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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of online databases about films in Czech and Slovak language[edit]

List of online databases about films in Czech and Slovak language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; a small directory of film websites complete with links. Masaruemoto 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the list is more suited to a category as the inclusion criteria is too narrow. I have created stubs for Czech Movie Heaven and Czech and Slovak Movie Database and expanded Večerníček. John Vandenberg 05:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henchmen MC[edit]

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

Non-notable motorcycle club. 375 Google hits, mostly blogs and lists. No refs, either. Mmoyer 02:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Scott.wheeler 01:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete , as per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaufmanIsAwesome (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 April 2007

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess (elephant)[edit]

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

Non-notable animal. This would be classified under WP:N, in which this would fail the criterion of "Multiple" sources should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources. Sr13 (T|C) 02:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not many sources here, and what sources there are...well, she appears to be little more than just another circus elephant, unfortunately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ELEPHANT --Infrangible 05:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:KILLUNSOURCEDELEPHANTS ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian television ratings for headLand[edit]

List of Australian television ratings for headLand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate info #9. Masaruemoto 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not the Nielsen Company. --Charlene 05:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ratings for a now-failed show don't seem to have any place other than a fan site for the show. Orderinchaos 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wow, spectacularly unencyclopædic. Lankiveil 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I am generally supportive of lists but fail to see the usefulness of this list. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. John Vandenberg 07:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Wars[edit]

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

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)).

Yet another MMORPG with absolutely no reliable secondary sources. Gets a lot of google hits, but most of them are unrelated; the remainder are from sites relying on user-created content. Contested prod, and probably an a7. —Cryptic 02:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete, fails notability criterion. Delete as per CSD A7. --soum (0_o) 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, obviously has a significant player base if user-created sites exist, but probably not notable compared to other MMORPGs. Lankiveil 06:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete per criterion A7. Sr13 (T|C) 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A google on "tribal wars" brings up many hits, of course; but looking at the first couple pages, a good percentage of them are for this MMOG. Considering how many different references to tribal wars there must be on the net, that is at least interesting, I think. It also claims "over 200,000" players just on the English server; whether that's a notable number on the MMOG scene I don't know, but it's more than the population of Dayton, Ohio. (There has been some screwing around with this page, with the AfD tag removed for a while and non-optimal versions of the page substituted, fixed for now.) Herostratus 14:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 is a meaningless number - we don't even know whether it's referring to active or retired accounts, whether it's individual human players or duplicate accounts. --McGeddon 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete; as per notability criterion. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Big numbers aside, it has many worlds and servers supporting different countries/languages. That doesnt happen without active players. John Vandenberg 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter how many active players it has if the only third-party sources are four-line blurbs and foreign language blogs. —Cryptic 08:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This game is very much active. I play it continually and know what I'm talking about.--Weswammy10:17 PM April 22, 2007 (CMT)
      • This was Weswammy's eleventh edit. —Cryptic 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --McGeddon 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just joined Tribal Wars as a player, and although I can see right away that there are a large number of players I don't see that as evidence of notability. On the other hand, Wikipedia is full of articles on computer games of all types, on musical instruments of all types, on motor vehicles of all types, on towns and streets and streams and ponds of all sizes. Only a fraction of these have notable external reference sites or publications. Where is the line drawn? Darcyj 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's drawn at WP:N - it just takes a long time to draw. --McGeddon 08:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per notability and web guidelines. Darcy, WP:FISHING is a good little essay for explaining why there are non-notable articles still on wikipedia. DarkSaber2k 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far. Bjrobinson 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Cryptic from another AfD: If a subject has no third party sources, which even its proponents do not dispute, then we cannot have an article on it. If no sources exist you can't just say 'Oh let it on anyway, 10,000 people play it.' DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and expand There are a lot of people on tribal wars, so this is quite an important subject, so we should keep it. But the article is not up to scratch. I am a member of Tribl Wars,

and with a subject like this, there is little point in citing scoures or references. Very few people write about these sites, so surely the users themselves are a reliable scource? As long as they are not biased, I cant see a problem. Lemming42 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing references and sources is EACTLY the point. If the article cannot provide sources, it cannot remain on wikipedia, Regardless of how many people play it, or create accounts to say keep in this discussion. Your complete ignorance of wikipedia polcies such as WP:RS is shown when you say 'Surely users are a reliable source'. I laughed out loud at this!DarkSaber2k 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkSaber2k, please dont WP:BITE our newcomers. This is a work in progress, and we need fresh people and idea's participating in our discussions and content creation in order to continue to grow. Bear in mind that reliable published sources are often incorrect too -- this especially applies to newspapers. Sources are of course desirable, but an unsourced article that is obviously not contentious is better than no article at all. The former can be fixed; the latter is by definition not able to benefit anyone. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lemming42, our policies and guidelines revolve around trying to keep the content hosted on Wikipedia within certain boundaries of accuracy and usefulness. A lot of junk is tossed onto the Wikipedia servers, and it takes a lot of work to keep the site clean. Take a look at Verifiability, No original research and Notability to gain a feeling of why this article is borderline. In essence, people are suggesting this article should be deleted because there are insufficient reliable published sources on the subject. Users and blogs are not considered reliable sources.

Personally, I think that if there are five independent blogs that assert the same fact about a game (and there is no contray opinion), I would have no problem saying, "Users of the game have said '<some random fact>' <ref> .. </ref><ref> .. </ref>...". That obviously makes it clear that the fact isnt reliable, but can help the astute reader come up to speed on the subject. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The article needs work but should not be deleted It should be treated as a stub. I find myself concerned with a trend I see to delete articles in the MMORPG category. Some of these games have been around for years and have VERY large followings. I understand the reasonings behind the nominations, as MMORPGs are notoriously difficult to cite and source, there simply are not a lot of well-known sources in the MMORPG community, especially when it comes to browser-based games. The sourcing consists mostly of user-review sites and word of mouth. I think we should cut some of these games a little slack. If we don't, we will end up not having articles on some of the major games out there, and that would be a shame. This is a VERY notable game, almost everyone who plays these things has played it, or at least heard of it. The notability guidelines are just that: GUIDLINES, and should not be treated like strict rules. The word "guidline" implies adjustment, and we should be adjusting slightly to keep some of these articles. It should be taken into account that there are very few, if any, MMORPGs more notable than this one. Is it the plan to decimate the entire category?? This article is well written and covers a notable game. It should be kept. Matt Brennen 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not conferred by the number of players, but by third-party sources (i.e. articles) written about it. If it is such a "major game," it will have reviews on it, and this one distinctly lacks them. (Side note: that guidelines aren't mandatory does not mean you can ignore them without a good reason.) Phony Saint 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not determined by third party sources; reliable sources can prove notability, and is vital for V, NPOV and NOR, but in the end, notability cant be codified. We develop notability guidelines to help establish consensus, but we are not automations, and these guidelines are not meant to override common sense. Deleting material should not be done lightly; we should err on the side of caution where notability is borderline, because the article we see is a work in progress (and is the result of the hard work of other contributors). Here we have a websites+game that has been translated into seven languages, the game has been covered in four of our sister language pedia's (Dutch, French, Spanish and Turkish); a number of the other pedia's also have an article about the company that has the international license (e.g. es:Gameforge), they have significant infrastructure (worlds) to support many players (which has been verified by Wikipedians going into the game to verify), and the web has many references to the game in forums and the like. It would be extremely odd if this game was not suitable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. With half an hour and a bit of help from Google Translate, I was able to find a review in Polish that appears substantial. I am sure that others also exist, but command of other languages may be required to find them. John Vandenberg 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you provide this source? --Wafulz 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • [2] (on the bottom of the article :-) ) fingers crossed. John Vandenberg 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I will repeat what i said in Inselkampf: There is a wider issue with these games, this whole category has been ripped to shreds in recent days, with about 40 odd (half of the articles) being deleted, mainly because one guy just went through and added 'Speedy Delete' tags to them. I don't even play any of these games, but I am concerned about the implications of this category being destroyed. I think we need to protect minority interests here, external sources on such games are going to be hard to find, but then there are a billion 'who cares' bands on WP who don't seem to get deleted. I'm being serious now, when your deleting games like Ferion, Inselkampf and Cybernations with 10's of thousands of players, people are taking some policies too far.

To quote Brennen in the Inselkampf debate: I totally agree except that we are not talking about policy we are talking about a guideline. I think we should all keep that in mind. The reason it's a guidline is to leave room for us to use our better judgment. I don't thing destroying an entire category is an example of good judgement. Each one of those speedy deletes should be up for review, IMHO. Matt Brennen 00:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC). - Bjrobinson 09:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bjrobinson, you are aware you have 'voted' (for lack of a more accurate word) twice in this AfD now? DarkSaber2k 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a policy is not "taking it too far". verifiability and no original research have always been core policies for every article. I don't see why exceptions should be made for online video games. --Wafulz 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:V and WP:NOR do not present a problem as this article doesnt contain facts that cant be attributed to primary sources, blogs and gaming directory entries. However the list of European online games in Wikipedia is being gutted because people are requiring RS, they want them in English, and they want them now. (see the comment above by "DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 April 2007"). John Vandenberg 13:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and gaming directory entries? Try reading WP:V#Sources of questionable reliability and WP:ORG#Primary criterion. We aren't questioning whether the game exists or not, we are questioning whether it is notable or not. Out of the sources shown, only one is not a blog/fansite, a trivial directory entry, or from the game site. Even the one that isn't, the Polish article, looks to be nothing more than a rehash of what the game is, not a review. Phony Saint 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a rehash of what the game is" is all that we need it to be. It says two things: 1) someone bothered to write about it in a media that is read by a large number of people, and 2) the facts we provide in our article have been said by others first! "notability" doesnt equate with "memorable". Notability is just a guideline; do you think that Wikipedia is better off without this article? If so, please explain your position using your own words. John Vandenberg 23:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's the job of the keepers to explain their position, not mine. As per the policy WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence:

"A rehash of what the game is" in MMOG directories, which contain hundreds of MMOGs and do little more than repeat the game's description, is trivial (and possibly non-independent) coverage. That notability is "just a guideline" does not mean you can blow it off completely just to have an article on a nonnotable game. Phony Saint 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The polish article is not a directory listing.

I have already explained in my own words why this article should be kept; why wont you follow suit? I am not blowing off notability; my point is the notability is not codified in the guidelines, which is why they are called guidelines rather than policies. Specifically issues to consider, 1) the existence of an article in wikipedia's for regions that are more familiar with this subject (indicating that our notability criteria are excluding it due to systematic bias), and 2) the existence of plenty of discussion on the subject on the Internet (indicating that our notability criteria is not gauging the notability adequately).

So far you are voting to delete every Afd you have commented on; take a moment to consider how many of the manga/anime articles you normally edit are up to scratch right now? How would you respond if five or six of the less developed articles in one genre were nominated for deletion all at once? I for one would be in there doing my best to demonstrate that those articles should be kept because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we should by default assume good faith in the contributions of others, as that is what has made Wikipedia grow to be a top 10 website. In conclusions, marginal articles should by default be kept, as they build the web. John Vandenberg 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I (or others, including yourself) choose to edit elsewhere isn't relevant to this AfD. The others and I made our arguments based on the article, not its contributors or the subject itself, and so far nobody has come up with a better counter-argument than "many people play it." I'm not going to have a pointless debate with you about what guidelines are and the selective use of them. Phony Saint 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article seems very fine to me. Descriptive and to the point. I inserted the last two remaining needed references (the facts are shows at the game's homepage). I don't know why this is marked for deletion. Some of the "reference needed" tags were a bit dubius, to say the least, and look like done by someone who thinks that references are needed for the obvious (imagine this: "Cars consume fuel[reference needed]." I'll just say LOL. Nikos 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have seen several of these web based online games going up for AfD lately. Unfortunately they are indeed more difficult to prove nobility without suggesting big numbers and such. But sometimes in an AfD common sense needs to be used more then WP guidelines. In the case of htis, and the other text games being deleted recently, I think the sheer numbers of people playing them do in this case establish nobility. Web only MMOGs as far as I can tell (didnt know much about them before these AfDs) are a reletively new genre, so gaming magazines and such may be less likely to pick up on them as of yet, but that does not make them unnotable per say, it just makes notability hard to prove using the established guidelines. Russeasby 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Applying a small amount of common sense to the notability guidline make Tribal Wars indeed very notable. It is a fairly new game and thus not much cited outside the gaming community. Still it has a large and active player base with plenty of fan-developed content. The sheer number of players and size of community do warrant notability, defined as "worthy of being noted or attracting notice" in the guidline. That said, I came here looking for the Wikipedia entry on Tribal Wars and would be very much surprised if there was no such article. Mattias Kling 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the current state i dont even "see" an article. Where's the content?? Nothing to say about the game? How is it then notable? Look at Starships! to get an idea of what I'm talking about. --Echosmoke 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current discussion concerns the notability of the game. The articles quality is in no way related to the topics notability. You are correct that the current state of the article is not up to standards, but to quote the WP:Deletion policy, "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Mattias Kling 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, however the contention here is that the article cannot be improved due to no sources being available. Beyond one polish re-hash of a press release, no-one has been able to provide a single source to satisfy any improvement criteria that would make the article keep-able. Best case scenario for keeping this article at the moment: 8 months down the line the article hasn't improved one iota, it gets nominated for deletion again, and the usual suspects come out saying 'We should ignore the fact there are (still) no sources for this to establish notability because even more people play it now and I play it, so I know it's notable.' DarkSaber2k 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Respectfully, I see no consensus to delete the artical at all. It needs some work but wiki policy (as opposed to notability guidlines) state that in these cases we should tag the article and move on. If we deleted every wiki article with questionable notability, there would be nothing left but FAs and GAs, so let tag it and be finished with this. Theres no consensus anyway (at least that I can see). Matt Brennen 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:DP#Reasons for deletion also states that a valid reason for deletion is "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." This article fails to meet any relevant notability guideline - neither WP:N, WP:CORP, nor WP:WEB. Additionally, consensus is determined not by numbers alone, but by arguments: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." Phony Saint 03:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a collection of external links. The other articles listed will have to be nominated separately if at all. --Coredesat 07:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of medieval reenactment groups[edit]

List of medieval reenactment groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR; Page seems to exist primarily as a large directory of external links for these groups Masaruemoto 03:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IS NOT A BUNCH OF LINKS. Arbustoo 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arbustoo. --Charlene 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very intersting, informative and useful. Dwain 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. Masaruemoto 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no possible grounds for keeping this kind of rambling indiscriminate list up. Assuming this AfD results in a delete, the closing admin may well want to take a long cold look at List of ancient reenactment groups, List of dark age reenactment groups, List of umbrella groups for reenactment, List of historical reenactment groups and most especially Comparison of historical reenactment groups as well - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize this should be a category for those groups substantial enough to have articles. Oh, it seems to be Category:Medieval reenactment. FrozenPurpleCube 23:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy with that, just think no point keeping all these lists up which duplicate the categories - iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Dwain. Guthroth 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-historical re-enactment groups[edit]

Non-historical re-enactment groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research and non-notable topic. Googling "Non-historical re-enactment" returns practically nothing. Masaruemoto 03:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete this is nonsense. KazakhPol 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like your average Saturday night, actually. --Charlene 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR applies. Lankiveil 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - This certainly isn't nonsense, KazakhPol — my first job was working for a place that ran these (along with other LARPs) — but it is an unsalvageable mess of OR - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry to have upset so many people. Would someone please explain how such an article which trys to highlight the differences would be approached ? User: Guthroth

In this case, read WP:N, WP:OR and WP:CITE - these are the key policies of Wikipedia and what all the articles up for deletion (not just yours) are accused of violating. Basically, everything you say here needs to have been also said somewhere else by somebody else, and you need to show references to prove it - there's more to it than that, but that's the issue here - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep but there needs to be some reference to some discussion of this as a genre. (Trying to google this sort of a term is not usually productive). DGG 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep But fix - as it exists this article is a candidate for deletion per wp:or and by extension it fails wp:n and by omission it fails wp:cite, but it does not meet/warrant WP:CSD. The author asks a fair question - how do I appease the wiki-police. The answer, in my opinion, is to find published sources that refer to this genre as a whole, to excerpt facts from those sources as the basis of this article, and to properly cite them. It appears from the six or seven links included that these groups exist in sufficent numbers that wp:n may be achievable, assuming some reporter or other journalist has covered an event or group. The author's job is to go find the published sources to affirmatively claim notability and get away from original research. On another point, not withstanding the genral wiki-view to wp:assume good faith, the assertion that this content is nonsense is an individual point of view - which is balanced by my view that the author is working sincerely to cover a real topic - although that topic is admittedly an examination of a whole genre of wierdos. Alas, neither point of view is relevant per wiki-policy. --James.lebinski 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. I see that this article touches on controversial issues, but the subject of the list is well-defined and there are sufficient sources provided to merit inclusion (though more sources wouldn't hurt). YechielMan 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of journalists killed in Russia[edit]

List of journalists killed in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic POV. This list is based on one organization's research and definition of who is and is not a journalist. The title does not reflect the actual topic which is the state of press freedom in Russia. There is no comparable article to this, there is no List of journalists killed in Belarus or List of journalists killed in North Korea. Human rights in Russia already covers assassinated journalists and it does not go by one organization's opinion. I would also point out that most of these sub-sections have no actual content, they just have a link. KazakhPol 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AfD nominator claimed the following reasons for deletion. First "The list is POV." How can list be POV? It does not include any opinions. This article alredy cites Amnesty International, not only one organization. If some people should not be here, they can be excluded from the list rather than the entire article deleted. Second "The list is based on definition who is and is not a journalist". But that is simply a profession, like teacher or a policeman. This is not defining "liberals" or "conservatives". Third "The title does not reflect the actual topic which is the state of press freedom in Russia". Of course it does not, because this is simply a list of murdered journalists, not an article about Human rights in Russia. Fourth "There is no List of journalists killed in Iraq and other similar lists". Good point. We should make such lists. There is nothing to preclude this according to WP rulles. Biophys 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Biophys is one of the two editors who wrote the article in question. KazakhPol 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful index of journalists in this situation. If the list were underpopulated or if there was a lack of media attention on these events, I would consider voting another way. Someone is likely to be searching for this. Also I disagree with KazakhPol that this is "POV," but I agree that sources MUST be added and some more detail would be helpful. Just because there is no List of journalists killed in Iraq, doesn't mean we won't have one in the future. Arbustoo 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and move to cleanup. It is not POV that these people were killed. It is not POV that these people worked as journalists (although there should be attribution for all entries). The subject itself is notable: groups such as Amnesty International and the Glasnost Defence Foundation are talking about it, which means that the topic itself is attributed. We *should* have lists of journalists who have been killed; journalists are often singled out as specific targets to prevent facts from coming to light. So yes: create articles on journalists killed in Iraq, Iran, Palestine, WWII Poland, and other countries, but keep this one as well. --Charlene 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but get rid of anything that's not meticulously referenced and cited. Lankiveil 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong keep, this article could be improved by better sourcing but seems adequate as is. This is definitely encyclopedic information, and this is surely not POV as it contains few claims beyond a person's name, affiliation, and year of death. (If the POV claim is based on the lack of similar articles for other countries, that's a pretty weak argument.) Agree with Charlene that we should have such lists in principle for any country where it is reasonable to do so. We have several categories of murdered journalists including Category:Journalists killed in Iraq and the broad Category:Murdered journalists, and there are several journalist deaths in articles such as List of unsolved murders and deaths, List of assassinated people from Turkey, and so forth. (I'm personally unsold on the difference between a murder of a journalist and an assassination of a journalist, but that's neither here nor there.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Improve it, don't delete it. This is a highly notable subject and the content is factual and verifiable. It's not the job of the writers of this article to do similar lists for every other country on earth to justify the inclusion of this one. Nick mallory 08:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep despite it going against my every instinct - I'm sure keeping it up violates every policy going, as well as going against my arguments for deleting & salting every time another "List of victims of..." comes up, but this is a core piece of - documented - evidence (the Glasnost Foundation may have compiled the list, but it's not a single source but the collator of independent verifiable sources) of a trend which forms a large and important background to assorted social-trends-in-Russia articles (most obviously Human rights in Russia). Merging it back into the articles would both make them unmanageably long, but lead to content-forking. I think in this case WP:IAR takes clear precedence over WP:MEMORIAL - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above, and seems concise enough. With the amount of reporting the killings of journalists in Russia has received there is a valid reason for this grouping. StuffOfInterest 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and verifiable. There should be lists for other countries too. Postlebury 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but improve; NPOV and verifiable. Improve it, don't delete it. Needs better sourcing, though. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. No reliable sources provided. Redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation, the article on the website's parent organization, is also a possibility. Picaroon 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect per nom. Even if it from Wikimedia Foundation, it still fails WP:V since it has no third party sources. TJ Spyke 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no third party sources. DXRAW 04:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, despite being an official Foundation site, this one has not obtained notability like Wikipedia yet. I'm sure it will come, but until then get rid of this article. Lankiveil 06:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• WikiDelete - couldn't find any non-trivial third party sources. Nothing on google or google news but google news archives brings up a few passing mentions on articles about wikipedia (see [3]). Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I found two external sources: [4] and [5], but the second one is a blog. BTW, can we delete Inuktitut Wikipedia after this one? Tizio 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone needs to prune this wikicruft. MER-C 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we just had the Inuktitut WP up fro AfD not too long ago. If you really want, you can put it up in a couple of weeks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your best course of action is to actually do the research and look for sources yourself before thinking about a re-nomination. You had the right idea here in this discussion. You need to work that way elsewhere, too. Uncle G 03:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither TJ Spyke nor DXRAW are following Wikipedia:Deletion policy here. That an article doesn't cite sources is not a reason for deletion. It's a reason to look for sources. Tizio had the right idea. Xe actually looked for sources, and located one source in American Scientist. I've looked for sources too, and found other sources in Nature and Science. Fixing this article didn't require an administrator to hit a delete button, and whether this content warrants a separate article or a merger into an article with a wider scope is a matter of article merger, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up per Uncle G. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uncle G has already improved the article sufficiently. --Metropolitan90 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe sources found are more than sufficient. Perhaps they should have been looked for in the first place.DGG 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The burden of attributing statements is on he who adds the info, not he who deletes. If an article doesn't cite its sources, I can look for them, or I can remove the unsourced info, or, if totally unsourced (or unreliably sourced), I can propose its deletion. All are perfectly acceptable methods. Picaroon 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should really read the sentence following the one in Wikipedia:Attribution that you have just paraphrased, which talks about your making reasonable efforts to find sources, yourself. You should also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. The burden is on you, as a nominator who is nominating an article for deletion for being unverifiable, to look for sources. It is not enough to simply note that there are none cited in the article. That does not constitute unverifiability, and is not a rationale for deletion, per policy. DGG is quite right. Uncle G 04:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and Uncle G. Lack of due diligence on behalf of the nom. I am appalled that April 21 has 142 articles listed for deletion. John Vandenberg 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has sufficient third party references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Normally, this would be a debatable case, and I would be vehemently saying "we have enough Wikipedia/Wikimedia navelgazing stuff already", but I've always thought that as a special case, top-level Wikimedia projects are automatically notable No Matter What You Say® in a certain common-sense way. However, in case of smaller projects (Meta, Commons, Species, etc) that don't have international versions aside of separate language pages merging to Wikimedia Foundation (or related article) is plausible; it's another matter altogether is it warranted. (Was somewhat warranted in case of Meta, certainly would not be warranted in case of Commons and extremely, extremely debatably in case of Species.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep seems to be notable enough--Sefringle 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cited in major scientific magazines. Judgesurreal777 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Noam Chomsky[edit]

Defense of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a link dump. Pablothegreat85 04:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Arbustoo 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#LINK. Masaruemoto 05:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Masaruemoto. --Charlene 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, little more than a linklist. Not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete under CSD A3; if content were added it would be a POV fork. Criticism articles can include direct rebuttals when available. Gazpacho 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons already stated. Nick mallory 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Links are not content. BTLizard 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition on Sustainable Transportation[edit]

Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:V as far as I can tell. Non-wiki ghits are in the single digits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not all itty bitty city committees are notable. --Charlene 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's the committee on transportation for one medium size city. That's not N.DGG 03:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. It has a few notable members, but the article doesnt indicate how this committee is anything more than an minor action group. John Vandenberg 09:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. This kind of group can be notable, but the article doesn't say anything to indicate notability. EALacey 10:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Dodd[edit]

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

Reads like an ad, nothing special. He wrote two books by Hampton Roads Publishing Company, which publishes books "visionary fiction, complementary and alternative medicine, self-help." Seems undistinguished. Arbustoo 05:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete spam. YechielMan 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since 2 books are claimed, not obvious enough for a speedy delete, but 2 un noticed books from a definitely non-notable publisher are not enough for N.DGG 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. Hampton Roads Publishing Company only has 17 books in WorldCat. John Vandenberg 09:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 00:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine-like[edit]

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

Not an official designation or category. Seems like a mere phrase that's more colloquial. Doesn't seem appropriate as an encyclopedia article Malamockq 02:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DXRAW 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncommon neologism or protologism. In order to be considered notable per WP:NEO, neologism must have references to reliable sources talking about the word itself, not just using it to describe something. Also much of the article discusses other Columbine-related terms such as "College Columbine". It appears to me that the editor may have been attempting in good faith to write an article on the comparisons between Columbine and other shootings, but we already have an article that covers much of this. --Charlene 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NEO. Lankiveil 06:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The word is (or phrase) is inelegant and unnecessary, and the article struggles to establish exactly what it might mean. Anyway, fails WP:NEO. BTLizard 10:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting my own opinion, Columbine, while historical in that it was the first well-documented (!) mass murder at a school by a couple of disgruntled students, wasn't really that historical; you look around, and I'm certain you'll turn up more mass-murder disgruntled something-or-other shootings before this. No less sucky, but not that historical. But that said, discussion has it right - it's more a neologism, and this one seems to have popped up in light of last week's shooting at VA Tech. I blame the media - but that the press said it doesn't make it a notable term. Delete. That said, I have no prejudice to recreation if it can not only be determined to be in the mainstream vocabulary, but also has some background to it other than just the obvious comparison to the Columbine shootings from roughly a decade ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Neologism, original research, dicdef, inaccurate, content fork, unsourced - all we need now is a copyvio and I think we've collected the set - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; nn neologism --Mhking 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt; fails WP:NEO --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Columbine High School massacreDelete based on Carlossuarez46's response below. "Columbine-like" is a valid search term with 25,000 hits on google, and should take the user to the right spot. John Vandenberg 09:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not redirect (a) very bad precedent to keep any "-like" articles, because nearly every article can spawn a "-like" one (Earth-like and God-like are much more widely used but fortunately, no articles) (b) no redirect: columbine has meanings apart from the school, don't presume that someone looking for something like columbine has the mass murder rather than a flower in mind. Carlossuarez46 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.

There's undoubtedly a certain amount of coverage about Shaalan. However, it is an established principle on this project that otherwise NN people who rec'd attention merely because of the circumstances attending their deaths should not get their own articles. As much or more coverage went to every victim of 9-11 and most of the American soldiers killed in Iraq. We cannot and should not host the memorial articles for these people, unless they have independent notability through which they stand out from the rest, e.g., Mychal F. Judge, Lori Piestewa, Liviu Librescu.

That much is principle. Now the application.

Most of the delete opinions touched on this rationale. I credit iridescenti, chaerani, tewfik, et al. for making the distinction between the faculty and students. Old timer ugen64 also opined to delete. The keep side consisted of appeals to multiple references (DGG et al.) and a variety of inappropriate arguments like the Pokemon fallacy or Islamophobia, which I ignored. Ultimately, the delete side is in line with our 9-11 and Iraq precedent.

Finally, I was disturbed to read the following exhortation on the linked-to MuslimMatters site, which was probably responsible for some of the SPAs that flooded this AfD: "SubhanAllah, Br. Waleed gave Muslims an opportunity for dawah in his own death… he left behind a legacy for us to latch on. We cannot let it die. Americans of all faiths are listening; let’s make sure they heart this story too.So, what can you do? Cross-promote the story, whether this link on MuslimMatters.org or other websites stating it." Using Shaalan's death as an opportunity for evangelism is quite unsightly, and weighs heavily against the opinions of the "keep!!" SPAs at this AfD. The outcome of the debate is Delete. -- Y not? 03:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Shaalan[edit]

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

Individual with single instance of notability related to Virginia Tech massacre. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Please see similar AfD for Ryan C. Clark. UnfriendlyFire 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is the student that he supposedly saved? How come I have never found the student's name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oribel (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• KEEP I read through the Liviu Librescu entry for comparison, and there simply is not enough reason for the two entries to merit different treatment. Librescu is a Holocaust survivor. Nowadays, that just means that he lived in Europe during the period that the Nazi party governed Germany. In fact, Librescu was merely confined to a few detention camps toward the end of WW2. Librescu has a lot of publications, but they tend to be papers that focus on better approximate solutions to certain non-linear equations or reports of various failure modes for various materials used in aerospace engineering. These sorts of papers are useful in aerospace engineering design, but they are not particularly notable, and an engineering professor that has many graduate students will generate a lot of these types of papers. I read through the accounts of Librescu's heroism. He could be a hero, but I have examined many reports from tragedies and from the early days of wars. People find the heroes that they need. Librescu hears noise in the hall, goes to the door, gets shot, falls into the door, his body blocks it, and he moans in agony. The students hear him call out to them to flee especially after they get together to discuss the incident afterwards. Both Librescu and Shaalan seem sufficiently notable in terms of newspaper accounts that the individual entries should remain. If one is removed, the other one should be as well. Otherwise, both entries should remain. The discussion makes me think of some of the analysis of the martyrization of Yosef Trumpeldor at Tel Hai. The early Zionists needed to create a cult of death and martyrdom. They used the battle of Tel Hai as a source. When I read the accounts, I was always skeptical that Trumpeldor really quoted Virgil in Hebrew as he lay dying. Later, when I researched the history more deeply, I found that my doubts were justified. I am irritated that this discussion of Shaalan and Librescu seems to have a subtext that some of the Wikipedia community desperately want to find an Israeli Jewish hero in this tragedy (even if he is a yored, i.e., an emigrant from Israel) and equally desperately want to declare a possibly heroic Arab Muslim as unworthy of special note. I have frequently seen this sort of phenomenon as I have studied the history of Zionism in Palestine. ThorsProvoni 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC) — ThorsProvoni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment KEEP. The guy is a hero and is famous now in Egypt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abureem (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment The above reasoning is circular. You admit that he is notable yet want to delete the article on the ground that he is not notable. 5 separate articles from credible newspapers plus a video of interviews with students from a credible TV outlet all of which verify his distinctive heroism establish otherwise. And where is it written that subjects with a single instance of notability don't get Wikipedia articles?Mosura 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• You already pointed out the flawed logic in the discussion below where I have left my reply. UnfriendlyFire 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per norm. I'm sure we are going to have days of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING and in my case, accusations of Islamophobia. Gdo01 05:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being the victim of a crime like this is tragic, but it doesn't make you notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Lankiveil 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• COMMENT, but being a hero and saving a life is. so its a keep.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Since when? Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, Since we are not debating on removing other victims pages, we should keep this one also. It is unfair to all wikipedia users and people to delete some victims pages but not others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biobiz (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC). — Biobiz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Yes, we are. Emily Hilscher is up for deletion and Ryan Clark's article was redirected to the main article. See my original nomination. UnfriendlyFire 06:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And on all those others I'll be !voting delete too unless they can show WP:N aside from the incidental fact of where they died - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually we are debating removing other victims' page and some have already been removed as a result of these debates. --Crunch 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not notable, according to WP:BIO regs. Not a memorial, etc. Pablosecca 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' - he is completely notable on the basis of his publications, his honours and awards, regardless of his attachment to Virginia Tech. Far more notable than the pornstars, cartoon characters and garage bands that that grace WP. Gillyweed 11:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "publications...honours and awards"? The current version of the article details no such items. Are the unmentioned items sufficient to pass WP:PROF (I know he's not a professor but the argument seems to be based on academic accomplishments and merits)? --ElKevbo 18:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness - what happened here? I ended up on the wrong AfD. When I clicked on the 'holocaust surviving professor' I got sent to this page... Was that some sort of vandalism? I'm quite confused. Delete

• Delete - do we really have to go through this process 32 times? A biography can be "built" around anyone with enough effort. The victims, individually, were generally NOT notable. WWGB 15:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment- because he wasn't just a victim. he saved a life as well.
• Comment. Despite the repeated claims, often by the same person, that "he saved a life as well," there is actually no evidence that this is true. Yes, he was brave. Yes, he apparently blocked a door. But we do not know and will never, ever, know what the killer would have done if the door had not been blocked. Would he have barged back in and continued shooting? Maybe. Would that shooting have resulted in deaths? Maybe. Or maybe, the killer would have walked away, or gone to another classroom. Maybe, just maybe, the blocking of the door by Waleed, caused the killer to take more lives because he couldn't enter that room and he went another where more killings happened. Think about it. All of this is mere and utter speculation and altering of a history that never happened. And, yes, this is true for Prof. Librescu as well, because I know people will ask. We do not know that he saved lives, and to suppose otherwise, is to fabricate a future that never happened. Librescu qualifies for an article because he meets WP:PROF. Let's put an end to the comparisons on that. --Crunch 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You really aren't paying attention, are you? Waleed Shaalan did not block a door. That's what Liviu Librescu did. Waleed Shaalan distracted the gunman's attention away from several other students, as verified by those other students. Please take the time to view this article's references, especially the video. Mosura 11:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have reviewed the references. The same exact logic applies whether the reports are that he blocked a door or distracted the gunman. It is unknown whether this resulted in saved lives, the same number of lives lost or more lives lost. We cannot make statements about a future that didn't happen. --Crunch 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Aside from a couple of the faculty members who at least warrant a discussion over their academic achievements, these victims were students and by definition hadn't had time to accomplish anything. I look forward to seeing a page for every soldier killed in WW2 by the logic the "keep" voters are using - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a memorial. Stubbleboy 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 18:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what is not notable about standing up to one of the worst murderers in American history? Wikipedia isn't a memorial but it does tell things as they are. Not every soldier in World War II was notable in such a way. This man's position was proven by eye-witness accounts. He has been featured in media reports which not every soldier in every war has. To compare this to World War II is ridiculous! --DevelopedMadness 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per DevelopedMadness. --Neo-Jay 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per standard Notability guidelines. This person is not notable aside from the fact that he was a victim in the murders. Kntrabssi 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with main article Virginia Tech Massacre, the VT students (including emily, ryan) are not yet notable with publications, honours, awards. However, the individual pages of VT faculty / professor victims should be kept (ref librescu, loganathan, granata). Chaerani 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; content contained within parent article; violates WP:NOT

• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; The information is contained in that article in greater detail; there is no need for a separate article on each of the victims, lest they have independent notability (as some of the VT staff do) --Mhking 22:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to main article per Chaerani. Rockpocket 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Virginia Tech Massacre, as should happen for all victim articles. Even though Wikipedia is not a memorial, a section on the victims could contribute to the article. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/Snowy Delete - none of the students should have individual articles. No, it should not be merged into Virginia Tech massacre - it's already plenty large. We don't need bios on everyone who died. It would be nice if List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre gets kept and that article can have a one-liner about each student telling their major or whatever, but we absolutely 100% do not need individual articles and it cannot be merged into the main Virginia Tech massacre article. I strongly suggest that an uninvolved admin quickly close this out. This series of articles is highly visible and needs to be kept presentable, not having xFD templates all over creation. --BigDT (416) 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on the basis that there are articles on him now to meet the present technical requirements for N. (there is now the Washington Post as well as the NYT)-- these papers think that each individual victim is appropriate for an article. So will other papers, which will provide many more than the necessary two sources. There is obviously no real consensus about whether 2 RS are all that is needed for N, regardless of the subject. The rules seem to say so, some people seem to think so, many of the people here do not agree. If delete in a case like this really is the consensus it may simplify some of the N discussions now going on, because this seems to be clearly saying that being the subject of independent feature articles in 2 major newspapers is not always enough for N. This unmistakably indicates we cannot combine the rules, and that we now mean articles must have 2 independent RS and also meet some additional notability criterion, whatever that may be. That's what the delete opinions above are saying. I don't say this is wrong, but I do wonder if this is proposed as a general rule for WP. DGG 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are at this comment posting already 5 separate and independent published articles from credible news sources focussing on Waleed Shaalan's heroism plus a TV video that expands on those articles with interviews from students showing that he saved three people. This thoroughly establishes the notability of Waleed Shaalan and clearly distinguishes him from other victims who died.Mosura 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Redirect: This content is repeated elsewhere, and does not warrant an article of its own since 100% of the content is related to the VT massacre. I will only change my vote to a weak keep if the article has content that is not directly related (i.e., if a scholarship were named in his honour or something that isn't repeated elsewhere, and would only make sense to have here). +mwtoews 04:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable before death and nothing about his death, even the claims of heroism, which are hardly substantiated, make him notable. Can be included in List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Crunch 09:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. John Vandenberg 09:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.202.25.172 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).— 196.202.25.172 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Per the reasons stated on several other victim articles. StuffOfInterest 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and Comment: I'm really against all these VaTech AfDs popping up immediately after the creation of the articles. Doesn't everyone know that there's absolutely no way we can get an organized and level-headed discussion about these articles while the emotions are running so high and the events are in everyone's mind? And that's not even mentioning the SPAs or possible/probably sockpuppetry. I say wait a few weeks, let the events settle down and cool down before engaging in an AfD. Only then will we be able to get a proper deletion discussion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do that, people will say "you left it up x weeks, why are you picking on it now?". There's no 'right' time for something emotive like this, and at least getting the discussion out of the way now saves people wasting time and effort expanding them if they're going to be deleted - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, there is no right time for discussions, but my point was that we could have a better discussion in a few weeks. But you're right, let's have this now, and if it gets kept, let's revisit it in a few weeks. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, because well written and well referenced article that even includes a nice image concerning a victim in a historic and media-worthy tragedy in which people conducting research and using this encyclopedia will assuredly be interested in looking up. Moreover, the story written in the article about this particular individual shows some travel and other distinctions that add to its notability. Finally, as information continues to come out, this article is likely to be fleshed in further and so the nomination for deletion is simply jumping the gun, i.e. way too quick and suspicious, sadly. --Horace Horatius 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the things you want to keep this article for are irrelevant. How does having a "nice image" affect this subject's notability? What kind of distinctions did he have? Being a doctoral student? Being from Egypt? Being "very active" in the Muslim Student Association? Tejastheory 23:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Any information about his heroism can be included in the main article. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No brainer keep, because obviously meets quality and notability for inclusion. Bravo to article creator! :) --172.167.132.145 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)— 172.167.132.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Speedy Delete for reasons that have been gone over multiple times in other AfDs. Doesn't appear to be any notability at all in academic terms, and I don't believe simply being a victim is enough to be notable. I think, from the professors' AfD, we've reached a clear consensus that being a victim by itself doesn't make anyway notable - all of the professors have had to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and as a simple student, I don't believe that is the case, nor do I think that any editors will suddenly discover some remarkably notable academic research that is attributed to Shaalan. Tejastheory 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The information is coming from multiple reliable sources, notability is inherent in the coverage. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the criteria for speedy keep. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable individual ugen64 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list or the main massacre page. --Witchinghour 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre Rafy 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. it is too soon to know whether or not he is notable in the US or in Egypt. At least another week...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.207.140.183 (talk • contribs).— 71.207.140.183 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, as was done with Emily Hilscher. The only thing that sets Mr. Shaalan apart from the other victims is that he may've distracted the gunman (and was shot as a result) in order to save another student; this can be noted in his section of the "list of" article. Of course, if Mr. Shaalan becomes notable for something outside having died in the massacre, I will fully support the article's recreation. Jeff Silvers 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-create Emily's article. The redirect was really disappointing and unfortunate and hardly a consensus move. --Horace Horatius 15:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/redirect Appearantly nothing distiguishes him from the other victims. Medico80 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All victim's information may someday be useful. Even though seemingly random, the victim's profiles may someday show some logical connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.64.40.137 (talk • contribs).— 198.64.40.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At this point it seems unlikely that there is any particular connection between the victims, and in any case it is not the role of wikipedia to speculate on possible connections, or to start articles based on the subjects' potential to DEVELOP notability - we wait for other verifiable sources to establish notability and information, and only then do we compile that information into an article. Tejastheory 23:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn, dying in a notable event doesn't make one notable otherwise we'd have millions of notable people who died in WW1, WW2, the Irish Potato Famine, 9/11, the Titanic, etc., all of which were notable events leaving lots of dead people. Carlossuarez46 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to main page. Support nom. xC | ☎ 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per well-argued reasons by other keepers above and also suggest recreation of Emily's article as consensus was hardly reached and new information about email contact between her and Cho has been reported by MSNBC. Thus, redirect happened too rapidly. --164.107.223.217 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as the article about Liviu Librescu is being retained without consideration for deletion. There was no wikipedia article about Librescu prior to his murder. The first history for his article shows up on April 17, 2007. Both Waleed Shaalan and Librescu are notable for their heroic resistance to their assailant. Contrast this with the Wikipedia memorials for people who merely made telephone calls from Flight 93, or who supposedly offered resistance to attackers. Start with the most obvious one, Tom Burnett which even contains a photo of his memorial. Continue with Mark Bingham, Edward P. Felt, Todd Beamer,Honor Elizabeth Wainio, Cee Cee Lyles, Lauren Grandcolas and Jeremy Glick (September 11, 2001 attack victim). Considering that as with Flight 93, wikipedia does indeed memorialize victims, the evident remaining reason for considering deletion of Waleed Shaalan can indeed only be considered as founded in Islamophobia. In addition it would be a shameful irony if in the end only the Virginia Tech assailant receives an article for supposedly having done something "noteworthy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Thank you for your wise and well-reasoned argument - I especially enjoyed the part where you called me an Islamophobe. I would suggest you read the policy WP:AADD. ugen64 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah that was a good one :-/ Medico80 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • People must get it into their gray matter that Librescu and Granata were noteworthy before the article due to their professional achievements -- especially Granata -- and Librescu was distinguished due to his widely noted heroism. G. V. Loganathan was included too, I think without justification, but the admin ruled twice and I accept the adjudication on a complex issue (at least for the time being). Wiki members must keep it in mind that it is unhelpful to call people Islamophobes or misogynists (as was the case in the Couture-Nowak debate) and keep their minds, such as they are, on policy citations. Oh, and one other thing: this rationale that "the article isn't noteworthy now but it might become noteworthy so let's leave it in" is codswallop -- and not the same thing as erring on the side of caution. Pablosecca 23:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugen64 must mean the part of WP:AADD that reads, "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section WP:AADD#Just_a_policy_or_guideline below)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Sigh... let's talk policy... assume good faith. Your original comment called all those who supported the deletion of this argument Islamophobes. Not really assuming good faith, is it? Stop being a punk (see? I was civil enough to change the wording) and respect the fact that Ugen64 was trying to help you out and introduce you to the complex world of AfDs. As is stands, your further comments are invalidating your original argument. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject."WP:BIO|Primary criterion for Notability of people] Waleed Shaalan has met these requirements. Nowhere is notability excluded because of the stated reasons here, such as "single instance of notability" or because he was a student(!). Gdo01 admitted early on that accusations of Islamophobia would be a likely concomitant of this discussion. He was right. Waleed Shaalan is easily distinguishable from the other victims up for deletion, because he didn't simply die, he rescued someone else. And truth be told, that's the reason that Librescu gets a bio. I'm sure you realize that had he simply died of old age, there would be no article for him in Wikipedia. I've already pointed out that indeed there was no article for him until April 17, 2007. What made him notable was his selfless heroism in protecting students. The same goes for Shaalan. The chief difference between Librescu and Shaalan is their religion. No rational claim has been advanced that Shaalan is not notable. So what other conclusion can be made other than that Islamophobia has once again reared its ugly head? But I'll consider any intelligent response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— 70.249.231.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
          • Comment. I take offense at being accused of requesting the deletion of this article for any reason other than Wikipedia-related. From reading the article on Liviu Librescu, he was a world-renowned expert in his field of research. That he didn't have an article before his death is no reflection on his notability -- his death just brought him to the attention of a wider audience. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment To everyone considering a response: remember, don't feed the trolls. Taking this discussion further won't get us anywhere and will just detract from the AfD. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. I have added 3 additional and different article cites about Waleed Shaalan's notable heroism to the main article from Sky News, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mosura 10:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
            • Comment. I have edited the intro and added a video from WDBJ documenting the fact that Waleed Shaalan saved three lives, not one.Mosura 13:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. NN bio. WP is not a memorial. Keb25 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because of notable biography. --172.131.174.231 03:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — 172.131.174.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, not notable. Nyttend 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Unless all victims of this tragedy are deleted, this article should be kept. These victims may not be notable in and of themselves, but their loss in this tragedy made them notable and brought their lives to light. Finding something notable about a victim, does not mean that their post should stay, because the reason for the posting is the fact that they are a victim, the rest are merely 'excuses' (for a lack of a better term) to keep them. I am ALL the profiles of the victims should stay. However, if we delete this one, we must delete Liviu Librescu and his notable deeds as well.
  • Well, the difference is, that there are plenty of testemonies stating that Librescu's actions did indeed save other peoples lives. And then add his record as a professor which is strong enough for inclusion in its own right. There is no evidence that other dead victims have done anything "brave". Besides, I think your all-or-nothing approach has been rejected in the many 9/11 victim discussions. Medico80 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Hello everyone. Waleed Shaalan is a notable person for many reasons. The first and most important is that he saved his classmates life. He, unfortunately for him, is now a part of U.S history, because he he was killed in what is described as the worst school shooting incident in American history. Waleed Shaalan is notable for another reason. He emigrated from zagazig, Egypt, an extremely poor region of egypt. He is notable because not only did he finish his education, which in that area is an accomplishment, but he received an offer from Virginia Tech to teach as well as work on his Phd. That in and of itself is an accomplishment and is notable. Lets not forget that we have to keep in mind this persons situation. Everyone is different, and for him to actually make it here is remarkable and notable. Secondly, it is notable that he left his entire family to come study in the united states. It is notable that he was respected by a number of professor and students. As you can read in the articles, everyone has remarked on how hardworking and intelligent he was. I believe that this person is notable and that this wikipedia article should remain. He is just as notable as Liviu Librescu. If this article is deleted than so should Librescu's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).— Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WALEED SHAALAN SAVED A LIFE. HE MADE AMERICAN HISTORY BY SAVING A LIFE, THUS NOT ADDING TO THE DEATH TOLL. IS THAT NOT NOTABLE??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment While all of the things you stated are very true, and very nice, they still don't make him "notable". There are many such personal stories everywhere around the world, of people from poorer situations who have worked their way up to better situations. While it may be a very nice story, and he may have been working toward great things in life, and he may have even been a really incredible person, none of these things really say anything about his being important in either an academic context (as many of the professors were) or in a historical context (simply "being a victim" really doesn't warrant more than possibly a small blurb in the collective victims page. Tejastheory 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHe is not just a victim Tejastheory he is a HERO he SAVED A LIFE. This is not just a nice story. HE WAS A PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY. And his act IS notable. Or is saving a life not notable anymore?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC). — Sherin Ibrahim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep - There seems to be no debate at all that Liviu Librescu is notable, and his article was created for the exact same reason as Shaalan's: he died a hero, sacrificing his life to save the lives of others during the worst shooting massacre in American history. Is a student sacrificing his life to save others somehow less notable than a professor doing the same thing during the same incident? Of course not. No, we should not have articles for every person killed in the Virginia Tech massacre, but people who have widely-reported, individually significant involvement in the event certainly are notable enough to merit their own articles. Claiming that Shalaan was just another victim is dishonest and offensive. And as for Shaalan having only a single instance of notability...the same would apply to Seung-Hui Cho. Redxiv 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will people stop using Librescu as an example as to why this article should be kept? Librescu fulfills WP:PROF, and so you're comparing apples and oranges which just happened to be from the same backyard. What we need to do is separate our emotions from these and actually figure out if they fulfill WP:N. I'm sorry, but Cho did something notable. As unfortunate as it is, Shallan did not. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So, committing mass murder is notable, but saving people from a mass murderer is not? That seems a bit twisted. Not to mention, unsupported by any consensus I'm aware of. The articles for several Flight 93 victims who fought back against the hijackers indicates otherwise. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between good and bad. But yes, being a mass murderer is more 'notable' than being a life-saver. Christopher Connor 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the term notable as it is used at Wikepedia, does not mean the dictionary definition. It means that there are sufficient notices from different reliable sources to adequately describe the subject. Despite the brilliance and/or serendipity involved, whoever first discovered how to make fire is not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, because there are insufficient notices from different credible sources (a total of zero) to describe the subject. With Waleed Shaalan there are multiple separate notices making Waleed Shaalan an independent subject of articles in a variety of credible media, including a video from WDBJ and articles from the New York Times, Sky News, USA Today and The Chronicle of Higher Education. All those notices are made in prominent credible sources that are themselves subjects of Wikipedia media entries. So Waleed Shaalan has met the test of notability in the Wikipedia sense.

Second, this entire deletion page is an absurdity, and a very insulting one at that. Go to the very top of this page to see the basis of its establishment. This page is predicated upon the oxymoron that Waleed Shaalan is not notable because he is an "Individual with single instance of notability related to Virginia Tech massacre". Thus in the very establishment of this page, it is formally acknowledged in circular fashion that Waleed Shaalan DOES have an instance of notability, thereby invalidating the very claim that he is not notable. There is nothing in Wikipedia to require deletion of subjects that involve a single instance of notability. There are many thousands of such subjects, if not millions. That Waleed Shaalan is made the target of such an attack is very offensive.Mosura 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - If he was truly non-notable, then he wouldn't even be mentioned in the main article or the list of victims; however, this point is obviously not true. From the AfD of the list of victims articles, Waleed is collectively notable and as such his heoric actions can be documented where appropriate. The point is that his notability is derived from a single event, which really isn't what I was trying to get across as the reason for deletion. Please read the next sentence in my nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial and this article solely focuses on his actions during the massacre and nothing else. Wikilawyering my nom and accusing me of being an Islamophobe isn't helpful to the discussion. UnfriendlyFire 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the circumstances of his death are notable (which they are), then he's notable. This isn't a memorial, it's an article about a man who is individually notable as shown by multiple media reports about his actions. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Everyone, let's put strong political feelings aside which seem to be fueling this argument. Librescu is included in Wikipedia because he was a notable scholar and professor in his field and deserved to be included regardless of what may have happened in the massacre. While both reportedly acted fearlessly in the face of great danger in the Virginia Tech massacre, that's not the basis on which we are deciding the inclusion of either of them. It is a very ugly situation to assume that this has something to do with the fact that Librescu was a Jew and a holocaust survivor and Waleed was an Egyptian. It has everything to do with the fact that Librescu was a full professor, 76 years old with an established and esteemed career. He would have met the criteria for a Wikipedia article even if he had been nowhere near the shootings on April 16. Shallen was just a 32 year old grad student, yet to establish himself in his career. Please, let's understand this. --Crunch 00:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Librescu had no article prior to the Virginia Tech massacre. Had he lived out the rest of his life peacefully and died of natural causes, it's unlikely that anybody would have written an article about him. For that matter, it's far from guaranteed that he would've gotten an article had he merely been another victim of the shooting, rather than someone who acted heroically during it. To say that his article was created because of his academic career is just not accurate. Librescu has an article because of the circumstances of his death. Thus, comparing him and Shaalan, who died in the same event while taking similar actions, is entirely valid.

This is akin to someone claiming that that Todd Beamer merits an article but Jeremy Glick doesn't. BTW, neither of those men had done anything prior to 9/11 that was notable; the actions leading to their deaths were sufficient to establish notability. Or better yet, let's look at Andrew Garcia and Edward P. Felt. The latter gets an article because...he made a phone call. The former, because he might have fought back against the hijackers (no source cited). If these people are notable, then certainly Shaalan is as well. Redxiv 04:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He isn't notable in any way. All he did was die. That isn't notable. Titanium Dragon 05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's interesting that those advocating deletion have to make factually incorrect claims to justify their position. Redxiv 06:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think it is far more intersting that the page had a link to a memorial site inline, indicating the true purpose of this page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He wasn't notable. Sorry. Titanium Dragon 08:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - By that "logic" the page for Ronald Reagan is a memorial since it mentions his death and includes a link to a memonial site. We have citations from reliable sources (three major newspapers and a major television news network) to show his notability. Redxiv 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Liviu Librescu has an external link to a "Librescu Family Condolence Page". Does that indicate the true purpose of his page is a memorial? I think not. Neither does the link to a memorial site for Waleed Shaalan indicate that the "true purpose" of the article on Waleed Shalaan is to memorialize him. Clearly with 6 reputable national and international sources that separately detail his heroism Waleed Shalaan has the requisite notability that separates him from the other victims. Mosura 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)— Mosura (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Easy decision Yuber^(talk) 13:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per user:DevelopedMadness. This is not a memorial but an article about a notable person who seem to have enough reputable sources writing about a heroic (that alone doesn’t make it encyclopedic) incident. It meets all the criteria of a biography Taprobanus 14:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is that possible to have a single page named Victims of the Virginia Tech Massacre. They all collectively are important to have an article but I see no need for individual articles on them. Please someone make a back-up of this very good written page so that we can use this material later on, in case of deletion. regards, --- ALM 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already do — it narrowly survived its own AfD last week — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No one is arguing that every victim of the massacre should have an article. Only those who are individually notable get articles. The dispute is whether Shaalan falls into that category. Apparently some people think that since he was a student rather than a professor, his actions being reported in numerous reliable nationwide and international media sources somehow is not enough to establish notability. Redxiv 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have changed my mind after reading NY Times report. It make him important enough to have a seperate article on him. --- ALM 17:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to "list" unless a case can be made per WP:PROF, per Chaerani. All of the deaths were tragic, and his heroic actions should be recorded on the main page (as I believe they are now), but we must draw lines, however painful, for the sake of the project. Tewfik^Talk 19:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I specifically sought out the subject of this article as I was researching cases of possible heroism during the shootings. I specifically wanted information regarding the background of the possible heros and specifics regarding the incidents of possible heroism. This article provided the information I was searching for about a specific subject, and was both the most complete and easily accessible article on the subject. kamatoa - 25 April, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.228.243.82 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC). has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
• DELETE - for notability reasons mentioned a billion times already, above. much respect to waleed for his sacrifice, though. Jgw 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre is good enough for now. Maybe if more information is uncovered or notability increases the subject should then have his own article. The article as it stands now is a bit too much of a memorial. I am suer everyone here wishes the best to all who knew Waleed.--Diletante 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why does Wikipedia have THIS article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeley_Dorsey

Noted for dying on a football field. Article notes: NOT a major recruit. Please, if we keep Keeley Dorsey we should have an article for every VA Tech victim. If we delete Waleed Shaalan, we should delete people known for nothing else other than 'dying'.R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, "other stuff exists" really isn't a valid argument - having an article that breaks the rules doesn't make it okay for other article to break the rules. Natalie 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest nominate that article too for deletion. --- ALM 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Heroic he may or may not be, but notable? No. Christopher Connor 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is the sort of thing that belongs on Wikinews. --Coredesat 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 TTC subway murder[edit]

2007 TTC subway murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable urban homicide; article makes no assertion of importance or wide public note. Basically an ephemeral news story with no apparent encyclopedic nature. --MCB 06:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unfortunately, murders happen all of the time, and this one does not appear to be particularly notable. Lankiveil 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, non-notable murder. Hut 8.5 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As Lankiveil says, unfortunate as this event may be, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than most other murders. Adambro 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't see why this was created. It doesn't even mention the victim's name for heaven's sake - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think where the murder happened makes it notable. The Toronto subway has traditionally been relatively safe compared to New York's, for example, and the TTC now spends a lot of money on security, including its relatively new special constable security unit. Murders are less common in Toronto than in the United States, and particularly those where the victim does not know the assailant. The article is also relevant as part of the history of the Toronto Transit Commission. --Eastmain 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain. --GreenJoe 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable homicide. "This is notable because the TTC is safer than the NYC subway" is POV, and not a valid defense. Any relevence to the TTC itself can be put in the article on the TTC. Resolute 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although murder is a ghastly crime, this one doesn't appear to be more notable than most, which it would need to be for Wikipedia. When something like this happens, it makes it into wikipedia if it's made at least national news (I listen to the news daily and never heard of this) or international. Being stabbed at a subway station in the wee hours of the day is not notable. And WP:NOT a memorial. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; violates WP:N --Mhking 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mention it at Victoria Park (TTC) if you must. -Joshuapaquin 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is notable because it is a rare event in Canada. As it stands, Category:Crime in Canada probably needs expansion rather than reduction. John Vandenberg 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Murders are not rare in Canada, sadly. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this murder on a train is not a notable event, which murder on a train is? So far, there is no evidence on Wikipedia in the category system that this event is not rare. Unless someone has credible proof otherwise, this is the most notable train murder in Canada that has to date been recorded in Wikipedia. What I am trying to point out is that we should not delete articles "on principle" in area's that lack coverage. When we have better coverage of a subject, then the dross can be trimmed. Doing so beforehand is premature optimisation. John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why does it matter that this occured on a train? Resolute 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard is multiple reports in non-trivial sources. Google news has 21 reports, including at CBC and CTV, Canada's national networks. That easily passes this standard. semper fictilis 12:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any murder will get local news coverage, which those stories are. By this argument, you are suggesting that every murder committed deserves an article. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. No, the coverage is national. And I make no suggestion that every murder deserves an article, only that this article about this murder doesn't deserve deletion. semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, they are both local stories. While CTV and CBC are national networks, those articles are both restricted to the local affiliates - CBC Toronto and CTV Toronto. They are not national stories. Incidentally, your google search is already down to 13 hits from 21, just to suggest how trivial this story is in the grand scheme of things. Resolute 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Multiple independent etc etc is only a starting point, not the be-all and end-all. I can find over a thousand sources, including the BBC, the Sun and MSN News, about a Sudanese man who had sex with goats - that doesn't mean he warrants an article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Write up the article about that Sudanese man and we'll see.  :-) semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a textbook example of recentism. In 5 years, no one will remember this except the murderer and the friends and family of the victim. One or two sentences in the Toronto Transit Commission article would be sufficient. Indefatigable 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How do you know that this event doesnt spark reform in the TTC? It already looks like it might. If it does, this event will be referred to as the cause. If not, someone can delete it in the next few years when the coverage clearly indicates this was a minor footnote in the transportation history of Canada. Why the mad panic to delete the article after 10 days? John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the convention in Wikipedia is the reverse, that is, only to create and maintain an article is there is substantial reason to believe that something is of lasting encyclopedic value, rather than an ephemeral news story. This is an encyclopedia, not a news roundup; articles here are at least theoretically of permanent interest. There's plenty of time to create an article when it becomes clear that one is warranted, which is not yet the case. --MCB 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are people that work that way, but the growth of Wikipedia has been due to people creating stub articles on anything that interests them, and the content being merged and improved as required until it is finally encyclopedic. Consistently deleting useful material on an undeveloped theme because it isnt clearly encyclopedic makes it more difficult for amateurs to develop a theme sufficiently in their free time and to be able to write an encyclopedic piece. I would have written a wikinews piece instead of this, but just because this contribution was given to wikipedia instead of wikinews doesnt make it any less desirable to keep. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. John Vandenberg 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Resolute 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if someone can add references to the article; otherwise delete --ALL IN (u t c m l ) 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added four refs. John Vandenberg 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't wikinews. Agent 86 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, but if the article is not merged or improved in a timely manner feel free to renominate. --Coredesat 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman[edit]

OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable episode of a television programme. No evidence of notability or other sources provided. From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.". I do not see how this particular episode has any special significance. Lankiveil 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Even if this isn't deleted, could we get rid of the "heart" in the title? It makes it virtually impossible to search for (who uses non-standard ASCII in search strings?) and a pain to link to. Wintermut3 06:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just as an FYI, there's discussion going on over at Talk:List of Naruto episodes on plans to merging all the Naruto episode articles into a list (or number of lists) and making all the episode articles redirects to the list(s). That being said, I don't think it would be much of a problem to delete this article, although it would be preferrable to simply redirect to List of Naruto episodes so those of us doing the merging can use the information from the article history to (better) summarize the episode. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in deference to the merge discussion going on; see NeoChaosX's comment above. This would be my only reason for keeping, though - so my mind can be changed in that direction as well. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like several other Naruto episode articles, this article is devoted primarily to a scene-by-scene plot description which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. As Wintermut3 indicates, the title is inappropriate as well due to the use of the heart symbol. --Metropolitan90 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The heart symbol doesn't really affect searching (try it ♥)— Sandtiger 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delay AFD. As noted above, we're currently working on a merger, and we may need to salvage a bit of info from this page (and the rest of the Naruto episodes while we're at it). Afterwards, this page can disappear (or, more preferably, turn into a redirect). By the way, for future reference, when dealing with television episodes, WP:EPISODE is more accurate than WP:Notability (fiction). While this particular article may seem to grossly violate the latter, it is only really slightly below the line for an episode summary. You Can't See Me! 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but merge - and as for the title, this is what it renders as in the address bar with the ♥ symbol:
  

♥
OH%21%3F_Please_%E2%99%A5_Mister_Postman. The character is not standard ASCII either, which may be problematic for some people. --SunStar Net ^talk 22:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I'm sure that there are many, many other Naruto episode guides available on the Internet if you want to integrate information about this episode into an episode list. MichelleG 02:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To topic starter: This is an exercise in futility. No one is disputing that this fails notability, which is why we are already working on merging the episodes. You understand that wikipedia attracts a lot of fancruft, and anime fans are the worst, so its difficult to control every new thing that gets posted. Do you plan to nominate every single episode for deletion? This just distracts people on AFD from more important issues.— Sandtiger 02:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have nominated a grand total of two episode articles, so I hardly think I'm clogging AfD with crap and causing a backlog. If preserving this article is really so important for the purposes of this merger (and I don't think it is, as per MichelleG above), then it can be copied into someone's user space in preparation for that. If you have any further issues with my nominations, I invite you to to visit my talk page and take them up with me there. Lankiveil 11:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Nice try, but I'm not dignifying this topic with another response. I already said it, it's a pointless, counterproductive nom.Try nominating an episode of startrek or the simpsons if you want an actual afd discussion. — Sandtiger 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and leave the people who are working in this area to continue working on the merger without an Afd hanging over their head. If it is absolutely necessary to deal with this now, redirect it to List of Naruto episodes. John Vandenberg 10:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per consensus to improve episodes. The article establishes plenty of notability to me and demonstrates an ample amount of real world information (I'd guess even more could be found though). Remember, kids, WP:NOT#PAPER. Now you play nice! Matthew 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, what notability? As far as I can tell, there's only a plot summary and some trivia. The article gives no indication to me as to why episode #177 is particularly notable. Lankiveil 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - a merge is taking place right now anyways. We need to keep all the edit histories. As far as notability, if you speak japanese, there's thousands of articles about this episode. - Peregrine Fisher 18:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-per Peregrine and MatthewIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. No point in letting this run on - there's only going to be one end result. Relisting individually is at editor discretion, but I would suggest not blindly relisting them, because it is clear from the consensus below that most are not candidates from deletion. Daniel Bryant 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote[edit]

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

Not notable website. No reliable sources provided. DXRAW 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason above:

Wikiversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikinews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikimedia Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikisource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikijunior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikibooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wiktionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Er, I don't think you did your research on these. I can find multiple for these two, and I haven't enough time to look for the others.
  • Wikinews
    1. Wired
    2. NYT
    3. Cyberjournalist.net
    4. Journalism.co.uk
  • Wikiquote
    1. UBuffalo Newspaper [6]
    2. UBuffalo Newspaper [7]
    3. Mathematos Article [8]
  • Wikisource
• So, Keep on these two, and Delete on the others, unless someone comes up with some WP:RS. It shouldn't be that hard - just exclude Wikimedia, and their mirrors, in a google search with "-site:XXXX". --Haemo 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  • Wikinews sources: CNet Businessweek NYT.
  • Commons: O'Reilly.
  • WikiBooks: Guardian Free Software Magazine ariadne.ac.uk.
• All have scholarly articles at http://scholar.google.com/ --h2g2bob 07:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't realize that Google Scholar results were not apparent from a standard Google search - thanks for pointing this out. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above. It's reasonably obvious that no research at all has gone into this nomination, such as an attempt to find reliable sources, as required by our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and recommended by the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. Such sources exist. Wikinews, for example, has a whole list of reliable sources that have written about Wikinews, over a period of three years, many of which one can find handily collected at n:Wikinews:In the news. One doesn't even need to make the tiny effort of using Google to look for them. This is a very poor nomination indeed. Uncle G 10:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gets worse. I mention to DXRAW (talk · contribs) that xe omitted Wiktionary and that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiktionary there is a comment that nominations such as these are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (a guideline that xe disagrees with) and xe then promptly adds it to this list. This sort of response, and the addition of Wiktionary to a nomination stating that there are no reliable sources cited in the article, in the face of the citations in the article of sources such as The New Yorker, is clear evidence that the rationale stated is not the real reason for nomination. (That sources are not cited by an article is not the same as sources not existing at all, and is not grounds for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) These edits, to me, indicate that this is not a simple misunderstanding of policy or lack of knowledge of policy, but that in fact this editor is not nominating articles in good faith and is deliberately contravening a guideline not to be disruptive. I therefore issue one of my exceedingly rare speedy keeps. Uncle G 12:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All This is not a well considered proposal. Per results above. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiversity (3rd nomination) less than a month ago with a result of keep.--mikeu 11:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All per above. Badly thought out nomination with previous consensus to keep. Hut 8.5 11:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are you missing the fact that there is no WP:RS DXRAW 11:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as has been noted above, there obviously are. If the article doesn't cite any, that doesn't mean none exist. Of course they should be added, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Hut 8.5 12:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all <sigh> Wikiversity sources at: [9], [10], [11], [12] ... Cormaggio ^{is learning} 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All - seems a poorly thought out nomination, all satisfy notability criteria. Adambro 12:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikinews. I've taken two of the citations above and incorporated them into the article - this satisfies the requirement for reliable sources for this article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is my opinion that this AfD should be speedy closed as a bad faith nomination. However, I decline to close it as such myself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikiquote. I've added the one valid citation of the three listed above to the article (one was a reprint of the other and the third is a blog). This is a 'weak citation', though, in that it is from a university library newsletter. However, the vast majority of Google hits against Wikiquote are where sites (including news organizations) have used Wikiquote content to embellish their copy. The question arises about whether use of content constitutes demonstration of notability or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I feel it does, significant use of Wikiquote content can be seen as recognition of the sites importance. Adambro 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wiktionary. There are a couple of 'reliable source' citations present; I've templated the reference to The New Yorker, so that it now appears in the references list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All have multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. Edison 13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think these articles are all useful parts of the encyclopedia and should be kept. An alternative it to turn these pages into redirects linking to sections for each project at Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and close. Edison has it right. That, and it's just a little too early for April Fools Day 2008. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- notable websites, with reliable sources and references Thunderwing 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is basically a nomination to remove all articles on Wikimedia projects. Not only is this patently ridiculous, and not only do these articles have dozens of parallel translations in other languages, but this is a larger policy question that should not be decided by simply tacking an AfD notice on the articles in question. For Wikisource there wasn't even a comment on the talk page. I'm removing the notice. Dovi 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC) PS Danny Wool on Wikisource, as per JWSchmidt above.[reply]
• Comment - Wikimedia commons is a non notable website? April 1 was two weeks ago. Want to nominate Google for deletion as well? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google has WP:RS while commons does not. DXRAW 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All I think they are all notable as they are part of Wikimedia, which does provides us with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a notable website and so are its siblings. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All All of these projects have been mentioned in many news articles and many (all?) have been/are the focus of scholarly research. --Cspurrier 21:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all nomination is a joke. JuJube 21:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep All per WP:SNOW; I like to assume good faith, but in this case I have to assume that this is a bad faith nomination that violates WP:POINT, and is actually vandalism in and of itself; In addition, I'd suggest this user needs to be watched as there may be additional potential vandalism from this user in the future. --Mhking 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page is often misused, People will often link to the shortcut WP:POINT when people are making their point in a non-disruptive way, such as a single nomination of a similar article after an AFD they disagreed with closed, or starting a discussion on the village pump, etc. The idea that these actions are disruptive is not supported by this guideline. DXRAW 22:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have made a patently absurd nomination at AfD. That qualifies as disruptive behavior under WP:POINT bordering on blatant vandalism. I would support restricting your editing activity over this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You need to see that peoples options differ, I don't see it is "patently absurd" DXRAW 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Your knowledge of WP and the related Wikipedia sites demonstrates your knowledge of the way things are here. In addition, your nomination of those core sites appears to be meant to disrupt things here. As I prefaced initially, I'd like to assume good faith, but there is nothing in this nomination that allows me to see any good faith to begin with. If I am missing something, I'd be happy to look at it, but I can only assume at this juncture that you are trying to disrupt things to make some sort of point. What point? I cannot discern any. And in relation to your comments to me, your actions have only served to reinforce my thoughts. --Mhking 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'd add that DXRAW also has a history of attempting to use Wikipedia guidelines to bully people who make edits he/she doesn't agree with (eg, labeling such edits 'vandalism' and placing a warning template on the person's talk page - typically without any kind of justification of the warning beyond citing some guideline (see [13] and [14]) and seems to frequently cast one word votes in straw polls and ignores requests to justify his/her vote. --Nick Dowling 08:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment My recommendation to User:DXRAW is to assess and accept the consensus here and withdraw the nominations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to withdraw the nominations due to gross volitions of WP:AGF DXRAW 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you at least provide some rationale for why you nominated these? Either you did no research, which is prohibited, or you didn't do your research well enough. Either way, you either made a mistake, or did something wrong, and should voluntarily close this AfD. It's not contrary to WP:AGF to request that people support their reasons for deletion when they appear fallacious. --Haemo 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF policy states: Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Also, to say that you won't withdraw a clearly inappropriate nomination due to WP:AGF (i.e. nothing to do with the validity of the nomination itself) is a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well its ok, he doesnt need to withdraw it, an andministrator will come along and see the consensus and close this AFD. Meanwhile, User:DXRAW I suggest seriously, not sarcastically, to you to nominate also the encyclopedic page Wikipedia for deletion. That may get some serious attention from administrators. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep All This is a joke, right? Just being Wikipedia's sister projects should make it notable enough, and there have definitely been enough sources given to prove it. --LuigiManiac 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Comment THe nominator's reasons for deletion were "Not notable website. No reliable sources provided." As it states on the AFD page, "not notable" is not a criterion for deletion. Also, the deletion policy page states that you must check for sources before nominating an article for AFD. THe nominator here made no obvious attempt to do that. Thus, the nomination has no basis. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 00:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query comment Could you clarify that ... "not notable is not a criterion for deletion"? Not meeting notability criteria is among the most common reasons an article is deleted on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe it was an essay off of the AFD page, however I remember stating in another AFD i discussed that "non notable is not a criterion for deletion" was on teh AFD page. Maybe it has been changed. Oh here it is, WP:JNN. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good page to take a look at, thanks. However, this doesn't apply in the present case; a reason was given: no reliable sources. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Continued comment Well yes, but "no reliable sources" isn't a valid reason for deltetion. A person wanting to put an article up for AFD for that reason must first search for sources, and then if none are found it can be put up on AFD. AND it isnt even applicable in this case as some have been added. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep; an obvious joke, and a bad one at that. --KaufmanIsAwesome 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! They seem inportant enough to be in an encyclopedia. Many other websites have an entry, so what wrong with these wikis? And I'm thinking that they were nominated together with each other because of.. Discrimination?
• Speedy keep all and close Per above comments, these are all notable Brian | (Talk) 03:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Why are these even up for deletion? They're all notable things in the Wikimedia project. If Wikipedia doesn't have articles on these things, then it's sort of pointless.--十八 09:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep all. Relist individually after sufficient due diligence has been conducted that the nom is satisfied that an article really truly should be deleted according to our deletion criteria. John Vandenberg 09:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and a giant procedural knockout. The nom clearly failed to do even rudimentary source checks and improve the articles with whatever resources there are, and the preferred way of dealing with this sort of stuff is to add the sources first. Nominating stuff on AfD to get sources to articles just makes people annoyed later. Basically, this is a blanket nomination for a bunch of articles with "no sources" as the sole complaint, which lead to... um, a bunch of sources discovered. Not exactly how AfD was meant to really work on day-to-day basis, now is it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These sister projects are certainly notable, and it's useful and interesting to be able to find information about them. ElinorD (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per all Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For sure! --Defender 911 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep with some choice words for User:DXRAW. Shouldn't this be closed by now? --Bejnar 04:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Appears to be frivolous, at best. Snowball this, please! --Chriswaterguy talk 04:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-21 09:04Z

Airi Kinoshita[edit]

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

nn person. No notable achievements. Proudlyhumble07 06:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unremarkable murder victim, fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's not notable in the US, but sources listed at the bottom of the article show she may be the most notable murder victim in Japan in some time. Very well-known in that country. --Charlene 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaal 2[edit]

Kaal 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is a figment of the creator's imagination. User:Sc4900 has a past history of creating fictional pages and this is just another one of them. Also note, completely unreferenced and uses a poster of Kaal 1 in the imagebox. xC | ☎ 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - user was reported on ANI. Please see WP:ANI#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Thanks xC | ☎ 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Articles on forthcoming releases or events need reliable sources, this has none and a Google search doesn't seem to turn up anything of relevance. Adambro 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even in the unlikely event this were true, it would violate WP:CRYSTAL - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no snakes on this plane. --Infrangible 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:RS and has major issues wrt to WP:CRYSTAL. Combined they make an unpalatable article. John Vandenberg 10:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per John Vandenburg. --soum (0_o) 10:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I would suggest early closure of this AfD on the grounds of WP:SNOW. Note, ANI thread has moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive232#Reporting_continous_insertion_of_unsourced_material. Mallanox 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Arguments were not strong for either side. Concern about setting a precedent not a strong argument, WP:NOT PAPER is not a strong rebuttal. References have been added so that negates some of the Delete comments. I'd have to say that appears the Keep commentors have more knowledge of the field than the Delete commentors have, although with the numbers and lack of strong arguments its not a straight Keep either. Herostratus 06:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncanny X-Men 94[edit]

Uncanny X-Men 94 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Articles on individual issues, unless they are particularly notable for some specific reason, are the wrong way to go about documenting comics history. We have articles on prominent story arcs, like Days of Future Past and the Dark Phoenix Saga; we don't need an article on each of the 485 issues of Uncanny X-Men. This article also sets a bad precedent. Also, this article has no sources and consists primarily of a plot summary and list of characters, which violates WP:NOT. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are almost 500 issues of this comic, and since issues are just part of story arcs I see no reason for any individual issue to have an article (even articles on the story arcs might be too much unless they are major events, like the ones stated by the nominator). TJ Spyke 09:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We can't list each and every "notable issue" of Uncanny X-Men or any other comic book; this article violates WP:NOT --Mhking 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 03:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I'm strongly against the worries about setting a bad precedent; the fear that this needs to be nipped in the bud now because we dont want an article on all 500 odd issues is a straw man. There are only two articles on the individual issues, and there are articles for most episodes of many TV shows. So, it is possible. But it needs to be done well. The lack of sources in this case is unsatisfactory. John Vandenberg 10:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Crazy notable issue. We could probably add 10-20 refs to this if we want to. - Peregrine Fisher 05:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I added 10 refs. We could probably find 10 more if we try. I understand the concerns about articles on all 500 issues, but this is a special issue. Although Giant-Size X-Men #1 is the first appearance of some of the new X-Men, this issue is where the old team is replaced by the new team. This is the first standard appearance of the most famous superhero team ever. It is also the most notable issue of X-Men after #1, and I think we can make room for a well cited article on it. The arguments for deletion so far are that it's non-notable, that it will set a bad precedent, and that we can't have articles on every notable issue. Well, notability has been established. We do have lots of articles in areas that include notable and non-notable subjects, so I don't think creating an article on something notable sets any bad precedents. Finally, obviously we can create articles for all notable issues. This nomination was created because the editor thought it wasn't a notable issue, but it is. If we delete this, we'll be deleting what is now one our best cited comics related articles. That would be the bad precedent. - Peregrine Fisher 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Nominator also gives no deletion rationale, except "I don't like it". Matthew 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]