i'm sure whoever decides on this one will look there. --JeffUK 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I've said before, there is no reliable way to verify this claim - All we have is one person who claims this is true, and a single news source that parroted it. Merging this to Les Horribles Cernettes will not solve the fact that it's still unverifiable information, regardless of the article in which it resides. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that it cannot be verified. It certainly can't easily be verified by multiple sources, but I believe it's arguable that Gennaro is a reliable source, also that it's possible for TBL to be contacted (although that needs to be done carefully, we don't want to spam the poor guy! Also, the fact that this has been claimed by Gennaro is a verifiable fact, the cernettes article need not say that it is the truth, only that it has been claimed.--JeffUK 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm also concerned about the copyright status of this image. I'd hate to shoot down such an interesting discussion with a technicality, but i think we need to look into the 'fair use' claim. (do we need to consider Swiss copyright law?) If anyone agrees that this may be a copyvio, can they tag the relevant image, or ask me to do so. --JeffUK 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we're clearly in US fair use territory (critical commentary on the image itself). I think the question of complying to Swiss law may be moot; my read of the situation is that someone who wants to bring a case against en.wiki under a provision of foreign copyright law would have a lot of obstacles in asserting jurisdiction in the foreign country. (Possibly excepting Germany, as I understand there is a mirror there?) The applicable part of Swiss Copyright Law [8], according to a rough machine translation, appears to be:

  Article 25 - Quotation

  1. quotations of published works may be quoted, if the quotation for explanation, when reference serves or for the illustration and is justified by this purpose the range of the quotation.

  2. the quotation as such and the source must be designated. One refers in the source to the authority, then this is to be indicated likewise.

  • For what it's worth, if a case were brought in a US court in a conflict of laws scenario, I think the court would uphold the fair use as being in line with the public policy intent of both countries copyright laws. Wasn't that a fun exercise? KWH 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was Keep. Eminence in his field of apologetics is established by the references in the article. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay[edit]

• Previous nomination at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Lindsay

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

NOMINATOR: Please add a specific justification for deletion to this nomination, here at the top of the discussion. AfD is not an (un)popularity contest - you must cite specific justifications for deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 08:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Another Rewrite - I attempted another rewrite to remove vanity type stuff, provide additional verified sources for some claims, and shortened the article considerably. I ask participants below to pls review the new page. --Trödel 14:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another... David L Rattigan 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is still a vanity page. --Jonquière 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Jeff Lindsay is an amateur..." I think that right there is reason enough to delete this article. --Jonquière 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Improvements have been made - more are needed but the page should stay so they can be made --Trödel 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a significant person within Mormon apologists. Several Mormon related pages refer to the article. It is a stub, but not (IMHO) really a vanity page. I rewrote the page, adding more detail than the original. I don't know the person, and have no connection to him. I added the article because I believe he is noteworthy. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Delete There haven't really been any changes since the last one that make it worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Most of the links on "web references" aren't even notable enough either to be on a wikipedia page. That's like listing all the webpages that have references to CNN. Hmm...maybe I should reference my own webpage under the CNN website? Also, this was deleted previously. When it went for a deletion review, they decided to keep it deleted. --Riley 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's way to much vanity fluff/website promotion in this article. Also, where is the notability here? Apologies if I am missing something, but isn't this just a chemist who moonlights as a blogger? The guy who writes those Dexter books, on the other hand, he is notable IMO. - DaveG12345 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The above was my original comment on this topic, but it's moved here now for technical reasons, so have reposted it intact. Just to elaborate, the article doesn't, to me, really make clear what this person is notable for. There is a lot of introductory fluff of no relevance to their supposed notability, then the blogging material at the end which seems more like an advert for the website. Just MHO at this stage. --DaveG12345 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I read the comments - they were complaining a year ago:

  If there is anything of substance here except self-promotion, let us see it. I say this not out of a negative view, but I see little evidence here of value. I shouldn't have to go to his website to know what he is about- and that seems like what the article is seeking to do. It looks more like a personal webpage than an encyclopedia article.

The comment sadly still holds today. --DaveG12345 04:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - give the stub time to fill out. Someone who holds 65 US patents should at least have a stub. He is notable, much moreso than many wikipedia entries. See comments on talk page of article [9]. -Visorstuff 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess I must be missing a distinction between notable and those who are not and more importantly who determines this issue. Some of the articles that we have on WIKI are truly useless; think of all the articles on small towns of no significance, or those on episodes of TV series, or about people who have done absolutely nothing except play one inning of professional baseball. Now we have a fellow who is very active in the religious sector and he is insignificant??? It makes one wonder. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove non-notable personal info "Lindsay developed an interest in magic around the age of 11. He continues to enjoy magic, but strictly on an amateur basis. He still performs for small groups, with no high-tech effects." This is not encyclopedic!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrblsnggt (talk • contribs)
• Rationale changed, see below. Delete Do we have a museum for deleted articles that display exactly what WP is not? This article is just begging to be the centerpiece of the traveling exhibition. ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC) / 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's not that hard to get a patent. "We have worse" is not a reason to keep; nominate those and I'll vote to zap them as well. Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reasoning as last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bill. I will do what I can to try to improve the article. David L Rattigan 07:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bill. By the way, he's up to 86 patents now (said 92 - corrected) - as a patent attorney, I don't think it is "easy" or common to get 86 patents - I have a few individual inventors among my clients that are higher than that, but that is considered a rare and impressive accomplishment by all involved. That alone makes him notable. I have also, as an exmormon, been familiar with his work as an LDS apologist for years, through a variety of sources - he is widely referred to in discussions of the LDS church, making him doubly notable. I have no connection to him and do not agree with most of what he writes, but he merits a Wikipedia article. * (Correction - I've corrected the number of his patents to 86, after screening out a few alternate Jeff Lindsays) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Turns out he's listed on 92 patents as co-inventor for products patented by his company, Kimberly-Clark. For a research scientist we're not in extraordinary territory. ~ trialsanderrors 08:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - 35 U.S.C. 102(f) requires that the true inventors, and only the true inventors, of an invention are named as inventors on the patent. If someone is named who is not an inventor, it could invalidate or otherwise limit the enforceability of the patent; if someone who materially contributed to the invention is not named as an inventor, and later found to have been a true co-inventor, they have full independent rights to the patent, including the right to license away to a competitor unfettered joint rights to the patent; which they have been known to do, to very great remuneration. Either way, millions of dollars often ride on naming the inventors accurately; it is a big deal. This is not like a senior professor plugging his name onto his students' research articles. The distinction implied above is without a difference. And for anyone, 86 patents is extraordinary territory. Note also, that he is also named on 107 pending patent applications, at least most of which can be expected to become issued patents in the next few years - and those are only the ones that have been pending at least 18 months. One guy with 200 patents is certainly notable, whether or not his employer is paying for the costs of obtaining the patents - which would be hard for an individual to do in this case, where his 200 patent applications have likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of two million dollars. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejoinder Thank you. I don't see how that addresses my point. It is notoriously easy to get a U.S. patent, with approval rates estimated to be upward of 75%, so with corporate funding I mostly see someone who, as the corporate patent strategist, has his mind set on getting as many patents as possible, for reasons possibly more strategic than scientific. I laud those who trimmed this article down to the essentials, but a list of below-notable accomplishments in various areas still doesn't bestow notability. Besides, if his patents were to bestow notability, should we write about his contributions to wet wipes dispensing technologies, or decorative elements in feminine hygiene? ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-rejoinder (???) - Hey man, where would civilization be without wet wipes dispensing technologies? :-) While not all patents are on par with inventing laser or warp drive, but looking only at issue rate per application masks the self-limiting layers of in-house counsel, managers, and outside counsel deciding whether or not an engineer's submission for a patent application is likely enough to be passed to be worth the mound of cash and the years of effort to apply. A lot of would-be applicants are counseled - even by their outside attorney (including myself) - that their idea is not likely to get an issued patent. In short, I don't think the arguments for minimizing the accomplishment of a guy with 86 patents and over 100 more in the pipeline hold much water, and I think that in itself satisfies notability. There are a number of astronauts who list a single or a handful of patents on their bios alongside their spaceflight experience. Ray Kurzweil is famous as an inventor, and he holds 15 patents and 37 published pending patent applications. Lindsay is notable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re³joinder My point is mostly about the very limited value of patent counts. Patents are a massive long tail story, with only a tiny fraction creating the bulk of value. I'm a bit disinclined to buy the in-house controls argument if the subject himself is in control of the process. I should amend my comment above though by noting that the decorative elements seem to be about the riffles on toilet paper and paper towels rather than feminine hygiene products. If there is a patent among the bunch that received significant outside attention, I'm willing to reconsider. On sheer counts, I'm not. ~ trialsanderrors 19:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re⁴joinder His employer is #135 on the Fortune 500. I guarantee you, he does not have unfettered rights to pour the company's money into a collection of vanity patents for himself. If they are anything like other F500 companies, there is a big department of in-house patent attorneys and managers taking a long, hard look at every thousand dollars being spent and deciding whether the likely benefit to the company of each patent application is worth the expense, with the knowledge that only a tiny fraction of patents are ever useful for litigation. So, again, I don't think it's apt to minimize the notability of one researcher with that many patents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rrrrrejoinder. Again, I'm not debating the value of his (co-)inventions to Kimberly-Clark, who might be very happy about his new ways of grooving wiggly lines into toilet paper. I'm debating their encyclopedic value. If he appeared in "Sanitary Products Monthly" for it, we have a different case. R&D is only notable if someone notices it. Only his track record in print media, see below. ~ trialsanderrors 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rrrrrrrrrrrr... errr... - I'm very sad to report that a Google search of "Sanitary Products Monthly", in quotes, returns no results. (At least until their bots crawl onto this page.) So, you admit you are denying the vitality of new squiggly line designs on toilet paper to this nation's proud economy? ☺ But seriously, that is not a fair representation of the achievements of his patents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• R→∞joinder By no means, decorative elements in toilet paper have turned what was once the drab performance of a bodily function into an expedition into a world of wonders, but as long as Mr. Lindsay continues to toil (no pun intended) in obscurity to enrich our lives, we have to deny him notability, much to my own regret. It's not how WP works – we don't include anyone for being tall, we include them because someone with a press pass looked up and said, "Wow, this guy is tall." ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Interjoinder ;) I selected that patent (and the tampoon one) - not for their particular notability as I only read a few of the patents - but to show the diversity of the patents being sought - also Lindsay is the lead inventor on at least one of the patents I reviewed - I would have included a note to that effect if I thought it would have been important. I think the main consideration should be that there is enough noteriety using only the impact DNA research is having on the LDS Church and the professional achievements add depth to this persons article. It is, after all, a stub not a complete article. --Trödel 23:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reflection I didn't even notice the listing (it's probably not encyclopedic to list them by their titles anyway, which reader can tell that "Absorbent article having good body fit under dynamic conditions" refers to maxi pads?) In any case I agree that the issue of notability should center around his activities in LDS research, but I also haven't found anything that gives me disinterested confirmation of his activities. Btw, this article is a stub??? How long is it supposed to be when it's done? ~ trialsanderrors 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (PS I rearranged the indents to fit the topic under discussion)[reply]

• Annotation - I agree - it shouldn't be much longer - the most significant LDS Apologetics is the dna research - DNA research "Jeff Lindsay" gives quite a few hits --Trödel 02:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I left the stub template in the rewritten article because I realized it was a first stab at a new article. Since then, Trödel has greatly improved the article, so it can probably be removed by now, although there is more work to be done (like Criticsm). BTW - the guy is a chemical engineer, specializing in things to do with wood pulp who works for a paper company. Chances are his patents aren't going to be glamorous and exciting to those of us who don't appreciate the wonders of paper.;^) He did have two "best article" awards from a trade magazine, and co-winner of a "Best Technical Paper" from a professional institute, which sounds like professional recognition. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On DNA Research This is a lengthy article from the LA Times on the discussion of DNA vs. LDS. Lindsay isn't even mentioned once. I still didn't see any encyclopedically usable material on him. ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral??? I just read this article - btw, this is a great example of how traditional news is not neutrally presented - it doesn't quote any apoligists by name - that I could see just people talking about what they say. But being the LA times I'm not surprised --Trödel 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Any website that cites it's Wikipedia article on the front page (check out his "official site") does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. We don't need his resume. I'm sure he can host it in his own webspace. Alphachimp ^talk 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I am changing my vote to keep per recent changes to bring article to Wikipedia quality. Alphachimp ^talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - David Brin also links to his Wikipedia article on the front page of his website. Does that mean he has suddenly become deserving of deletion? I don't see that in the WP policies. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - David Brin doesn't have his Resumé listed on his wikipedia page. David Brin is also much more well-known than Jeff Lindsay. David Brin also has an entire series of published books. Jeff Lindsay has a few articles. There's a big difference between the two. --Riley 18:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey look it's Elvis - Those are separate issues from "Any website that cites it's Wikipedia article on the front page (check out his "official site") does not deserve to be on Wikipedia", the rebuttal of which above I take it from your subject-changing you accede to. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - As this comment is based off of what Alphachimp said, it is on subject. --Riley 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I don't see it in WP policy, but it speaks to the notability of a subject. A lot of NN people and organizations will cite their wikipedia article as a primary source of information about them. When you are famous/important enough, you don't have to cite Wikipedia. There are really no parallels between Brin and Lindsay, except the Wiki citation (I could not find it on Brin's page, btw.) Alphachimp ^talk 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue here? It seems there are two issues being discussed: (1) Is the person noteworthy and (2) Did I do a good job writing the article? Question #1 is valid for a discussion of whether or not it is a vanity page, but question #2 would be better for a discussion of whether the article needs a rewrite. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has been improved since many of the above comments were made - see this early version for its earlier problems. --DaveG12345 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It still lists that he graduated summa cum laude. It's still a resume. Wikipedia is not web hosting. Alphachimp ^talk 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Keep. The article is now much improved, with the vanity fluff, overt advertising and irrelevancies removed. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on the notability issue. --DaveG12345 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per last AFD. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you reviewed the new article - it has changed substantially since the last AFD which only had 4 voters. --Trödel 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is obviously a vantiy page. --137.142.17.120 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, 113,000 on Google. --Domthedude001 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interest of full disclosure, there are several people named Jeff Lindsey - but this 33,000 is probably more accurate "Jeff Lindsay" (mormon OR pulp OR patent) --Trödel 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A Lexis-Nexis search for "Jeff Lindsay"/last ten years/Midwestern regional news creates 9 hits, none of which are about the subject. Western regional news: 21 hits, none about the subject. Major newspapers: 25, zero about the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity page. JChap 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity page. --68.191.11.249 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable in his genre - Mormon apoligists - professional accomplishments add depth Abeo Paliurus 18:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Moriori 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity Dr Zak 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was probably vanity to begin with, but this person has actually made some accomplishments worthy of note. RFerreira 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lindsay is famous for polemically dismissing anything not faith-promoting to Mormonism, and his scientific expertise is often touted by his followers in this regard, who represent a fundamentalist faction within Mormonism, unyielding in their literalism. So Wikipedia is touting his scientific expertise for these followers without precedent, thus giving his controversial and unrelated apologetics added weight. Here is the problem explained, from a Mormon researcher: My particular interest is Missouri Mormon History. Of this time ( 1831 - 1838 ), I concentrate on 1838. The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri - This is THE definitive book on the 1838 period, and is a must read for any student to the topic. Please note that Jeff Lindsay has written an unkind rebuttal of this book, and I fully dismiss Lindsay's work here as almost totally inaccurate. For an alternative to LeSueur's work, see Alex Baugh's A Call to Arms: The 1838 Mormon Defense of Northern Missouri. I know both authors personally, and they are two of the best historians in the field. Bro. Lindsay has done a disservice to his church in this area - he would be best advised to read Baugh's book, and follow his example. A full bibliography of the Missouri period can be found at the bottom of this page. For a rather complete chronology of 1838 Missouri, see 1838 Chronology, o this site. http://www.tungate.com/Missouri_1838.htm Anon166 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually this is an argument that there should be an article so that those seeking information about him can get an neutral perspective. --Trödel 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not an argument for or against as long as it doesn't leave the narrow confines of LDSDNA discussion forums. I'm still waiting for evindence that his work has trickled out into the wider world of disinterested reporting. ~ trialsanderrors 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interestingly - I searched some other ways (non-internet) and the only thing I have found so far relates to his anti block-scheduling for schools crusade Kenney, Linda Chion (2003-10-01). "Back from the block--or not?". School Administrator. American Association of School Administrators.. In my own little world he is so obviously notable - I'll keep looking as I get a chance. --Trödel 18:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example, when Concerned Christians banned Mormons from quoting anyone who was not a General Authority (Betts, Bob (2005-11-23). "A New Rule For Mormons". Concerned Christians. Retrieved 2006-07-07. ) the only person named was Jeff Lindsay. --Trödel 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Trodel, yours is merely an argument for including anything. Whether or not it can be neutral is another question. (I personally don't think so because a belief system is under threat from scientific data.) Furthermore, two shortcomings don't add up to a success. His apologetics is not noteworthy as an entry without his unrelated scientific expertise, which is not noteworthy on its own. Anon166 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No only ones that are "famous", are "touted by his followers", and controversial enough to be denounced by "Mormon researchers" - sounds like plenty of verifabile information to be included in an article --Trödel 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Lindsay's followers number about 50, all of them from the internet, about ten or so of them seem to be Mormon editors on Wikipedia. I've never met a Mormon in real life who's mentioned him in relation to his apologetics, as there are about a dozen or so names in front of him. Since you quoted me on his fame, you should have the rest of the story. Anon166 03:4, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Can you enlighten us where Lindsay posts/publishes his LDSDNA articles? This is still obscure to outsiders after all this debate. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDS DNA Articles:

• from the official LDS Site (PDF)
• from his own web site (HTML)

Again, it isn't necessarily what he is best known for (I personally like his "My Turn" page, but the DNA article is the only one that was published on the official LDS site. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I notice that the resume-esque bullet points have been removed from the article. It's a good start, but everything I'm reading just seems so unremarkable and not NPOV. Allow me to illustrate: It says that he interrupted his time at BYU for a mission thing. That's great, but it's a normal thing for LDS members to do. For instance, the claim that he is a "prolific" inventor wreaks of NPOV issues. Looking at the article, I just find it extremely hard to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Alphachimp ^talk 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First the article should decide what it wants to be. As a corporate executive, the subject is wildly non-notable. As a former academic, he seems to fail WP:PROF. As an inventor, he doesn't seem to be anywhere near the top. The way it looks like right now it seems that all the information about his various non-LDS-related activities are brought up to make a false appeal to authority (given that he has no standing as a molecular biologist) to bolster his role in the LDSDNA debates. Which would make this a very POV undertaking which should be deleted with prejudice. I'm still open to hear about his role in the LDSDNA debates, but so far the findings have been very meagre. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I admit I didn't do a good job of the initial rewrite. (I'm better at tweaking than creating), but the discussion should be based on the topic, not the quality of the article.
    • Everyone's milage may vary, but the LDS DNA article isn't (IMHO) the most important thing he did. What makes it unique, is that it is the only paper that the official church web site references. (lds.org usually limits references to articles to top church leaders.) What he is best known for (for good and bad) is a variety of papers in the anti-mormon field. As I mentioned earlier, if you google "anti-mormon", his site shows up on the first page. That should indicate he is notable within Anti-Mormonism. The next question would be "Is anti-mormonism notable?" If the answer is yes, then it seems that Jeff Lindsay is noteable. If the answer is no, then the answer would be no. His page is linked to from Anti-Mormonism, Mormon apologetics, and Criticism of Mormonism, which lends credence to him being known among Mormons. Now, granted, if you aren't a Mormon, a former Mormon, an Anti-Mormon, or a friend of a Mormon, that may not mean much. But does that make it non-notable?
    • I also should point out that David L Rattigan has greatly stripped down the article, so I would encourage people to look at it again. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have radically revised the article, excising a lot of the irrelevant stuff that was making it look like a vanity article. If the article is going to stay, it is better that it grows organically rather than just rehashing the mass of information from the old article. David L Rattigan 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment High praise for David for cutting it down to size and removing the more blatant vanity elements. On the notability of his LDSDNA engagement, the problem is that the LDS webpage has to be seen as a partisan site in the debate, so what really matters is 1. whether the opposing site takes his arguments seriously enough to engage him in a debate, and 2. whether this spills over to a forum where I as an outsider could possibly be informed by it. For instance the LA Times article is good evidence that the debate is of interest to outsiders, but since Lindsay isn't mentioned in it it gives no testimony of his role. WP:NPOV brings up the issue of undue weight, and if it isn't established that he holds a central role in the debate (outside web forums, which are almost never encyclopedic), this article could be seen as a POV fork. ~ trialsanderrors 23:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'll second that praise. I've changed my vote to Keep. I'm not entirely convinced of his notability, but the article is borderline enough to save. Alphachimp ^talk 23:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline or not, it's still a vanity bit about a non notable to me. Rense 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His name is on enough Wikipedia pages about Mormonism (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22jeff+lindsay%22+-%22user+talk%22) to make an actual page about the guy useful. It may need rewriting to get up to Wikipedia standards, but as long as there are so many references to him from other Wikipedia pages, people are going to keep creating the article back again (ignorant of the past, deleted versions of the page). --Dlugar 05:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, absolutely. Patent discussions aside, I agree that Lindsay is notable as an LDS apologist — I've become very familiar with his work both as a Mormon and after leaving the church (and know many others who read him that have nothing to do with Wikipedia, Anon). For the record, I've communicated with him via email in a (suspended) effort to fill this article out some, and he was surprised that it had been written — he did not author any part of it. For those voting delete as vanity, be careful to not equate an unfamiliarity with the subject at hand with identifying it as vanity. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge pertinent facts into Mormon apologetics. With all due deference to those who did a great job of cutting the vanity from this article, it still fails key thresholds in WP policy. Absent reliable outside sources the subject is simply someone who is vocal on his webpage and on discussion groups but with zero news hits (even Utah or Wisconsin local news) simply lacks the outside standing of a Phillip E. Johnson to be the public face of the apologist position in this debate. The litmus test for an entry like this is whether we can include a properly sourced and attributed criticism of his position. If not, we can either include hearsay and run afoul of WP:BLP or we leave it out and make this a POV fork, giving undue weight to one side of the debate. To be clear, the debate is important and should be properly covered, but we cannot bestow notability to a partisan figure who has not received any attention outside the world he is active in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I'm confused about what is needed for retention. For my initial rewrite, I added lots of references, which caused several people to call it a vanity page. Then it got stripped down to mainly apologetics, and now it is too narrow.

So far, we have identified:

• Two books that reference his site, one for religion, and one for magic.
• Two professional organizations (TAPPI and American Paper Institute - now AF&PA) cited his works for best technical papers
• He served as director of AIChE Forest Products Division from 1989 to 1995
• If you search for "Anti-Mormon" on google, his web site appears on the first page of hits.
• Brittanica.com and USA Today each spotlighted his site as a "Hot Site" and "one of the best on the Internet when reviewed for quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability" respectively. The site has received various other awards and recognitions.
• The educators' magazine, Education Week, ran a story on Oct. 3, 2001 discussing his Block Scheduling site.
• BYU Chemical Engineering Dept. designated him as the outstanding alumnus for 2004

It seems to me that the above list indicates he is notable within apologetics (at least for the lds.org article and high ranking by google on "Anti-Mormon"), professionally (best papers, outstanding alumnus, and director of AIChE Forest Products Division, and the number of patents), general public visibility (USA Today and Brittanica.com), and other fields (e.g., Block Scheduling), so I'm not sure that he has not received any recognition outside of the world he is active in.

Can somebody clarify the issues at this point? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through your own list you'll notice that exactly one of your (non-blog/non-message board) sources is about his LDSDNA activities – the cite in a book that has probably 500 footnotes total. That is extremely meager. Everything else is essentially an appeal to authority, saying because he has done X his opinion on Y must be taken seriously. That's what WP:NPOV calls "undue weight". As I mentioned before, since Lindsay has no standing based on formal training his standing must be established by outside sources. If he has been involved in a public debate on LDSDNA or has been cited by his adversaries, those are ways to establish his role. Magicianship and expertise in block scheduling aren't. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't even really have a good background in block scheduling. Most people in the education field who I've talked to regarding him consider his arguments to be pretty soft. --Riley 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems of finding outside sources from adversaries is that one of the characteristics of most anti-mormon literature is to ignore any apologetic material, and frame their arguments to imply that no counter-arguments have ever been expressed to their claims. This was recognized by two christian theologians in: Mosser, Carl and Owen, Paul (1997) in Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?.

The fact that his article appears on the official lds.org site is quite significant, indicating recognition from the apologetic side. This is a site that normally has only writings by high level church leaders and maybe faculty from church-sponsored schools and universities. Every article is carefully reviewed and given approval from high authorities before it is added to the web site, so his DNA article being there is a big deal.

As for block scheduling, it sounds like he is known (if not respected) in that field.

Let me be clear: I don't agree with much of his non-apologetic writings. He's a conservative and I'm a bleeding-heart liberal, and I think he is dead wrong on a lot of his opinions. Nevertheless, I have to admit that he is at least known in various circles. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but this very lack of discussion or outside reporting makes it clear that we have a problem with WP:V and WP:NPOV. But in any case, unless there are other sources forthcoming I think we have discussed this from all sides and have to leave it to the closing administrator to decide whether the article can be kept. ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article I pointed to, you will see that at least the authors (who were not LDS, and in fact were on the anti-mormon side) believe that is one of the problems with their approach so far. This also illustrates how it is sometimes very difficult to teach people with no familiarity of a subject matter enough to make informed decisions. It reminds me a little of when people complain about not having reliable references for video games. The fact is, there really isn't many books written about video games, but the comments that appear in the articles I monitor do reflect the "general opinion", based on talking to others. If there isn't a clear answer, hopefully people will trust those who are more familiar with the topic.

I still don't understand why, if his web site shows up on the first page of a google search for "anti-mormon", how he can't be notable within that field. Is the problem that anti-mormonism isn't noteable? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the full article but I noticed that they 1. don't mention Lindsay but 2. mention Hugh Nibley as the "father of apologetic scholarship", i.e. someone who by academic standing has an article in WP. So I hav no idea if your claim is correct, and it isn't really my job to investigate. My job is to check whether we have sufficient reliable outside resources to write an unbiased article based solely on those sources, and my opinion is no, for reasons amply discussed above: no coverage in the media, no publications is reputable academic outlets, no discussion of his claims in those media. In other words, we are asked to give notability to someone who hasn't established notability for himself in the kinds of sources we consider reliable. ~ trialsanderrors 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable enough - and the controversy reminds me that where there is smoke, look for fire. Lyze 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben Matlock's clients[edit]

Seems like a really pointless and nonnotable list to me; also only five list entries after 10 months on WP. NawlinWiki 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's already a List_of_Matlock_episodes with links to individual episodes. If the individual episodes are to be written-up then this list seems redundant. --IslaySolomon 01:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Islay. If there's any information not already in other Matlock articles, then merge, but I doubt that'll be necessary. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Matlockcruft (this may be the first time that term has ever been used), although I know full well that I risk the wrath of Abraham Simpson. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Matcruft. Cruftlock? Eh, whatever, it's a fancrufty and pointless list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft. --Icarus 06:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft Alphachimp ^talk 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - listcruft. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary. 23skidoo 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per unnecessary, IsanSolomon and nom. --Domthedude001 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ben Matlock. Green caterpillar 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unnecessary. -- Alias Flood 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above reasons. Carlossuarez46 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Merge would be OK too. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 03:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Sango123 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autominer[edit]

gamecruft. Artw 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Already covered in RuneScape. --IslaySolomon 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to RuneScape -- Librarianofages 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment withdrawn, vote=Delete -- Librarianofages 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Merge salvagable info (i.e. that they need not be at the computer). It's basically covered at RuneScape. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to topic covered in RuneScape. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think it gets a sentence in the main RuneScape article, but it certainly doesn't deserve it's own article. P.S. (It is RuneScape with a capital S) J.J.Sagnella 06:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. :P --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per redundent. --Domthedude001 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and redundant. -- Alias Flood 22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This info doesn't deserve its own article. --Ted87 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These programs was very popular back when they worked, but quite obsolete these days. I doubt anybody will need an article on this. – Ðra 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest High School