< April 27	April 29 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting identity[edit]

Delete - article is virtually the same as the previously created Accounting equation, which is the correct name for this concept. I posted a merger +tag for a couple of weeks, but nothing was resolved. EnviroGranny 14:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Merge the relevant info yourself. J. D. Redding
  - Comment: The editor that created the new article does not want them merged, see the article talk page. EnviroGranny 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. Information should be moved. J. D. Redding 15:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted on talk page, the concepts are distinct but related; one is not used in economics (for example), the other is. I see no need to conflate the two articles. A quick search on google will find both terms used in different contexts, and the statement that "accounting equation" is the correct term for the concept is contentious. A note on procedure: on the article page, a merge was proposed and 'nothing was resolved'; meaning no consensus, and one proposal to merge in the other direction. To move from that quiet discussion to proposing article deletion seems odd.--Gregalton 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nowhere near enough information to constitute its own article: it is a single concept--a somewhat in-depth dictionary definition. I'd support merge, but the article is unsourced and appears to have been so since it was created over a month ago. Merging bad (or original, or both) research into an existing article isn't going to help things. If the submitting editor--who is active and present in the community--doesn't think his own work is important enough to source and improve to standard, I don't see why anyone else would. Delete and if someone else thinks it's worth recreating, they might do it better. Wysdom 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, the article that it's being proposed this content be merged into isn't sourced, either. The single link on Accounting equation seems to be an 11 part accounting mini-course on the subject--no indication wherein or even which parts of the article here are sourced from the linked content. Merges should be for solid content /into/ solid article. We've neither here. Wysdom 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Accounting equation is the correct name for the article and it involves accounting concepts, the article is well written. EnviroGranny 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment So only poorly written articles should be expected to comply with WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, etc? With respect, EnviroGranny, if it's not sourced, it could be Shakespeare and it would still be bad. If it's not sourced, it's not verifiable. If it's not verifiable, it could be a bunch of hooey, could be OR, could be copyvio, could be /brilliant/... but who's to say? How is anyone held accountable? (>.< Doh. PunResistance(TM) is out-of-order today... I was helpless in the face of the opportunity!) Wysdom 17:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment:Perhaps we could put this in the context of what the actual guidelines are for deletion, and what has been discussed. First is the claim that the content is the same as another article; I think looking at the article it is obvious this is not the case. Second, the claim that another term is "correct"; this comment is not sourced, referenced or otherwise supported. Finally, there are two comments to the effect that the article is not sourced, and is short. Fair enough, if one thinks that, the usual approach is to mark the article with the appropriate flags (stub and source) rather than propose for deletion. I don't see that the other reasons for deletion apply.--Gregalton 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distinct from other terms and articles referenced. Encyclopedic and useful. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Just looked through g.books nd seems as this term is notable ... total view ... partial view ... J. D. Redding 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal If either T3 or Reddi want to source the article (and its larger sister, Accounting equation) so the information in both is verifiably cited, I'll vote merge. It doesn't damage or detract from either article for these "distinct but related" concepts to be presented together. My main concern, however, remains the current article (unsourced) and it's sister (possible sourced, not cited) /aren't/ encyclopedic or useful remains. See WP:CITE "Why sources should be cited". These are all important. You can't, with alll respect, call an article "encyclopedic" and "useful" when you have no way of verifying the content. (I know, it seems like I'm not pitching in on this, and I'm sorry, but I know NOTHING about accounting, math, economics, business, or anything related... it's beyond my scope). Wysdom 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whoa, don't be thrown off by the similar terminology here. An accounting equation is definitely a totally different concept from an accounting identity. An accounting equation is a type of accounting identity, but the two are not the same. In essence, an accounting identity in economics is the division of some quantity, a priori into a set of things - by definition. The two are definitely distinct concepts, and this article should not be deleted for "redundancy". It's also 100% notable - and I can dig probably a half-dozen textbooks from my room that use it, and define it. --Haemo 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe you, guys. Notbability isn't at issue. I'm getting a little frustrated that no one seems to understand or acknowledge why sources should be cited. "Improves the overall credibility...of Wikipedia" is a biggie, to me. I used to come here for info a lot before getting involved in the community--articles I couldn't verify were worthless to me because I knew anyone could edit. So no matter how well-writen (which these are), no matter how CORRECT in fact, articles that aren't sourced/cited wind up being about as useful to the end-user as a list of Digimon. So if I seem anal retentive on this point--I am. Because what we're trying to do is create an encyclopedia that's useful to people--by not demanding sources, we're not just letting those qualities slip, we're erroding them across the board. Imho. My vote remains Delete--on meaningless principle. :) Best wishes, Wysdom 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be good to my word - I've added ~~three~~ four sources, just for you ;) --Haemo 01:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your points about citation are understood, but deletion is (IMHO) the wrong method to achieve it or make points of principle (meaningless or not ;). The deletion policy says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Flags can and should be added when needed, including requesting sources. Deletion is for when articles cannot be verified and have little or no prospect of being so (paraphrased). This article never even had the sources flag added.--Gregalton 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you'll look now, I think all but one major statement in the article is either sourced, or directed to a more specific page - making it better than 90% of articles on Wikipedia. --Haemo 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks for that. Much appreciated. I'm now living without textbooks. Even without the references, it never really met the reasons for deletion.--Gregalton 08:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge As per others. --R e m i 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources isn't a valid reason for deletion, unless we believe the article cannot be sourced, which judging by the responses above it clearly can be. JulesH 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: when can this flag be removed? Clearly there is no consensus that the article should be deleted, and the questions have been addressed.--Gregalton 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - how is this still open? We have a clear keep consensus. --Haemo

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. Tizio 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob White (UFO hunter)[edit]

the page contains quite vague content. i think it needs to be deleted. Sushant gupta 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#A7 - the article asserts no notability (apart from an absurd claim). I've tagged it for speedy deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of apologetic works[edit]

Bibliographies are acceptable as lists, but most of the books should have their own articles (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria and compare, e.g., List of Oz books and List of books by P. G. Wodehouse) or be deserving of such under WP:BK (most here are not). If we were to redact the list to those which are notable under WP:BK, the list would be relatively short and should probably just be merged into Apologetics, Christian apologetics, etc. Flex (talk|contribs) 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft article that could never be completed nor could entry criteria ever be agreed upon. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A1octopus 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Apologetics is a big field, so that there is nothing worthless or non-notable about having a well-organized list like this. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no intrinsic reason why the list is unsuitable; except for the Christian works, the different religions do not warrant their separate list at this point, so there is a real reason to keep this combination one. DGG 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Basically as DGG says, there's a lack of places to put everything but the Christian stuff, which has developed articles. Keep this as a bridge to those eventual articles. (This is my third try to say why I feel don't delete yet - DGG helped me focus - the other areas aren't ready yet.) Shenme 04:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the main problem I see here is that there's already the copious List of Christian Apologetic Works. The Christian section of the list under discussion here seems to be a duplicate of the "Widely Read" section in the larger article. Wouldn't a link to the existing material be sufficient? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wysdom (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oops Sorry for not signing >.< Wysdom 04:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup - Ditto others. --R e m i 05:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak abstain I'll show you edits. 71.228.242.245 07:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lotus Reader[edit]

Does not satisfy our notibility guideline for web content Wikipedia:Notability_(web)—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Sr13 (T|C) 08:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. DBZROCKS 00:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Acalamari 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sufficient notability exists, this article does a poor job of establishing it. First source is a directory listing. Second source is the Answers.com reprint of Literary magazine here--in which The Lotus Reader isn't even mentioned specifically, but as part of a list. Wysdom 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluka[edit]

No external sources, website launched early February 2007. Creators' name is weblinked in the lead. And it's the sole contribution of a single purpose account. Worthy, but no evidence it passes the notability guideliones and there is almost certainly a conflict of interest at work here. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing the author's link to the organization, article is written in the attempt to provide a comprehensive information about a family of non-profit organizations in the higher education community. Other organizations (JSTOR, ARTstor, and NITLE) already have entries and Aluka's entry is modeled after them. Organization's informational website was actually launched in 2006 with the first release of the content database in Feb 2007. There are numerous press releases from established organizations covering the event:

www.rbgkew.org.uk/press/african_plants_release.html
library.lib.binghamton.edu/mt/science/archives/biology_news
weblogs.lib.uh.edu/weblogs/africanastudies/2007/02/aluka_a_new_project_from_jstor.html

Please advise.

Keep This is being offered by some University libraries on a trial basis (Cambridge NZ for one) and has media coverage. PS Olyashok, please sign your entries by adding four tildes to your edits on talk pages. killing sparrows 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the next step in this process? Olyashok 01:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Killing sparrows reasonOo7565 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted again in hope of generating a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sponsor , Ithaka, is a well-know organization in the field. The money comes from the Mellon Foundation, which is sufficient to make success very likely. (I added the link). And, just from Google, I added 7 good references; some are connected with the sponsors, so I included one from the Chronicle of Higher Education and one from the Library of Congress. I could additionally have added at least 100, from the newsletters of the participating libraries in the US, Europe, and Africa. My apologies for not having noticed this before. A single keyword search on Google, and I didn't think to do it. DGG 03:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved by DGG. Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn. IrishGuy ^talk 01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooler Kids[edit]

Non-notable band PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC, the band received nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources (e.g., Rolling Stone[1], Honolulu Star-Bulletin [2], Washington Blade[3]). --Muchness 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muchness; searching turns up more coverage. EALacey 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete (changed 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)) - None of those references are in the article, which certainly fails WP:MUSIC without them ... also, after Sisely Treasure was deleted by CSD, it was recreated as Sisely treasure ... someone should either clean it up or ((prod)) it as NN. —68.239.79.97 (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added relevant information from the references to the article, with citations. EALacey 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MUSIC and the band is notable. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability to meet WP:MUSIC Darkspots 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, though the article is written like they're a no-name band. Virtual Cowboy 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above: notable, intellectual independence of sources, involvement of/with already est. notables (Lucious Jackson, Erasure)--thank you to the editor who better-sourced the material. Having said that--this could probably use a little more fleshing out and style tweaking. Long way from FA, but a good start. Wysdom 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, certainly notable. -Phoenix 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no need keeping this up, I apologize for not doing more checking before I nominated this. Any admin is welcome to close this as keep. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dambaek entertainment[edit]

Not sure about the notability of this one. Google gives me nothing, but brought here just in case this is a case of systemic bias. Does anyone have any information from WP:RS indicating this company meets WP:CORP? If not, delete per reasons stated and for violation of WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also included: "An Cúir" (The Cause), the film created by this company. Notability concern of the production house aside, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable firm; should have been speedied to begin with. --Mhking 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dambaek Entertainment is a small but existing film company in Denmark, I sincerely hope that the most benevolant administrators of Wikipedia do not just go by a search on google for results on this company. Dambaek Entertainment Inc. is just currently setting up on the internet. I was surprised to find my company on wikipedia and actually got some interest today about my current project from people looking at it, and found out that they were friends of a work collegue of mine. I would sincerely hope that the Artikle on dambaek ent. inc can stay on wikipedia. I have always cherrished this website for valuable information and am hoping that we can find an agreement. will all my respect sincerely Phillip C. Sem Dambaek-pdambaek 03:07, 23 April 2007 (GMT)
- Can you show, from reliable sources, that the company meets Wikipedia's notability standards for companies, organizations, etc.? Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia, and articles that do not meet that criterion are to be deleted. Yes, Google is not the final say on existence, but if a company is notable, then certainly something will be available about it online, in the news, etc. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. Once your company has a website and its existence can be verified, and it and its films are talked about by secondary sources (such as the media), then it belongs on Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your imediate reply. I am really confunded by all the wikipedia paperwork to go through is there any way simpler to get this aproved? sincerely phillip C. Sem Dambæk --pdambaek 04:33, 23 April 2007 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, not even from its founder Dambaek. Phony Saint 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability whatsoever--why relist? Darkspots 02:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WjBscribe 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIM Ad Hack[edit]

I am nominating this article (which I created myself) for deletion ~~because I was unable to find relevant sources for it~~ Ali 23:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to withdraw an AfD nomination? I feel I can contribute to this article quite well now. --Ali 00:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't see that every day. I wasn't going to insist on it, but given the fact that there are no sources as of now, the author's request should be honored. YechielMan 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly inclined to delete it myself, I just wanted to see if other editors think it should be deleted, due to the lack of sources. --Ali 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep An exact search [4] for the software yields 18k ghits. I'd like to see more sources that meet WP:RS but not a huge deal for obviously popular software. Darkspots 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the main editor of the article, you may requested speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť ^{Talk to me} or _{Need help?} 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you mean db-author; but now that others are interested and have sources to add, we see another example of the benefits of collaboration on a wiki. Looking at the search above, about 1 in 20 usable, but that's still a good manyDGG 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been added; the software itself is an add-on for a very widely distributed piece of software; it seems to be notable enough to pass. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Yelllowiki.org. Widely distributed doesn't mean notable, esp. on the internet. If that tiny bit of info is all there is to say about the product, it shouldn't be here. "Depth of coverage" is as important to establishing notability as # of sources. I think it's awesome Ihcoyc jumped in to help and did good work, but I don't see how there's any way to make this Wikipedia material. Wysdom 17:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (Jiminy Christmas, I hate it when I forget to sign *lol*)[reply]
Keep. I added the sources myself - and I will continue to work on the article if you all believe it fits the criteria for inclusion. Thanks for the support, and I would appreciate if anyone else can add sources! --Ali 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like to comment that if this is allowed through, it may allow other third party addons to remain in place. But the article is rather nice from my point of view. Whs tchy 22:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, "if X article exists then should Y" is not a criteria for inclusion, so I wouldn't worry about that too much. --Ali 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote then Whs tchy 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Obviously it would be nice if there were relevant sources - maybe information could be pulled from the organizations that gave it its awards? r.y.right 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ThreadSpace: Hyperbol[edit]

This article appears at first glance to have been created for promotional purposes; it describes in loving detail a game that is not yet released, sourcing the details entirely from the websites of the producer and publisher, and states (even in the very first revision) that the material is taken by permission from the developer's website. As to the topic itself, there is absolutely no indication of any encyclopedic notability, or of any third-party awareness of it. Shimgray | talk | 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's gotten a lot of cleanup and sources added since the nomination, but still fails Wikipedia:Notability by a country mile. The sources are not independent; a reprint of a press release and the developer's website don't count. The sources are not reliable. Darkspots 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no signifcant coverage, which isn't surprising as the game is not yet released. No reliable references. -- Whpq 13:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Darkspots. ---Charles 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Dukes[edit]

im going with notability issues here. i can't find any 2nd party refs about him. the_undertow ^talk 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete late-night DJ on local radio. Article makes no claim of notability, or none that I see. Pete.Hurd 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable DJ. No independent, reliable sources in the article. Darkspots 02:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless somehow a notable source is estabilished.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 05:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per no notability. Eaomatrix 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---Charles 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia:Notable. -Mschel 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 10:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Monitor[edit]

Non-notable web magazine. The references are all to blogs or to the Minnesota Monitor itself.

I am also nominating the following related page because the subject is a non-notable editor of the Minnesota Monitor:

Pablothegreat85 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as not notable. YechielMan 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited repeatedly on Wikipedia, article's been around since October. Can understand ditching the Mrty article, not as much the MinMon one.

Mrfeek 21:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, only two other articles link to this page, and one of them is the Robin Marty article. Pablothegreat85 23:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability are found. Right now all sources are primary. Alternatively, future re-creation when reliable coverage appears is naturally permissible. --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- little assertion of notability. Eaomatrix 15:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited assertion of notability, and weak attribution. Also, most of the links on the primary article are red, which usually indicates a lack of such notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sigma 7 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam film actors[edit]

Listcruft; the list does nothing that the category doesn't do. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per nom - "The list does nothing that the category doesn't do"... except allow for further development (see: Wikipedia:List_guideline) --R e m i 05:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What further development? Adding more names? The category dies that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh no. I created many articles because I saw them as red-links on a list. For example several of the articles we have on jazz pianists are because I saw them as red-links on List of jazz pianists. The category does not do that. Also lists don't fall off as fast on a watchlist.--T. Anthony 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --R e m i 07:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 04:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Remi0o; this list encourages expansion of our coverage in an area where systemic bias is an issue. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that a category can't do. Tintin 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about listing notable actors who don't currently have biographical articles? Can a category do that? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is not important for an article, better not list him. As far as I can see from this list, it has listed not only pretty much everyone who is important, but quite a few minor actors too. Tintin 13:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Move red links to Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics/Requested_articles#Actors. Lists are often useful, but a category serves the purpose well in this case. utcursch | talk 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for development. How does this list differ from the other lists on List of actors#Nationality? John Vandenberg 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. One of the keep !voters argued keep twice, and another one is an indefinitely blocked user. Other than those, there appears to be consensus to delete. --Core desat 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Sorensen[edit]

Local television news anchors do not warrant enough credibility to receive individual pages. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Awards indicate notability. Nom appears to be on a WP:POINT kick with all the AfDs posted for KDKA anchors. DarkAudit 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain for now new information makes my previous comment moot. DarkAudit 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agrreed: Awards indicate notability. Kd lvr 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This woman is a great news anchor. One of, if not, the best in Pittsburgh. Also, Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia and I'm pretty sure that you find people in an Encyclopedia. Kdkatpir2 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every television news anchor deserves a page. People like Katie Couric and national folks, yes. But Wiki isn't a popularity contest. Her name can be written as part of KDKA's Wiki entry, but not every human warrants a page! Additionally, all of the content on the page comes right from the station's Web site. Nothing says unique. It should be deleted. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on awards. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has been there since 03? Come on, give her a couple more...alot more...years then she can have her own Wiki page. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page must be kept as it is about an award winning news anchor. Kd lvr 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the KDKA cheerleading aside, I see no notability in a mid-market local news anchor. ---Charles 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Kd lvr is a sock of Kdkatpir2 or vise versa. So ALL of his comments are invalid.--TREYWiki 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment [[That is not true! Please see my User page for more. Kd lvr 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2 were created within 3 hours of each other on September 18th, 2006. User:Kdkatpir2 at 16:49 and User:Kd lvr at 19:19. Look at the edit times as well. No edits happen at the same time. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above statement is not true. Please see user page for information. Kd lvr 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyvio. [5]. Pretty telling as to notability, as well, if the creator had such scant material to work from that a single, entirely affiliatd source was used w/plagiarism. --Wysdom 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question :What I would like to know is why can't more information be gathered on this journalist so her page can be expanded?Kd lvr 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: WP:POINT. If the point is, "Must be notable; reliably, independently, verifiably sourced; and not in violation of copyright law"? ...I'm okay with that. --Wysdom 00:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the time, it appeared that nom was only putting KDKA personalities up for AfD. It appears that the situation has changed. DarkAudit 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and copyvio. The KDKA personality pages are just cut-and-paste jobs from the KDKA site. Write and Trey are still only voicing WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but there are other reasons this page warrants deletion. DarkAudit 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, and if it is a copy vio, it should be removed immediately, not discussed. Please read and respect the box at the top of WP:AfD:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. KP Botany 18:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" IMHO, an article in violation of copyright is an article in need of deletion, if it was copyvio from the getgo--shows bad faith (you don't need ANY Wikilore to know plagiarism is a no-no--we all learned that back when writing our first book reports) and is an overall indictment of the creator's willingness to contribute anything valuable (if they didn't care enough to actually write something on their own--about something they DIG...?) I have a general objection to the time and effort of the community being funneled into "boldly" improving articles not even the creator gave a rat's behind about.

Having said all that (and please know, KP, that none of the snark therein is directed at you--it's just a general grump)--you're quite right. I should have deleted the copyvio content immediately, and it was irresponsible of me not to do so. Thank you, sincerely, for the reminder. Sometimes I forget WP:CommonSense. >.<

Best regards, Wysdom 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of there comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed community ban has been withdrawn by its originator[6] who opted for an RFCU which was returned as a negative to the accusation of sock puppetry[7] and declined for further review due to lack of evidence. These accusations have been withdrawn or proven false. KP Botany 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not find substantive local media coverage of the anchor as a person. Calwatch 04:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think people need to start reading policy pages rather than just showing up at AfD and opining whatever they like for whatever reason. WP:BIO notes that TV personalities must "[have] a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following [...] [or have] made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I dont think being a local TV anchor counts. Pablosecca 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per criterion A7. No assertion of notability, and the off chance that this is just a joke (it looks like each album was wordplay on a sex position). --Wafulz 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automation Records[edit]

Non-noteable label, none of it's artists have their own article either Lugnuts 14:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per this is exactly why notability was invented the_undertow ^talk 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 (T|C) 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable. Acalamari 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 03:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rice[edit]

Ken Rice doesn't warrant an individual page Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article lists several awards that he received. --Eastmain 02:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination gives no reason why he does not warrant a page. KP Botany 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom appears to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT DarkAudit 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain Although I still feel both the nom and Trey are voicing nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT as their reasoning, I no longer feel the page is worthy of my endorsing it as a Keep. This is more based on the other pages for KDKA personalities that are up for AfD at present. Those are just cut-and-paste jobs from the KDKA site. This article is not quite that bad. Not good, though, either. DarkAudit 04:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Why doesn't he warrant an individual page? Seems to be notable as the recipient of awards. Hut 8.5 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak keep.

Keep Ken Rice is an award winning journalist. This page must not be deleted. Kd lvr 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is a great news anchor. One of, if not, the best in Pittsburgh. Also, Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia and I'm pretty sure that you find people in an Encyclopedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdkatpir2 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not every television news anchor deserves their own Wiki entry. There comes a point when standards need to be developed to issue pages. It's not anything personal about the news anchor, but rather an issue with making Wiki a popularity contest. Additionally, all of the information on this entry is from KDKA-TV's Web site. None of it is cited. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you think the pages are copyvios from KDKA's site, then cite the examples. DarkAudit 19:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Refute If you would like to make a page on your favorite personality feel free to do so. 172.144.170.140 21:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this a joke or something? You actually said an article should be deleted because "only KDKA's people have wiki pages?" There is something going on here that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This is a joke page, and/or a joke nomination. KP Botany 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is a problem with only KDKA personalities having pages (note that only award winning KDKA journalists have pages), can't you construct a pagw yourself? Kd lvr 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' All of these KDKA pictures should be deleted too, they are terribly distorted. --TREYWiki 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and New Pictures - I think this one should be kept as it is written well and not just a paragraph. I agree with TreyWiki, new pictures are needed. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Kd lvr is a sock of Kdkatpir2 or vise versa. So ALL of his comments are invalid.--TREYWiki 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is not true! See user page for more information. Kd lvr 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2 were created within 3 hours of each other on September 18th, 2006. User:Kdkatpir2 at 16:49 and User:Kd lvr at 19:19. Look at the edit times as well. No edits happen at the same time. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment about sock puppetry accusations Sock puppetry was not found in a RFCU,[8] the community ban request was withdrawn,[9] and both of the accusers were blocked for pestering these editors.[10][11] These two accusers should have stricken out their accusations, but have not done so. See their edit histories for more information. It appears that other editors are simply voting on the merits or lack of merits of the articles, but these bolded accusations posted all over the place should have been more carefully stricken out of these AfDs, or not posted to begin with. KP Botany 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with the nomination, and I want to ask seriously what our guidelines are for inclusion of local media personalities. Several people have mentioned the awards this anchor has won---but who gave out those awards, and are those organizations themselves notable? What are the standards for media and press awards in the area of local news in small and medium sized markets? I cannot claim to know, but I think we should find out before claiming that is reason enough for articles of this type to be kept. As I said earlier, all the cheerleading for KDKA aside, what is notable about a local news anchor? ---Charles 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOTE. And let's not have any more "awards, seems notable" arguements, esp. from the Wikivets, who know better? The newbies may have never read WP:NOTE, but you have. MULTIPLE, RELIABLE, VERIFIABLE, INDEPENDENT sources. For one. This guy, beloved and famous as he might be in Pittsburgh and Wisconsin, well written about as he might be on the website of his employer, is just /text/book not notable. To be less notable, he'd have to be 14 and have the sole source hosted at MySpace. Prove me wrong. If this article can be re-written to cite five indepentdent, reliable, verifiable sources that are non trivial, in-depth, and primarily about HIM (all from WP:NOTE), then I'm good with that. I'll change my vote to a Speefy Keep and move to close. --Wysdom 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Please cite the link to this policy, "five indepentdent, reliable, verifiable sources that are non trivial, in-depth, and primarily about the subject?" Thanks. KP Botany 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Did I say five was policy? I asked for five--because that would satisfy me that someone is notable. And for someone truly notable, five shouldn't be that hard to find. However, WP:NOTE says:

Generally, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and the quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability.

So, there you have independent. Reliable. Attributable=verifiable. Depth/quality =non-trivial and primarily about the subject (see WP:NOTE, foonotes 1 and 2) Unfortunately, the WP:NOTE guidelines seem to be undergoing on-the-fly revision by a quorum of about 3-5. Interesting. So I guess I'll refrain from explaining myself while the minority rewrites the rules for the entire community--Everything I'm citing could be invalid in 3 1/2 minutes. *sigh* So sure. I guess WP:NOTE says anything we want it to say. Moving on. Wysdom 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, there is that fun aspect of Wikipedia. However, in general, please don't make demands for keeping somethin that are not policy, or have never been policy. Just stick with policy. KP Botany 23:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - QuestionEven if the above is true, why can't more information be gathered on this journalist so his page can be expanded?Kd lvr 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BIO does give awards as a secondary criterion for notability. WP:NOTE certainly does not specify "five indepentdent, reliable, verifiable sources that are non trivial, in-depth, and primarily about HIM". I've changed my vote to weak keep, as he isn't the most notable person here. Hut 8.5 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of their comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed community ban has been withdrawn by its originator[12] who opted for an RFCU which was returned as a negative to the accusation of sock puppetry[13] and declined for further review due to lack of evidence. These accusations have been withdrawn or proven false. KP Botany 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability. A quick search find a couple of newspaper article [14] (a column criticizing Rice's moderation of a gubernatorial debate) and [15] (Rice's experiences used as basis of television pilot). There are probably more if someone had access to Lexis Nexis. Calwatch 04:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything notable about the man in the article, outside of his apparent popularity in Pittsburgh. Example of a major highlight: "He also reported on Super Bowl XXX and Super Bowl XL." Well now just exactly what is that supposed to mean? Was he there on National Television commenting with the other talking heads on the teams and players, doing play-by-play, working statistics, doing special reports on player-backgrounds? I think just about every television journalist in the US "reported on the Super Bowl" in some way - I hope that is not the sort of thing that automatically gets you a Wikipedia article. With respect to our beloved Pittsburgh fans, nobody has heard of the guy outside of the 'burgh. Same as Stacy Smith, also up for AfD. See WP:HOLE. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your statement that "nobody has heard of the guy outside of the 'burgh" requires some sort of evidence. AfDs are not about what you assume or think, any more than the articles themselves are. Show some evidence that nobody has ever heard of them, rather than offering your personal opinion on the topic. Essays on Wikipedia are simply opinion, not policy guidelines, and in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not you would know anyone from a hole in the ground. What matters is if there are credible, verifiable, significant sources. KP Botany 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If independent, reliable sources exist, which they do in this case, the article should be kept. This ridiculous standard that some editors are suggesting be implemented that would require non-local notability is silly. If non-trivial sources exist, the article should too. DickClarkMises 14:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per WP:BIO - criteria for notability of people for articles include things like:

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
Wide name recognition.
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
Multiple features in credible news media.

--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mm-hmm, and from WP:BIO: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Rice passes this test ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) and ought to be included in Wikipedia. DickClarkMises 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Morris Osipovich[edit]

non-notable - Google has 0 for Nadia-Osipovich, 125 for Nadia Morris Osipovich, virtually all of them a copy of this article DeanReed 15:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with analogy to WP:HOLE. YechielMan 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Delete Holy crackers! Per BLP--this Verona papers list that she's apparently extracted from is WP:OR and fails WP:V, WP:RS, and a number of others. It should be speedied as well--pretty much defames . Yipes! Wysdom 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - she's most likely been dead since 1992, so relax. She's not going to sue anytime soon. (Of course we shouldn't be writing falsehoods about the dead either, but this information is quite reliable.) Biruitorul 05:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by a different interpretation of her presence on the list. She is one of those mentioned in this and the other books. As there has been considerable comment about the Verona project, it seems likely that some of it will be about her, and that the article is sourceable, though i will require printed sources. I mentioned in the discussion of the list (see below), it is advisable to have articles on the individuals to give the available information so readers can judge for themselves (some were self-admitted spies, some mere prospects). As for BLP, the information is derived from government documents, and the article just reports it. DGG 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise then--because, I'm sorry, matters of libel and defamation re: living people are far too serious to just take your (or anyone's) word for it: The list and all little bios associated with it need to be blanked, and can be restored as they're verifiably sourced. That would be my solution. I'm not comfortable just letting this sort of thing "hang out there" waiting for you to add sources which might not exist as clearly, reliably, or verifiably as you seem to believe they do--or be easily accessible. This is going to be a huge project and every day these potentially defamatory, unverifiable statements stay up without citation is a day too long. Can we agree? Wysdom 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a well-referenced article, on an important historical topic. I do not see anything "defamatory" here, just sourced information, from two well-respected historians (both with their own wiki pages), from a book published by the prestigious Yale University Press. Let's add content to articles, not spike them! Turgidson 01:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reply on the AfD for the List, as most of the discussion is there. I'll just mention here that i myself do not have any intention of working on this article. DGG 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Turgidson, do you really believe that? People from WWII are still alive in abundance. So this is a potentially living person (BLP) there "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". A single source that's not cited to any part of the text above (what came from the source? How much of it?) is NOT "well sourced"... not even if this were a stub about Ben-10 would that be considered //good// sourcing. If you want to do the work and correct this, do it. But it has to remain blanked until you've sourced it. Once again, that is the only acceptable alternative to deletion, in my eyes. I'm not lobbying to have the content removed/deleted/canned--just /sourced/. If we can't agree to do that, then it has to go. --Wysdom 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - referenced, and notable, as she engaged in subversive activity against the US Government. Moreover, the phantasm of BLP is inapplicable here, as, according to the SSDI, a Nadia M. Osipovich (and really, how many can there be?) has been dead since 1992. Biruitorul 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is everybody who "engaged in subversive activity against the US Government" notable? I'm not sure of that. This is someone who is mentioned in ONE decrypted Venona transmission; almost nothing seems to be known about her but that, whether personally or in terms of her alleged subversive activity. Furthermore, the article has but one source, and this is a source whose conclusions have been disputed in terms of the surety of identification of some of the people it names. No detail is given as to why Haynes and Klehr believe that she was "Watchdog" in the Venona decrypts. As to looking her up in the SSDI lists, isn't that the very definition of original research? I have no way of being sure that the person named in this article is the same person you found in the SSDI lists, and neither have you. In summation, I believe that there are not sufficient sources nor sufficient known information to have this article. So, Delete Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but her subversion was particularly damaging. And actually, SSDI is a valid source - certainly not OR. At least I've used it to supply a number of dates. Anyway, your argument fails Occam's razor: the chances that there were two women in the US named Nadia M. Osipovich who were in their mid-40s during WWII is negligible. Biruitorul 08:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My two cents. Not just in the US, but in the State of Oregon! (That's what the SSDI records indicate, and that's what the Venona papers indicate, too). Turgidson 14:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If her subversion was particularly damaging, it is not listed in this article. If there are good claims to notability such as that, it would be useful to actually have them here (provided they can be specifically sourced, of course). As to the SSDI, I still consider it OR to use it unless it is wholly confirmed it's the same person in an independent source. I have no idea how common that name might be, but duplicate names aren't that uncommon. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, in a pinch it'll do, and there aren't a ton of sources on her. Plus we can use a footnote indicating where we got her dates. But let's be realistic - duplicate names of John Smith are very common. However: Osipovich is a South Slavic name, and there aren't that many South Slavs in the US (now or in the 1940s). And Oregon had only a million people then, and isn't particularly known as a Serbian or Croatian haven. So the chances that two people would be named Osipovich in Oregon, much less Nadia M. Osipovich, are indeed trivial. Biruitorul 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can answer the question raised above, "No detail is given as to why Haynes and Klehr believe that she was "Watchdog" in the Venona decrypts." Well, the details are now in the article. To wit, the actual transcript of the Venona intercept (available from the Venona web site, operated by the National Security Agency), says, and I quote: "ZhUChKA: i.e. "WATCHDOG," Nadia Morris OSIPOVICH, a naturalized American citizen living in PORTLAND". This was established at the time by the people from the Signals Intelligence Service. Harvey and Khler do not simply "believe" that, they record what they found in the archive, which by the way is now open to everyone for inspection. Turgidson 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for looking that up - that level of sourcing I think is a minimum. I still believe that most of the people identified in VENONA are not notable, however, and that too little is known about them for a biographical article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is not a biography, this is a mention of a name in a decryption. This belongs on a list, not in an article of its own. Delete unless there is some other source of biographical information. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient sources to warrant an article, delete unless more are forthcoming. --Michael Snow 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For one, even though she may or may not be living, we can't call her a Soviet spy because she's never admitted to or been convicted of anything, nor is there any overwhelming historical evidence or information which tends to implicate this person beyond any and all reasonable doubt. So what we're left with is a permanent one-sentence subsubsubsubstub about someone who may or may not have been connected with Soviet intelligence 60 years ago. FCYTravis 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice King Brown[edit]

Local television anchors do not warrant individual Wiki pages. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 02:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are 1,370 Google hits for that exact name. How "local" can this anchor be? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is about an award-winning veteran Pittsburgh news anchor. Kd lvr 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article lists several awards that she received. --Eastmain 02:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numerous statewide awards indicate notability. This looks like another WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nominator. DarkAudit 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced and copyvio. These KDKA pages are barely more than cut-and-paste jobs from KDKA's own site. I still feel nom and Trey need better reasoning for their position, though. DarkAudit 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable but could use some expansion and cleanup.--PrestonH^{(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!)} 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep This woman is a great news anchor. One of, if not, the the best in Pittsburgh. Also, Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia and I'm pretty sure that you find people in an Encyclopedia. Kdkatpir2 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- All of the information on this entry can be found on the station's Web site. Nothing about this entry is unqiue. Just because this anchor is on television doesn't mean she warrants a page. --Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep I think if more information is gatered about Patrice King Brown, than the page should not be deleted. She is a great news anchor; I don't understand why someone who has won this many awards and has so much experience doesn't deserve a simple Wikipedia page. 172.144.170.140 21:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and New Pictures - Again, not a paragraph like some pages and new pictures are needed. I think the pictures used are close to being in violation of fair use. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with the nomination, and I want to ask seriously what our guidelines are for inclusion of local media personalities. Several people have mentioned the awards this anchor has won---but who gave out those awards, and are those organizations themselves notable? What are the standards for media and press awards in the area of local news in small and medium sized markets? I cannot claim to know, but I think we should find out before claiming that is reason enough for articles of this type to be kept. As I said earlier, all the cheerleading for KDKA aside, what is notable about a local news anchor? ---Charles 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:TREYWiki keeps posting that "only KDKA's people have wiki pages," and, as this has nothing whatsoever to do with AfD, I say keep all articles TREYWiki votes to delete because "only KDKA's people have wiki pages." Here's an example of a non-KDKA person with a wiki page: Charles Darwin. Another: Henry Kissinger. KP Botany 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I mean in newscasting. Charles Darwin is extreamly notable. Newscasters are not. Especally when a sockpuppeteer and his sock are making most of the comments and votes. --TREYWiki 00:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please provide a link to the Wikipedia policy page which states "newscasters are not notable." And, while you're searching for it, check this out, [[23]] (American television news anchors). Please do take the sock puppetry accusations to the right page, though, as sock puppets are incredibly boring. KP Botany 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I may be boring at times, but I'm no one's sock puppet. :P DarkAudit 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question :What I would like to know is why can't more information be gathered on this journalist so her page can be expanded?Kd lvr 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of their comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm going to have to take what you say with a grain of salt as long as you claim Jessica Savitch and Barbara Walters] are non-notables who should not have Wikipedia articles. KP Botany 18:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are trolling. I have never said all TV newspeople are not notable. Are they nominated for AfD? No. You are the one playing games. --TREYWiki 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough. Metamagician3000 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a notable news anchor. Expand with details of past experience, though. Examples of news reporters with articles include Ross Becker, Ric Romero, Gary Papa. Just because the article is crummy now doesn't mean that it could get better in the future. Calwatch 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed community ban has been withdrawn by its originator[24] who opted for an RFCU which was returned as a negative to the accusation of sock puppetry[25] and declined for further review due to lack of evidence. These accusations have been withdrawn or proven false. KP Botany 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luminator[edit]

No sources, no indication of notability; possibly a joke or prank? Makerowner 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I assume the source is the one hidden in the external links section, so it's not a joke. I can find a few other references to it, like this one and this one. Still borderline notability though. Croxley 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources that mention a luminator are articles written by a Mark Macy. It is an exceptional claim with no reliable sources. Phony Saint 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Someguy1221 09:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, with strange sources. Virtual Cowboy 12:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATT and is at best questionable under WP:NOR. Without evidence that this is a notable paranormal device, it should not be kept. --EMS | Talk 19:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural weddings[edit]

I can't see any way to improve this one. The bulk of it's just a difdef (and I believe an inaccurate one), whilst the remainder is totally incoherent ("More frequently the norm with royalty, invading military rulers and the usual migratory patterns of humans"). While the subject could (obviously) be sourced, I don't see how it could ever result in encyclopaedic content - at the end of the day, all it will ever say is "sometimes people marry people from other countries" - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's written in a way which suggests that there might be something which can be added (i.e. it's not written as a straight-out dicdef), but I agree that there doesn't really seem to be anything. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too do not see content worth keeping, but of course there could well be an article (or several) on the subject--there is certainly documentation to be found. To start, Films which feature multicultural weddings ? (smile) DGG 04:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Something tells me that kind of article would be gracing these august lists sooner or later, if the spate of nominations a few months ago of "List of films featuring [Esoteric feature]" is anything to go by. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Topic could be encyclopedic but this revision is so far from being a worthwhile article that a complete rewrite is the way to go. --Richard 04:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Sabre Jnr[edit]

Nonnotable 19 year old British wrestler; no independent sources; no links from any other articles. NawlinWiki 22:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anybody whose article begins with "up and coming" is not notable. YechielMan 01:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's how I found this article -- by doing a search for "up and coming". :) NawlinWiki 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smart move, searching for "up and coming," might try "fantastic" next, and wow, what a telling sentence this one: "2007 should see Zack Sabre Jr’s busiest year yet as the young technical wrestler begins to break out." I'd say that last translates to, "I've lived next door to him for 17 years and we both got drunk one night and opened a Wikipedia account." KP Botany 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom says it all.--Paloma Walker 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Harley[edit]

Non-notable. A Google search turns up various John Harley's, but only the Wiki entry for this guy - nothing else. The article itself reveals he has done nothing significant. SilkTork 14:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a number of quotes from his time at Budweiser Budvar, during tumultuous negotiations over the brand name, but otherwise unnotable. Has another job since March 2006 anyway, no update in article showing this.[26] --Dhartung | Talk 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be WP:Vanity created by User:MusicMusicMusic. Megapixie 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. After browsing this, I'd say that the guy is well-known in the beer world. Stammer 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slightly altering the searching to remove wikipedia and obvious mirrors reveals only 67 hits [27]. Still seems like vanity as it stands. Most of these seem directly connected to Budvar - maybe merge into the Budvar article. ? Megapixie 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is not very interesting on his own, but the confrontation between Anheuser-Busch and Budweiser Budvar is a very notable topic, not just for beer lovers, since it's part of a much wider pattern. The article provides some valuable contextual information, from the alliance between Harley and Roger Protz (who is not only a "beer writer") to the local vs. global turf battles. Merging would be fine if that info could be kept. I might actually do a bit of work on this, although I prefer Pilsner, by a long shot.Stammer 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Dartmouth College alumni[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics such as persons (real or fictional). Extremely trivial connection to base a list of fictional characters on. Croxley 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Potentially endless list of little value. Megapixie 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, triviality is in the eye of the beholder. Second organizing fictional characters by affiliation as in, for example List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients or by characteristic as in, for example List of fictional characters frozen in cryogenic freeze, is valuable to those interested in the organization or characteristic. The Dartmouth list, while needing expanding and perhaps merging into the main Dartmouth College site is worthy of inclusion. --Crunch 11:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crufty, unencyclopedic listmongering. Eusebeus 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - indiscriminate collection of fictional characters with nothing in common except when they were being thought up the author picked "Dartmouth" instead of some other school. The existence of a Medal of Honor winners or a cryogenically frozen characters list has no bearing on whether this article should exist. Under no circumstances should this list be merged to any article on Dartmouth or its alumni. 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Console emulator. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NDS Emulator[edit]

Orphaned article, contains only general emulator trivia adapted to Nintendo DS and short list of emulators, which is unnecessary due to the "Nintendo DS emulators" category. Don Cuan 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Console emulator. There isn't any information here that distinguishes an NDS emulator from any other console emulator. -- Whpq 20:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No other system has such a redirect. Furthermore, this article is and already was an orphan, so it is very unlikely for someone to get there except via categories. If a List of Nintendo DS emulators article existed, this might be a viable target for redirecting. -- Don Cuan 14:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - NDS Emulator as a search seems likely enough, and redirects are cheap. -- Whpq 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Whpq. Redirects are cheap. Console Emulator seems like a suitable target. Megapixie 04:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, there are hardly any redeeming content worth diving the article a unique space. It's better to stay a subset of console emulator.--Kylohk 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete as nonsense (CSD G1). WjBscribe 05:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedal meme[edit]

prodded/deprodded/prodded/deprodded - original prod reason: "appears to be a hoax, the named journal doesn't exist, phrase from Chamillionaire lyrics Ridin', other elements look like attack article"

Since first prod, anon IP noticed my comments and changed "New York Socialist journal" to "New Delhi Journal Of independent Review", then when reprodded with "how did the editors end up dead in New York Harbor?", changed to Yamuna River. It ain't getting any less hoaxy with closer inspection. Please look it over. Shenme 02:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, complete WP:BALLS. Krimpet (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nonsense. --Haemo 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Appears to violate WP:PN type 2: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hung Jury[edit]

Article is about NN local comedy group whose only claims to fame are not getting into the Guinness Book and starting a small, NN local festval. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:ORG. Per Google, a few search results, but most of the ones that could potentially be WP:RS (that is, legitimate media) are of the "local paper arts calendar" ilk and very few are actually about the troupe, its comedy, etc. WP:V issues apply as well: the record they supposedly submitted to the Guinness Book is an unsubstantiated claim, and the notability of the Out of Bounds Improvisational Festival is doubted. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and then see that the creators are well-hung. ---Charles 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The size of their genitals is irrelevant to this discussion. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe BJAODN. These guys are so funny for their sheer banality ("Guinness sucks!"). YechielMan 04:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per directly above. BJAODN? I'd say so. --Phoenix (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Any rename left to editorial discretion. WjBscribe 05:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Cathedral style[edit]

Delete - prod removed. This appears to be a neologism. Searching for "polish cathedral style" turns up a grand total of 23 google hits outside Wikipedia, most of which are mirrors. Searching for the first several churches on the list turns up no listings which mention the 'Polish Cathedral' style. Each of the churches is identified in the article as being of another architectural style and it seems odd that every church of this supposed 'Polish Cathedral' style would be of a completely different style. The only source in the article, added when the prod was removed, is a book in which the term appears on three pages. There do not appear to be any sources that are primarily about this term as opposed to simply using the term, as required by WP:NEO. Otto4711 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, term seems originated and only used in citation of one architectural historian, thus not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps worth a mention in some other article, but not a style that has a broadly accepted definition. --Dhartung | Talk 04:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am the author of this article, so that there is no suspicion of duplicity involved. I would like to address some of the concerns made about the article "'Polish Cathedral' style". I am new to Wikipedia so I apologize in advance. I should have been clearer when first writing the article about what is meant by architectural style and how buildings from this period of time can draw heavily from a 'gothic' or 'renaissance'/' baroque' theme yet in the scheme of all the other elements involved in a buildings design still be a part of the same style. I hope that I have clarified this sufficiently in the said article, and I will work to fix this if you feel that this is not up to par. Yes, the term is somewhat obscure, I know that not everyone is a student of Chicago History like myself, however there is literature about the 'Polish Cathedral' style, but I am under the gun here unexpectedly and in short notice to prove that I didn't make this term up. I have already added a number of references that I have found in my notes or my little library of 'Chicagoviana' and will be adding more as i comb my notes for them. As for online references, I would go to the PGSA database they have a google option and they have an option where you can indeed look up a good number of Chicago Polish Churches,(remember not all Polish churches are 'Polish Cathedral's the term is actually 'Polish Cathedral' but it seems too confusing/ misleading so I add the word style) and look up St. Mary of the Angels Church, or St. Adalbert's. The Website for St. Hyacinth Basilica also will use the label of Polish Cathedral' in reference to itself. If there is anything that I can do to assuage any concerns please tell me on the talk page- --Orestek | Talk, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Orestek 09:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please be assured that you haven't done anything wrong here and no one is suggesting that you're acting inappropriately. If you read WP:NEO, which is the section of the Manual of Style that deals with neologisms, you'll see that for Wikipedia to have an article on a term, there need to be reliable sources which are about the term, not just that use it. In looking at the material you've added, it appears that they are all things that use the term as opposed to being about the term. Otto4711 15:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is supposed to reflect, not push, knowledge. This is WP:NEO merging with WP:OR. Eusebeus 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The style seems notable, but the name may be different. I'd strongly suggest providing quotes from the sources - how do they refer to those buildings (maybe 'Polish church style')? Also, add page numbers, possible Google Books hits, and citations for each individual church in the list.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, note that there must be sources about the term, not just sources that use the term. Otto4711 17:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that wrong term/title merits WP:RM, not WP:AFD. The article and its sources indicate that such phenomena exists, the problem is that the name as chosen by the creator is not very popular.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps Piotrus is right, insofar that much of the literature uses the title 'Polish Churches', or 'Polish Church Architecture'. I have cited a number of articles that use this term, such as the article by Marya Lilien in Chicago History Magazine, as well as the page numbers , and I will be adding more --Orestek 17:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite what term do they use, exactly?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Often the term is just 'Polish Church Architecture' or 'the architectural style of Polish Churches' because of the context of most of these pieces is referring to local histories, as in Roman Godzak's Catholic Churches of Detroit Arcadia Publishing 2004, John Smallshaw's upcoming book about the Polish Churches of Milwaukee, or Catholicism, Chicago style.

In the chapter entitled Parish and Neighborhood in Polonia in Ellen Skerrett's work titled Sacred Space from the volume Catholicism, Chicago Style, on p153 we read "In terms of sheer size and monumentality, Polish Catholic churches on the Near Northwest Side surpassed the the parish churches constructed by most German, Bohemian and Irish congregations. The architectural style promoted by the Resurrectionists used Renaissance and Baroque forms molded to distinctively promote their vision of Polish history and identity"

Kantowicz writes in The Archdiocese of Chicago: A Journey of Faith "The preference of the Polish League for Renaissance and Baroque forms seems more clear cut. The glory days of the Polish Commonwealth came in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when it formed the largest state in Europe... The architectural style of Chicago's Polish churches in Chicago reflect this, particularly the magnificent edifices of Worthmann and Steinbach built along the Milwaukee avenue corridor on the Northwest Side, reflected the renaissance glory of Polish Catholicism".

Peter Williams in his book Houses of God: Region, Religion, and Architecture in the United States on p.179 writes "in Detroit and Chicago especially, a distinctive genre of church building emerged among Polish communities, the "Polish Cathedral". Where most Catholic churches were built in grander or humbler variations and Gothic and Romanesque themes popular across the country, the ambitious prelates in the great Lakes Polonias often chose to make monumental statements in the Renaissance style of their mother country. The scale of these structures was often enormous, both in the great size of these parishes and the episcopal ambitions of their clerical leaders... Still visible from the freeways, many of these "cathedrals" such as St. Stanislaus Kostka in Chicago now serve African-American or Latino constituencies while others have benn cose dby their Archbishops as no longer econmically viable".

This is the heart of the dilemma in finding a title for the article on this architectural style. I had found the term 'North American Polish Church style' or variants thereof awkward, and the term 'Polish Cathedral' by itself to be slightly misleading (because they are not in fact cathedrals and they are not in Poland), which is why I titled the article 'Polish Cathedral' style, the lesser of all evils I thought. The subject is notable; we spent a good deal of time on the matter in my History of Chicago class, there's a good deal of literature on the topic, and they're major tourist attractions in Chicago (Accenting Chicago has a tour devoted exclusiely to them and Chicago Neighborhood Tours tours a number of the Major ones) Given the widespread colloquial use of the term here (every neighborhood patriot that has a historic Polish Church in Chicago will tell you that "their church" is "The Polish Cathedral"). What are your suggestions?----Orestek 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - notable and finely referenced, but should have a new title. Biruitorul 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after all the references were added today, this is a keeper. This is the desired result of a prod or AfD. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly notable & now refed-up. Maybe rename. Johnbod 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like "Architecture of Polish churches in the United States" or "Polish American church architecture" etc. nadav 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not certain about the name, but I certainly knew this article was about the Polish churches in the midwest, or Polish-Chicago culture. Thanks for creating the article, I look forward to reading the books. Deletion is not appropriate for the article, but renaming may be. Sometimes the title is not what is used, but defines what the article is about. KP Botany 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If " " were allowed in titles, I would go for ' "Polish Cathedral" style', but I rather think they aren't. Johnbod 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to encourage Orestek (talk) to please include the above four solid paragraphs of information in the actual article beginning with opinions by Skerrett, Kantowicz, Williams, and the fact that there are tours in Chicago devoted exclusively to those churches. I read the article and found it negative in tone which I believe might have prompted this unnecessary proposal for deletion. I do not understand why, right from the start, the article attempts to diminish the importance of this phenomenon in North-American architecture by stating repeatedly that the churches are not cathedrals. They don't have to be, in order to represent a style, which is the "Cathedral style" of Polish-American church. The cathedral and the cathedral style are distinctly different things. Througout the article overt criticism is provided from the most peculiar of sources, like the Chicago's Protestant elites. Such approach is not only misleading. This is but a red flag for all involved parties. Secondly, there's not a single photograph included in the article which makes it look even more suspicious. The list of churches inside the table links not to individual churches, but to saints... another red flag. In my opinion this article is a perfect example of how not to write for Wikipedia about North-American architecture. However, I have no problem with the title of this article unlike some Wikipedians. As Peter Williams wrote in his book Houses of God: Region, Religion, and Architecture in the United States (p.179) "in Detroit and Chicago especially, a distinctive genre of church building emerged among Polish communities, the "Polish Cathedral". Good enough for me. --Poeticbent talk 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, there's a source for the title. KP Botany 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to avoid further controversies. - Darwinek 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename OK
(The preceeding unsigned comment was added by User:Umedard (talk) as of 08:13, 30 April 2007)
Keep I wasn't familiar with the term, but I knew exactly what it meant before I read the article. This is an actual style, and you can see these churches in Pittsburgh and Detroit, as well as Chicago. Not all Polish parishes were built in the Polish Cathedral style. It is a style that is a major contrast to the austere Congregationalist white clapboard hall of some Protestant churches in the US, as the article mentions.Pustelnik 15:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/cleanup. Seems adequately sourced on the topic of the article, but it has some point-of-view statements, and I was expecting the wikilinks in the table of churches to go to an article on the actual church. Gimmetrow 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre chaser[edit]

Nonnotable neologism applied to only one person. Prod tag was removed with the following edit summary: Objection. Massacre chaser may only **currently** apply to one person, but it CAN apply to many, and eventually might. The term was only recently coined. Give it some time. That's not how it works. Maxa megalon 2000 03:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comments clear show it violates WP:NEO --Haemo 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Used only once. At this stage, it's obvious that it's a spinoff of ambulance chaser. --Sigma 7 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if the term is still in active use in more than a couple of months' time. JulesH 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Although I disagree with the objection raised by another user against the proposed deletion, the basis of your current argument is false for the following reasons; however, I agree that the phrase does not presently satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of neologisms in Wikipedia. The phrase is a rising star, so to speak, with thousands of new instances appearing on the Web every day, but there are no secondary sources—other than noncredible blogs and forum posts—that discuss the phrase.

Notability. The phrase was coined by Jason Della Rocca, executive director at International Game Developers Association, in response to an inquiry by MSNBC reporter Winda Benedetti. The phrase was spoken by MSNBC anchor Alex Witt in a live interview with Jack Thompson. The phrase was debated on MSNBC by Jack Thompson, too.
Application. The phrase was coined for general use, not limited application to "only one person".

Adraeus 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a neologism is a neologism - if it's a "rising star", then we can write an article about it when finally reaches the heavens - and gets some more reliable sources --Haemo 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you argue with someone who agrees with you? /boggle Adraeus 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was KEEP. Speedy closed per WP:SNOW etc. Rich Farmbrough, 08:36 28 April 2007 (GMT). 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuppie[edit]

A neologism with not one cited source and a stub to boot. Loodog 03:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Deletion would result in it's endless recreation in the same or worse state. It the term itself notable? I would say yes. It's already cross linked from around 200 other articles. What we really need to do is find a couple of decent secondary sources to use as references. Megapixie 03:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The term is very notable and very used; however, the article that got made for it isn't worthy of existence. If we could get TWO credible sources that resulted in more than a dictionary definition, I would vote stay.--Loodog 04:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Don't be a dick would seem to apply here. The term is not even arguably notable, does not fall under WP:NEO as it is in dozens of dictionaries, and you have provided no valid reason for deletion. AFD is not cleanup, okay? --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Wikipedia:No personal attacks would seem to apply here. My edit was in good faith, the no source tags have been up since November of last year.--Loodog 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Loodog, I've cleaned it up a lot and added some reliable sources. How's that? Lewis Collard 05:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Excellent, this is decent article now. Good work.--Loodog 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Big smile Thanks a ton. ;D Lewis Collard 05:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as per Megapixie. Lewis Collard 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - this term is widely used; I mean, it was used in a Harper's title, and gets 224 Google NEWS hits; and over 2 million regular Ghits. --Haemo 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup this obviously notable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adraeus 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable concept. Pete.Hurd 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has been in general use for more than twenty years. It's not a neologism. BTLizard 08:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 11:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team zEx[edit]

Game clan vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesnt seem to be needed to deleted is it links to many other Wikipedia articles and seems valid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vio1a0tr (talk • contribs) — User:Vio1a0tr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete WP:VSCA. Also, the nomination was deleted, so I restored it. I tagged a single purpose account as well. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:VSCA of a minor e-sports club with very few notable accomplishments -- Laurens Hoek 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep ESWC winners 2002 - not a minor e-sports club, they are a known american club. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.1 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: ESWC started in 2003. --Tinctorius 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has experienced sufficient success to qualify for an article; though existing text is poor. Orphic 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Laurens Hoek. --Tinctorius 14:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Ferraro[edit]

A non notable fashion designer. The article is unsourced and reads like a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedic article. Was tagged with a prod and was contested by the author. The author's reasons for contesting the prod are on the talk page. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article could be created when the subject is the subject of this expected future publicity. Mattinbgn/^talk 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources. Article offers not the slightest bit of evidence that this person is notable. Mwelch 06:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless requested citations can be provided - which will assert notability.Ga rr ie 12:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable not notable crystalballery, per nom. Sarah 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He can be rewritten when he finishes up and comes into the news. KP Botany 00:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not convinced that this person is notable. Lankiveil 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation if the predictions on the talk page come true and this does indeed become a notable fashion label. JavaTenor 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Second the no prejudice, just to remind anyone should this issue arise again with more information on the designer or his label. KP Botany 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Acalamari 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventyseven[edit]

Article has been speedy deleted 5 times under CSD A7/no assertion of notability. Couldn't find any WP:RS in Google results to indicate that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Leuko 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in Google to indicate this band could pass WP:MUSIC. Nothing in Google even approaching a reliable source for its associated charity. With five A7 speedies already under its belt, I'd also suggest considering salting lest this try for five G4 speedies next. Serpent's Choice 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They never used to be notable enough for inclusion, and they aren't now. That charity sounds very suspect, too. J Milburn 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since this has been created and deleted 5 times, and since this is no more notable than its predecessors, definitely delete. Virtual Cowboy 12:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find anything in the article or elsewhere that meets the WP:BAND guideline. Gimmetrow 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This band has been deleted before under CSD A7, but most of the times the real reason for deletion was plagiarized content. They are a rising band with a very popular debut album. I'm planning on reworking the article soon so please don't delete it. freeradster (talk | contribs) 02:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do not salt -- notability can change quickly in the field of music, and we don't want to hinder creation of an article should the band become notable. JulesH 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nomination says it all Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11, blatant advertisement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All American Premier Breeds Administration[edit]

Creation by user:Aapba suggests WP:COI. Written like an advert. No evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 05:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this second person vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 05:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete: G11, this is definitely promotional. Nothing here that isn't a press release or an otherwise unreliable source, and it looks like the article has the same purpose. Note: created by User:Aapba, who more than likely falls under WP:SPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fisher (technologist)[edit]

not-notable vanity. participating in a barely notable project, half of whose members don't have articles, directing another non-notable project that doesn't have an article, and founding a few small non-notable organizations doesn't make you any more notable then a college student who formed a few school clubs in both high school and college Misterdiscreet 05:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — promotional; insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is chair of the Chair of the Interactive Media Division in the School of Cinema-Television at the University of Southern California, that is, chair of a key department in one of the leading universities in the field. This is the kind of field where someone without a doctorate can be that important. He has been associated with the most prestigious organizations and projects throughout his career. Oddly, its simply an inadequate article--modest articles about researchers tend to get nominated as NN, with the immodest ones nominated as spam.

I've noticed we have difficulty judging articles working in some aspects of computer technology, as their reputation is not primarily based on formal publications. But he does have formal publications: to be exact, he has 52 of them. They are mostly in the most important conference proceedings series, the various IEEE and SPIE proceedings. I'm listing what seem to be recent or important. Most of his work was done before google. There seem to be about 100 print references to his work. I will try to extract the most important of them.

Note that he uses both Scott Fisher and Scott S. Fisher in his work.

01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Keep. Head of department in a top-rated university, fair amount of research - sounds like enough for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the departments in this top-rated university:

http://www.usc.edu/directories/departments.html

Where do you see Interactive Media Division? Being a head of some (minor) group within a department does not make you a department head. Stop overstating his importance Misterdiscreet 00:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think this meets WP:PROF, per Misterdiscreet: contra DGG he's not "chair of a key department", contra Morven he's not "Head of department". Further, arguments based on academic rank don't address whether the subject has accomplished any notable deed beyond that expected in the course of the average academic career. Pete.Hurd 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahid Azal[edit]

!WP:BIO, !WP:RS, appears to be OR, BLP... Oy. Sources are MySpace page of subject, amazon.com links to self-published (vanity press) books of subject, blogs. By the appearance of the talk page, editors "maintaining" this article either can't, won't or have no interest in improving the article or providing adequate sources. Google returns discussion groups, blogs, amazon.com, and this article. Wysdom 05:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Editors inability to provide any justification for the article to be kept beyond saying 'he is notable' is a good sign that he is not, especially when combined with the tag removals. Google isn't throwing up much... I don't think this counts for anything, and I am not seeing anything else that could be considered reliable. All of that said, and though it doesn't count for anything, I have heard of this guy, somewhere. I just can't work out where... J Milburn 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Levity Maybe he's in your MySpace extended network? ;D Wysdom 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The material is potentially of interest if there were any reliable sources or any third-party commentary. I note from the article Talk page that the lack of proper sources has already been explained to the main article contributors, but nothing useful has happened as a result. Repeated removal of validly-placed tags by one of the contributors (without making any meaningful improvement) does suggest bad faith. EdJohnston 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poorly sourced means it needs sources, not necessarily deleted. Someone nominated Rock climbing for deletion because it was poorly sourced. This wastes time and resources. There probably are reliable sources, and maybe under his other name, but the subject is rather obscure, so there may be limited web information. I suggest tagging it for clean-up and using Conflict Resolution with the other editors, rather than nominating it for deletion for reasons that require other actions. PS Egads he makes himself look boring, I simply can't bring myself to nominate to keep, although I think the AfD is not well thought out. KP Botany 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any decision to delete this article is purely and completely politically motivated'''. SecretChiefs3 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It might be if the article were readable enough that anyone could figure anything about him out by reading the article. Sadly, the article is simply boring, too boring to merit a conspiracy. And, please, when accusing others of political motivations, at least tell us which party we are. Labor? Dems? Fascists? Turn-coats? KP Botany 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My vote to delete, above, is based on my confidence that no-one will be available to find any sources, because there aren't any. Sometimes you are aware that a person or company has a high enough profile that SOMEONE will be able to find sources on the internet if they just dig around a bit. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I would be glad to change my mind if someone adds sources to the article before the close of the AfD. EdJohnston 00:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I won't be taking that bet. But, still hold out for a party accusation. KP Botany 00:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of X: The Pick Of The Litter[edit]

This article does NOT cite the majority of its sources. It should be swiped until we get a credible report on this album. Bruno567 02:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete External links don't back up rumor and rumors are unsourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CB. It can be rewritten later if sources become available, or after the album is released. YechielMan 04:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew L. Feshbach[edit]

Investment portfolio manager. A veiled advert for the guy's financial products. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN wikivert. meshach 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, the article was written by a WP:SPA, indicating possible WP:COI. YechielMan 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Records[edit]

This article does not meet WP:MUSIC, and has no independely linked articles. Idioma 01:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. YechielMan 05:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom, non-notable label Lugnuts 07:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs) 07:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ambassador (rapper)[edit]

this article fails to establish WP:MUSIC standards, and is unsourced including info on living person Idioma 02:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see The Thesis AfD above. Reviewed artist. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Per meeting WP:MUSIC, but still not very well known. Eaomatrix 11:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this artist meet WP:MUSIC? Idioma 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability; no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. bikeable (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Jmlk17 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christian artists are tough to track references down for, I've noticed in previous AFDs; I think that's where the "not well known" issue comes from. However, I've managed to track down at least three reasonable refs: on Christianity Today, What's The Word, a site for urban gospel that seems fairly solid, and an interview at Gospel Flava, which also seems pretty good. There's not a huge number of non-trivial refs, but these ones make me lean keep. I'd also suggest that being a founding member of The Cross Movement helps out. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources found by Tony Fox. I went ahead and added them to the article as references. I also re-wrote the article because as it was, it was actually a clear-cut copyright violation: a word-for-word copy and paste from the biography written on the artist's web site. So, whether it's ultimately kept or not, the copyvio needed to be taken out ASAP. Mwelch 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lecrae[edit]

This article fails to estabilish WP:MUSIC standards, does not cite sources, and is NOT written in WP:NPOV. Idioma 02:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean NOT written in WP:NPOV. Anyway, Delete as non-notable artist. JuJube 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This already used in the article is an excellent source, and there are plenty more about. Lots of articles from various record labels, but they obviously aren't third party. He features on All Music Guide, Yahoo! Music, has other biographies dotted around and there are further reviews everywhere. Also, according to this page, "Southern Rap Artist's Sophomore Release, After The Music Stops Debuts at #8 on Billboard Gospel Chart and #1 on the CMTA R&B/Hip Hop Chart with 2217 Scans", which suggests he has had notable chart success. J Milburn 10:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Eaomatrix 11:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please KEEP! Yes this page has NPOV issues, but that means it needs to be edited not deleted. The artist is obviously extremely notable in the Christian Music industry. He is about to go on a tour from every corner of America and is constantly reaching the tops on Christian music charts. Simply needs clean-up not deletion. Professor Davies 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was} redirected to Mickey Mouse; all substantive content, including the illustrative quote, already existed at the target article. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 08:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse Operation[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just the definition of an idiom. It has already been transwikied to Wiktionary, at wikt:Transwiki:Mickey Mouse Operation, and deleted via prod, and it has now been recreated. Xyzzyplugh 13:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Mickey Mouse where it is already being mentioned in some detail. — RJH (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete by Anthony.bradbury (NN band). WjBscribe 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nquit[edit]

Non-notable label, article created by someone from the label, no wiki entries for "Aaron Trumm", etc Lugnuts 07:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no assertion of notability, and I know I wouldn't deny a speedy deletion if I came across this on NPP. J Milburn 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- little notability. Eaomatrix 11:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable. Probably would count as an A7 speedy candidate. Hut 8.5 14:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails notability criterias. --Vintagekits 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 03:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no assertion of notability, and so tagged. --Haemo 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken[edit]

Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Hoponpop69 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Despite the fact I don't speak any of the non-English languages listed in the sources section, and some of them are irrelevent/unreliable, I think the links provided confer notability. Could do with a cleanup though- I don't think there is any reason for it to be continually referred to as 'AWAKEN', non of the sources shout it. J Milburn 09:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per little traces of notability. Eaomatrix 11:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per my original comments. Hoponpop69 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Enough references to let it in Wikipedia. Belgian bands have their own popularity that make them a source of searches in Wikipedia. Thanks for replacing it into the right context. 1st of May, 2007.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.237.141.8 (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. I do realize this is an extremely contentious issue and I full well expect to see my decision contested on DRV, but to be honest, I doubt that any closure would survive without being contested in some manner. A review of the several previous deletion debates over this list shows that the community's desire to keep it has clearly been waning and this discussion is certainly following in that pattern. It is obvious that the list suffers numerous issues and many of the arguments for keeping this material are rooted in the claim that these issues warrant cleanup and rewriting rather than deletion. However, several salient arguments have been put forward that these issues are egregious and multiple and that no amount of cleanup will salvage the article. During the course of the debate a number of editors were convinced to change their recommendations from keep to delete, but I don't see that going in reverse. Finally, a number of the keep !votes were, rather than any kind of rationale for keeping the material itself, were calls to close the discussion for what were perceived as procedural violations rather than arguing that the material is inclusion worthy itself. To put it more succinctly, the arguments being made in favor of deletion are stronger than those made for keeping this material. In tandem with the fact that, over time, consensus in each debate seems to be straying from keep and trending closer to delete, I do not feel that closing as "no consensus" will be of any aid except to stave off deletion until the next debate rolls around. Shereth 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. There has been a lot of recent discussion about whether this page is needed, and it has been a year since the last AfD, so let's put it to a discussion. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real deletion rationale are being provided by people voting "delete", perhaps this can turn into a real AfD. Merzul (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: I second this being a "real AfD." The difference between real and false AfD's I don't think is clearly stated anywhere so technically saying "it's a real AfD" is perhaps unnecessary. Although the idea this is somehow a "false AfD" seems strong enough I've said it. I'll say it again I guess, I second/third the nominate of this for deletion.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough time left to be a "real AfD". Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think AfD's can be up five days. This has only been two. So I don't see the time problem unless you mean it's going to be closed now.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important note, the list looked much more reasonable about a year ago (here 05:05, 3 October 2007). The main difficulty seems to be its maintainability, as it is tempting for someone, who finds their group on this list, to try to add many other groups that normally wouldn't be considered as cults. This has lead to this current list that some of us find carelessly constructed. What can be done? Should we Keep / delete / userify / or close and discuss on talk page? Merzul (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul has requested that I change his "about a year ago" link above to what I consider the most encyclopedic version of List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). I'll just edit in the date, since his link is a good later sample of the period when the 1920+ header criterion 4 kept old religions off of the list – so that controversy was minimal on the talk page. An earlier version (here 04:34, 26 January 2007) has less polished notice texts, but it also includes partial governments lists. Milo 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to procedural nomination archived, as enough people have given deletion rationale below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Keep To make it clear where I stand. Darrenhusted (talk) *Neutral to follow the convention. Darrenhusted (talk) Delete as un-encyclopedic, to make this easy. Darrenhusted (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Darren you are making this worse. Now you have provided a rationale for deletion that you don't even believe in yourself. You need to let someone who actually wants this deleted nominate it with a rationale they believe is applicable. No one blames you for your good faith effort here, but its time to realize that it was a mistake and support withdrawing the nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close I believe the talk page is best for discussions about the article that do not directly involve Deleting the article outright. Alternatively, no rationale is provided for deletion. I'm not going to close, as I want more eyes to make sure I'm not insane. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] ~~Speedy Close~~ As I already mentioned on the talk page I'm thoroughly confused about what procedure the nominator is following. I second the speedy close, not because I want to keep this entry (in fact I think its horrible and should get axed) but because if/when it goes to AfD again it does so with a rationale for deletion. This sounds like a request for comment misplaced in an AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] From the article talk page Lists like this are evil, attempt to avoid AfD and this list remains ridiculous. There is clearly a feeling amongst some editors that this page should be deleted. Having read through the full list of WP:DEL I do not see anything that requires the nominator to want a page deleted for them to nominate it (you are free to find the section that says that and post it on my talk page), so here we are with an AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) Darren, I believe you nominated this on good faith, but can I note that two of the three thread titles you mention above are of my own creation. You are basically arguing that I (and those who may agree with my perspective) should have nominated this for deletion but haven't so you will do it for us despite the fact that you do not agree with us and therefore have created an AfD sans any good deletion rational in its nomination. I object on principle and ask for this to be withdrawn until such time that someone actually provides a deletion rationale in the nomination. I'm not sure that this type of nomination violates policy but it certainly goes against convention. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion tells us how to create this page, the discussion page "subst:afd2 \| pg=PageName \| cat=Category \| text=Reason the page should be deleted". Deletion discussions are started from the premise that there is a "reason the page should be deleted". That is the "convention" I referred to above as well.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Precisely. It's not against policy as such, but AFD normally proceeds when a Nominator tags an article and proposes its deletion because it violates policies X, Y, and Z, is unsourceable, or otherwise does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Editors then support or oppose deletion, providing reasoning for both. Most Delete comments agree with or expand the rationale of the nominator. Most Keep comments refute the nominator's contentions in some way, or provide reasons why they are not applicable. After 5 days, an admin reads the debate, weighs the arguments on the merits, and closes the debate as keep, delete, or what-have-you. The problem here is that there is no reason provided to delete, so there is A) nothing for Keep comments to refute, and B) nothing for Delete comments to expand upon or concur with. Thus, there is no meaningful debate possible in the context of a deletion debate. I add that this doesn't look like a bad faith nom - those are usually of the "You want to delete my article, FINE, I'll nom yours too" variety - but it's still hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Also note that despite any clear policy language about this it obviously implied that the nominator of an article for deletion actually thinks the article should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to procedural nomination archived, as enough people have given deletion rationale below

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

*Keep To make it clear where I stand. Darrenhusted (talk) *Neutral to follow the convention. Darrenhusted (talk)

Delete as un-encyclopedic, to make this easy. Darrenhusted (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Darren you are making this worse. Now you have provided a rationale for deletion that you don't even believe in yourself. You need to let someone who actually wants this deleted nominate it with a rationale they believe is applicable. No one blames you for your good faith effort here, but its time to realize that it was a mistake and support withdrawing the nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I believe the talk page is best for discussions about the article that do not directly involve Deleting the article outright. Alternatively, no rationale is provided for deletion. I'm not going to close, as I want more eyes to make sure I'm not insane. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Close~~ As I already mentioned on the talk page I'm thoroughly confused about what procedure the nominator is following. I second the speedy close, not because I want to keep this entry (in fact I think its horrible and should get axed) but because if/when it goes to AfD again it does so with a rationale for deletion. This sounds like a request for comment misplaced in an AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk page Lists like this are evil, attempt to avoid AfD and this list remains ridiculous. There is clearly a feeling amongst some editors that this page should be deleted. Having read through the full list of WP:DEL I do not see anything that requires the nominator to want a page deleted for them to nominate it (you are free to find the section that says that and post it on my talk page), so here we are with an AfD. Darrenhusted (talk)

Darren, I believe you nominated this on good faith, but can I note that two of the three thread titles you mention above are of my own creation. You are basically arguing that I (and those who may agree with my perspective) should have nominated this for deletion but haven't so you will do it for us despite the fact that you do not agree with us and therefore have created an AfD sans any good deletion rational in its nomination. I object on principle and ask for this to be withdrawn until such time that someone actually provides a deletion rationale in the nomination. I'm not sure that this type of nomination violates policy but it certainly goes against convention. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion tells us how to create this page, the discussion page "subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted". Deletion discussions are started from the premise that there is a "reason the page should be deleted". That is the "convention" I referred to above as well.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's not against policy as such, but AFD normally proceeds when a Nominator tags an article and proposes its deletion because it violates policies X, Y, and Z, is unsourceable, or otherwise does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Editors then support or oppose deletion, providing reasoning for both. Most Delete comments agree with or expand the rationale of the nominator. Most Keep comments refute the nominator's contentions in some way, or provide reasons why they are not applicable. After 5 days, an admin reads the debate, weighs the arguments on the merits, and closes the debate as keep, delete, or what-have-you. The problem here is that there is no reason provided to delete, so there is A) nothing for Keep comments to refute, and B) nothing for Delete comments to expand upon or concur with. Thus, there is no meaningful debate possible in the context of a deletion debate. I add that this doesn't look like a bad faith nom - those are usually of the "You want to delete my article, FINE, I'll nom yours too" variety - but it's still hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that despite any clear policy language about this it obviously implied that the nominator of an article for deletion actually thinks the article should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Wikipedia is not a list or directory. Is there a list of religions site? Further, one man's "cult" is another man's religions. What goes on the list often reflects one's POV. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article meets none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion, per WP:CSD. It has context - it's clear what the subject is. It has content - it's not gibberish. It's not a copyvio or a purely negative WP:BLP. It's not advertising or a test page. It was not created by a banned user, nor does its only author request its deletion - it probably has hundreds of authors by now. It is in english, and has not been improperly transwikied. So, an argument to delete would have to cite other policies that the article fails to meet. Is it sourceable? Is the subject notable? Is it possible to write a neutral article on the subject? Is the existing article salvageable to this end? The nominator presents none of these arguments, which is why I believe this debate should be closed and discussion on these points be taken to the talk page of the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Close or Keep~~ (keep vote moved to relisted AfD below) The regular editors have been in heavy debates, and working hard to propose major changes to this article. There is an RFC currently open which has brought new ideas to the article for debate and implementation, and implementation just began today, precipitating complaints that no one has had a chance to discuss or rectify. There are a bunch of possibly satisfactory solutions in the pipe, if complaining editors can be persuaded (maybe not, but there should be an opportunity to do so). I'm not opposed to good faith AfD nominations, but the proper timing was about three months ago for LOGRTAC's "routine" AfD. Milo 14:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) is useful:

• 1. It's an index useful for further research, and that is the purpose of the article.

• 2. It's a list too long to fit in the associated text article Cult.

• 3. It's useful to the average reader because controversial subjects have high general interest.

• 4. It's useful to laypersons, who participate in cultic studies by to a degree not found in other academic subjects (see Cult). If they don't have graduate student research experience (or even if they do), they may begin by consulting an encyclopedia, and a Google search quickly leads to Wikipedia.

• 5. It's useful to law enforcement officers investigating cult complaints (comparing a local group to their behavior reported elsewhere).

• 6. It's useful to national government employees engaged in legislative, administrative regulation, and cult policy research. See French Report (unofficial translation) and Groups referred to as cults in government documents.

• 7. Group members find it's not useful to them, but I think they grudgingly concede that it's useful to their opponents. Otherwise they wouldn't work so persistently to delete it.

• 8. It's useful to global citizens who are concerned about a group who has moved into their town or neighborhood. Based on USA cult-prevalence statistics (see Cult), roughly 97% of the time they will be reassured by finding no listing for the group locally referred to as a cult. Milo 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So given your points it seems that the rationale to keep this list is to aid the Anti-cult movement in its various endeavors? I don't believe that this is our "purpose" here at Wikipedia. We should not use this list (under the cosy acronym "LOGTRAC") for those purposes because that would mean using Wikipedia to generate information for a lobbying machine. BTW, cult is in a poor state at the moment, and it reads like a compromise between "anti-cultists" and "cult members" instead of a well written objective and scholarly entry. I think this entire area sorely needs the attention of those who have scholarly expertise, and a outside perspective.PelleSmith (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See line 1. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see line 1, but I also see the rest of the lines. Furthermore, in terms of line 1, our entries report facts, as the result of research, they do not provide the basis for "future research". You must be confusing Wikipedia with something quite other than an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"entries ... do not provide the basis for "future research"."

I see you are out of league debate arguments. WP:MADEUP

Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think its our purpose to provide people with partial information so that they can then go about doing future research? Point of fact is that you wish to provide misleading information, but we can leave that one alone. Instead of just insulting me with this "made up" accusation why don't you enlighten us here with some policy, guideline or other available Wiki conventions what support your "for future research" claim. I'll be patiently waiting.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"enlighten us here with some policy, guideline or other available Wiki conventions what support your "for future research" claim."

No need to. It's an axiom of all research, that all research materials lead to further research, ad infinitum. You either accept this or you're not a scholar. Since you claim to be a scholar, you either have to accept this axiom or launch into tendentious debating – by which you would also lose your scholar's credibility. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total and utter BS. Encyclopedias are not "research materials" meant to lead to "further research". Not only is that nonsense in the academy its completely against the very principles of this Wikipedia--you may be familiar with WP:NOR, the principle of which being that we seek to report the results of research as reliably as possible, not to create our own. BTW, I'll take my cues about what it means to be a "scholar" from somewhere else, thank you much.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going line by line when it comes to 1 and 2 List of new religious movements and destructive cult could serve some of this. Not that all or most new religions are cults, but information could be added to the list on those groups that have faced consistent cult allegations. On line five we have List of convicted religious leaders, I created it although I somewhat regret doing so, which deals with some of the legally suspect groups. Some of the others sound a bit paranoid, even if it's a paranoia I respect.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - criteria is so wide that it makes this nothing but an indiscriminate list of organizations. Some of the entries like Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Judaism, Mormonism, Protestantism, Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Wikipedia, and Youth With A Mission are all not cults to list them as if they were takes away all creditability and usefulness away from the list. Furthermore these are just the ones I am familiar with, I am sure that there are many more that don't apply as well. Unless the list is cut down to a more reasonable list of organizations it has no place in this encyclopedia. --T-rex 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2 e/cs w/revert and thread mess to clean up) You're being taken in by a cunning AfD jam-scheme spearheaded by a tendentious and now-banned user. He and other listed members of modern groups figured that if major religions were readded to the list, editors like you who didn't know about his scheme would demand deletion - and sure enough here you are. From Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 there were fewer complaints because the list was scientifically restricted by the 1920+ rule (per UCSB cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton), to groups founded after the modern meanings of cult began appearing in 1920. Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Judaism, Mormonism, Protestantism and other old religions weren't on the list. Instead of complaining and polling delete because of unscientific trickery, how about joining the centrist editors in consensing a restoration of the 1920+ rule criterion? Milo 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that deletion is the better option --T-rex 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free not to answer, but it would be helpful to know if you are a philosophical opponent who might be convinced by the evidence, or if you are a post 1920-founded group member who will never accept anything but deletion. Milo 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. However I do have a problem with the 1920 rule. There is no reason to believe that cults didn't exsist before 1920, and it would still fail to remove groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Wikipedia, and Youth With A Mission which really fall outside the title of "cult". --T-rex 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"no reason to believe that cults didn't exist before 1920" Perhaps you mean that you could personally decide that some group before 1920 practiced mind-control? That's not only original research, it's historic revisionism, which I assume that you aren't professionally qualified to practice. Only "cultus", positive connotation "cults of veneration", existed by definition before 1920. According to prolific Britannica and cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB, the modern scientific use of c-u-l-t began in the 1920s-1930s, ('sociological cult') being the first junior homonym, with six or more appearing later (see Cult). "still fail to remove groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Wikipedia, and Youth With A Mission" According to early LOGRTAC editor Wjhonson (20:09, 24 January 2008) previous commenters criticized LOGRTAC editors for making judgments as to who was a cult: "The article has a mechanical approach now, not a judgemental one". The criteria specifically exclude uninteresting cults with easy-to-spot definitions (like fan-cults), but accepts any other definition of c-u-l-t found in a reliable source – which WP:Avoids undecidable arguments. The Wikipedia reference is always chuckle bait until one actually reads it. Charles Arthur quoted dictionary definitions of "cult" in support of his quite serious opinion ("Log on and join in, but beware the web cults"). You can say you disagree with him, but he's published in a reliable source and you aren't. Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the word "cult" was not used with a particular meaning before 1920 does not mean that cults did not exist before then. The argument boils down to: "The word dinosaur was invented 100 years ago or so. Therefore there were no dinosaurs before then." I don't believe that. Even in my limited research I have come across references that suggest that the early Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mormons, and the Christian Scientists as well as 19th century American Utopian Communities like Oneida, Amana, New Harmony, and the Shakers would be regarded as cults, see for example the US History Encyclopedia on answers.com. John Campbell (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Those names you mention might become regarded as cults if an expert in both cults and history wrote a scientific paper of historic revisionism on, say, 'mind-control cults of the past', then got it published in a peer-reviewed journal of some stature. But even if that happened, it would create a controversial new class of cults, yet not affect the historic change in meaning of the 1920s-30s cited by Melton, which is the basis for the former 1920+ rule criterion. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely, and myself think this list should be deleted, but this listing is not proper. Someone needs to re-list it with deletion criteria else I fail to see how this could end up rendering any actual decision.PelleSmith (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2 e/cs w/revert and thread mess to clean up) Check my comment above to T-rex - it might have happened to you also, but you tell me. (Not sure what your formatting objection is - it's a standard double-indented-insert showing a direct reply to the top poster, but added later. Follow the edge of your earlier direct reply straight up to the top poster. I didn't use a leading asterisk out of habit due to the problem that a leading asterisk won't support line breaks within the comment. See if this is ok.) Milo 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I would think that the objections raised above merit cleanup and talk page discussion, not destruction of the article. As a clearinghouse of closely related topics this list has value. While it may not be possible to quantitatively delimit organizations that merit inclusion, it is certainly possible to come to a consensus about specific organizations. Besides, sources being discussed as cults should be sourced as such. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been clean-up efforts, discussions, proposals, etc for at least 2 years. At best it's been a "2 steps forward then three steps back" kind of process.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"2 steps forward then three steps back" Yes, that's a fact, but isn't that normal for a controversial article? So, should global warming have been dumped in the 'it doesn't exist' days? Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I misread that for "3 steps forward then two steps back". I don't agree that there hasn't been any progress. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The global warming article appears to be only two months older than this one. It was featured when it was about 54-55 months old. Talk:List of groups referred to as cults/Archive 9 gives a sense, good and bad, of where the cult list was at that age.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made my day. Archive 9 begins with LOGRTAC's most productive period, the second half of 2006. Six to eight editors all worked together on an abstract set of cult list rulecraft issues. They succeeded in crafting selection criteria, which produced a list that made sense to passing editors and lasted for over a year. Milo 08:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close without prejudice As someone noted above I question any list that mixes Communism, Judaism, & the Hells Angels. I also think this AFD has gotten off to a start that can't lead to a consensus. If nominated it needs to be nominated by someone who truly believes it should be deleted, and have them put a good effort into explaining exactly why it should go.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Agree~~Delete This article is the definition of a coatrack, ~~but this AfD is a non-starter given the way it was opened. There's no delete rationale on which to build any discussion.~~ Townlake (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (time stamping strikethrus Townlake (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy Keep No rationale for deletion stated. Townlake (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctantly Withdrawn ...since others have stepped forward to actually make cogent arguments for deletion. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep if the sources back all of it up, and keep removing unsourced bits or adding reliable sources for them if they exist. Sticky Parkin 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. Impeccably sourced, encyclopedic content, good organization; an ideal, list, really. It has issues like any other article or list, but that is why we have regular editing processes and don't do everything as a committee. If there are issues that can't be resolved, then come back and layout your concerns, but coming here with nothing makes this a pointless AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I think this AfD needs a "procedural close" calling this an ideal list filled with "encyclopedic content," which is "impeccably sourced" is pure madness. There is little to no academic basis for including the drastically varied uses of the term cult, and there certainly is no reliable scholarly sourcing for virtually all of the inclusions on the list. If the list were to be workable you'd have to scrap most of it and get a very strict academic definition requiring scholarly sourcing, and none of this mass media hysteria/hype or quoting of biased parties.PelleSmith (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a strict-standard academic section, but it doesn't cover the notable issues of cult crimes, lawsuits, abuse, and illegal labor exploitation (often children). At LOGRTAC these issues are covered by the reliable source media section. You may not be a fan of Wikipedia's coverage of the police beat, but in 1995 the French Report decided that watching and control of cults that commit small crimes was an urgent priority to prevent more of the thousand-some deaths caused by cults between 1978 and 1995 (see the unofficial French Report translation). You can say you don't agree, but global citizens have decided otherwise, and the principles of the French Report have been quietly adopted by other countries (see GRTACIGD). Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Absurd nomination. Please do not bring articles to AFD because it is their anniversary or for procedural reasons. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closin admin This response is to the initial lack of any real deletion criteria caused by a very awkward nomination. PelleSmith (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this WP:LIST. It is a useful navigational tool for anyone researching the phenomenon of cults; it also has potential as a development tool. The list has a well-defined inclusion criterion, i.e. groups referred to by reliable sources as cults. I have no opinion on whether a post-1920 rule should be applied, and no comment to make on the presence of inappropriate entries. Such questions of content or quality are beyond the scope of AfD and should not be used as arguments for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if you want userfy. I worked on this list in 2005 and some of 2006. I've also been on the talk page of it on at times since then. I believe it is impossible to do this list in a public forum because of conflicting perspectives and ambiguity in meaning. Also that the articles cult suicide, destructive cult, and Groups referred to as cults in government documents are sufficient.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also procedurally weird or whatever I think it's better to discuss this now then close it and then discuss it in a couple days or let it fester longer.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close/Keep reestablish 1920 cirteria on talk page. ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, the 1920+ criteria should be re-established, it was based on a reliable source, and makes sense as modern notions of the word "cult" only developed around then. Merzul (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is thoroughly sourced. It has a clear criteria that is strictly enforced. It maintains the NPOV, attributing the claims to the sources. The matter of groups called cults is noteworthy, with numerous lists in existance in both scholarly and popular sources. I'd also note that a recently-agreed upon, though not yet implemented, change would require at least two media sources for each group which would remove some odd entries like Wikipedia and Protestantism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is useless, because it confuses the distinction between a cult in the sense of a destructive cult, and other definitions. In the past Sunni and Shia Islam were listed, based on sources that indicated nothing of the sort. Also, other religions have been listed, again based on inaccurate reading of sources. Agree with PelleSmith, to describe this article as "impeccably sourced, encyclopedic content, good organization; an ideal, list" is ridiculous. Finally, per T. Anthony, the subject is adequately covered by other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunni and Shia" Those were two of the more worrisome listings that were eliminated by the 1920+ rule criterion, and a potentially urgent reason why 1920+ should be restored. You've obviously made up your mind, but I hope others editors here will help get major religions back off a list on which they do not belong. Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Milo, about having made up my mind - yes, probably. I think the section using academic sources is ok, however the media section has always proved difficult to manage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the LOGRTAC talk archives from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 when 1920+ was a criterion. Compared to previous years, it was relatively quiet at talk and the media entries were easy to manage. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the discussion under my previous user name of Addhoc. PhilKnight (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise apart from a lot of self explanation and invented inclusion criteria the list doesn't seem to provide anything a category wouldn't, it's main body is already organised like a category. If accusations of being a cult are an important feature of the group a reliable source saying as much will already be given in the group's article so I don't see the lack of referencing in a category being a problem. Guest9999 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization was tried and rejected long ago. The basic objection was that Wikipedia was seen as declaring categorized groups to be cults, which nearly all active groups deny. The exception is destructive cults, which everyone agrees are cults in fact; but there are less than 20 of those, most of which no longer exist. "accusations of being a cult ... will already be given in the group's article" Unfortunately not. Eventually all regular cult topics editors learn that groups' articles are collectively WP:OWNed by each group. Unless endlessly watched and coerced, reliable-source mind-control cult references will usually be purged from their articles. Occasionally certain groups become object lessons for editorial enforcement, but most purge cult accusations as they please. That leaves LOGRTAC as the only place in Wikipedia where further research can be done on most group's cult accusations, and naturally that means LOGRTAC is a target for tendentious group members, who never give up on trying to get it deleted. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization is a potentially worse idea as it gives no explanation or context. Plus we already have Category:Cults.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the criteria of Category:Cults specifically prohibits adding groups. It is only used for general articles on cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close with prejudice; recommend starting a Wikiproject to maintain it and a meta-discussion on how to handle repeated AfDs on an article. History has shown that when a subject racks up this many AfDs, it usually leads to extensive and rather unproductive debate and is eventually deleted on a technicality, to the satisfaction of no one except a few people with an axe to grind. Haikupoet (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be correct about the downward arc, but I don't see how a Wikiproject would help just one article if they're a means to centrally coordinate several articles. The problem is that there are more of "them" (anti-reporting group members) than there are of "us" (pro-reporting encyclopedists). The group leaders seem to recruit an unending supply of aggressive ideologues who argue against facts, aggressive sophists with cunning agendas, and aggressive de-educated clones who use words differently from the way they are defined in standard dictionaries (use Google to sample the Babydweezil cult topic dialogues). OTOH, pro-reporters eventually get tired of tendentious struggle with the marching shards of Mickey's broomstick (cf:Fantasia). Milo 08:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I know PelleSmith from Wikiproject:Atheism and I've seen T. Anthony before in many places. About PelleSmith, I don't know that he has any axe to grind other than enforcing WP policies. I have previously disagreed with him twice, and now I agree with him. Merzul (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You inferred a position I did not imply. T. Anthony is a old-time LOGRTAC editor whom I respect and like. His position is philosophical. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Characterizing all the editors 'voting' delete in this manner isn't reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't happen. My example was Babydweezil, a long-banned user. Most AfD delete voters appear to not be tendentious group members. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I was quick to take offense; since you have made clear that you don't consider most delete voters part of that group, I think this issue is resolved. I'm not sure about the article though, I will follow the discussion. Merzul (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Milo and I get along fairly well on the talk page. In an idealistic way I'd like to think he's right and his ideas on improvement sound mostly reasonable. I'm just not particularly idealistic, at least not when it comes to matters of Wikipedia and religious groups. I feel the ultimate collapse of the period of improvement was inevitable because of the nature of Wikipedia and the disputed nature of the word "cult" in general society. If we were at a convention of sociologists maybe it would be different. (Then again maybe not)--T. Anthony (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave this a long thought and reading what people say here and on the talk page, I'm leaning towards delete due to the serious concerns about the synthetic nature of this list. I think there is a problem when a term is a) ambiguous and b) controversial, so we should not bunch together groups that have been called cults for whatever reason. A detailed survey that would pay attention to the various reasons a group have been labeled a cult would indeed be useful, but that requires a bit of high quality original research, something we should leave to experts. Or not, so an option would be to userify this list so that proponents could come up with a more careful construction, but this current mess should be deleted. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For other editors, the WP:Synthesis claim has been refuted at "cult cocktail" below. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am changing my original recommendation of "Speedy close" on procedural grounds (see above archive), since no such close occurred and now there are other rationales for deletion all over this AfD. This list is not simply uninformative but actually anti-informative as it confuses readers by presenting a hodge podge of unrelated groups under different sourcing criteria (scholarship v. mass media) without adequately explaining the meaning of it all. A particular problem presents in listing groups referred to as cults by the media, since scholars consider the media a primary source, not as the uninformed reader will imagine, for simply "identifying cults" but instead for aiding the mass cultural creation of "cults" by activating and promoting the label in the first place. An unfortunate result of this is that many well meaning individuals "think they know something" about cults since they are reasonably informed news watchers--these people do know "something" for sure, but they don't see the social process at work here, nor do they get the distinction between the findings of research and the hype of mass culture. To them it seems logical that this is an informative and helpful list, and that sourcing it to the media is a high standard of verification. That simply is not so. Also this list ("LOGTRAC" to some) should not be maintained in order to influence other social and political institutions, or otherwise maintained for the purpose of aiding the Anti-cult movement in their own lobbying efforts and civil engagements. While anyone should be free to cite Wikipedia for their own purposes we ought to be weary of claims that this type of greater purpose is a rationale for having information on Wikipedia in the first place. I have suggested already on the talk page of this list, that a more adequate list could be something like List of NRMs labeled as "cults" in mass culture, or List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media. Such lists would satisfy the Anti-cult movement because it is exactly the groups they target that would be listed, but such a list would also nuance and distinguish the meaning of the list in the first place--the accurate distinction between scholarly and popular understandings of "cults" and the recognition of the social process that causes actors in mass cultural discourses to apply the label "cult" to an NRM, and/or less so to a secular group of some kind. That, if well sourced with scholarship would be an informative list.PelleSmith (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"a more adequate list could be something like List of NRMs labeled as "cults" in mass culture, or List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media."

That title has no advantages over the current one, plus an additional disadvantage that some cults are not religious. Also since, very roughly, 97% of NRMs are not cults, putting NRM in the title could cause unnecessary offense. While NRM was coined as an intended synonym for a religious cult, it was only partly accepted by scholars and not at all by the public. See Cult. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a distorted version of fact. "NRM" was introduced to replace the term "cult" in sociology. NRM has little to no currency in popular discourse (something I know you know and can diff you saying yourself). In other words in the same sentence you invoke the scholarly usage of NRM and the common usage of cult, as if that makes any sense. The vast majority of NRMs are not destructive cults and or otherwise clearly abusive or illegally behaving organizations, but to those who cling to the old sociological usage of cult, they are still "cults". This confusion is a distraction. My suggestion is precisely to be exact about the scholarly labels and the popular labels. You act as if an NRM not on the list will take offense because we clearly attributed the cult label to other NRMs on the list to the media. All I can say to that is ... AS IF!! There was an alternative btw, see the talk page, in which I removed NRM altogether, but we still utilized the scholarship v. media distinction. List of groups referred to as "cults" in the media.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page here for two very valid points derived from the essays of two scholars in this field. I'm copying these from Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#.22Cult.22. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PelleSmith seems to be arguing for an article move, rather than a delete. It's a good argument for such, and I'd support it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response (w/ agreement but for semantics) Call it what you will but my recommendation remains "delete" for the current list with an added recommendation for what could be an informative but "different" list. I would advise to start from scratch and not to move. I also have other ideas on how to restrict the list in ways appropriate to a name of the kind I have suggested but will not bother posting them here. Should this happen I will be glad to join the conversation.PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The technical implementation could still be a page move followed by stubbing the article. It would keep the contribution history, and one could selectively restore the relevant parts of it. I support the idea to focus on NRMs, using a more neutral title, and adding a carefully written introduction about the problems with media based on PelleSmith's academic sources. Merzul (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict)Quite correct I suppose. I think the stubbing is essential. The old list should be kept as a resource (userfied or something) to aid in the creation of the new list (stub, or whatever you want to call it).PelleSmith (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As discussed on the article talk page, several entries are not NRMs: Alcoholics Anonymous, Aesthetic Realism, and the LaRouche movement. We already have a list of NRMs elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are not "several" in any meaningful sense, there are a handful, literally. The fact that these groups have been called "cults" simply exemplifies the confusion that exists in popular usage. A better route to take here is to create another list for this small handful titled List of non-religious groups referred to as "cults" by the media, and/or to create a subsection in the proposed list that deals with the very very few "non-religious" groups that become lumped into the popular designation "cult". Otherwise you're simply arguing for confusion and misrepresentation.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't see any advantage to splitting the list into "religious" and "non-religous" groups. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't see the advantage in keeping this cult-cocktail, unless it is more focused and scholarly. Merzul (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        1. "cult-cocktail" You've linked that phrase to WP:SYN.

←That misunderstanding fails a plain-text reading of WP:Synthesis: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." But LOGRTAC is just a list article with links and quotes, which are never original research. There are no conclusions, so synthesis isn't possible. Now, all controversial articles create strong Rorschach impressions in readers of things that are not there, but they are different impressions for different readers. Subjective inferences are also not WP:Synthesis.

2. "focused" The article is about a spelling with eight or more homonyms (or polysemes). Perhaps you are dissatisfied with the degree to which those homonyms are currently disambiguated, and so am I, but the criteria are also not unfocused in the sense of vague.

3. "scholarly" Three of the c-u-l-t homonyms, sociology, psychology, and ancient veneration theology are scholarly, are reported by academic journals, and they are adequately addressed. The next homonym, Biblical theology, is reported by fundamentalist sources and some religious journals, but all such scholarship is religiously partisan. The remaining homonyms have sometimes overlapping meanings of destruction, abuse/exploitation, and mind-control, are reported by newspapers, and are adequately addressed. This is not scholarship, but it is responsible journalism. Any view that reliably-sourced journalism is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, is not compatible with WP:V.

4. "advantage" Assuming it refers to the reader's advantage, this is an argument of utility – asking of what use is the article to the reader, even though there is no such Wikipedia requirement. The consensed purpose of the LOGRTAC article is "further research" which is a use. Since this utility issue often comes up as a puzzlement among editors unfamiliar with the global seriousness of the cult topics, I anticipated it by posting a list of Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults is useful, with the clear understanding that they aren't the purpose. The argument that the reader shouldn't make use of the article in certain ways is irrelevant to whether it could be useful, and a call for deletion on a "shouldn't use" basis is a call for censorship. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored) Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... good points.

1. Synthesis, well, I have to admit that I do see blood when other people see only bunnies and flowers. For example, I thought synthesis being violated on the atheism page when it said "Notable atheists of the last century include Bertrand Russell^[1] and Joseph Stalin.^[2]" (and a few more...), so probably synthesis is not the problem here, but ...

2. I think you have nailed what really bothers me and what I thought to be the implied conclusion not supported by the sources, the implication that these references to the word "cult" would be referring to the same concept. On the deeper problem, it seems we fundamentally agree.

3. Here is a serious disagree with PelleSmith, and I don't have an opinion on that, yet... I don't know if I will be able to form an opinion on that, but it is being discussed on the talk page of this AfD.

4. Again, a disagreement with PelleSmith, but here I completely agree with you. If our articles can be of any use to people as a starting point for research, I don't see a problem with that. Merzul (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UGH. Merzul I have to disagree with you.

2 Here Milo is completely misrepresenting the ambiguity of this term in a falsely systematic way, as if there are eight readily definable homonyms (inside and outside of scholarship). This is not true. There are a handful of related scholarly usages of this term and then there are a mish mash of related popular/media usages of the term all of which are pejorative and fall on a scale of relative similarity to the usage by the Anti-cult movement. Also the very idea that this article is about a "spelling" is ridiculous. If that is the case we need to close it down immediately. That argument is simply a way to get around my suggestion about NRMs vs. cults and starting from a position of scholarly precision, as if this entry isn't about NRMs since that label is no longer part of the homonym family ... although in scholarship NRM is exactly about the pertinent subject matter.

3 Leaving the usages available from within a religious perspective (e.g any theology) aside--there are usages of this term in the psychology/sociology/anthropology/religious studies in relation to NRMs (mostly in the developed world) and then there are usages in the social sciences (mostly anthropology) but more so the history of religions (and religious studies) in relation to religious veneration and systematic ritual practice. When Milo admits that the "remaining homonyms" all relate to "destruction, abuse/exploitation, and mind-control" he is mostly correct. It should be noted here that there is absolutely no scholarly evidence for the "brainwashing" (e.g. mind-control) claims made by the Anti-cult movement and bandied about by the media. What Milo fails to point out is that these various usages of "cult" all derive from scholarly usages (mostly the social sciences), but as such have been completely malformed to the point that they add characteristics (mind-control) and insinuations (everything with the label is abusing and exploitative) that are simply the product of hysteria and not empirical evidence. Finally, the claim Milo makes about WP:V supporting the use of the media here is patently false. Scholarship from peer-reviewed publications and academic publishers is much more reliable than the media. When we have a situation in which there are empirical studies that show the popular bias in using the term "cult", and an almost complete consensus in the scholarly community that the media reportage on NRMs ("cults") is biased and distorted it becomes imperative to explain what someone is looking at when they see a "list of groups the media has labeled as a cult". Doing otherwise is simply against our principles here of presenting NPOV information to our readers, and against the purpose of WP:V and WP:RS. Lets not forget the volumes of scholarship available on the Anti-cult movement and its causal connection to various moral panics.

4 Here I think you (Merzul) have the right idea in mind but maybe you're not seeing what I am. The problem is not in a benefit that providing accurate and NPOV information may have to society at large. The problem is with writing entries in order to effect some sort of change in society at large. Articles can be of use to people as starting points of research, sure that's entirely fine, but what Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective on this matter. In other words, if you read his points at the top of this AfD you'll see its not as innocent as you think. We're not just talking about helping people learn, we're talking about furthering hysteria. That's simply not our job at Wikipedia.PelleSmith (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"there is absolutely no scholarly evidence for the "brainwashing" (e.g. mind-control)"

The issue is definitely disputed but "absolutely no scholarly evidence" is unsupportable. The basic source is Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, CUNY. For later decades of pro and con positions, see Mind control#Cults and mind control controversies. BTW, "brainwashing" and "mind-control" are not the same.

"claim Milo makes about WP:V supporting the use of the media here is patently false."

Tsk, tsk, maybe you wouldn't have lost your credibilty if you had read it before claiming that: WP:V#Reliable sources (emphasis mine):

...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. .... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

"what Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective on this matter."

Denied. Other readers may examine my rejection of this claim on the talk page at Righting Great Wrongs. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo you have very selectively quoted from WP:V and I have dealt with this issue at full on the RS/N. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_AfD. There is in fact a scale of reliability we adhere to based upon the quality of sources, of which scholarship clearly trumps news media. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems that the objections on the talk page are then the central concern here. It appears to me that what I find most annoying is actually the result of a somewhat pointy attempt to get a focused "cult" list deleted; while on the talk page, there is discussions about some of the deeper problems that even a list focused on NRM labeled as cults would have, unless dealt with carefully. Do I understand things more or less correctly? Merzul (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current list is not "focused" it is confusing (unless you don't mean the current list here at all). My suggestion is to focus the list by adding precision and clarity, based upon the best available scholarly information. I'm not sure I think the attempt is pointy to delete the current list as much as there is a very valid point to deleting and starting from scratch. There is some discussion on this talk page, but it hasn't gone too far and seems to center around the notion that all groups labeled as cults are not "religious", hence the NRM distinction is not good. The truth of the matter is that very very few are not religious, and the fact that a couple of "non-religious" groups have made into this category simply speaks to the inaccuracy of the popular usage, which (and the scholarship is all there to back this up) did evolve from the same academic usages that have now evolved into NRMs. In the end, most of this discussion should be on a talk page and not here, that is entirely correct, however since Milo keeps on bringing in reasons to keep that strike at the heart of the public misunderstanding of this term it has become imperative to clarify the issues.PelleSmith (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"all groups labeled as cults are not "religious", hence the NRM distinction is not good"

A mind-control cult is expected to be some system whereby one turns over their thinking to a group, combined with novel group beliefs and high group tension with the surrounding culture. Religion is the just the easiest way to seduce people into a cult, but political extremisms, questionable therapies, and pyramidal business marketings can also create cults.

I need to be a lot more specific, the "focused" list that I talk about is the hypothetical list that Milo would like to create to avoid the different meanings. About pointiness, it is not pointy to argue for deletion like you do, but I find it somewhat disruptive to add entries to this list with the express purpose of showing the ridiculousness of the entry criteria, and much worse, there seems to be a prolonged campaign to have the list deleted by adding all sorts of things on there. The right way to go about is of course the discussion on the talk page. And I think I do agree that your title is more appropriate, I need some time to think about it, and would like to see what other people say. Merzul (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to re-emphasize, the fact that this afd even exists is a mistake and it should have been shut down as soon as it started. The afd was brought by someone who believed keep was correct and now it's a debate about the content, not the existance. This should have been closed long ago,--Cube lurker (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well, process is important in building an encyclopedia together, but we don't have to follow all rules when the discussion is otherwise reasonable. I find the current AfD debate constructive and believe some consensus can emerge out of this. Do you believe otherwise? Merzul (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree this has become constructive, but I also think this AfD has turned into a conversation far more appropriate for the article's talk page than this forum... and this was sort of inevitable given that the nominator didn't start the AfD with a deletion rationale for discussion. The only consensus we seem to have is that the article needs improvement; I do recognize that's a worthwhile conclusion. Townlake (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with "it needs improvement" in a way, but I think for a variety this will not happen, or at least it won't last, and that deletion is appropriate. I'd be willing to declare myself a "sponsor" for it being AfD'd if the actual nomination is deemed inappropriate.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly fair considering remaining AfD time, as well as to the participants who've moved on, accepting UltraExactZZ's strong recommendation that this should be a speedy close. Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have they radically shortened the time an AfD can go? From what I can tell the majority of the AfDs from June 10 are still being debated. Don't we have five days from nomination? That should give us tell Wednesday.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still if it's necessary for process I'll AfD this a few hours after this AfD is closed. That's assuming it's closed before June 16. (Three days seems like the normal minimum)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the rush. Won't you be here six months from now? Historically LOGRTAC gets about six months between AfDs. There was a year's delay to this one, because it took a number of months for Catholics to be put back on the list after the 1920+ criterion was removed by group members (so they could put Christianity-generally on the list). Milo 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years of this going nowhere is not "a rush." Besides what good will waiting do? I feel this being AfD'd now is valid. If it's going to get closed on a technicality I'll reopen it. (My computer is having problems so I might not be able to respond)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Years of this going nowhere "

I don't agree that is a fact. I think this article was started in (Feb?) 2004, but the early history was misplaced by a redirect laid over page move. Since the spelling has so many homonyms, it probably took a year or so just figure out what the issues were. Then it took the next year or so to find and consense the current NPOV title, and to develop criteria that focused the list on mind-control cults without theological cults (1920+ rule). Then a year in which the list functioned with relatively little controversy, while the centrist editors drifted away thinking the job was done. Then a recent year or less in which members of the listed groups hijacked the article because it was working, and jammed it with theological cults in order to get the article AfD'd. And here we are.

That article history is not "years of this going nowhere", but it's also not for impatient editors used to normal article construction times. It has been slow going because by analogy the topic has a huge 'virtual mass', meaning there's a huge amount to discuss due to all the homonyms and resulting homonymic conflict. Using a near analogy, if there are eight homonyms, every article-structure decision has to be consensed eight times. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a "3-articles" proposal.

The 1920+ criterion was successful because it separated references to old institutions founded before 1920, from references to modern institutions founded 1920+, by scientifically disambiguating the original word "cult" (of veneration - cultus) from all of the later junior homonyms. This separation prevents homonymic conflict, the root cause of the cult-conflict word issues (as opposed to the issues inherent to groups no matter what they are called).

The problem was that only a single article (LOGRTAC) needed to be taken over by group members to undo the anti-conflict separation. Therefore, I propose three ideas I've previously mentioned separately:

1. Rename LOGRTAC to include the 1920+ rule in the title (lists groups founded 1920 onward).

2. Create a second article to include a "1919-" rule in the title (which lists only groups founded 1919 or earlier).

3. Create a third article to include only cult-followings (fan-cults of popular culture).

This way, group members would have to take over at least two of the three articles, change their criteria, rename, and merge them to restart c-u-l-t homonymic conflict at Wikipedia. Unlike criteria changes, rename and merge processes require flags to be set wiki-wide, increasing the chances that tough "why?" questions would be asked by investigating editors.

A classic objection has been a desire to avoid lengthy article names at LOGRTAC, but (re)ending homonymic conflict now seems to be a more urgent priority. LOGRTAC has been through a substantial series of name changes. The current word string has been thoroughly vetted and must be retained in some equivalent form to avoid restarting settled NPOV conflicts. ("List of cults", "purported" or "alleged" don't work.)

There may be no good names so lengthy, so my suggested goal is to coin the least bad ones. The one with the best grammar is listed first:

a "List of groups founded 1920 onward and referred to as cults"

b "List of groups founded 1920+ and referred to as cults"

c "List of groups founded 1920 onward - referred to as cults"

d "List of groups founded 1920 onward, referred to as cults"

e "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920+"

f "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920 on"

h "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920 onward"

i "List of groups referred to as cults, founded after 1919"

j "List of groups founded before 1920 and referred to as cults" (old groups)

etc. Milo 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond separately to my comment below. The idea that we need to keep "group members" from hijacking these lists is correct, but you fail to explain that there are two types of "group members": 1) people belonging to NRMs and "cults and 2) people belonging to or promoting the views of the Anti-cult movement. Your suggestions only attempt to keep the first group at bay, while in fact welcoming the second with open arms. What makes this issue more difficult is (and there exists easily sourced scholarly consensus here) that the second group's agendas and misinformation are unfortunately assimilated to lesser and greater extents into cultural institutions like the media, as well as popular opinion. This attempted end run around scholarship and in support of the lobbying efforts of anti-cultists really needs to be understood for what it is. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you rather nicely on your talk page to evaluate my suggestion above, something you seem to be ignoring. Can you explain why List of NRMs referred to by the media as "cults" is a poor suggestion? There is a very important distinction to be made between those using this term, and what they mean. Your suggestions circumvent the precision that mine suggests. I'd like to know why you think they are preferable.PelleSmith (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advantage to be gained by replacing "groups" in the title with "NRMs". It would exclude several groups that aren't relgions, and wouldn't make the list any different otherwise. As for adding "by the media", one of the two lists in the artice is of references by scholars. We don't need to spell out every aspect of the criteria in the title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage is keeping the oranges off of the page with all the apples. There are 4-5 groups that are not NRMs, and its is rather clear that media usage and scholarly usage of "cult" is not the same. But for those few groups all others are NRMs. The word, in popular usage, is derived from the sociological usage of "cult", which NRM is now a preferred synonym of. In terms of the media vs. scholarship simply listing one and then the other is just confusing, and it does not explain at all the discrepancy. It is, as I said already anti-informational, and only to the advantage of those who wish to obscure the scholarship here in favor of the bias presented by the media and by the Anti-cult movement. Scholarship not only offers a different perspective than the media it offers a perspective critical of the media. You can't keep on sidestepping this issue in order to keep up the rouse that media hype is purely and innocently informational here.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use the media as sources for most article in Wikipedia. Here we are specifically setting aside a special section of the article as being devoted to media references. Readers aren't unaware of the fact that these entries are sourced to the media. We also contrast the list with a list supported by scholarly sources. think it highlights scholarship rather than mixing it in with media sourcing, as most WP articles do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What they are unaware of, Will, is the well documented consensus amongst scholars that the media is a biased source when comes to "cult reporting." This is not a usual case at all, and is not comparable to how we usually use the media to source entries. As I've already told Milo as well, scholarship published in peer reviewed journals and by academic publishers is more reliable than the press. It is one thing when one or two media outlets have a specific bias, and quite another when scholarly consensus is that the media can't be trusted to report this subject matter adequately. We are dealing with a subject matter here, NRMs also known as cults, and not just some term "cult". What needs contrasting is how scholars and the media identify the "SAME GROUPS", and that is what I'm suggesting. This obfuscation grows more and more tiring. What exactly do you have against the scholarly consensus here?PelleSmith (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source for this scholarly consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See references cited in [[28]]? John Campbell (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven sources are mentioned there at Opposition to cults and new religious movements#The_role_of_the_media. Not all can be referred to as scholars. One mentions cults. One mentions cults and is paid by a cult-referred group leader. One mentions NRMs and anti-cultists. One mentions journalism. One mentions secularism. One mentions Christians. One mentions religionists. The scholarly consensus if any, is probably stated by Dart and Allen, 1983: "unhealthy distrust exists between religionists and journalists. Religious figures fear that people may misunderstand and misrepresent them; journalists fear making mistakes and incurring religious wrath.[...] The resulting apprehensions inhibit the free flow of information and only add to misunderstanding."

PelleSmith (00:49): "media can't be trusted to report this subject matter adequately"

What's adequate? There's only one universally agreed standard for adequate journalism, and that is the law of libel. Can the media be trusted to report NRMs and cults to adequately prevent defamation lawsuits? For most stories, most of the time, the media can be trusted to report in a way that avoids lawsuits, because they would lose money and possibly their jobs to do otherwise.

Do cults, NRMs, politicians, celebrities, and average people like the way they are reported to the public? Often they don't, but if they can't sue, the reporting was adequate.

There is no reason why cults and NRMs should get any special exemption from media coverage in Wikipedia. Once that slippery slope is tilted, every bad news media story ever written about anything could be deleted by being subjected to a scholarly consensus of media inadequacy. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to give NRMs special treatment ... but nice reversal of logic there. Do you see a List of celebrities called fat ... or a List of heads of state ridiculed by the media? It is not special treatment to refrain from creating lists that use, as you admit yourself, a pejorative label to group various entities. Give us a break.PelleSmith (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PelleSmith. An acknowledged pejorative label is not a suitable criterion for creating a list. Jayen 466 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a done deal; Wikipedia contains other pejorative lists. See List of events named massacres. Below your 08:31, 20 June 2008 post I've commented further . Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have asked for feedback on WP:RS/N about this issue as I think it is very complicated. I gave my impression of the debate, so if that was not fair, please add one comment here describing the issues more properly. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I responded with an analysis that it was not a reliable source issue. Examining whether groups media coverage could be deleted from LOGRTAC, I concluded that WP:V would have to be modified in such a way as to result in the New York Times being removed from most Wikipedia articles – so concluding the argument with a WP:SNOWBALL. See List of groups referred to as cults AfD. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely meticulously cited list which appears to have gone through at least five previous AfDs, all of which resulted in keeping the list. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note the last two AfDs ended with no consensus, not a keep. So it has been three years since an AfD on this list gave us a keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Indeed, I just removed one of the meticulous citations: Landover Baptist Church. On the other hand, why not? It is a very amusing list with well-known cults like Wikipedia, Hell's Angels, and the Roman Catholic Church; why not provide at least some competition to uncyclopdaedia, they think we lack a sense of humour. Merzul (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - More seriously, I think keeping the current list is the worst choice. We either go with Milo's suggestion with something of a 1920+ rule, or with PelleSmith's idea to be sensitive to NRMS. Although the current list is the worst choice, entries like Wikipedia and the Catholic Church take any seriousness out of it, so I think PelleSmith doesn't have to worry about this being used for NRM hysteria. It would still be a very bad compromise, but if we can't reach a consensus, then the current list is at least harmless and somewhat amusing. Merzul (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was a serious entry. See a quote box of the qualifying text below. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The "Roman Catholic Church"/"Landover Baptist Church" was added on on June 13 by user:Storm Rider.[29] That user has argued against the existence of the article. I won't assume bad faith by guessing he intentionally added a poorly-source entry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nor should you assume bad faith; when the standard of calling a group a cult is whatever the media says we lose all sense of a standard. As I indicated on the article's talk page, there are over 4 million entries on google for "Catholic, cult" (not all of which are negative, but more common to cultus, but the point remains many call the RCC a cult). What I did was simply do a quick search to add a group that I find best exemplifies that the list is without an anchor because there is no accepted definition of the term "cult". You may disagree that such an action helpful, but I believe it demonstrates how silly the list is. When the media becomes the standard any church could be added and thus the list cannot be maintained, nor would it be meaningful. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Be that as it may, the sourcing is still not as meticulous as some claim. It is rather disheartening that people just look at the entry and assume that what it looks like must be correct. I'm removing dead links even as we speak, and I've noticed that several "news stories" in which we cite an actual news publication actually link to hosting on www.rickross.com, which is a problem, especially when some are "news summaries" of the original. On top of this one finds news articles from lesser publications in which the "experts" applying the "cult" label are people like Steven Hassan, who have entrepeneurial interest in locating cults. I'm not saying this is a disqualification, but simply that the sourcing issue is far from meticulous and/or reliable, even by media standards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made many "corrections" that were only your misunderstandings, that I had to spend hours reverting in the middle of a "rush" AfD. Example, you don't remove dead links, you mark them, ...and on and on and on, all of which I've gone into detail about on the article talk page. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - The links to the Rick Ross should only be "courtesy links", copies of news items. If you delete any please leave a citation to the original source. Ditto with dead links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I highly doubt that Rick Ross is considered reliable for reproducing news stories, and as I said some are even labelled as "news summaries" of the original. I am tagging all such rick ross links with this^{[unreliable source?]}. The dead links were deleted and I don't think they provided any exact citation only the supposed publication name, but let me look.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are there instances of Ross incorrectly reproducing news stories? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Perhaps this discussion is better conducted on the article talk page, where a thread has already been started. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Further, Ross republishes this material in clear violation of copyright and we should not be linking to such violations, see WP:EL:
        "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."
        It would behoove this project to strip out these "courtesy links" wherever found leaving only the bare reference to the original source. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That quote from WP:EL doesn't apply to references with convenience links, or to news archives which are not in clear violation of copyright. Copyright law generally allows fair use copies for study (somewhat depending on the market for educational sales to college students). Ross also offers to remove the copies of any newspaper that objects.

Overall, not copyvio, although also no consensus. Until consensus, if ever, the news archive convenience links can stay. However, it's consensed that direct links should replace convenience links, if direct links exist. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - There was a fairly recent discussion of this at RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links Jayen 466 01:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COATRACK and inherently POV list can serve no useful purpose as the only standard for inclusion seems to be that someone somewhere (in RS) once called a group a "cult". It is about as useful as the hypothetical List of people referred to as stupid. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justallofthem a.k.a. Justanother appears to be a member of a LOGRTAC listed group who would benefit from making unfavorable news more inaccessible. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[30][reply]
And that, my friend, is what we call an ad hominem argument and a violation of WP:AGF. I hope your other arguments for keeping this list are more coherent logically --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is the problem with the current list and my position is a clear delete on this one. However, there are two proposals to do more careful lists. I don't know what is right, so I'm going to stop commenting after each vote, but this current mess is basically a failed compromise. I do hope a real compromise can be reached... Merzul (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The current list was not any sort of compromise – it was a hijack tendentiously led by a now banned group member. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no clear-cut definition of cult in its modern pejorative use so what we end up with is an inherently one-sided article that violates WP:NPOV in its very nature. And weasel-wording the title to "list of groups referred to a cults" rather than "list of cults" just highlights that point. Referred to by whom? What about the other side? What about the reputable sources that say the particular group is not a cult? The article is cherry-picked and one-sided by its very nature. The cult issue is a thorny one for this project which, as a whole, takes a much dimmer view, IMO, of religion than more traditional media, but this article is not the way to address it. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no clear-cut definition of cult in its modern pejorative use "

That's a groups' propaganda myth. Modern pejorative "cult" means groups who engage in destruction, mind-control, abuse, or exploitation, mostly of their own members. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Just all of them. List of fashion styles referred to as unflattering. List of films referred to as tedious. List of restaurants referred to as popular. If you look at the Guardian article that refers to WP as a cult the tone is clearly humorous. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Arthur appears serious to me and other editors when he refers by definition to Wikipedia as strange or sinister:

Log on and join in, but beware the web cults
Charles Arthur
The Guardian, December 15, 2005

"Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. Which, by my (computer's) dictionary definition, means "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing; a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society, 'a cult film'.

Certainly the latter definition could easily be used for Wikipedia. I also think the first ones are appropriate. There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the "rightness" of Wikipedia, or Apple's products, or RSS vs Atom. To outsiders, it makes little or no sense. To those inside, it is the most important topic they can imagine."

Given that some Wikipedians spend upwards of 12 hours daily online doing unremunerated work, with considerable impact on their family and social lives and their ability to hold a job (or indeed get one), it is certainly an argument that can be made. Jayen 466 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two biggest reasons being 1) Patent nonsense and 2) Wikipedia is not a directory. The article is atrocious and can't be fixed as its multiple nominations have shown. It is loaded with SYN, OR, and POV. It conflates the many different meanings of the word "cult" in the academic section and the media section is just meaningless. The problem with this article is summed up in this quote (which happens to be the last words on the entry for the term "cult" in a religious encyclopedia): "[T]he careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Society p. 123) There are multiple definitions of the term cult, even within a single discipline, they are used carelessly, even in academic journals, and this makes the taxonomy difficult. Lists "are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Wikipedia:Lists#List content provides “Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list.” and “If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title...” The problem is, because of the ambiguous, multiple and overlapping definitions of the term, the meaning can't be clarified. The list merely becomes a POV magnet and ends up meaningless. Wikipedia is not a directory. Just because there are cults out there does not mean an encyclopedia has to list them, especially when the definition is so slippery and the list ends up just being nonsense. Mamalujo (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those statements have too little factual basis for a response. For example, patent nonsense is just random typing, and WP:SYN and WP:NOR are impossible for an article that contains only links and quotes as content.

So why would he mount such an irrational attack?

Mamalujo is a member of a major religion (that is also defined as a theological cult), which the hijacking group members planned to use as AfD bait by removing the 1920+ criterion. It worked as planned, and here he is. He can't take revenge on the group members, so he's taking revenge on the article.

Since his positions are mostly a rant that doesn't make logical sense, I suggest that the closing admin ignore his vote. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is not a nice thing to have, but an official policy. Please do not use an AfD to attack people for their beliefs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't happen. His beliefs are ok with me. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the closing admin to discriminate against Mamalujo based upon his religious affiliation. Completely improper and uncalled for, not to mention based upon some serious paranoia.PelleSmith (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Re-read my last sentence. Milo 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm ... Milo your entire argument is built upon his religious identity ... you do understand that correct? Take away his religious affiliation and you have no argument, keep it in and its tantamount to saying that his religious identity causes a conflict, ask to have this conflict be the basis for dismissing his opinion, and you have clear discrimination on religious grounds. Sorry Milo, last sentence or not, that's what one understands from your statement.PelleSmith (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, your ad hominem attack on my motivation aside, there is a plain factual basis for my statements. The article is patent nonsense: It does not include what could fairly be called well known destructive cults (Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, and World Church of the Creator) yet until just after the nomination, and for long before that, it included the likes of Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism, Protestantism and (got to love this one) Wikipedia. As to OR or SYN, by Wikipedia policy they do apply to articles like this. And when the article and its editors conflate the many different definitions of cult (an inevitability in light of the varyiing and overlapping definitions and the POV nature of the subject), they are violating both those principles. Mamalujo (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As to OR or SYN, by Wikipedia policy they do apply to articles like this"

Yes, of course that's true by theoretical policy, but there is no practical way for it to occur. The only article content (as opposed to info notices) is links and quotes. Links and quotes are SYN and OR proof.

"And when the article and its editors conflate the many different definitions of cult"

No. Doesn't happen. Can't happen because there are no written conclusions.

You've subtly changed your position. In your (23:38) post you wiki-linked Patent nonsense which is an exact WP definition of "Patent nonsense", meaning things like random typing. Had any editor ever done that at LOGRTAC, it would have been quickly deleted by vandal fighters. Therefore LOGRTAC is not "WP:Patent nonsense" [category 1], using the random typing definition ~~with which your post was published (intended or not)~~ [Mamalujo apparently intended WP:NONSENSE category 2 - see post 18:42, 18 June 2008 below].

In your (18:38) post you have not wiki-linked "patent nonsense". While it's still not much of an argument, at least it can now be read metaphorically.

"The article is patent nonsense: It does not include what could fairly be called well known destructive cults (Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, and World Church of the Creator) yet until just after the nomination, and for long before that, it included the likes of Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism, Protestantism and (got to love this one) Wikipedia."

I see what you are saying. Loosely it might be termed "nonsense", but "patent" is rhetorically too presumptuous, given a system with a complex set of rules.

Here's my own first-post response to the same situation, except with Baptists and Quakers: Milo 05:13, 3 July 2006: "I was boggled by the inclusion of "Baptists" and "Quakers" on this list, yet I think it demonstrates that this page has achieved a usefully neutral method of listing such groups..." (M-W.com: boggle: to overwhelm with wonder or bewilderment <boggle the mind>)

I think the difference between our differing reactions was that I recognized this as machine logic rather than nonsense, calling for a reprogramming of the machine. The 1920+ rule criterion was the reprogramming that eliminated old religions from the list.

There's more arcane stuff in your first post, but I accept your second post as an understandable replacement. I withdraw my request for the closing admin to ignore. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the random typing example demostrates "total nonsense", the page on patent nonsense also talks about another type: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." This is precisely the case with this article, as my examples demonstrated, and it has been so for a very long time. The article makes no sense and it cannot be fixed, so it should be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever"

That definition of WP:NONSENSE is also trivial to refute.

To disqualify that claim, only one reasonable person has to find that LOGRTAC makes any sense at all. I claim to be one reasonable person, and LOGRTAC makes sense to me. There are also a substantial number of other keep voters on this page who have given reasons to keep LOGRTAC that make sense to them.

Thus LOGRTAC is not "WP:Patent nonsense", category 2. Q.E.D.

If the 1920+ criterion hadn't been hijacked, LOGRTAC would make so much sense that even you wouldn't be here complaining about it, because your old religion wouldn't be on the list. Milo 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It's an attack page, nothing more. Use List of new religious movements instead. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an anti-science first for ScienceApologist, who is voting to delete a sociological and psychological science section that I think even PelleSmith agrees is valid. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe that is because SA can recognize science when he sees it and this article sure ain't science. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good comeback. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use List of new religious movements instead. Media reporting on these issues is criticised by scholars and even by the United Nations ("the media, and in particular the popular press, all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in particular religious minorities, in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light" [31]. --Jayen 466 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That suggestion is not an alternative. NRMs are very roughly 97% not cults, and some cults are not NRMs. Both NRMs and cults have beliefs non-traditional to the surrounding culture, but only cults have high tensions with the surrounding culture.

All media is biased due to fast reporting in a confined reporting space. That does not mean that there should be no media reporting (or indexing of it at LOGRTAC). WP:V has determined by policy that media references can appear in Wikipedia. See my answer to the related reliable sources issue that Merzul entered at List of groups referred to as cults AfD. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media bias is one thing, but doesn't this list have an inherent bias by selecting as its criterion for inclusion the application of a pejorative label, and offering no information but the application of that label alone? How does that approach an NPOV summary of available sources? You say, only cults have high tensions with the surrounding culture, but the reverse does not seem to be true. Not all cults listed in "LOGRTAC" are in a state of high tension with the surrounding culture. To give examples, Alcoholics Anonymous and Wikipedia are not, to my knowledge, in such a state of tension, yet they are in the list, because they fulfil the criteria. Now there is much more that can be said about AA and Wikipedia than that they are "cults", but there's no room to do so. – Many of the items in the list are NRMs; if you do a line-by-line comparison against the List of new religious movements, you will find considerably more than 3% of the NRM list represented here, and certainly most of the more visible NRMs are here. Generally speaking, the few list items that are not NRMs seem to have nothing much in common. (I note that someone has taken Wikipedia out of the list just recently, but here are the requisite media cites that would qualify Wikipedia for inclusion: [32][33][34]) Jayen 466 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the alleged "inherent bias": the article militates against any inherent bias by casting its net wide and semi-mechanically covering both academic and popular press spectra of usage of the word "cult" and its synonyms. That covers a wide range of meanings while arguably combining to a good overall reflection of the general public's use of "a pejorative label". Built-in balancing = built-in neutral-point-of-view. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (08:31): "Not all cults listed in "LOGRTAC" are in a state of high tension with the surrounding culture."

You've changed the subject from NRM, a narrowly defined concept (new religions), to c-u-l-t, a complex set of homonyms with multiple copyright-variants on basic dictionary definitions.

LOGRTAC appears to be mostly but not solely, a list of "high tension" cults, which definition is I think is attributable to Stark and Bainbridge – but editors don't judge these. All cult definitions not specifically excluded (like easy to recognize fan-cults) are accepted at LOGRTAC. Charles Arthur got his definition for the Wikipedia cult from an unnamed computer dictionary (see quote box this page). Alexander and Rollins, 1984, got their AA cult definition from Robert Lifton, 1961, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.

Jayen466 (08:31): "more than 3% of the NRM list represented here [at LOGRTAC]"

The Wikipedia NRM list is of meaningful notability, not meaningful size. 3% cults among NRMs is a very rough calculation based on comparing 100-200 high tension cults listed in the French Report (unofficial translation) with 3000-5000 mostly unknown USA "cults" reported by Prof. Margaret Singer, 1995. If the vast majority of Singer's "cults" are unknown, they are low tension NRMs rather than Stark and Bainbridge high tension cults. If NRMs/cults could be counted globally, the cult percentage of NRMs would surely be even lower.

Jayen466 (08:31): "Now there is much more that can be said about AA and Wikipedia than that they are "cults", but there's no room to do so."

Saying more in the sense of commentary about any group is not the purpose of the article. It's an index to literature for further research on appearances of c-u-l-t (that aren't fan-cults or a few other meanings in which global citizens are little interested). Wilson's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature also does not comment on its indexed articles.

Jayen466 (08:31): "How does that approach an NPOV summary of available sources?"

It's not a summary, it's an index of references.

Jayen466 (08:31): "doesn't this list have an inherent bias by selecting as its criterion for inclusion the application of a pejorative label"

No, because the pejorative issue is external to the list of references – references to places the pejorative is sourced.

Compare List of events named massacres. All people agree that massacres exist, but all people don't agree that their historic event is a massacre (since that pejoratively labels the side that lived to have the most complaining descendants).

Wikipedia does report notable crimes, notable lawsuits, and even notable personal embarrassments. The only obvious alternative to listing notable, pejorative things is some sort of 'Pollyannapedia', which Wikipedia currently is not.

Fairness is not necessarily the same as neutral-point-of-view. Something that seems fair but not required to counteract media bias (if any in a given case), without compromising the NPOV reporting, was being worked on at the time of the AfD – denial links. These are links to groups' websites home page or their specific page, if any, where they deny being a cult. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

links to groups' websites home page or their specific page, if any, where they deny being a cult This is a ridiculous suggestion, and more primary source mischief. Jayen 466 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3000-5000 mostly unknown USA "cults" reported by Prof. Margaret Singer Strange argument. If Singer referred to these 3000 to 5000 groups as cults, then ipso facto they already qualify for being included in this "list of cults". Yet you are trying to tell me somehow "they are not cults." Jayen 466 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an index to literature for further research The New York Post is hardly "research literature". For those interested in media reporting on cults, it is a primary source, and we are not here to provide primary source collections for scholars. Jayen 466 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - providing a list of groups simply because they have been identified as a cult in the media is hardly a standard of value. I suspect one could find any church being identified as a cult by someone else in the media. I would submit the list may not be maintained because so many groups would be identified as a cult in some newspaper article. When you can label the Roman Catholic Church as a cult, exactly what is the value of the standard? Does the media source just have to record that a group has been accused as such or does the media source have to demonstrate the accused group is an actual cult? By what definition of cult does the media source have to use? Is it only destructive cults, violent cults, non-mainstream doctrinal positions, the members of just too weird; exactly what definition is appropriate? The term "cult" has no agreement as to definition by anyone much less the media. The list is meaningless because the term is meaningless. It is used most often to belittle, besmirch, and deride groups by anti-cultists; unfortunately they are not the sole users of the word nor do they own the definition. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "cult" has no agreement as to definition by anyone much less the media."

That is a groups' propaganda myth. The list of definitions appears under Cult#Definitions. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive range of definitions listed there rather proves the point that there is "no agreement". Unless you just mean that there is agreement that the word can have a lot of different meanings! John Campbell (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, there is agreement that c-u-l-t has a number of different meanings. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance give a figure of about eight agreed-on homonym meanings. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23 entries for a definition of cult??? and you want to claim that it is a myth? What do you mean by a "group's propaganda myth". Which group are you referring to? Do you have any source, any where, that says there is a single, clear definition that is understood by the term cult? Of course not. That definition may exist in your own mind and in the minds of other anti-cultists, but it clearly does not exist in academia, the media, or the world culture.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Which group are you referring to?"

The ones with the most money.

"a single, clear definition"

No, because it's a single spelling rather than a single word.

The 23 listed include several similar or overlapping dictionary entries that differ mostly to satisfy copyright requirements; but, being reliable-source dictionaries, they are all agreed-on variations of 8-some multiple-homonym meanings.

The point is they are all agreed-on as to definition.

The c-u-l-t word set analogizes to an 8-string guitar that can play both sweet and sour notes, where each string is a basic homonym meaning, and the fret stops are the dictionary variations on each basic meaning. Each string tuning and each fret-note position is distinct and agreed on in most of the world, yet playing an 8-string guitar is not easy. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep List is cited and has clear criteria. Complies with all list guidelines. Personal objections and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove an article. --neon white talk 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT or at least ban it from use in AfD discussions since it ends up being used as a lazy and highly judgmental non-point pretty much every time someone invokes it. No offense but these are not "personal objections" and this list is a sourcing nightmare. The issue of media bias is a well documented scholarly consensus--hardly a personal preference of some kind.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One can also imagine List of people referred to as stupid adhering to all list guidelines, being cited, and having clear but seemingly randomly-chosen criteria like the new list of criteria for the present article. (Why two media sources? Why not four or seven? Labelling a group a "cult" is no small deal.) Townlake (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why two media sources?"

I don't know for sure. Two media sources has been a very slowly evolving consensus of many editors over a period of several years.

I was originally for multiple sources when part of the Washington Post archive went down and a group member made a quite reasonable fairness complaint because of it. But the multiple-sources draft criterion at the time was complicated, so the other editors may have polled against it for that reason. Also, at the time the media list was shorter, so two sources might have trivialized the list.

Since there was no rule against posting multiple sources, editors continued to add them until eventually most entries had at least two sources. At some point it became easy to implement two sources as a media-list criterion requirement.

The single source I'll miss most is:

Contemporary architecture (INTBAU)

Twentieth Century Architecture as a Cult by Nikos A. Salingaros

...IIRC, a brilliant piece of cultic research exposing the modernist architecture movement from the viewpoint of the wealthy-traditionalist building agenda. I remember a short debate as to whether INTBAU's 33-member group of international moguls, who owned or controlled a significant fraction of all the large-building wealth in the world, could be considered a basis for vetting this magazine as an adequately fact-checked reliable source. The clicher was INTBAU's headline patron - The Prince of Wales. Milo 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources? Who's criteria is that? Do we have sources that describe such criteria? Or is this just an arbitrary criteria invented by Wikipedia editors? If that is the case, why not 4, or 7, or 13 sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Milo, everything else about this AfD aside, that was some entertaining reading there. Thanks for the background and the chuckle. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I dont think Neon white has understood my deletion reason. This list indiscrimanetely jumbles together groups that have been described as cults in completely different contexts, and using completely different meanings of the word. Imagaine there was a list of things described as funny, which jumbled together things described as funny ha ha and funny peculiar. That list would, of course, be completely useless. This list has the same problem - the word cult has several meanings, from small tightly knit religious group, to popular phenomenon, to a homicidal group. Jumbling them together creates a list which is completely useless. The subject is adequately covered by other articles, so this list should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The doesnt really matter. It is up to the reader of the article to make decisions on the quality of sources not editors of the article. Articles are only required to be verifiable, they make no claims to be the truth. This topic is encyclopedic, it has been studied academically, 'people referred to as stupid' has not. The sources should be academic ones and not media based ones in my opinion but this is a content issue and not a reason for deletion. I have never seen an afd where more comments have been made based soley on personal objections to the content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a very appropriate guideline to remember. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a sorry excuse for a non-point that gets bandied about when people are unwilling to take the time to understand the substance of someone else's (often several, even a majority of someone else's) arguments. The guideline should be deleted or banned from AfD discussions, where it usually rears its ugly head. If you are interested in covering this topic in a way consistent with the scholarship on the subject then you support a very different list. Please see the talk page of this AfD for a discussion about one version of such a list. When I proposed a list to that end the keep supporters here wanted none of it because their agenda is not to pander to scholarship, but instead to glorify the supposedly straight reportage of the media. Also please see the several other editors who suggest another scholarly alternative already available List of new religious movements. Claiming that this is just a bloated content dispute fueled by "personal objections" is quite frankly insulting.PelleSmith (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some branches of scholarship examine the direct impact of the social movements frequently still called "cults". Other branches of scholarship have more interest in wider societal attitudes to the new, the innovative and the exotic. The current article does not restrict itself exclusively to either attitude -- and this broad attitude counts as a virtue. The current article also attempts to subsume at least echoes of popular-culture sources, and that too redounds to its credit. -- The other article: List of new religious movements, has its pleasures too, but some merit subsists in grouping together at some level political cults, psycho-cults and biz-kults -- all of which exist in numbers -- alongside the more obviously spiritually-oriented orgs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are willing to support an entry that actually uses scholarship to elucidate the social processes at work in "cult accusations" or "cult labeling" (see my suggestions on the talk page) I see no point in your repeated mention of the value of a list that does so. The current list is not of such value, and that is a very big part of the problem. The current list simply lists cult labels and links to news sources that have used the label. The fact that you understand the social processes at work does not in any way mean that the average reader does--in fact we have to assume they DON'T. It also links to a poorly written section on cult labeling and the media in another entry. My suggestion tries to deal with this particular problem, and attempts to elucidate the social dynamics at work for the reader. If we compared an contrasted media portrayal with scholarship on the same groups, with a preface summing up the cultural politics here, we would be informing our readers. I'm sorry but while I agree that there is usefulness to a list like the one you are talking about, you're simply not describing the current list.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists by their nature can tend towards the superficial and the generalized. By all means let's supplement them with analysis and linked commentary -- perhaps in separate articles. But right now we have a dynamic list, and proposals to abolish it put in jeopardy some of the more prized features of that list: its width of scope and its precisely defined criteria. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article to which I contributed considerably in the past both in talk and content, has had recurring and unsolved problems mainly WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, resulting in perennial dispute tags. Despite claims that this is not a List of cults, it clearly is as per the redirect. No chance as it stands now to be an article that can be compliant with our core policies, and listsare articles and have to abide by the core principles of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis and point of view are both content issues and not a reason for deletion. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are severe WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV problems, which have proved unsolvable despite several attempts by experienced editors over the last few years. I think in this case, they represent valid reasons for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was never a more obvious POV fork. Every religion is a cult. There is plenty of support in literature to name the Catholic Church to this list as well. Some groups just rise to a level of acceptability within society without regard to how reasonable the actual beliefs are. Scientology and Rastafarianism are religions, but some well meaning local group merely wanting to discuss spirituality may be branded a "cult"? That hardly seems fair. Believe whatever you want. JUST DON'T GIVE ANY OF THEM ANY MONEY -cult or religion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thia article does not represent a single point of view in any way. Wikipedia:Content forking#What content/POV forking is not might help. It is a valid fork of Cult according to guidelines and precedent. There is no policy reason why the cult article cannot contain a well sourced list of cults. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single pov but more than one, eh? Well there are 6 Billion p's of v in the world on this issue, so good luck with that. I should find everywhere major religions are referred to as cults. They deserve it, and should all be listed here as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major religions were listed, that's what got the article AfD'd. I don't agree with that, but weird how you seem to be voting against what you say is your own position. (checks calendar – aha, full moon begins today) Milo 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real difference between a "cult" and "religion" except communicating acceptance or rejection. That's POV Plain and Simple. I certainly would prefer that they ALL be called cults, but that isn't going to happen. Better we call them what the adherents wish to be called. (This is basic respect, btw).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatically, one can call people/orgs to their face by their chosen designation. but encyclopedically, one can question whether the Democratic People's Republic of Korea counts as "democratic", whether the United States of Mexico remains thoroughly "united", and whether the Church of Scientology operates as a "church" as much as a business or as a psychological school. Such questioning promotes a neutral point of view in a wider sense. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topical and perennially popular and much-editd article (unlike some suggested non-existent straw-man article-titles) does precisely what its title suggests: it lists groups which (quotable) people have referred to as cults. It has developed (by intense internal discussion) evolving criteria of definition of its chosen subject-matter. It does not correspond to any person's favorite or unfavorite list of what that person might consider a cult (or even a "destructive cult'), so much of the turmoil pointing out alleged discrepancies or "ridiculous" juxtapositions has no relevance to the proposed discussion about deletion. -- Appeals for scholarly re-casting by-pass the intrinsically pop-culture aspects of discussion of cults -- a legitimate topic in its own right and one that the "Media" section of our article addresses systematically and usefully. -- People who want to delete the link from the "List of cults" page have a discussion-page Talk:List of cults on which to debate that matter. -- Given the debate on the 1920 cutoff date, I would favor encouraging dates of reference alongside each listed item within the article, just as we highlight sources in the article. -- The article provides a useful research entree to anyone interested in popular moral panics, loose language-use and hive minds. It has limited direct use as a source on culthood (that role belongs elsewhere). Its audience extends far beyond the non-existent or tendentiously invented "Anti-cult movement". -- Calls for steering the article in the direction of or into a renaming involving "New Religious Movements" fail to address the questionable relevance of religious labels to many "cults". The dividing-lines between "religious" and "non-religious" can become very debatable. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Re your first sentence - the last "cult" in the media list right now is there because one media source references anonymous, unquoted skeptics who called the group a cult at some time before the article was published. I haven't gone through and looked at all of the groups and every source, but I cherry picked one entry and found that. Just sayin'. Townlake (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- When one deals with popular culture (like "cults" and the media) one need have no fear of "anonymous, unquoted skeptics" -- one can just process their opinionating (appropriately summarized by reputable sources) like any other. Just because a labelling apppears in Wikipedia doesn't make it so. But the labelling process itself(as opposed to the label) can remain worthy of note. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The media section hardly addresses anything "systematically and usefully." Would you care to explain what you mean lest we take it as empty flattery of that jumble of mish mash? If you think this list should be a useful resource on popular moral panics then why not support some actual precision. What on earth, in the current list, makes any connection to "moral panics"? Also, to Townlake's point about your first sentence, these references are not filled with "cult" labeling by several "quotable" people. The entry linked at the top of this page is almost unrecognizable in your post.PelleSmith (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - An alphabetical list uses the alphabet (and cross-references within it) systematically. It largely avoids favoritism and judgments by forcing names and titles into alphabetical order. Anyone familiar with that alphabetical order can find the reultant list useful: comprehensive, unbiased in structure, and enhanced (in this case) with highlighted references suggesting authenticity (or otherwise) of the sources. -- I know of no reference to moral panic in recent versions of the article, but insofar as it features media-driven labelling of "cults" and (by the implications of that naming) of their allegedly nefarious and socially questionable practices, the relationship to the study of the raw material of moral panic seems evident. -- I don't know exactly to what you refer in isolating "the entry linked at the top of this page", so I cannot usefully comment on that. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The entry linked at the top of the page is List of groups referred to as cults. You are capable of understanding the raw material, vis-a-vis various social processes. The average reader is not. The average reader only sees the media calling a group a cult. That is exactly the problem. I've suggested alternate lists that use scholarship to elucidate exactly this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - If the average reader merely "sees the media calling a group a cult" (rather than "group X = cult") then we have fulfilled the promise of the List of groups referred to as cults and I see no further problem in that respect. (The average reader, I trust, also has a degree of healthy skepticism of the media, and may also note that the article distinguishes academic and media labeling.) -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Not only that, but just read this cross-namespace gem List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Reliability_of_sources which cites a Wikipedia guideline in the body of an article (!!!) for an indea how this article has degraded into a WP:SYN nightmare. I mean what would you call this piece of unsourced and unattributed text: This list of references for further research, cannot of itself reliably establish any harmful or beneficial attributes. The sources referenced must be reliable sources, with the acceptable fact-checking required for all articles. Fact-checking does not imply that referenced opinions are either true or false, only that they are correctly attributed. A nightmare, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Due to the nature of the topic of "cults" and to the evolved nature of the subject matter ("groups referred to as") the article has a need to set boundaries and define limitations -- and it does so in detail, self-referentially, for it cannot do otherwise. Casual readers who want to know whether X "is" a cult get warned off or drawn in. People with set ideas about the definition of a cult as something harmful get reminded of the over-simplicity of their ways. And anyone who wants to believe in a black-and-white world of "true" and "false" receives a reminder of the rich variety and flexibility of Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Nonexistent anti-cult movement? Pray tell, how can there be so much written about cults and not be an anti-cult movement? I am baffled; you even refer to the article and yet deny their existence. When you talk to Hank next time, just ask him if there are anti-cultists in the world today. Ignorance is acceptable, but conscious denial of facts is beyond words. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Just because something has an article in Wikipedia doesn't mean to say that that something actually exists (note especially the article on the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Nobody doubts the existence of people opposed to one or more of the organizations which they perceive as "cults". It does not follow that a "movement" exists, with its connotations of organization and shared attitudes. As the Wikipedia article on the Anti-cult movement states: "The indiscriminate use of this expression for any and all opposition to cults makes a very varied collective of independent individuals and groups look like an organized group or like organized groups." And see the tallk-page of that article (Talk:Anti-cult movement for the case against the existence of an alleged "movement". -- I myself reserve judgement on whether an "Anti-cult movement" actually exists -- hence my use of the formula 'the non-existent or tendentiously invented "Anti-cult movement"'. -- I may get called ignorant, but my accusers may have to use words to do that. It would help me if they did so. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I am a simple person. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, certainly smells like a duck; it is a duck. One might propose that they are all live in wholly independent, isolated spheres doing what they do, but that type of environment in a social context does not exist on earth. The Restorationist movement is a group of churches motivated by similar beliefs, but that is all that binds them together. In reality they are disparate groups doing their own "thing"; and yet it is a movement. There does not have to be a Grand Pubba to be a called a movement. Its is a duck. Ignorance would not be an allegation, but I could be easily convinced of looking like an ostrich with its head in the sand. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The case exists for regarding the Anti-cult movement as a movement. A case also exists for stating that no anti-cult movement, qua movement, exists. I've pointed to the debate simply in order to remind us that the debate exists, not to re-litigate that issue here and now. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: I think after six AfDs it's worth waiting five more days to see whether we can arrive at a consensus this time. Sandstein 18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV listing which names a number of world religions as cults but avoids pointing the finger at one notable religion originating in the middle east which does not tolerate criticism, but which has been widely described as a cult. Then arbitrary criteria are set up as to number of media sources required, criteria which are documented nowhere else in Wikipedia. The Bahá'í Faith is listed because Al Ahram says "Bahá'í beliefs differ from Islam." It was not an improvement when previously Gordon Melton was somehow made the unelected rulegiver of Wikipedia to dictate 1920 as a cutoff. As unencyclopedic and arbitrary as List of stupid people or List of evil people based on 2 media sources calling them that. Edison (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The list "names" no entity as a cult: it merely references that other people have labelled various bodies as cults. Rectification of alleged omissions or inclusions invited. -- Comparing non-existent lists of "evil people" or of "stupid people" with a list of third-party references to the use of the worrd 'cult' appears inappropriate. Even a list of cultic orgs would have a different order of magnitude to a list of people. And the article does not list cultic orgs: it lists referenced, alleged cultic orgs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with rename to List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1920 onward (Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC20") This sub-topic of "cult", takes perhaps eight-fold more development time than other articles, inclusively because eight homonyms of c-u-l-t have to be considered for every concept-related decision to prevent or limit homonymic conflict. There is no official time limit for article improvement at Wikipedia. Do the following to get back on track to an always imperfect, periodically-improved, and eventualism-progressable article:

1. Rename LOGRTAC to include the 1920+ rule in the title (lists groups founded 1920 onward).

2. Create a second article to include a "1919-" rule in the title (which lists only groups founded 1919 or earlier).

3. Create a third article to include only cult followings (fan-cults of popular culture).

Milo 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited Milo 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I don't think this means re-adding or creating new "recommendations" here. While this isn't a vote you should only have one "recommendation" on the page, and you now have two. Above you recommend "speedy close or keep" and here you recommend "keep with rename". I believe one of the two should be withdrawn or changed into something neutral like "comment".PelleSmith (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - there is no reason to restate your !vote in this section. This is section is for additional editors to voice their opinion, hopefully, to aid the closing admin is pinning down consensus. Milo, please refactor your comment so it does't not appear to be "double voting". Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the guiderule for relisted AfD's? If it's a new AfD, the old votes don't count. But thanks for pointing the possibility for confusion. On the old vote, I've marked <s>Speedy Close or Keep</s> (keep vote moved to relisted AfD below). Milo 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are no "votes" in AfDs either way. You make a recommendation. Also where did you get the idea that this was a "new AfD"? Its the same AfD, it was relisted to get more time. If it was "new" don't you think we'd be starting from a blank slate? Please remove one of your two "keeps" ... you can keep all the text around it, but you can't have two keep recommendations. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The marking I described above apparently got lost during an edit conflict. Hopefully it's fixed now.

I'm a d-democrat so I vote anyway. Technically AfD is a vote which gets counted, but the for-against count is balanced against "good answers" posted by experienced or creative editors, to estimate some approximation of consensus including no consensus. This system is an experimental attempt to prevent complex issues from being obfuscated by partisans, and/or confusion-voted by earnest but lightly-informed passersby. This LOGERTAC AfD is a textbook example of both voting problems. Milo 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "[t]echnically AfD is a vote which gets counted", but individual recommendations here are not "votes". Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." An entry may be deleted or kept despite a majority of recommendations saying "keep" or "delete", especially if there is no argument, or a bad argument for either recommendation. It is quite clearly, not intended to be a vote. It is highly recommended to have a real argument for this very reason.PelleSmith (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the discussion here, and that's the main criterion for keeping an article. Any problems should be fixed by editing, though the whole article is very thoroughly referenced and I don't see any obvious issues with it. The criteria for inclusion are very clearly spelled out, so it's a perfectly good list (per WP:CLN). Klausness (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think anyone is saying that cults aren't a notable topic, unless I missed something. This debate is about whether a free-standing list of groups "referred to as cults" under unique WP-editor-created criteria should be here. Townlake (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've apparently linked to WP:NOR without reading it. It contains nothing about "WP-editor-created criteria". Editors are required to create criteria for lists. Milo 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that "WP-editor-created criteria" does not appear as a direct quote from WP:OR, and that lists need to define what they are. The rest of this debate has already been conducted with vigor above, by people with reading skills far superior to my own, and I don't think you I or anyone benefit from starting it anew here here. Although I guess we do have four more days to kill now... Townlake (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition of Cult is far too weak to be taken seriously. It allows for any Organisation, Group or collection of people (even those without recognisable residence or group beliefs) to be listed purely to draw attention to the fact that some reporter somewhere once slipped the term cult into a dicussion about them. I am all for naming and shaming religions as no better than cults, but this list is absolutely pathetic. Also, take note (Comment) that though it isn't my place to judge everyone else's comments, it appears that all the Keep arguments, as far as i could tell want to keep the article on grounds that it is notable or can be cleaned up. Taking into consideration the absurdity of requirements to enter the list, it seems unlikely that the topic could possibly useful as no single definition of cult is encapsulated, and therefore the list only serves to be as wide as possible in order to avoid WP:POV problems. On that note, the definition of Cult, as with all thing's usually defined by unrelated legal documentatio is far to Individual to possible compress into a list, and an article on the subject would be more than enough. Finally, i see absolutely no purpose in such a list, as given all of the above and the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for lists, it cannot possbly serve to improve the wikipedia experience or provide service to anyone, which i believe should be the primary goal of incusion. Thankyou - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The hard-fought definition of "cult" used in the article serves only for the scope of that article itself, as the introductory material ("Criteria for inclusion") explains. The definition has evolved to meet the needs of Wikipedia's editors and readers -- but by all means set up a better article to run in parallel and using a completely different definitional basis. -- The characterization that "some reporter somewhere once slipped the term cult into a dicussion" does not do justice to the serious press or to the scholarly commentators included in our article. -- Characterization of the article's "list" (which of its lists?) as "pathetic" needs careful elaboration and justification. -- Discussion of the variant and individual definitions of "cult" have no place in regard to the article, which does not deal with "cults", but with uses of the label/word "cult" -- a large, significant and often-overlooked difference. -- On the merits of lists in Wikipedia see WP:LISTS and linked articles, especially WP:CLS. These internal documents suggest that a list can "possbly serve to improve the wikipedia experience" and "provide service". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Definitions of "cult" certainly have tangential import to this list. Of direct relevance is some discussion of the process of cult labeling, something you seem to agree with. Extrapolating from your own suggestions all over this AfD, this list could be more clearly called List of cult labels applied in the media. As such, the various and variable usage of the term cult, in the media, as applied to these various groups, is of importance. Milo likes to devalue the sociological significance of this issue by using the ridiculous notion of homonymic conflict, suggesting that this is about definitional differences, as opposed to context laden usage differences. I call BS on that move. Pedant17 if you really support what you claim, how about you join the talk page discussion about alternate lists that may actually be informative in the manner you suggest?PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thanks for the suggestion re the Talk-page; the article has returned to my set of "items of interest". -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wow, that is the longest "reponse" i have ever see that doesn't actually respond to one thing i said. Your point about the definition being in the article was covered in my first comment, both in my saying that it is POV and in that it is also too Vague. Everything from then on seems to just be you quoting me without making any points, so it is quite hard to respond. First you mention the Press, seemingly you decide the definition of press, independent of Country or Politics, as otherwise my point stands (Of course, you only mean acredited american reporters?). I didn't say the list was dealing with cults, i dealt with the aricles text in batches. Infact, as you quoted, my words were precisely, "the term cult". And whatever you were trying to say about lists, you forgot to add context to article in question as you simply linked a page about usefullness of lists and completely ignored my open question of how useful this specific article (List of groups referred to as cults is to people browsing wikipedia. Of course the question is somewhat rhetorical, for, as i have pointed out from numerous angles, this list and the definition of cult are far too Vague to suitably service anyone. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk)
    - The label of "POV" applied to the defintion of "cult" used in the article has no merit. The article's introductory "Criteria for inclusion" effectively state, up front, that for the purposes of inclusion in the article itself we will use (within certain practical limits) whatever relaable sources have used. That covers the gamut of various points of view and displays strict neutrality about selecting between those points of view. -- The label of "vague" applied to the definition of "cult" used in the article has little merit. The article's introductory "Criteria for inclusion" spell out in detail what criteria editors have used. The criteria remain flexible: they have changed to some extent and anyone finding them too vague can participate in refining them further. -- My comment on the press responded to the previous mention of "some reporter somewhere" and attempted to point out that we can sometimes take journalists (some of them with by-lines) seriously to some extent; and similarly with academics. I have no intention of restricting my scope to "accredited American reporters" -- that would patently violate efforts against WP:BIAS. I note with particular approval the inclusion of the BBC as a respected source in the article. -- I stand by my generic statements: the article 'does not deal with "cults", but with uses of the label/word "cult" -- a large, significant and often-overlooked difference'. -- I stand by my contention that lists in general have acknowledged usefulness in Wikipedia, as opposed to the previous claim that "Wikipedia is not a place for lists". -- I still await explanation as to how we can fairly characterize any of the article's lists as "pathetic". -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just saying my points have no merit, doesn't suddenly make your opinion fact, or points correct, especially when you are wrong. Now, as you don't know already, i will elaborate on what POV means. POV, stands for "Point of View". In the context of this article we are stating that the inclusion on the list is based upon a "Point of View" that makes the list unusable and unhelpful. Considering the fact that you require a list of standards for inclusion that goes beyond the simple boundry inclusion rules of most lists and actually have to define (from the authors "Point of View") "grouns referred to as cults" is the very definition of a "Point of View". So i think in reality, where people discuss and take on board other people's comments, saying it is POV does infact have quite a bit of merit. As for the oppsite angle, in that it is vague, well, how you can deny this is beyong me, especially considering some of your other posts on this page. Any list whose inclusion allows no stipulation for the actual status of the groups as cults, where Major globally recognised religions are listed alongside Groups with no Unified beliefs and where the Inclusion rules attempt to cater to every signle person, is incredibly vague, and therefore, very useless as a list. I can't think (so please do offer ideas), as to where this list could possibly be useful to anyone. It provides no content on the subject, is unrelated to any article featuring content of the topic of "groups referred to as cults", and is definitely too vague to provide a concise list from any Poing of View. "Spelling out criteria", is of course the problem, there exists no accepted definition of cult, other than the one that differs between countires (the legal one), and more importantly you criteria doesn't set limits, it simply spells out what is in a list with no intended audience, which is of no use on wikipedia. As for refining them, that simply sets more limits on the POV of this article and will serve as a ground for repeated editing to no further improvement.
      - Your comments on reporters are fair, however, as you yourself mention, in an attempt to not be Biased, you have to take into account other countires reporters, and therefore politics and cultural views. In Germany, the Cult of Scientology is legally banned and defined as a cult, to question that as a reporter is highly irregular, however, in the name of no Bias, you would take their words on face value in order to not discriminate against any reporter, and thereforethe inclusion is no longer based upon a clear definition but upon each countries conflicting politics. I don't completely disagree with the use of lists, however, each list needs to be able to prove it's own usefulness, not in presenting views, opinions or even facts, but in presenting information to the readers. This list continues to, and can't possible stop being, utterly useless to a reader coming from any point of view, unless they are researching information for a Major in Press References to groups referred to as things. As for Pathetic, simply go into the list with a number of differing views, that of the researcher of cults, that simply wishing to know about the references to cults, etc, any way you look at or consider these lists, they seem, for lack of a better description that doesn't out right insult it, "pathetic". They list Major religions alongside groups for suffering alcoholics, Brainwashed cults, alongside honest small time religions, and even more groups unrelated to religion.
      - I don't dispute the lists criteria, or that it lists those groups named and shamed by reporters (of the authors choice), simply that is serves absolutely no useful purpose. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In Germany, the Cult of Scientology is legally banned and defined as a cult Please read Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion#Germany. Jayen 466 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fascinating... I'd love to see what you read there that doesn't back up my point. Fair enough my fact was not correct, but so what, it was an example, and the content in the link you yourself provided shows that despite my precise reference being wrong, References to Cults in the media are affected heavily by Politics. Go be anally retentive about facts on articles, where it matters, not in the middle of a point that doesn't change either way. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much work for too little gain. There is no way to make sure that editors don't band together in a witch hunt. The article constantly swings from nasty POV to confusing gibberish. Chee Chahko (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid reasons to delete: (1) Using that first concern, all difficult-to-write articles on minor but notable subjects would have to be deleted. (2) Would you try to nontrivially edit the Calculus article? Just because it's too much work for you doesn't mean it's too much work for other editors. (3) That's a concept applicable to business practices, not GDFL encyclopedia writing. There's no official Wikipedia expense or time limit to do a lot of work for a little gain. (4) Using the second concern, all controversial articles like Abortion would have to be deleted. (5) Until the hijack of this working article, there was suspicion but not proof a of "witch hunt" (or whatever term is politically correct). Now that there's proof, the article is potentially eligible for a variety of protections from conflict-of-interest editing. If you can't help (and I know you've tried, thanks), how about at least not becoming so disillusioned and deletionist that you actively help the "witch hunters"? To do that, just strike and change your vote to "neutral". Milo 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Witch hunters"? Now there is "proof" of conflict-of-interest editing? Milo, here's a nice request to stop this insanity before it swallows you whole. This level of paranoia is both unwarranted and unhealthy. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read all the above posts again. It's not my term, and I pointed out that it was not politically correct. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All?" You mean Chee, or whoever it is?PelleSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry Milo, I've come to the conclusion that it's just too messy. It was interesting and fun to edit but I just can't support it anymore. The article either relies on a slight of hand to avoid being POV (groups REFERRED to as) or editors can't handle inclusion of cults.

The current debate about what qualifies as a group is a by-product of the above POV avoiding magic trick using the word "referred". We have to say something is referred to as a cult so someone settled on the word "group." Now the word group is an article of faith for editors who want to eliminate all their favored old cults and keep the new ones they want to "ethically" bash.

What the article feels like in the readers' minds is a list of cults in the sense of evil, mind controlling groups. That's why editors can't handle having religious devotions like the Cult of Mary or the Cult of Tea on the list. We have to think of the reader foremost in evaluating this list. I believe that because of the slippery definition of a cult the list will always be too confusing for the reader and the editor. Chee Chahko (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chee Chahko (05:35): "We have to think of the reader foremost in evaluating this list." .... "What the article feels like in the readers' minds is a list of cults in the sense of evil, mind controlling groups."

That's an interpretation of what newspapers often report, it's related to the practical cult crime-watching and correcting mandated by the French Report (unofficial translation), and therefore it's what global citizen readers expect to see. When they don't see that, editors start complaining about silliness (if they see fan-cults listed), or they get angry if theological cults (RCC, LDS, Witnesses, etc.) are co-listed with destructive cults.

This AfD appears to be a direct result of an RCC listing by an article opponent (but too young to anticipate what would happen). None of this would have happened if the 1920+ rule criterion was still in place.

Chee Chahko (05:35): "religious devotions like the Cult of Mary or the Cult of Tea"

Those are old venerations that should be on a different list: List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior. (Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")

Chee Chahko (05:35): "I believe that because of the slippery definition of a cult the list will always be too confusing for the reader and the editor."

You appear to be a first or second year college student. You haven't entirely figured out how to format posts yet (that much bold looks like shouting). Your first talk post was June 3, so you've worked on LOGRTAC – one of the more holistically complex articles at Wikipedia – for all of 18 days !

Even your name means "newcomer". You may get a vote, but you're not qualified to draw a sweeping conclusion like "the list will always be too confusing".

Just because you don't know how to fix it, does not mean it can't be done.

How to reduce the confusion is relatively easy. The hard part is how to end run listed group members that don't want the confusion to be reduced. Previously that took about five or six editors working as a team.

You also don't have to vote even if you have an opinion. If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (all), you'll see that I was a major participant in that AfD, but cast no vote. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really more trouble than its worth. While I would normally think that a listing of things referred to as cults by the media would have a place in an encyclopedia, it seems like there's just too much drama surrounding this particular collection. It is probably best just to do away with it entirely. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worth to whom? No one asked you to edit a controversial article – it is hard work. How about not making it even harder for other pro-reporting encyclopedists?

To do as you suggest means progressively ceding COI-contested Wikipedia articles to the bias and manipulation of outside interests. In this case it's even worse to do so, since many of the reported groups have broken laws, which they wish to hide from potential recruits.

And remember LOGRTAC is just an index for further research. Would you tolerate it if groups stormed your local public library and removed all copies of the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature 'because a divine revelation told them to'? Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply section 1)

To the project. Issues of UNDUE and NPOV aside, it's a very weak criterion. I don't think it really jumps over the bar of being an indiscriminate collection. Perhaps if new criteria were added (i.e, so many references in journals/abstracts, so many references in high-profile news) ... at this point, its just too easy for someone with an axe to grind in a local newspaper to get something that could cause harm to that group that may not be dersevant of it. As it stands now, there's nothing to prevent such things. If they were added, I'd probably reconsider my position. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply section 2)

No, it means progressively enforcing neutral point of view and keeping the weight of sources and their statements in mind. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply section 3)

If the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature contained a "List of people referred to as satanists", and the only criterion for being added to the index was "someone somewhere referred to them as a satanist", then yes, I would. In fact, I would encourage it. I would also write to the publisher. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your posts out from inside mine. Context-damaging threads can get started that way. Pardon if it leaves your reply points hard to follow. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What....? If you don't intend to break to another point, then don't start a new paragraph. I have absolutely no idea what's going on now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting something in print don't make it so. And summarizing what people have put in print don't make it so either -- it merely contributes to open discussion and gives everyone a chance to jeer or cheer the compiler. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOGRTAC doesn't do summaries, just links and quotes. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to elaborate on the approach of my claim that "summarizing what people have put in print don't make it so ... -- it merely contributes to open discussion and gives everyone a chance to jeer or cheer the compiler". Real people encounter and have experiences with regard to what they may decide to term "cults". (Note that these real people often have sincerely held opinions, although we sometimes dismiss them as "anonymous", "skeptics" and/or "minorities", etc.). Then scholars and the media, bless their hearts, do their scholarly or media duty and reflect and analyze and compile popular opinions within society and put them into print. Then and only then does the Wikipedia List of groups referred to as cults come along and summarize/cite the stuff which the media and the scholars have put in print. -- The process should work like that. If our article sometimes strays from its role in the overall process, our editors try to correct that. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. So we don't need BLP, then. I assume you've never heard the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a mistake is made, WP:BLP has no practical application to a list with only links and quotes. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons has minimal impact on the listing of alleged cults -- even their gurus tend to emerge as fair-game public figures per WP:WELLKNOWN. -- I can confirm that I have indeed heard the quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that source X has associated group Y with cultdom requires only the standard Wikipedia insistence on sourced verifiability, though quotations can also help give a context. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And where would we preserve all the valuable material, gathered and refined and defended by scores of Wikipedia editors over the years? -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Escalation_of_commitment and Sunk cost fallacy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. Given that User:Celarnor appears to agree with me that "a listing of things referred to as cults by the media would have a place in an encyclopedia", it really does behove us to consider where best to place that material. One proposal to take material into the sphere of New Religious Movements would leave some data without an obvious home and would impede cross-comparisons. Hence my query as to the fate of the totality of the "investment" in information. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation_of_commitment requires continuing the present course of action, so it does not apply to preservation, a different course of action.

Preservation is a form of cost recovery. A sunk cost cannot be recovered, so there is no Sunk cost fallacy in preservation. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also read BETTERHERETHANTHERE and LOSE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BETTERHERETHANTHERE does not apply, since deleters don't want to move the article information to somewhere else.

LOSE applies only in the special case mentioned, which reads, "Note that this argument ["Don't lose the information"] does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion..." Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced by Pendant and will keep my vote for the same reasons as Celarnor and Jossi. Chee Chahko (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chee it wasn't Pedant who responded to your own "delete" rationale, but Milo. Better go back and have a look. Though its nice to see your enthusiastic support of other delete voters.PelleSmith (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor had voiced my argument but in a much more eloquent manner. Pendant argued against it. You'll be a much more useful thinker when your spidey senses stop tingling. Chee Chahko (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the annual AfD, there really hasn't been much drama associated with the list. Considering the topic, it's actually been remarkably peaceful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "More trouble than it's worth" and "too much drama" are not valid deletion reasons. The list topic is notable (otherwise we wouldn't be having this huge discussion here), and the criteria for inclusion are very clear. This is something that people might well look to an encyclopedia for (e.g. if they were trying to find background for a discussion about cults), and the article editors seem to have gone out of their way to enforce NPOV. Articles on controversial topics will always be, well, controversial, but a genuine encyclopedia can't throw out topics because of that. Klausness (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'More trouble than it's worth' and 'too much drama' refer to the confusion for readers and editors. This is because of the inherant weakness in the definition of a cult. The article constantly swings from nasty POV to confusing gibberish, both valid reasons. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give specific examples of the "nasty POV" and "confusing gibberish"? My impression is that the editors of the article have worked very hard to set very clear guidelines for list inclusion and to enforce those guidelines. For articles on controversial topics to keep from turning into an ugly confusing mess, editors have to put in a lot of work, but the editors of this article appear to have done that. I don't see how this article could cause confusion for editors and readers. Klausness (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

Delete per the arguments I raised in the previous AfDs. This list is synthesis out of primary sources and violates NOR if taken strictly. It was objected, that lists aren't restricted by WP:NOR, but I beg to differ. Also the one-drop-rule of inclusion is rather silly. --Pjacobi (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the material in the article (if not the majority) cites secondary sources: academic studies and journalistic reportage based on interviews and on primary and/or secondary research. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Pjacobi.

Pjacobi (20:58): "primary sources"

I've consulted WP:PSTS, and I'm unaware of any primary sources on the current list.

Pjacobi (20:58): "list is synthesis"

WP:SYN requires a conclusion for synthesis to occur. There are no conclusions at LOGRTAC, only links and quotes.

Pjacobi (20:58): "It was objected, that lists aren't restricted by WP:NOR, but I beg to differ."

If by "restricted by" you mean 'does policy apply to LOGRTAC', then yes, of course it does. But that's not an issue. The claim is, 'WP:NOR policy has no practical effect on LOGRTAC'.

Pjacobi (20:58): "violates NOR if taken strictly"

"taken strictly" usually means 'plain text reading'. By a plain text reading of WP:NOR, a list article content that consists only of unoriginal links and quotes can't be original research.

Pjacobi (20:58): "Also the one-drop-rule of inclusion is rather silly."

That's changed since you last checked. Two sources are now required for groups listed in the media section. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two drop rule is is silly too. It doesn't demonstrate a concensus among the media. And large conglomerates often recycle their stories so the exact wording is spread across the media but has a single source. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted WP:PSTS, and I'm unaware of any primary sources on the current list.: The relevant sentence in WP:PSTS is, "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic" Media reporting is the topic of the major part of the article; hence the media reports are primary sources. A secondary source would, e.g., be an academic source evaluating or commenting on media reporting.

In addition, in order not to fall foul of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, this list would have to be called: List of groups referred to as cults in two or more media reports. Instead, what we have is List of cults, which redirects here, and List of groups referred to as cults, without qualification as to the frequency of such references, and as to other terms applied to the same groups. That jump from "I can find two media sources who have called this group a cult" ergo "this group is a cult and belongs in List of cults (= List of groups referred to as cults)" is a text book example of WP:SYNTH. The silliness of List of groups referred to as cults in two or more media reports, which is what this is, is obvious. We might as well have

List of people referred to as sexist in two media sources,
List of people referred to as racist in two media sources,
List of Christian groups referred to as fundamentalist in two media sources,
List of groups referred to as Islamic fundamentalist in two media sources,
List of countries referred to as imperialist in two media sources,
List of politicians referred to as fascist in two media sources,
List of groups referred to as terrorist in two media sources,
List of countries described in two media sources as having supported terrorists,
List of politicians described in two media sources as having spoken a lie, etc. etc.

And it would be even more egregious then to have

List of sexists,
List of racists,
List of fascist politicians,
List of imperialist countries,
List of lying politicians etc.

redirect to these lists. Yet this is exactly the approach implemented in this present case. Jayen 466 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (19:47): "in order not to fall foul of WP:SYNTH"

Read WP:SYNTH again. It's not possible for LOGRTAC to fall foul of WP:SYNTH. Synthesis can't exist without conclusions. There are no conclusions in LOGRTAC.

The conclusion and WP:SYNTH is inherent in the titles: List of cults and List of groups referred to as cults. In the first instance, the conclusion is that the group is a cult because two media sources or one academic have referred to them as such; in the second instance, the conclusion is that the group is (generally) referred to as a cult because the requisite number of sources have used the word about them. All that the list shows is that the group has been referred to as a cult by one adacemic or two media sources. This is the same difference as the difference between Tony Blair is a liar or Tony Blair is referred to as a liar and Tony Blair has been referred to as a liar by X, Y or Z. --Jayen 466 13:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (19:47): "Media reporting is the topic of the major part of the article"

No, that just plain isn't a fact. You've built a house of cards on that mistake, what with calling newspaper articles primary sources, and so on.

The topic is what the article title says it is. The media section is shell container for a type of source, not a topic.

Calling a media section a media topic, is like saying every paragraph has the topic of paragraphs. Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article title says "groups referred to as cults". That fact of being referred to is the topic of the article. The list of cites is a selective, POV-driven use of primary sources whose relevance is not supported by secondary literature. It is the same sort of strategy by which someone might select all the worst bits of the Bible to present Christianity as a cult advocating the murder of gay people. All a lot of fun, but not how encyclopedias are written. Jayen 466 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what you're saying it appears that you'd prefer to have "List of cults", and just use the same sourcing requirements that we use for any Wikipedia article or list. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like List of cults any better than I would like List of lying politicians. However, if we were trying to create an article on media coverage of cults, then the proper way to source the statement that "group X is rarely/occasionally/frequently/usually/always referred to as a cult in the media" would be to find scholarly references that state precisely that, with some context; not to go hunt for two qualifying media sources. Likewise, for the lying politician, we would need a source commenting on the fact that politician X is sometimes/regularly/etc. accused of lying in the media. It still would not be appropriate to include Tony Blair, for example, in List of lying politicians, on the strength of two polemical articles in conservative newspapers that described him thus. But if we had an article on the media image of politicians as liars, then the standard for inclusion should be someone commenting on him being regularly referred to as a liar in the media, rather than one or two instances of this being the case. (And frankly, I am not even sure that would pass muster by the community as a sensible list to create. Too many POV sources. But I hope you get my drift.) Jayen 466 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "list of lying politicians" is different because presumably many of them would be living people. For that reason the comparison isn't correct. The standard across Wikipedia is to require only one good source for an assertion. If a reliable source says "X is Y", when do we require a second source that comments on X's assertion in order to use it as a source for X being Y? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More direct parallels can be drawn. You could have List of nations referred to as dictatorships, List of societies said to have practiced cannibalism, List of organization claimed to have mob ties, etc. Then you'd need two media sources to be included in each.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many cults are composed of living people. ;-) Without having read the article on Tony Blair, I am pretty sure it doesn't (usually) state that "Tony Blair is a Brtish politician who is a liar", though it may well state that he has been described as such on occasion. That is a basic element of NPOV. Jayen 466 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We very might well say that "Blair has been called a liar by the Sunday Times, by Lady Thacher, and by a committee of parliament" (if that were the case). Doing so would be consistent with NPOV which requires that all significant viewpoints are included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement on that point. But would that make it a good idea to include him in List of lying politicians redirecting to List of politicians referred to as liars? I don't think so.

And btw, let's not forget that a number of the cults in our list are also state-recognised religions, and are also referred to as such by various commentators. Jayen 466 00:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have similar lists, such as List of political scandals. You'll find many lying politicans on that list. United States journalism scandals is pretty much a list of lying journalists. As for your second point, thre's no tension between being a cult and being a state-recognized religion. The Church of Scientology is recognized as a religion in the U.S., for example. It's pretty easy to get recognized as a church, at least in the U.S. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the equivalent of that for this present topic would be a List of cult controversies. (Btw, I think Scientologists would disagree with your last statement. It took them over 25 years of wrangling to gain that recognition.) Jayen 466 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd approve of a "List of cult controversies"? Scientology is an exception. It's very rare for a group to be denied, so far as I'm aware. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would approve of that. It would probably need to give more context to each entry and be more informative than this.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would work. What is a cult controversy? Is it a controversy about whether or not the group is a cult? Is it a controversy about the behavior of the group? If it was about the behavior of the group how would you be sure that the group was a cult? Would it's inclusion be POV? Chee Chahko (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be no harder to decide than what constitutes a "scandal". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided the controversies listed meet notability criteria. --Jayen 466 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not very usefull, what it has become is a list of groups people have tried to smear as cults. - Icewedge (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icewedge. I read your recent request for adminship. The consensus seemed to be that you had made some misjudgments, partly because you had too little experience as a Wikipedian. Please consider this an example of how to make better AfD judgments by a study of issues.

Icewedge (14:33): "article is not very usefull"

• Is that a valid reason for AfD?

• Can you cite a guideline that requires articles to be useful?

• Did you first read, or at least search, this AfD page, to see if there was already an answer to that claimed issue of usefulness or utility?

• How do you know that it's not useful?

• How many of the LOGRTAC indexed news articles did you read?

• Did you read the related Cult text article?

• Do you actually know enough about cultic studies (for the academic section), or global police cultwatching (for the media section) to have an informed opinion on this billionaire-propagandized and beliefs-mythologized issue?

No? Ok, start with Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults is useful, found early up on this page.

And remember, other than the stated purpose use in #1, "further research", other possible uses are neither the purpose nor an endorsment by Wikipedia that it should be used in the listed ways. Arguing that the article should be deleted because one doesn't like the ways it could be used amounts to arguing for censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored.

Btw, the very size of this AfD page approaching 200K should have given you pause, that giving an unstudied reason for your vote would not be wise.

Icewedge (14:33): "it has become is a list of groups people have tried to smear as cults"

Sure, let's work through the "smear as cults" claim. I'm guessing that as a groups defense claim it got started during the 1970s, prior to the public cult debate being settled by the Jonestown mass suicides and Congressman/media murders in 1978.

M-W.com "smear": 3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization

So, if a group meets the definition of a cult, it's technically not a smear. But since there at least eight different kinds of cults, relevance of the definition is also a possible smear factor.

What global governments and their police consider relevant to the possible cult nature of groups is cult-watching a pattern of minor human rights crimes against members – abuses, sometimes sexual, or illegal labor exploitations, often committed against children (see unofficial French Report translation).

Do cults as defined try to hide these crimes from the public? Yes. When the public finds out and tells their neighbors, is that a smear? No.

What global citizens consider relevant to the possible cult nature of groups who live nearby to them, is the definition that "cult" is a group with beliefs nontraditional to the surrounding culture and in high tension with that culture. (Stark and Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult formation (1985); see Sect.)

When the public finds out and tells their neighbors, is that a smear? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the group did, if anything, to cause the tension.

At this point, there's no substitute for a study of cases to find out if groups might have been smeared. How does one do that? Go to LOGRTAC and click on index links to read news archived off-wiki. (See – LOGRTAC is useful for further research.)

There are currently 85 groups with two or more cult-reference sources in the LOGRTAC media list. I've selected two pilot study cases: one that I first read last week during a criterion-compliance check and a second that I just selected using a random number generator.

Case study 1 (selected) The Body of Christ a.k.a. Attleboro Cult:

________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT: ONLY THIS INDEX ENTRY APPEARS AT List of groups referred to as cults:

*The Body of Christ (a.k.a. Attleboro Cult) (Boston Herald) (Boston Globe/Associated Press)

________________________________________________________________

"Former sect leader appeals conviction in son's starvation death" - 2007-09-06, Boston Globe/AP: "Jacques was under the delusional brainwashing of this cult, and he was incapable of independent thought," said Janet Pumphrey, Robidoux's appellate lawyer." "COLD-BLOODED CULT; Journal shows sect let baby starve 'in God's hands'" - 2004-02-05, Boston Herald abstract: ""Our prayers should not be for Samuel to be healed but for God's purposes to be fulfilled. This is all we can do for Samuel," cult member Rebecca Corneau wrote in a journal entry 12 days before 11- month-old Samuel Robidoux died."

Case analysis: Robidoux was convicted of murdering his 11-month-old infant by starvation. There were at least two other family members convicted or allegedly complicit. In this case, Robidoux's own lawyer called BofC a cult. Is that a smear? No. Is the media biased? No, it's straight court reporting.

Case study 2 (random #21) Concerned Christians:

________________________________________________________________

IMPORTANT: ONLY THIS INDEX ENTRY APPEARS AT List of groups referred to as cults:

*Concerned Christians (BBC) (NY Times)

________________________________________________________________

"U.S. Alerts Israel on Cult; Plan for Suicide Is Feared" - 1998-10-24, New York Times: "Israel has been alerted that a Colorado doomsday cult that may be planning mass suicide could be on its way here, the United States Embassy said today. Several dozen members of the cult, Concerned Christians, sold their belongings and left their homes before Oct. 10, the day their leader predicted that Denver would be destroyed by an earthquake marking the start of the apocalypse. The leader, Monte Kim Miller, has said he will die in Jerusalem in December 1999 and reappear three days later." .... "This guy's influence is perhaps even greater than we'd thought, said Officer Roggeman, who monitors cult activity. I have gotten calls from Houston, New Mexico, all over, from people who knew their friends or family were in the group but never knew how dangerous it was or that this was going on." "Cult members deported from Israel" - 1999-01-09, BBC News: "[Israeli] Police said the Concerned Christians were suspected of planning unspecified "extreme acts of violence" in an attempt to hasten the second coming of Jesus, which they believe will take place at the end of the millennium." .... "They did not deny the fact that they are waiting here in Israel to wait for the return of Jesus, but they say they will not be involved in any illegal activity," said lawyer Eran Avital."

Case analysis: The Denver police called Concerned Christians a cult, after the leader said he was going to die in Jerusalem at the Millennium and reappear three days later. Then he departed with a group of members looking a lot like the 1997 Heaven's Gate suicide cult. Is that a smear? No, the leader said irrational things about impending death that others apparently believed and acted on. Was the Denver police estimate of disappeared members too high? Apparently, but not beyond reason. Did the Israeli police go too far in suspecting CC of planning violence? It's difficult to tell, but then Israel is a guerilla war zone. Is the media biased? Not in any obvious way. NYT reported what high and low officials said about the disappeared people. BBC reported official sources and contacted the group's lawyer for a statement. The stories are straight police, government, and lawyer reporting.

These two cases are just a pilot rather than a scientific sample. Still, the pilot sample shows no significant hits for either smear or media bias. They look typical to me. If other editors think they aren't representative, pick your own samples.

So, the final question to ask is, are you unintentionally smearing LOGRTAC? Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that info of the sort you have provided above has a lot more encyclopedic relevance. This is what could be included in List of cult controversies; each of the controversies could have a section to itself, or an article to itself that is linked to from the list, much as we do with political scandals, journalism scandals etc. Jayen 466 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I ment when I said it is not very useful is that it really is a collection of indiscriminate information; the standard of having two sources refer too a group as a cult can be so inclusive that truly bizzare entries can appear. If I were to do a reaserch project on cults and needed some examples I doubt communism would be a good example and in the case of Jeffrey Lundgren, how can a single person be a cult? — Icewedge (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I favor deletion "Jeffrey Lundgren" is shorthand for the small schism of Community of Christ created by Lundgren. The group has no article of its own because it amounted to 12 people and I'm not even sure it had a name. Still the group believed in Lundgren as a final prophet and killed for him. It is referred to as the "Lundgren cult" by several people. I can alter the name of that entry without creating an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Either that or start a new article with the title List of articles that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia and put this one first. Really, this is sheer, condensed POV and can't be made to look otherwise. The standards for inclusion (high degree of tension etc) are vague and unworkable. It celebrates immaturity and intolerance, and is an invitation to vigilantism. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton (15:28): "The standards for inclusion (high degree of tension etc)..."

Strawman fallacy – no one said those were the standards for inclusion.

Please read the above two case studies of LOGRTAC-indexed news stories, and explain how the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, The New York Times, and BBC News are "condensed POV", "immature", "intolerant", "an invitation to vigilantism" and "an embarrassment to Wikipedia". Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on religiously oriented groups whose activities have been found to be illegal is none of these things. For Wikipedia to apply guilt by association to a bunch of other people who have broken no laws is all of them.

I understood one of the standards for applying the word cult to a group was "a high degree of tension with the surrounding society." If this is not correct, what are the standards being applied? Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is (1) one academic reference using the word cult for the group or (2) two references in a media source using the word cult for the group. Jayen 466 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Rumiton(13:05): "what are the standards being applied?"

A particular scientific definition of a cult and the LOGRTAC standards for list inclusion are different things.

It's not just an issue of tension, rather it's combinations of tension and tradition which form Church-sect typology.

The Stark and Bainbridge, 1985, definition of "cult" is a group with beliefs nontraditional to the surrounding culture and in high tension with that culture.

By contrast, a North American "sect" is a group in high tension with surrounding culture, but with beliefs traditional to that culture (e.g., rural "Bible thumpers" who demonstrate against a nearby city as "Sodom and Gomorrah"). (See Sect.)

To avoid further misunderstandings, here are the actual LOGRTAC inclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria for List of groups referred to as cultscurrently installed (2008-06-22)

1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,
(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,

(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,

(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult" in North American English;

(D) using any non-excluded definition.
2. Organizations, and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups.

3. Listable groups must be referenced within the last 50 years.

4. Excluded from listing are cultural or personality cults (artistic, celebrity or political fan-cults), or groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups). If a reference claims that a group's other cult activities are more significant than its fan-cult, it becomes listable.

5. In list items where the reference keywords are different from "cult" only, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references.

In addition to the above criteria, the article stopped working after a functional year when the the 1920+ criterion was hijacked, which reads as follows:

1920+ inclusion criterion for List of groups referred to as cultsinstalled from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007

Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices."

Since 1920+ is hijackable as a criterion, it needs to be moved into the title by renaming as follows:

RenameList of groups referred to as cultstoList of groups referred to as cults and founded 1920 onward(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC20")

To relieve the pressure to list other kinds of cults in LOGRTAC, which caused this AfD – two more new articles are needed:

Create the following articles:List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")List of groups referred to as cults following popular culture(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTACFC")

Milo 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an AfD, or a discussion on how to perpetuate a dispute that has its basis on arbitrary criteria in contravention with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've posted these theories previously, I've worked through your arbitrary criteria claims to their core consequences for all Wikipedia lists.

The WP:NPOV claim is based on a trivial demand-for-perfection fallacy. NPOV can never be perfect, so the fallacy is unsatisfiability. The proper response is to dismiss the fallacious claim, and make small NPOV improvements as opportunity arises. That's been done at LOGRTAC, most recently with cult-denial-links that were in process when this AfD began.

You have a theory which is not based on a plain-text reading of WP:NOR, and implementing it would require a rewriting of WP:NOR to be understandable to most editors.

But suppose that happened, what would be the result? The short answer is copyright violation, since not even public domain lists would be allowed.

(Take that, pesky criteria-less government cult lists!)

Wikipedia editors are currently required to inventively create header criteria for lists, then populate them with entries found in reliable sources. You claim that arbitrary or invented criteria are original research violations of WP:NOR, rather than required source-based research as presently understood.

Invented/arbitrary criteria as original research is your blue-sky personal interpretation of WP:NOR, stretched beyond the breaking point of reason.

Rightly understood, your claim would restrict all Wikipedia lists to conditions so stringent that most old lists would be deleted, and relatively few original new lists could be created, if any. All Wikipedia lists would have to publish inclusion criteria (specifications) copied from lists existing elsewhere. Since very few or no lists publish formal inclusion criteria, I think you would then claim that Wikipedia is too WP:NOR-helpless to have any lists.

Suppose though, that others began to publish formal criteria. Oops, they're copyrighted criteria. Wikipedia is still too helpless to have any lists.

Suppose the criteria were reworded to avoid copyright, but used synonyms to produced substantially the same list output such as existing Top-10 this or that. Oops, top-10 lists are copyrighted, and substantial similarity is copyvio. Did I mention that Wikipedia is too helpless to have any lists?

By reductio ad absurdum ,your theory requires Wikipedia to either supposedly violate WP:NOR (most/all public domain lists), violate copyright of any criteria'd lists, or, have few or no lists.

No lists is a WP:SNOWBALL. It's a done deal – there will be lists at Wikipedia.

If there will be lists, then copyvio consequences are avoidable by following the originality requirement of copyright law: Wikipedia must inventively create header criteria for lists

Do you still think inventively created list criteria violate WP:NOR? Copyright law trumps WP:NOR, and WP:SNOWBALL ('there will be lists') trumps what you think. Milo 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction between "cult" and "sect" in North American English is a bit of a joke. It may be how Stark and Bainbridge differentiate the terms (if all of that distinction is indeed citable to them), but it is simply not reflective of real-life media behaviour in the U.S., described for example by the scholarly statistical analysis of media reports quoted at length here. As the quoted paper points out, in the U.S. media, the terms cult and sect have often been used interchangeably and applied in an arbitrary fashion to one and the same group. The only effect I can see of using this artificial cult/sect distinction, which is demonstrably not reflective of actual media reporting, would be that groups "with beliefs traditional to U.S. culture" would be kept out of the List of cults, even if they have been subject to widely reported criticism. Is this, then, the intent, or is there another, better reason for wanting to apply this criterion that has escaped me? Jayen 466 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's time to admit that we'll never make a good job of this article. The subject is too vaguely defined and the information value is negligible. Moreover I suspect that it attracts people to edit Wikipedia for the wrong reasons (particularly, to campaign against their favorite hate object). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - no deletion reason given in nomination; DRV discussion should not have been inserted here as DRV and AfD serve two different purposes. I would have no objection to starting a new AfD from scratch if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline justification posited for deletion in the nomination. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

Comment I would kindly ask user Milo, to try and be a bit more succinct, and to appreciate that there is no need to respond to each comment for delete with 3,000 bytes of text. I would also ask editors that may be confused about the OR violation claims made by me and others, to read Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, which states that (my highlight)In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources . In this case, the criteria and definition is obviously disputed, and it is not based in any reliable source, rather, it is the invention of some editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton ^{Need some help?} 13:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BowieNet[edit]

Insufficient information for own article. Should be a part of David Bowie article. (External link to official site already in article. Lengthier content apparently pruned as advertising. — ERcheck (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Hardly any context, advert of somewhat. Eaomatrix 11:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with David Bowie. BTLizard 11:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if expanded ~~as this will be a pretty easy one to expand~~ & will make too big a section in Bowie's already overlong article ~~- I'll try to do it if I get the chance~~ — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- World's quickest retraction - still keep if expanded otherwise delete, but having tried to plough through the turgid mess of fansites and distinct lack of mainstream coverage, washing my hands of this one — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per eaomatrix also the article created removed the afd from the article already so if does not tell something about him i do not know what willOo7565 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times is this going to be nominated for deletion? It's already been saved once - surely that should be enough. Ban that fool who nominated it again. 86.152.100.110 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, by the way Aleczandah 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Reborn[edit]

Notability doubtful. Kariteh 11:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per little traces of notability. Eaomatrix 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A "one-man fan project" unnoticed by reliable sources. Not notable. Serpent's Choice 12:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. --Teggles 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ASAP. Blatant advertising. --DJH47 02:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daggers of Darkness[edit]

I put this article up for deletion before signing in. This article lacks in content. The only real content are the links at the bottom of the page and the coverart. Improve the article with say, a story and it may be unconsidered. -Wouldyoulikeacookie

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just about to add content to this entry. EvilRedEye 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've added content. I've never dealt with an article up for deletion before, what happens now? EvilRedEye 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on today's post AfD progress. Needs to go to inline citation to truly satisfy me though. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on? Respectfully, T3, I don't see any rationale for keep. Could you explain? I'd love to be able to change my vote,but it seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. Wysdom 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTE. Separately, the books fail to assert notability. There's already an article (which needs to be cleaned up) about the Fighting Fantasy series, for which Googling seems tor turn up some independent sources, but the books as stand alone barely register. !Merge--unless someone wants to adopt merging all the non-redundant stuff from all these articles into the already-too-long article about the main series--which would require some pretty mad, bad copyedit skillz. Wysdom 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons in no particular order:
- Books are notable if well-known, and many, though I admit not all, of the books are well-known
- The non-reprinted books are from the '80s and are out of print - they aren't contemporary. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply the normal notability criteria strictly as although references exist they are not easily available - Wikipedia suggests a common sense approach.
- The reprinted books are notable and I have added references for all of them.
- The series is being reprinted - the out-of-print books will be reprinted in the future and will increase in notability
- There is no dispute about the notability of the series itself - I believe that merging all the articles on the individual books is inappropraite as there are far too many to be able to do this concisely, yet still keep an adequate amount of information.
- Since many of the books are notable it makes no sense to have articles for some but not for others.

EvilRedEye 12:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations to the article EvilRedEye 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. After inspection I couldn't see that the current incarnation of the article was a copyvio. Please contact me if you have additional evidence and I'll reconsider. W.marsh 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Smith[edit]

Local television news anchors do not warrant individual pages. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 02:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few things: 1. Why? 2. I imagine there are quite a few of these; I searched for just one news anchor that I know of off the top of my head and found an entry. 3. Has precedent been set? --R e m i 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a veteran Pittsburgh journalist. I urge you: do not delete it. Kd lvr 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is a great news anchor. One of, if not, the best in Pittsburgh. Also, Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia and I'm pretty sure that you find people in an Encyclopedia.Kdkatpir2 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced - the article is currently unsourced except by the TV station's website. Multiple independent sources attesting to the notability of the subject are required. A good place to start would be with the awards he supposedly won. Otto4711 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why doesn't someone with this large amount of talent and experience not deserve a Wikipedia page? 172.144.170.140 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment KD LVR is defending these to death, only because he made them. A quick look at his user page, and it seems he is taking ownership of articles.(WP:OWN)--TREYWiki 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not construct these pages about award winning journalists to have them deleted a week after they were made!Kd lvr 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Kd lvr is a sock of Kdkatpir2 or vise versa. So ALL of his comments are invalid.--TREYWiki 21:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again, this is not true. Please see user page for detatils. Kd lvr 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2 were created within 3 hours of each other on September 18th, 2006. User:Kdkatpir2 at 16:49 and User:Kd lvr at 19:19. Look at the edit times as well. No edits happen at the same time. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with the nomination, and I want to ask seriously what our guidelines are for inclusion of local media personalities. Several people have mentioned the awards this anchor has won---but who gave out those awards, and are those organizations themselves notable? What are the standards for media and press awards in the area of local news in small and medium sized markets? I cannot claim to know, but I think we should find out before claiming that is reason enough for articles of this type to be kept. As I said earlier, all the cheerleading for KDKA aside, what is notable about a local news anchor? ---Charles 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no Wikipedia policy that "local television news anchors do not warrant individual pages." If you want this to be a policy, then discuss it with the community. KP Botany 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio of [35]. I disagree with the original reasoning of the nom, but further investigation reveals that nearly every page for these KDKA anchors is a cut-and-paste from their official station bios. That would warrant deleting the lot, notable or not. DarkAudit 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DarkAudit. Arbustoo 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should at least be given more time than 5 days to gather more information. Kd lvr 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of their comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not true! I am tired of these LIES! --Kdkatpir2 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above user has gotten more sockpuppets than just User:Kd lvr, look out for User:WTAEchick and IP addresses User:72.95.171.242 and User:71.116.18.135 all of which are coming out of Erie, PA. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course. Now that you realized I'm not his sock, your saying someone else is? I really think you and your little prods are getting old- and fast. Plus, David doesn't even live in Erie, so that is just ridiculous. Kd lvr 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed community ban has been withdrawn by its originator[36] who opted for an RFCU which was returned as a negative to the accusation of sock puppetry[37] and declined for further review due to lack of evidence. These accusations have been withdrawn or proven false. KP Botany 04:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as there is enough notable independent sources on him: feature in the Post Gazette about his battle with polio ([38]) and interview in Virginia Tech student paper [39]. If someone can find more in Lexis-Nexis, that could justify inclusion. Calwatch 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable enough to warrant an article. It needs work, but that is not a good reason to delete. Wikipedia is a work in progress. DickClarkMises 15:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as Ken Rice - also up for AfD. No notability outside of Pittsburgh, and nobody would know anything of ~~her~~ him unless they watch the news on that TV station in Pittsburgh. Did ~~she~~ he appear on national television reporting on events of national or global importance and earn a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize or something? Or did ~~she~~ he accidently set ~~her~~ his hair on fire while reporting on the importance of changing the batteries in the home smoke detectors, and thus make it to global acclaim on YouTube and eBaum's world? Did ~~she~~ he do anything that gets ~~her~~ him out of the WP:HOLE class of people-articles, from the perspective of folks not living in Pittsburgh and watching the local news there? No? Then delete. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - per WP:BIO - criteria for notability of people for articles include things like:

The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
Wide name recognition.
The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.
Multiple features in credible news media.

--T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin M. Connolly[edit]

Completing a nomination. Notability is questionable here: the article only claims this actor doing dubbing of few anime. Tizio 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established. He may hit it big someday but not yet. --Crunch 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is sufficiently notable by this point, with a lead role in one of FUNimation's titles (Rumbling Hearts) and several important roles in other series. --EmperorBrandon 16:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead actor in an anime notable enough for WP, with other sufficient other roles for an article. --Masamage ♫ 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He's had many credits including that of a main character. That should be enough to satisfy WP:N. Just because you don't think doing dubbing of anime isn't notable doesn't mean it isn't. Please read up on the person before you nominate them for notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, he's a honest worker. I mean, he's worked a lot, in a lot of anime. Now please go ahead and find someone else who has written about him, such as, say, written his biography (his resume' and the list of his jobs don't count, of course). That's the point of WP:N, certainly not "He is notable because I think he is". Tizio 23:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there be sufficient extant information to make a factual article. A guideline from the page on notability of people says: "The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." Included among these criteria are "Entertainers ... With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." --Masamage ♫ 23:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, voice actor in notable cartoons, including a role as a main character. Establishes notability and meets the criteria. Voretus 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has the requisite credits, and if nothing else deleting him would leave us a bunch of redlinks. His article is neither defamatory nor spam, and he meets the criteria for entertainers that have "significant roles (aka was the main character) in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." --tjstrf talk 06:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth.net[edit]

This was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV restored, in part because of new information revealed at DRV. Please consult the DRV before commenting. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources are provided that indicate that this site passes WP:WEB. Half of the article is just many links to posts (and seems rather spammy), and the rest is uncited original research/personal opinion. The DRV did not convince me otherwise, no WP:RS were provided, nor IMHO any valid assertion of notability. Leuko 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been much improved by User:M3tal H3ad (so many thanks to him/her), and it looks more like an encyclopedia article now. Unfortunately, I am still not convinced that the site meets the WP:WEB notability guidelines' primary criterion of multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Only one of the 4 sources listed approaches being a WP:RS, and the coverage of the site is rather trivial. Also, I do not consider an Alexa traffic rank of 46,000 to be "very high". While definitely a weaker delete than before, I still feel that the site does not meet notability inclusion criteria, and should be deleted.
Weak Keep: Certainly needs a TON of cleanup. Worth cleaning up if only for the large number of articles which link to it. I do realize, however, that notability is barely asserted, and that the article fails to cite any reliable sources. A simple google search of "Blabbermouth.net" finds almost nothing beyond blogs. Therefore I suggest major cleanup/reduction of the article, and if this proves impossible, possibly deletion of the article.Drewcifer3000 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Much improved article after rewrite. Seems to satisfy most of the criteria for a web article. Still needs a bit of work, but definitely worth keeping. Drewcifer3000 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a history section and cleaned up the lead. Although I'm going out now i will be able to clean it up in a few hours. M3tal H3ad 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many articles on wikipedia use it as a source (use the "what links here" tool). It is used as a source at news.google.com (with over 1600+ hits). Also hosted by a record company, which makes it liable for things claimed. If its good enough for google to cite as a source its good enough for wikipedia. Very high alexa rating. It does need massive clean up, especially the links, which are WP:OR. Arbustoo 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned the article up, and it has completely been re-written by myself - previously looked like [40]. M3tal H3ad 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LuciferMorgan 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a pov essay. (aeropagitica) 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred villari[edit]

I call WP:SPAM. Pretty sure this also falls under WP:COI and WP:OR Peter Rehse 13:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unreferenced promotional essay. — ERcheck (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; major POV violation. YechielMan 04:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WjBscribe 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Porteous[edit]

Fails WP:BIO: a non-notable failed minor party candidate in subnational elections, who is also local councillor and activist, but database searching returns scant in the way of non-trivial reliable sources. Furthermore, article is severely biased. cj | talk 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 14:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about a mere unsuccessful candidate for state parliament. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even from reading just this article, she's about more than her failures. Richard Pombo failed and still has an article. "Unsourced" means it requires sources, not deletion. KP Botany 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pombo is an entirely different kettle of fish: he actually was an elected representive for several years. Porteous is a failed candidate. What's more, the problem here is not simply that it is "unsourced", but that there are no sufficient sources existing. --cj | talk 02:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People keeping adding these new criteria. Exactly what is a "sufficient" source, as you emphasized this so highly? Please simply include a link to the page that describes Wikipedia policy on "sufficient" sources, as usual. KP Botany 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was one of the first minor party candidates in state history to be rated a serious chance at winning a lower-house seat. My database searches, in contradiction to CJs, turned up more than enough press mentions of her campaign and her time as councillor to warrant keeping the article. Rebecca 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there are several mentions of her, but no non-trivial or substantive coverage that I could find from which one could create a verifiable article.--cj | talk 10:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not taking sides but I cannot find any press articles that backup the information in the article. All of them simply mention her as a candidate or have one-sentence about her in a larger article. Fiona Byrne got closer to winning for the greens in the election, and almost bounced an Education Minister. There are some parts of Inner West Courier articles with commentary by her and also the Brisbane Times but nothing ABOUT her that I can see. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some more searching shows a lot of sources talking about her. The seat is listed by the ABC as the most likely gain in the lower house for the Greens and this is generating press. Even her time as a councillor appears to have attracted a lot of press with well publicised stances on environmental issues. Far more than I would have expected for a local councillor and more than I've seen for other minor-party candidates in state elections - Peripitus (Talk) 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, a lot of the sources I can find that discuss her are either not reliable, or just offhand mentions that she's running for the seat. Lankiveil 09:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The Greens vs Labor contest in the seat of Balmain was one of the more publicised of the New South Election. Hence the candidate in my view fulfils notability criteria. Its also necessary to provide context for the page(s) on the election. Recurring dreams 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War (Avatar: The Last Airbender)[edit]

No sources, for one. In addition, the article doesn't say anything not already explained in detail on the show's article and/or elsewhere. Originally proded by myself, removed by author without comment.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is summarized in the story portion of the Main Article, it does not need a separate article. The Placebo Effect 14:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary sub article. Main article already contains the important information. Jay32183 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless article with less information than what is given on the main page--$UIT 03:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably snowballable. -- Ned Scott 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per all reasons stated. ~I'm anonymous

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NG Films[edit]

Not found in any news source, nor IMDB. Some vague claims of notability not supported by any sources (and my attempts to find any returned naught). Coren 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find a single Google hit for "Nigel's blockade" or "Nigel's creek." Delete per WP:CB. YechielMan 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. -- JLaTondre 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears at least non-notable, and even a hoax. --Nehrams2020 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has gone beyond its usual purpose, and demands a decision not only on the convenience of keeping a single article, but also a pronouncement on the extension to which certain guidelines and policies apply to individual articles for episodes of TV series. Therefore, it's necessary to analyze each and every argument elaborated for every position. Of course, this decision is not an easy one to make. Arguments to delete are based in a correct interpretation, albeit somewhat literal, of existent and applicable rules and guidelines such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE, and have substance in my eyes. On the other hand, the reasons exposed to keep, although they prevail in raw numbers, seem to be based more on the usefulness of these articles and a general promise of cleanup and search for third-party, reliable sources in order to prove their alleged notability than in actual encyclopedic arguments in tune with our current policies. Commendable as this position is, it doesn't suffice to consider them worthy of a space at Wikipedia unless joined with a serious, unequivocal will to keep them in accordance with the established principles of notability and verifiability.

Like I mention above, a large majority seem to indicate a clear tendency to keep. However, in attention of the strength of the arguments brought upon this debate, as well as having the extension of it gone beyond a single article, I consider this as No consensus achieved. The possibility of submitting individual articles to future AfDs in order to establish its/their notability and/or verifiability on a case-by-case basis remains open. - Phaedriel - 17:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Man[edit]

This is a bundled AfD of all the individual articles for episodes of a minor children's series, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. The episodes are non-notable, unsourced, and typically contain inflated plot summaries, microtrivia, etc., and are already adequately covered in List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes. Following discussion at WP:AN/I I made them into redirect sto the list, but one editor has insisted on reverting to the full forms, so rather than speedily deleting them (which, I think, would be justfied), I brought them here.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing wrong with pages for individual episodes of a television show. Also, what is there to source on an episode page?Hallpriest9 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The development and reception information that's supposed to be there. You are right that "This is an article about an idividual episode" is not in itself grounds for deletion, but the requirements for inclusion still need to be met, such as WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles are sourced. They use the episode as a primary (not the best but still a source) and TV.com/IMDB for other info such as writer, director and other info. There is no official policy that qualifies these for deletion or in your case redirection to the list. These episodes contain more info than can be added to the list. If we added the writers, directors, guest-stars and all that info the list of episodes would be a mile long. (and by the way another editor shared my view asking for consensus on this matter). Unless we create another wikiproject for TV and movies, theres nothing wrong with having them. As it was stated before when I tried this with Phil of the Future, it's much easier to expand and work on an article if it actually exists. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See List of I Love Lucy episodes for an example of how directors and other info can be included without the need for thousands of stub pages. Tables - they can do magic things! --Action Jackson IV 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also this would create a precedent for deleting all episode article. Just thought all the people who !vote should keep that in mind. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Your reasoning is truly crap, you give no example as to how they are non-notable. The Suite Life of Zack & Cody is a popular American television series that attracts god knows how many viewers, that for one is notability per episode. A quick Google search turned up tons of sources. Take the example on AN/I I give, you saying they're cruft... doesn't make them cruft. The consensus is to improve, not delete. Matthew 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, stay civil. Secondly, it's not up to me to give evidence for them not being notable; the onus is on the person who claims that they are, according to Wikipedia guidelines and common sense. Thirdly, talk of improvement misses my point. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one being uncivil here, using pejorative terms such as "cruft" (I hope that word wasn't too big for you, btw). Matthew 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your reasoning is truly crap" I guess you're saying that about myself and others as well, since we have similar reasoning. -- Ned Scott 18:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I hope that word wasn't too big for you, btw) was uncalled for. You'd do well to remain civil, especially when you are that pompous, then follow it with "btw" - which I wouldn't call intelligent use of the English language... -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Episodes shouldn't be the subjects of individual Wikipedia articles unless they meet guidelines resembling WP:FILM, i.e. multiple independent published reviews and/or published works about the episode. For example, the Star Trek episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" is the subject of at least one book (I don't mean a novelization of the story, I mean a book about the episode's production, history of the script, literary criticism of it, etc) so there's some justification for an article about it per WP practices. All other articles on TV series episodes should be deleted or merged to the main article about the series in question. 75.62.7.22 17:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)— 75.62.7.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The Suite Life Goes Hollywood is actually undeniably notable. It is one of the few 1hr episodes that Disney has made. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to keep articles about episodes for which notability is established through independent sources. Obviously I didn't research every episode on that list so it's possible that a few of those articles are salvageable with the right documentation. Disney (either under its own brand or through various corporate tentacles) has made a lot of TV series though, so I don't see anything remarkable from the above Suite Life description. 75.62.7.22 17:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The episodes are not notable outside of the one show. No relevant information besides bloated plot summaries can possibly be written for them. Any other information is simple trivia, and/or cruft. The only television episodes that actually need articles are ones of great significance (often pilot episodes) and great controversy (certain episodes of South Park come to mind) that meet the set guidelines for these kind of articles. Any other articles are just over-signifying the episode's importance. Nemu 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forget the info about producers, writers, directors, cast all that can't be placed on the list of episodes. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of information would likely belong under relevant sections on the show's main article anyways ("development", "characters" and the such would be relevant sections). Single episode cast members and people like them aren't really notable, so there would be no need to mention them. Nemu 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except directors, writers and producers aren't always the same for every episode. An adding each individual episodes directors, etc. to the main page would crowd that as well. With individual pages we can add international title names and air dates. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. Only the main staff of the show needs to be mentioned. I don't know how many writers it could possibly have, but if it's a larger number, they don't need to be mentioned. A simple development section talking about how the staff devised it would cover anyone that is notable. Any notable information is easily covered in the table. Nemu 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for every single episode of any TV show to have it's own article. There are other places of Wikipedia that can run the plots, cast lists, etc. Too many of these contain large trivia/quote sections that are meaningless. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes per WP:EPISODE. While I did not check every single article, the several that I did check were, indeed, nothing but plot summaries and "trivia" sections. If any of the episodes, say, won notable awards or were otherwise notable independent of the series itself, then a properly referenced article can be written. I would not take this, however, as a referendum on all such series of articles because the state of the articles and the notability of the individual episodes will vary the proper course of action. Otto4711 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have a consensus to improve articles like this. Cast and crew info is very encyclopedic, and not at all cruft. The DVDs contain interviews that can be used for extra information. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have a consensus to consider merging and redirecting these sorts of problematic articles. Otto4711 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus he is refering to is the one established here

Delete - I agree with Nemu. Besides, this is bordering needlessness.--Biotudor 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is with this lame innuendo? Just because I haven't bothered myself much to editing wikipedia, I am not entitled to express my opinion? This is totally outrageous. I totally feel insulted.--Biotudor 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the note because its wording was bordering slandering and it encouraged ppl to discount my vote. Anyone interested may view my contributions here--Biotudor 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Nemu's convincing reasoning. And let me also remind people that overblown plot summaries are a problem not only in terms of "Fancruft", but also in terms of copyright. Plotlines of fictional works are subject to copyright. It's a fair use issue just like with images: a plot summary needs to be subordinate to a legitimate encyclopedic goal, such as critical commentary. Long plot summaries that don't fulfil such a goal and which aren't really summaries but full-blown renarrations of the whole series cross the line into "derivative works", and are therefore nonfree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I doubt that a "plotline" is copyrightable anymore than facts are copyrightable. Edison 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Try and publish a novel that has exactly the same plotline as the latest Dan Brown thriller, and see who will sue you. Or better, just read up on fair use law, for instance here: [41] Quote:
    - Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who's Who and What's What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show "Twin Peaks" as well as detailed descriptions of plot, character and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
    - Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the "Seinfeld" television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 "Seinfeld" episodes and used actual dialogue from the show in 41 of the book's questions. Important factors: As in the "Twin Peaks" case, the book affected the owner's right to make derivative "Seinfeld" works such as trivia books. ( Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like the "direct quotations" were a crucial factor in the case. Absent that, the plot is not copyrightable. One could always find prior uses of the plot or of each of its elements. "West Side Story" and countless other works used the "Romeo and Juliet" plot. Edison 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. "Romeo and Juliet" is public domain due to age, obviously. As for the cases cited, it may or may not be that direct quotations were a factor, but the main thing was the presence of an overblown plot summary: "Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., supra, involved a book published by PIL concerning a television series. The book included a detailed recounting of the plot of the first eight episodes: ‘every intricate plot twist and element of character development appear in the Book in the same sequence as in the teleplays.’ 996 F.2d at 1373. The court held that the book was basically an abridgment of the script and that abridgments (despite contrary, aged authority) are generally not fair use. Id. at 1375-76. The plot summaries were so extensive as to be substitutes for rather than complements of the copyrighted scripts." [42] This applies here exactly. And as for the general copyrightability of plots, you may chose to believe it or not, - just read up on stuff, I can't be bothered to spoon-feed you even more references right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above, and WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge individual pages into List of Episodes of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, in a manner similar to the presentation of the first three seasons in List of I Love Lucy episodes, and redirect individual pages to this aforementioned list article. (NOTE: As per User:Jay32183's concerns, I would like to clarify/add Strong protect for individual articles, post-redirection, to keep the redirects from being reverted. The following argument still stands. I'm completely happy with either one large List of Episodes of TSLOZ&C article, or articles for each season). I've made this argument before, and I'll make it again: Certain episodes of television shows do deserve individual mention within an encyclopedia, either for becoming iconic within popular culture via its artistic presentation or for becoming iconic within popular culture via other reasons. When a television series is constructed as individual mini-movies (see: Twilight Zone or even Columbo), it does make sense to split individual "episodes" off into their own separate articles (especially given that those two shows I just mentioned had a reputation for casting "A-list" actors (the first non-pilot episode of Columbo was actually directed by that E.T. dude), hence the gritty-nitty obsessive details of plot and cinematography can serve and likely have been served by a film historian). I'm not going to get into an argument over the merits of the A-list, or what separates Burgess Meredith and Richard Basehart from Carrot Top and ten seconds of celebrity guest. There's a line between art and "product", and to paraphrase Potter Stewart, you know it when you see it. When a series slips from art to product, when the most an article can possibly contain is a virtual (not literal) copy-paste of the cast list from the IMDB, a plot summary, and perhaps if somebody's really industrious, a list of themes within this hypothetical episode that were repeated elsewhere in the series (oh, and of course, compulsory mention of any reference, no matter how dubious or gratutious, to other television shows made within the episode), when there is little if any innovation to be found and when a hypothetical in-depth examination of the construction yields no particularly unique insights into the craft - then it's all information that would be better off elsewhere, such as in a fan-made Wiki. I'm no more an "art snob" than someone who CSD A7's Johnny Twoshoes' autobiographical vanity article is a "human snob". The way that the first three seasons of I Love Lucy are presented here is a good example of how this information should ideally be handled. This is not a hard and fast rule, of course - some lesser-known shows can benefit from having the content within each episode highlighted. But plot summary, cast-list, and trivia, ad naseum, for season after season of a series that few people will even remember five years from now? No thanks. --Action Jackson IV 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter how notable the TV series is, it is how well-written the articles are. The Prince of Darkness 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nonsense. If an article on Action Jackson's Stinky Socks is the most brilliantly crafted article ever to grace Wikipedia, with underlying themes that bring a tear to every reader's eye, it's still G1 Patent Nonsense and not notable. If well-written articles were all we were shooting for, it'd pay to replace the current Adventures of Huckleberry Finn article with the text of the original book. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and the same goes for every other article related to an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, That's So Raven, Profiler, and any other series foolishly deleted or up for deletion. ---- DanTD 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and create redirects as proposed. If it can be demonstrated that any particular episode had significant or lasting pop cultural impact, an article can be created for that episode. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD will set precedent for all episodes as mel stated. He is here to get consensus and set a precedent he can use to get rid of all episodes he deems not notable or cruft. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General question - To anyone that says that these can be improved upon: do you really think any of these could possibly reach the quality of this, this, or anyone of the episode articles here? That argument would be fine if the lower quality Simpsons episode articles were up, but this show is totally different. The good number of GA and FA Simpsons episodes show that those episodes could probably become like that fairly easily. Nothing about these episodes shows that. Their general quality is horrible, and nothing shows that it can be any other way. Nemu 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per User:Action Jackson IV, and per the precedent of the Lucy episodes. Individual episodes which have been written about by reliable independent sources so that legitimate articles are possible satisfying WP:N and WP:A can then be broken out into in separate articles. Lengthy trivia-filled articles about each episode of TV show are non-encyclopedic and often original research. I would like to see a little more plot summary than Action Jackson. There could be a paragraph in the "List" article which gives the events (with spoiler warning) in the episode in more detail than the teasers in TV Guide or the show's website, which is useful to viewers who start a series in midyear and want the "back story" or who miss an episode and want to catch up. Those who want to delve into every frame of a TV show can do so in the discussion at Televisionwithoutpity. I do not see TV.com, the reference cited in the episode articles as meeting WP:A and WP:N. It is a policy decision for Wikipedia to make as to whether an editor's viewing of the original TV episode satisfys WP:A. Edison 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you check the List of I Love Lucy episodes|I Love Lucy article]], you will find that there are plot summaries throughout. The "list of" is somewhat misleading - picture it as a series of listings from TV Guide, with a concise plot summary and notable guest stars and "trivia" (i.e., mentioning a notable televisual "first", or perhaps a little backstory on scenes of note (the chocolate-eating scene) - not mentioning each and every specific homage in later TV shows or other maniacal horseshit of that nature), just without the self-indulgent bloat of these individual articles. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

Strong KeepI agree that this would set a bad precident which could jeopardize episode articles for any TV show. If individual articles are bloated, poorly written or poorly sourced, then improve them but don't delete them. Episode articles are appropriate for Wikipedia.JeffStickney 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as has been said already, there really isn't much room for improvement. Multiple, notable secondary sources do not, for whatever reason, see fit to make mention of Kept Man in their critical overviews/analysis of American television. Hence, the articles stand no hope at becoming anything other than a plot summary, a cast list, maybe a trivia section, and maybe some original research to spice things up. If somewhere down the road an episode gains notability or noterity, then at that point an article can be created. We do not maintain a stub for every newborn baby on the grounds that someday, they may meet notability criteria - episodes of a TV show should follow suit --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete these, but not others. This is a children's/early teen series that you would only know if you had/are a child/early teen. Like other minor series, it should have just an episode list, with slightly longer summaries then normal for episode lists. However, this should not apply to other series. Classic series' (such as I Love Lucy) deserve almost every episode to have an article, and an episode list, very briefly summarizing episodes. Currently popular series (such as LOST, Heroes (tv series), Survivor (tv series), etc.) should have articles for the most important episodes, and an episode list.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and this will not set a precedence, as it is a minor series.--Ac1983fan 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Define "minor". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, hmmm.... I'd guess a minor series would be series primarily directed at children and tweens, ones that have only one season, and shows with very little character development.--Ac1983fan 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mighty Morphin Power Rangers is a show primarily directed and younger audiences, while Firefly lasted only one season. Are either of those "minor shows"?
        As for "very little character development," that is so incredibly subjective that I'm not even going to bother trying to counter it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, minor isn't something one defines as one thinks about. But still, this is a children's series that very few people who are not/don't have teens/children/newphews & nieces/grandchildren etc. will know about. How are you going to compare it to something like Power Rangers, which nearly every american knows about?--Ac1983fan 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Just because it's directed towards a younger audience doesn't make a series minor. That's in effect saying it doesn't matter because it's made for a kid. Saying a TV show is minor because its for kids would be the same as saying a school is minor because it's for kids. And for the seasons it's going on its 3rd season and it's characters are developed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't think I'm biased against the series. It is in fact one of my favorite shows to watch, and I am a teenager too. What I'm saying is that it is relatively unknown to a lot of people.--Ac1983fan 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Adam Gilchrist is relatively unknown to a lot of people, but he's still today's Featured Article.
        My point in all this is that you're attempting to use highly subjective criteria, ones that are sure to be debated by others. We need crisp and clear criterion, not "well, I don't think people have heard of it, so it must be minor". After all, basically any kid's show in the UK is going to be minor to an American, and vice-versa. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, apart from everyone in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Zimbabwe (all of which seem to be small islands somewhere off the coast of Florida somewhere) nobody's heard of Adam Gilchrist. 124.184.177.117 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That proposal is the first one to actually make sense. WAVY 10 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles contain no more than just plot summary. No evidence of sources available to add an acceptable level of real world context. If the redirects have already been reverted once, then preserving the edit history is dangerous. Jay32183 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N requires Multiple, non-trivial sources for articles. Episode guides are trivial sources. If there are any decent sources examining an episode in a factual, scholarly way, then its a keep, if all the sources are episode guides, these fail Notability, one of the Five pillers of Wikipedia. -M^ask? 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not particularly fond of the precedent that this sets for television episode articles. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another keep based on the precedent fear. How little faith you have in good episode articles. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry if that sounded it a bit harsh, I was actually trying to go for funny but failed. -- Ned Scott 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. What is this about, anyway? General consensus is that episodes get articles, don't use AfD to try and change that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Episode articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. --MZMcBride 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. All of the That's So Raven episodes were redirected to List of That's So Raven episodes despite them having more than enough info. And now this happening to Zack & Cody, the episodes have alot of info, they should stay. QuasyBoy 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "It's Useful" is a poor justification for keeping. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list. The only notable episode of TSLOZAC is That's So Suite Life of Hannah Montana. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And I don't buy for a second that this won't set a precedent. Cburnett 20:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's why you are supporting keep? -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not. He says "and." --Kizor 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all bad faith nomination IMO, a lot of hard work has gone into these. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, if these are deleted, it should certainly not set a precedent, for example, look at the individual episode articles for Doctor Who and Torchwood - they're all well sourced and definitely notable, not worthy of deletion. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have a very strong inclusionist policy and I see no reason to delete these. they are informative and helpful to anyone looking for said information and when you have to go to multiple sources to get the same info, it is nice to have one wikipedia article about an episode; it saves alot of time if i wanted to know more about one episode. Don't give me that bull about other sources being available such as TV.com because we all know the individual episode pages rarely have much information over there and so this is a good all around source. I also agree this will craete a strong precedent for tv episode pages people are working to better. Diemunkiesdie 21:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is not the best, deletion would set a Bush. Sorry, I mean a bad precedent. The plot needs condensing, and other sections need adding. However, people chose to keep Scream trilogy because it could be a good article, rather than deleting existing rubbish. On that basis, keep. Clean-up, though, and get rid of trivia sections. Look at The Simpsons articles for some excellent examples of episode pages. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not world politics. Shocking, I know. --Action Jackson IV 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called humour. Look it up: you'll find it in the same section as humbug. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was rather uncalled for. The point is that in world politics, there are precedents (and presidents). Wikipedia has neither. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say a few things before my vote:
1. Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus can change." That is, precedents have no meaning in the long run, should you even manage to set one. This AfD will not lead to all episode articles being arbitrarily deleted, and neither will a keep ruling prevent articles from being put up for deletion later. If you want general consensus on a group of articles, you should seek to get a proper guideline on it instead - go get WP:EPISODE changed if you must.
2. WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles: "If the articles contain little content, consider merging or redirecting them into another article (e.g. an article about the show itself, an article that is a list of episodes of the show, or an article that summarizes the plot for one season of the show)." People should consider alternatives rather than the black-and-white "episode articles or no episode articles." People should also note that each television series must be taken on a case-by-case basis, as some television episodes have more content and notability than others.
3. WP:DELETE#Deletion discussion: "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." In short: use dispute resolution.

I feel the third point is the most important; this shouldn't have been dragged here in the first place. I motion to close this AfD and move discussion to a more proper place. Neither side particularly wanted deletion in the first place and made little effort to talk civilly or get consensus with the editors involved before coming here. Phony Saint 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Obviously, the third point is for situations where editor A wants the article to lean one way, editor B wants the article to lean another way, editor A gets fed up and performs the equivilant of taking his ball and going home - nominating the article for deletion and smugly smirking as he clicks the mouse button. If you had read the deletion summary more carefully, you would see that that is not at all the case. Please assume good faith in the future. --Action Jackson IV 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Were I only to read the initial comments, I would also be joining you and the others in taking sides. However, I also took into consideration the talk pages and user histories of Mel Etitis and Malevious and see that they decided to use an AfD to resolve their problem. Not that I'm questioning that they both are sincerely contributing to articles relating to the Suite Life - but, I do note that they're using AfD inappropriately. Phony Saint 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I'll try to look at the reasons offered for this deletion:
- Its a "minor series":subjective criterion. There's no agreed-upon definition of a "minor" series.
- Non-notable:no explanation of why it's so, unless based on the prior subjective criterion.
- Unsourced:the articles offer sources
- Are plot summaries/triva:Something that can be remedied without deletion.

All that said, I'm just not seeing a convincing reason to delete.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:FICT contains a very clear definition of minor. A minor concept does not have enough independant, reliable sources to attain a full article. Since there are zero sources documenting the production and reception, a full article cannot be attained. The only precedent this could possibly set is the one WP:EPISODE tried to be. That is, individual episode articles should not be made until there is enough nontrivial information for the article to stand on its own. There is no subjective measure there at all. Based on those objective criteria, "keep" is a bad option, "delete" is a good option, and "merge/redirect" is a coin toss. Merging should not lead to overbloated plot summaries on the episode list, and redirects should not be restored to articles every few monthes with no new sources coming out. If those two problems can be avoided, then merge is a good option. It may require a bit more intervention than Wikipedia admins are likely to be willing to perform, but it is a possibilty. Jay32183 22:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument offered, though. The deletion reason offered was that this was a "minor series." That's subjective, and what I was adressing.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood a little bit, to show that it can be done. - Peregrine Fisher 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hope what I'm about to say isn't taken as a personal attack, or overly belittling. But here are my problems with this supposedly "improved" article: 1) the plot summary is gratutiously overwraught, poorly written and going into more detail than is absolutely necessacary. Perhaps a better-written piece could afford more detail, but this is rather tiresome. 2) While the "commercial" section would be a nice touch in a fan-wiki, it is not particularly notable, and "It's Useful" is not a great argument. 3) While the reception section could be good, neither one of these two (sourced) quotes is very profound. Are semi-advertising blurbs suddenly deserving of encyclopedic merit? (Clarification: We're not debating if the shows were "good" or "bad", just whether there was anything particularly unique about this episode versus other episodes of contemporary shows). It reads a bit more like a press-piece than an encyclopedia article. As it stands, the extra bits which allegedly raise this up in quality seem tacked on, unnatural and arbitrary - and in such a way that I don't think they could be improved even given three years of work. It's a bit of a catch-22, and I hope you understand that I'm not saying this just to be difficult. Even if all the articles in the AfD were at the level of this one, I would still vote the same. --Action Jackson IV 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's going to be the greatest article ever. It's a mildly notable episode, not Spiderman 3. It had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. Nothing earth shattering, just the start of a good article on a children's show. - Peregrine Fisher 00:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But therein lies the crux of the biscuit. Nobody (to my knowledge) is declaring that this television series does not deserve an article of its own. But each individual episode is basically as you described - a subplot, varying degrees of bad acting, and some guest stars. Nothing earth shattering, and nothing that a well-organized table (such as the Lucy table) couldn't accomodate. --Action Jackson IV 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Why not just tag it for a clean-up then? Cleaning up the article and making it decent is better than having it deleted. And by adding info from a few sources it establishes notability by having "multiple independent sources". He showed that sources can be found for episodes if given time. It's much easier to tag an article for clean-up and work on it than it is to delete it and have to start from scratch if an editor wishes to work on it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Because there's nothing that can be done. "Clean up" is not some magical process whereupon reliable secondary sources take it upon themselves to explore new areas of individual episodes of a mildly popular children's TV show, whereupon Wiki authors from across the globe tinker and create a mountain of content from the molehill of an episode. I'm not disputing Peregrine's skills as an editor - which is why I took great pains to clarify that I was not saying "you did an awful job, Peregrine", but rather, "you did the best job that could be done, Peregrine, but the article still isn't worthy of its own page". The sources that can be found will universally be TV listings and Entertainment Weekly esque "new season roundups", and possibly some Disney overviews. Basically, secondary sources that tell us whether we should watch an episode of this show or not. Compare this to, just to take a particularly violent counter-example, Citizen Kane, about which enough has been written to start a Wiki all its own - and these writings are not simply reviews or previews, but actual meat - the real world equivalent of, say, a post-doctorate thesis. I could write a thesis on this film, or, in the realm of television, a paper on the cinematic innovations of the Twilight Zone, or how Columbo narrowed the divide between television show and movie. If I tried to write my thesis on an episode of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody, I'm afraid I'd be laughed out of the professor's office - and that's assuming I could find any sources beyond the bare-bones scraps of television gossip rags. --Action Jackson IV 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a ridiculous precedent to set. To say episodes of a mainstream television show are non-notable is not right, and as it's been pointed out, most of the episodes have verifiable sources. Of course they should be worked on, but deleting them is not the solution. If this AfD is an argument against the practicality of individual episode articles in general, I suggest you take a look at Pilot (House) for a featured episode article. We should be striving for featured content, not deletion. -- Wikipedical 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that logic I could have an article for myself, and then say "we shouldn't delete this since it's not notable, we should keep it and make it featured". -- Ned Scott 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except these have a chance of becoming featured. Sources can be found as Peregrine Fisher noted. The series itself is notable. One of the things mentioned was the overly detailed plots, instead of deleting it just based on that, why not tag it for a clean up and let an editor fix the problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles? No, they have no chance in hell of being featured, lets not kid ourselves. The problem here is people seem to think that it's all or nothing with episode articles. An episode of house being notable enough to have an article and to have that article be featured is one thing, but that doesn't make every episode of every show notable. Realistically speaking, -these episode articles- that this AFD is talking about, are not likely to be worth anything, nor do they really have any salvageable content. At best we merge and hope that eventually the individual episodes get enough to warrant an article, not the other way around. Please don't equivilate all episode articles. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No chance in hell? How did you work that one out? With enough time and effort these articles can be brought to scratch. Just deleting them seems odd. I have to agree with Wikipedical. Qjuad 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the likelihood of future film school professors devoting entire classes to the masterwork subtleties and cultural ramifications of an episode of the Suite Life of Zack & Cody, I'd say Ned's argument is still valid. There's a chance that one of us in this AfD will walk away from the computer and, whether by sheer luck or by genius ingenuity, find the cure for cancer. Or, more realistically, end up, several months down the line, becoming instrumental in a site-changing, drastically hip Wikipedia policy of some sort. So should we give each editor in this debate a stub bio for now, tag them as cleanup, and wait for the future to decide our fates? I would hope not. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And regarding setting a precedent, there is a difference between an episode of a show which is broadcast in prime time internationally, and an episode of a show that most people have never heard of. -- Chuq (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations I added to the above episode says this is one of the top five shows for ages 6 - 11. It's more popular among children than Lost, House, and Heroes are among adults. - Peregrine Fisher

I assume you mean top five shows in terms of audience? While that means the show as a whole is notable, I don't think it has any bearing on whether or not an individual episode of said show is notable enough to require a page of its own. Diet Coke has been the most popular diet soft drink amongst all age groups, but the can I had with dinner doesn't need an article. --Action Jackson IV 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this series is more popular in its target audience than Lost, so are you saying the episode articles for Lost should all be deleted as non-notable? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that these articles can be merged without anything being lost beyond the pride of those who have worked on them. Other articles exist. This AfD is not about those articles. Please do not try to turn this into a global debate. I said earlier, had you been following, that each television series is different, and to assume there's some arbitrary global standard is both an immature assumption to make, and a pedantic idea to hold others to. The episodes of this series do not merit individual articles. The series? Sure, it's notable. Episodes? Not so much. Like I said, Diet Coke is an awful popular drink, but the can I had for dinner doesn't need its own article (though I assure you that it was a mighty fine can). --Action Jackson IV 01:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical was one of the most popular films of last year and it's soundtrack was only outsold by Stadium Arcadium. It doesn't mean random songs are notable. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia - it contains many articles that would never be in any encyclopaedia - it's an encyclopaedia of film and television, an encyclopaedia of art history and a whole bunch of other reference books - information that might not be collected elsewhere is so ordered a fashion. If there is a problem with an article about an episode of a any tv show then it should be improved, not deleted, and certainly not speedily deleted Quadparty 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These pages are not generating significant work loads, as they are not much vandalised. They attract new users. Wikipedia should not exclude people based on their lack of knowledge on scientific subjects. TV series may be one of the only way users can contribute, now, because they did not receive higher education, and all the common articles everyone knows about are already covered in detail, with additions by experts on the subject. It is nice to see anonymous users contributing something else than vandalism. Most articles only have very small contributions by unregistered users (like correcting minor errors), TV series episode articles seem to have a lot of content added by unregistered users in a constructive way. Also perhaps 100 times more people have seen these episodes than have been to my village, but it still has its article, as do many extremely obscure subjects.--Jackaranga 01:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All - Why do people seem to think Wikipedia is a zero-sum game? It's verifiable and sourced information that someone may one day go looking for. YOU may not, but I won't ever look up Roy Apancho and you don't see me trying to deny the info to others. Sheesh. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and tidyup. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be in play here. I would agree that the plot summaries are overlong, and the articles do seem to be short of secondary sources. But given time - this may improve, after all wikipedia wasn't built in a day. Per above the show seems notable. Megapixie 02:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As other users have mentioned, if the article for the episodes for this series are deleted, then the same would have to happen to every article about a television episode, which wouldn't make sense. And I might be wrong, but I'm getting the suspicion that the reason these articles are being nominated for deletion at all is because the nominator either doesn't like the way the articles are written or just doesn't like this particular show.
- By the way, I really don't think using WP:USEFUL is a valid argument for deletion because that's an essay, not a guideline. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that point made any sense, if this ends up as a keep, we will never have to delete another episode article. We aren't setting any sort of precedent with this AfD, though one desperately needs to be set. Episode articles are nominated for various reasons, with the largest being the lack of any reliable sources. Other reasons include little notability past the show or series, and a general lack of information. Nemu 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced, reasonably well-developed, clear evidence of enough maintainer interest to keep them from going downhill. I also don't like the idea that things should be deleted because someone deems them 'cruft' or 'minor'. Those aren't arguments, they're characterizations. Every subject is someone's cruft. Even your favorite one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really shouldn't comment on every single keep, but I must ask: what are you talking about? Only one article out of the whole batch seems to have any sources, which are used poorly. None of them are developed at all. The only have bloated plot summaries and trivia sections, neither of which are anywhere close to well developed. Being minor is a very large concern, and is also a perfectly fine characterization (otherwise WP:N would be useless). Nemu 03:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is pretty useless when it comes to episodes. An episode seen by a million people is more famous than maybe 95% of our articles, and interests people more thatn probably 99% of our articles. Every episode has two important reliable sources; the ep itself, and imdb (and others) for cast information. I think people are too hung up on what they thing an "encyclpedia" is. WP is new type of encylopdedia, and episodes are one of the things that makes it way better than the old type. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An episode being seen, even with millions of viewers, does not make an individual episode notable. It's TV, and getting millions of people to watch something for a half hour happens so often that it's no longer a definite indication of notability. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline says that notability is not determined by fame, but by being the subject of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. It's completely objective. These episodes are not the subject of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. Abyssinia, Henry and Cape Feare are. That's the difference. Jay32183 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Because I do fear this will set a major precedent (and don't say it won't, we know better), I'd personally like to see these stay, or at the very least be combined into articles by season ("The Suite Life of Zack & Cody season one" or somesuch, more detailed than the current "List of..." article), with brief summaries and other necessary data. And while it isn't a valid argument here, I must also throw "useful" into the mix, as I've genuinely found many episode articles (not these specifically) to be highly useful. my 2¢ -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting keep for fear of the precedent is not necessary. If these articles get deleted, then those articles get deleted. We have individual AfDs for a reason. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks the original statement

"Agreement on this will also have an effect on how we deal with thousands of other trivial, fancrufty articles..."

was removed from the nomination (and probably should be put back). Still, to say this doesn't effect our general thinking is, I think, incorrect. How many of these AfDs do we go through before we consider what theyre results mean? I think there are two ways to set a precedent. If the episodes from Lost or some other extra notable show gets its episodes deleted, then all less notable episodes should be deleted. If some less notable show like The Suite Life gets its episodes kept, then all more notable episodes should be automatically kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It isn't the notability of the series that determines this, it's the indivdual episode. Each series isn't all or none. The problem isn't that the articles are about individual episodes, or that they come from a particular series. The problem is that sources do not exist to make a fully developed article. There may be sources in the future, but we should wait until then to write the article. Stop worrying about precedent. If people would actually take indivdual discussions in isolation, it wouldn't be a problem. Assess things as they come. The assessment here is that the articles either get deleted, or, if there is actually meaningful content that isn't on the episode list, merge. Jay32183 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, of this I am aware, however, I still have a user's right to voice an opinion. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned also has a right to point out that your opinion is invalid because it is not supported by facts. Saying "I have a right to my opinion" in this situation is the same as saying it after saying you don't vanilla ice cream and Ned asking if you've ever tried it. Opinions not supported by facts are meaningless. Jay32183 05:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huntster that a precedent is possibly being set. You say it's unsupported by facts, but one AfD effecting another has happened before. There is nothing invalid about Huntster's opinion, and you shouldn't call their opinion "meaninless." - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The episodes are notable if the show is notable. The show would not exist without its episodes. By analogy, Wikipedia has thousands of articles about villages and small towns which are notable largely to people who live in that country. Anthony Appleyard 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episodes collectively, as the show, are notable, but are not independently notable, nor do they have enough real world information. Small towns and villages are like season articles, and episode articles are like having articles about each street. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe states and counties are season articles, and towns are episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 05:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the fact that Wikipedia has articles about a country and then small towns doesn't mean that any unit of the parent topic/whatever should get it's own article. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2[edit]

Strong Keep. The Suite Life is a internationally popular show. It is one of the highest rated kid shows, one of the first shows to appear on iTunes, and one of only a handful of disney shows that have gone past the usual policy of cancellation after 65 Episodes. If you delted these, you would have to delete every shows episodes. What about shows only regognised in single countries or states, or small independent films only realeased in 10 cinemas. These articles should be kept, there is always room for improvement. You don't delete an article because it is poorly written or researched- you tag it or fix it up. Also Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, and some people obviously know or research a lot about TV shows episodes, why can't it have an article for each episode, it obviously interests a lot of people. This all goes for the That's So Raven episodes as well. -- Allied45 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Action Jackson IV (quotes from Allied45 in italics, please do not break this comment up, as it'll make for very confusing reading).
The Suite Life is a internationally popular show. So give the series its own article.
It is one of the highest rated kid shows, one of the first shows to appear on iTunes, and one of only a handful of disney shows that have gone past the usual policy of cancellation after 65 Episodes. Yet again, all good reasons to include The Suite Life of Zack & Cody in an encyclopedia.
If you delted these, you would have to delete every shows episodes. Nonsense. AfD works on a case-by-case basis. Just because Action Jackson's Indie Punk Band is deleted for being non-notable doesn't mean that The Strokes will suddenly be deleted. This is touched upon in this essay, which I highly recommend reading.
What about shows only regognised in single countries or states, or small independent films only realeased in 10 cinemas. Again, a case-by-case basis - but it seems you're arguing against deleting the main Suite Life article, which nobody has any intentions of doing.
These articles should be kept, there is always room for improvement. You don't delete an article because it is poorly written or researched- you tag it or fix it up. It depends on how the article needs to be improved. For instance, let's say that I'm surfing Wikipedia, and find that there's - inexplicably - no article for Television. So, of course, I create an article, but I don't know much about how they work, so my article reads, "A television is usually a square box. It has like a screen or something, and using technology from the 1950s, it makes moving pictures that move but aren't really movies on the screen. There've been lots of moving pictures that move but aren't movies, usually referred to as television shows". Naturally, this article should be tagged, and hopefully fixed up. But, let's say that I create an article called Action Jackson IV. I'll have you know, I'm really a nobody. Should we tag that article and wait for me to get off my ass and do something that is written about in Newsweek? What happens if I never do anything of note - if all I end up doing is typing lots of words in AfDs? I'm a nice person (just as a given episode of Suite Life is a nice episode), but there's really nothing that truly distinguishes an article on me from an article on most other Wikipedia editors.
Also Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, and some people obviously know or research a lot about TV shows episodes, why can't it have an article for each episode, it obviously interests a lot of people. It seems that most people who don't wish to keep these articles are in favor of merging them into one big article (or an article for each season). This would actually make it easier for people to read up on episodes, without having to wade through a bunch of individual pages. Also, see this policy - to quote: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information . . . 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. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". If and when an episode gains historical significance, or achieves some greater merit than merely being an episode of a TV show a lot of people like to watch, then there's no reason an individual article cannot be created. --Action Jackson IV 07:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of replying to you statements before you moved everything around, but anyways.

This AfD was specifically created to set some sort of standard for episode articles.

I can't write a sourced article on Action Jackson's Indie Punk Band, while these articles contain sourced information. An article on Action Jackson IV would have 0 reliable sources, while these pages all have a minimum of 2 reliable sources.

As far as WP:NOT is concerned, it has parts that allow, and parts that discourage, articles like this. If it forbid these pages, they'd be long gone. This AfD is for making a judgement on that, and it looks like a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Episode List Article Unless certain episodes have some significant cultural impact (like Trapped in the Closet (South Park)), I have to question such articles on Wikipedia. More along such issues like space, and slowly violating multiple policies on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not violate any WP policies in a way that can not be fixed by editing instead of deletion. There's some essay that says space considerations shouldn't be taken into account, either. - Peregrine Fisher 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you support Wikipedia being some poor-mans version of fan sites? --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sourced encyclopedia for television is what I support. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the trivia and fancruft. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per....umm...above? c'mon, I don't want to read all that. OK, how about going back to the fundamentals: per Wikipedia:Notability "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."(de-emphasis mine) I'll re-consider if such sources can be presented. I see TV.com is used and is fine as a source (if used appropriately, of course), but if that is all there is then perhaps the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes is all that is needed. --maclean 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed up The Suite Life Goes Hollywood, as noted above. It is possible to improve these articles. - Peregrine Fisher 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, right on! However, I just get an "Error:Invalid story key" message at The Hub link, and the "The New York Daily News" one is mis-used (those are not 'Reception' critiques, they are previews of what is on TV that night - the author shows no evidence of having watched those shows before writing that). A question though before I change my vote: What is in this article that could not be displayed in the list? --maclean 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, all episodes of this show are notable. Everyking 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why/how? Lankiveil 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For one thing, it's a very popular show among its demographic (not at all "minor"), and every episode is watched by a great many people. For another thing, having episode articles is, as people who actually work on these kind of articles figured out long ago, important to facilitate the growth of content, and there's too much information in these articles already for a merger to be possible without some serious trimming. Everyking 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're bloated with plot summary, which WILL receive serious trimming if kept. WP:NOT#IINFO number 7. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That'll probably be about as successful as this AfD, since there's obviously no consensus to do such a thing. Everyking 09:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information into episode listing, then Delete. No sources provided that I can see, these episodes are not the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a TV fansite, take it to [43] if you want that. Lankiveil 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, although wikipedia has good policies against being a container for all information out there, in this case I think deletion/merge is not mandated as the definition "minor series" is a subjective criterion not fitting in this case, and concerning sourcing - there are multiple reliable sources in some of the articles (The Suite Life Goes Hollywood). Still clean-up, add more sources, and get rid of trivia sections. feydey 10:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has a ton of stuff like this. Honestly, I'm satisfied with just a list of episodes with a synopsis for each episode, but individual articles can be nice... Also, the Suite Life of Zach and Cody isn't as obscure as you're making it out to be. J'onn J'onzz 12:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at most, redirect to an article listing all the episodes in SLZC. These are episodes of a nationally-broadcast television series. It's a kids show, so the commentary may be a bit more difficult to find, and if there isn't valid encyclopedic information about some of them, then keep them in the list. I don't expect myself to find out which are which though in the scope of this nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm torn on this issue. I like the idea of having episode information, but I think some of this stuff can be excessive at times. WAVY 10 14:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless an episode is the subject of multiple non-trivial secondary sources, I see no reason to have an article on it. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, or for microtrivia. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nubula 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason? -- Ned Scott 06:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all to allow discussion on the talk page. Mel Etitis was bold to redirect all of the articles. Reverting his actions was appropriate as it lacked consensus. Rather than taking this issue to AfD, the matter ought to be discussed on the article's talk page. Even if the articles are deleted in this AfD, they still need to be recreated as redirects! This is an issue that ought to be discussed on the main article's talk page, rather than being brought to AfD. Also, the nom's claim that the articles are unsourced is partly inaccurate (the source for the article information is in all cases the episode itself and a episode guide website) and mostly irrelevant (the majority of information in the article is easily sourceable via ((cite episode))). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those writing "Keep - add more sources" or "Keep - the articles are reliably sourced", you aren't paying attention to the discussion. Not one of these articles, including the one PeregrineFisher "cleaned-up", have any reliable sources. The sources needed to fix these up do not exist. Sources do not magically appear when you add tags to an article. The fact that sources can't be found is completely objective, so don't act like people are insulting this particular program. And for people talking about precedent, the precedents that can be set are "deleting articles that do not have reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject", which is already a precedent, or "editors can write articles about absolutely anything with concern for verifiable, meaningful content" which would completely destroy all credibility and creditibilty that Wikipedia has. Improving Wikipedia sometimes means removing content, and this is undeniably one of those times. Jay32183 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those, and I strongly resent you claiming I'm "not paying attention". First, every one of these articles has at least one source: the episode itself. Go nominate ((cite episode)) for deletion if that's such a problem. Secondly, they also seem to be citing TV.com. Now, granted, that's not the best source in the world, but its not completely irrelevant in this context, either. In my opinion, these two together constitute sufficient sourcing. You don't need to agree, that's what we have discussion for, but please don't claim I'm "not paying attention" becuase we see things differently.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The episode is a source, but if it is the source, it becomes irrelevant. I don't see TV.com being used as a source; it's only an external link. Even then, it seems to be openly edited by users, so I don't think it could be used at all (correct me if I'm wrong). Nemu 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, OK, the section is called "external links", fine, but that's pretty common. Footnotes aren't the only method of referencing. As I said, I agree TV.com isn't the best source (although, as I understand it, its based on user submissions with editorial oversight, something of a gray area) nor is the episode itself, but I, at least, believe that the two together are sufficient. That's my opinion, not evidence I'm not paying enough attention to the discussion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((cite episode)) is for sourcing plot elements in articles on works of fiction, but it doesn't reliably source notability. TV.com is almost never a reliable source because it is editted by its users. The articles can't be just plot summary, but they are, and that's all we can source. Compare these articles to Abyssinia, Henry and think about what needs to be done and what can't be done. The overlap may surprise you. Jay32183 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, fine. But please don't belittle others who may disagree by claiming they aren't paying attnetion. That's just insulting.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're never going to agree, but citing an episode for the plot, and citing tv.com for cast information is enough. The notability is established by the viewing of the episode by millions of people. These pages just illustrate a flaw in WP:N. - Peregrine Fisher 20:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't enough. Citing for the plot is fine, but if you cannot cite anything else, it's pointless. I doubt you can even use tv.com for that as that also seems to be user-edited. Besides that, we don't cite the cast directly in the article, once again nullifying your point. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by RS's and the like; saying there is a flaw in WP:N is just a weak opinion. Nemu 20:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the episode articles are kept, they need to be thoroughly overhauled. Compare Hotel Inspector to The Crossroads of Destiny. And The Crossroads of Destiny to The Five Doctors. If we can get it to something on the par to The Crossroads of Destiny, that's good. We should aim to get it on a par to Doctor Who episode articles. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those episodes are just as bad, if not worse. One is a giant plot summary, and the other is another giant summary with a ton of cutable trivia. We need to aim for sourced info, not cruft. Nemu 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is we need notes about continuity, production, et cetera. I picked TCOD because it's written better than TSL episodes, and I picked The Five Doctors randomly out of the DW serials I know of. Look at any Doctor Who article for the new series at least, we have sourced information about the things we need. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of the possibility of those sections is the main reason for this AfD. They cannot be sourced, so there is no way to place them. I don't really agree that a giant plot summary is better writing than a large one. Some of the DW episode articles are decently sourced, but they still suffer from giant plot summaries, and a lot of trivial information. They aren't really good examples of what these should be. The current FA episodes are better models. Nemu 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't have any episodes on the wiki that are featured articles. But we should aim to get them to Doctor Who episode standard, at least. If we can't get it onto the standard of The Crossroads of Destiny, they shouldn't be on-wiki. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? We have this, this, and three here. Once again, the problem with the episodes is that they cannot reach any level of quality, which is exactly why they should be removed. Nemu 20:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Didn't notice that. I was looking at the TV WP. I think the TCOD should the absolute minimum of quality for episode articles (as you'll see, I voted merge). Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - and the same for virtually any other single episode of any other TV Series you can mention. I can think of maybe half-a-dozen individual epsiodes that would pass normal rules of notability were they a printed item, so let's start thinning down on them, starting here. - fchd 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Really bad argument. Malc82 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or Merge to list. A short list, sans plot summaries. Essentially ludicrously detailed plot summaries with some credits pasted onto them. Where are the 3rd-party sources that have somehing to say about the episodes? --Calton | Talk 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep... to answer the questions about "notability", I think that any program on broadcast television in a major country is notable. What are the ratings of this show on the Disney Channel? Probably an order of magnitude lower than the lowest rated program on the four major broadcast networks. Thus, the episodes are non notable. The other question is how the episodes relate to each other. For instance, I Love Lucy was a comedy with episodes that aren't interlinked, unlike 24 which each episode is integral to the understanding of the following episode. Therefore, this can't be used as precedent for anything. Calwatch 04:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: there are other sources for community driven TV information sites such as tviv and tv wiki, with oodles of tolerance for all cruft. Ultimately, it is probably best if somebody copies all the stuff from Wikipedia and puts it on those sites, because once it's deleted, it's gone for good. Calwatch 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On Wikipedia, notability is determined by availability of sources, it is not a judgement call. Jay32183 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything beyond the major policies is a judgement call. Look at the subject specific notability pages for examples. - Peregrine Fisher 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Everyking's rationale on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Crikey! Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place for plot summaries, which is what this little beauty of an article is! Stewe Erwin, Cruft Hunter 14:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my long rationale here: [44]. Pinball22 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles are informative and verifiable, and as part of a notable TV show are themselves notable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and Comment I wrote a message on this showing my support for these pages to be kept and it was deleted, I ask you not to delete these comments to twist the conversation in your favour, I'm very dissipointed.--Wiggstar69 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What are you talking about? According to your contributions, you've never said anything here before. Phony Saint 15:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then that means that has been edited too, a bit sad if you ask me.--Wiggstar69 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, that can't be edited; it just isn't possible. I'm guess that you got caught in an edit conflict, which happens sometimes and in no way reflects anyone's attitude towards this article or your comments. Please assume good faith. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All and merge/redirect any relevant info to episode list. Per WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT, articles shouldn't be nothing more than a plot summary. And while the episode itself may be used as a source, we shouldn't have articles using just primary sources or just one source. If secondary sources can't be found to add info beyond plot summaries, these would be better covered in an episode list with a brief plot summary and any other relevant info. --Minderbinder 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cast and crew information is not plot summary, and is independantly sourced. - Peregrine Fisher 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't sourced anywhere in the articles, and they aren't independently important. They're fine in episode articles, but they don't qualify as sourced information unless integrated into a development section. Basically, they only are mentioned if the episode needs an article, otherwise they're just left out. Nemu 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and crew detail isn't enough content to justify a separate article, as it can be contained in the episode list without disrupting the focus of that article. What the articles need are detailed information on the development and reception. To do that you would need interviews with the production team, and articles, not blurbs, from television critics. Until you find those, there is nothing supporting your argument. Saying "Keep" and assuming there are sources is counterproductive to Wikipedia's goal of being a verifiable encyclopedia. Jay32183 19:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and crew info is all available from watching the show - to have a separate article there should be info that comes from a secondary source (not info from the primary source repeated by a secondary source). From NOT: this can include "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" I see none of that here. --Minderbinder 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air dates and production codes are independant of the show. To say small reviews ("blurbs") are not important is an opinion we obviously don't agree on. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where do they easily fit? The episode list? Small reviews don't really say anything for children's shows besides "Oh, that's cute" or "It's fun for the family", so it's sort of hard to count them as anything. Besides, only certain episodes even get that much. Nemu 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "blurbs" since the articles don't seem to contain them, and I haven't commented on them. If the only sourced independent info is a production code, that's not much reason to have a separate article - those could easily go in an episode list as well. --Minderbinder 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some refs to The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. Basically that it had a good subplot, included some overacting, and had some notable guest stars. It's discusssed above. - Peregrine Fisher 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do those qualify as good sources? You have two "reviews" calling it cute, and some non-notable ratings from one day. The reviews are about as notable as local newpaper reviews, and the ratings are only included if they're notable or relevant, not just because. Even then, that is only for that episode. I doubt you could find any of that material for more than ten of them. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that they are good sources. Non of your arguments so far have changed my mind. Local newspaper reviews are fine. First it's that no information exists, then it's the information that exists isn't good enough. Sounds like you just don't like these articles. The info isn't easy to find, but we'll never know how many of the eps have that kind of info if the pages are deleted. It's possible to improve them, so they should stay. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Only a plot summary? Tell that to all the users that contributed to The Simpsons episodes. Anthony Rupert 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's commenting on THIS AfD. Focus, people, focus. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this stuff isn't sourced right now, it certainly COULD be (and eventually will be), and in the meantime the current state of things isn't really hurting anything. No need to discard a bunch of good content in what seems to amount to a fit of pique. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that idea? Have you read any of this discussion? That is the largest reason for this. So far, the only sources (in only one out of all of the articles) are poor at best, and nothing shows otherwise. It can't be solved using blanket statements like that. Nemu 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because slow improvement is what happens on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nemu: I suggest you check out WP:STUB. Night, Matthew 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a stub and an article without content. All of your arguments have been "they can be improved" while nothing has shown that they can improve. There is a difference between Disturbia, a relatively new film that suffers from the same problem as these articles (pretty much only a plot summary and some trivia), and Big Hair & Baseball. As a movie, Disturbia will more than likely improve in the future. There are various reviews, articles, and primary sources that are/will be available. Big Hair & Baseball, on the other hand, has only shown that its only reference is itself, which is not good enough to warrant the article. You cannot say that "it will likely improve" when nothing shows that. Nemu 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STUB doesn't talk about article deletion or merging at all. But Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." That seems to be the case here since nobody has been able to find info that would allow these to be expanded. --Minderbinder 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably referring to the "stubs are allowed" part while ignoring the "these cannot be improved" part of this argument. Nemu 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these pages were merged into season pages, I pretty much guarantee we could find a lot of references for each. Merging to the LOE is not acceptable, because the cast and crew information will be lost. The LOE plot summaries also don't contain much of the relevant info from the ep's plot summaries. - Peregrine Fisher 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. Why couldn't any relevant cast and crew be merged to the LOE? --Minderbinder 22:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it won't fit in the table. See Smallville (season 1) for an example of a season page. - Peregrine Fisher 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So make a better table if that's what's needed. --Minderbinder 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65 episodes won't fit on one page. The standard way is with season pages, or episode pages. - Peregrine Fisher 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're acting as if all of that information is needed. The air date and the plot is all that needs to be singled out for those Smallville episodes. You don't need to single out writers or directors most of the time, and the cast can just be mentioned next to the characters name on the summary. Music is just cruft. Nemu 01:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree. All of that information is important. - Peregrine Fisher 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is important if you can't provide sourced analysis. Until you can do that, you have nothing to say. The choices are delete or provide sourced analysis. No one saying "keep" has provided anything close to analysis. These can never be real articles, accept that. Jay32183 02:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree, don't take it so personally. - Peregrine Fisher 02:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3[edit]

Comment This is one long discussion. I sincerely wish the admin closing this the best of luck. FrozenPurpleCube 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the admin really goes out on a limb, and decides not to just vote count, there is a pretty clear consensus to keep (unfortunately). Nemu 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there's no consensus either way. I'd prefer a concensus to delete, of course, but there are enough people voting delete that it's basically gridlocked. Of course, with the way that AfD is set up, that's as good as a Keep. Lankiveil 09:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Some people find it shocking, but there's been a consensus for months. Here's a list of episode AfDs that I've participated in lately. With a little bit of commentary on the results.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey La, Hey La, My Ex-Boyfriend's Back - withdrawn, notability established
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OH!? Please ♥ Mister Postman - merge was already in process; result no consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journey of a Thousand Miles - 50 or so episodes kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall's Reform - resulted in some redirects, and some kept as episode pages. Should have been a mass nomination.
Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel - keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode) - keep
The Patient - keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All The Time In The World (Alias episode) - keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball episodes - keep

Ones that I didn't participate in probably had more mixed results. - Peregrine Fisher 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why are they kept? Because it's a vote. People just cite WP:EPISODE as if it says all articles stay, instead of saying merge/redirect if the information cannot be provided. All other reasons are just for principal, or people that want to keep everything, which isn't a good reason. Plus, most of those have less than ten votes. Nemu

Because there certainly is no consensus to delete. This one is a better precedent, what with 60 or so keeps/deletes/merges. - Peregrine Fisher 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a consensus, I see that as a flaw in our AfD system. Many of the AfDs get flooded with flawed arguments and then have closing admin that don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers. Look how many people are wanting to keep not based on the articles themselves. AfDs on episode articles are headaches, and most of the discussions themselves get off track. People react emotionally, blindly, and simply because enough of them do that we have the situation we have now. Not to mention having Wikipedians go around telling other people that if they don't vote keep, the big bad deletionists will come after them too. This is exactly why AfDs are not supposed to be a vote. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a flaw in our guidelines, not AfD. This page has more comments than some of the big guideline discussions. It's the guidelines that don't totally reflect consensus. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus to delete. Not one of the keeps has said anything to show that the articles can be well sourced articles that provide more than just plot summary and trivia. The closing admin shouldn't care that they're telling a majority that they are wrong. Saying "aww, come on" does not overturn a consensus. This isn't a difference of opinion either. All of the keeps are factually wrong. Jay32183 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I well sourced The Suite Life Goes Hollywood. This makes every "keep and improve" factually accurate. - Peregrine Fisher 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only plot summary and trivia. Even the reception isn't notable considering it's what you would expect for any given episode of the show. -- Ned Scott 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you liked it, you would have been a keep. - Peregrine Fisher 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm a huge fan of Lost and I've supported delete on episode articles there. I'm a big Digimon nerd (I'm 24, if you're wondering), and yet I pushed for a mass-article merge of every single Digimon article that is nearing completion (and STILL needs major cruft clean up and merges/deletes). I've cut cruft from my favorite shows and supported deletion of trivial articles about them all the time. This, in no freaking way, has anything to do with what I like or don't like, and I take offense to the suggestion that I would have supported keep had I liked the show, as if I were some shallow deletionist. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I was unclear. I just meant you aren't a fan of keeping and improving, at least not as far as my improvements to "Goes Hollywood" are concerned. I know that you and I "vote" based on prinicipal, not on which particular show. - Peregrine Fisher 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, ok. Sorry about that, then. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling Ned what he does and doesn't like? Would I also be a keep if I liked this series? Do I need to remind you that I used the exact same reasoning in the Xiaolin Showdown discussion and I admitted to being a fan of that series? Jay32183 03:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about this show. I'm talking about keeping and improving all episode articles. - Peregrine Fisher 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does that have to do with this AfD? Phony Saint 03:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders why we have deletion discussions at all, if they're meant to be completely disregarded...--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving back to Peregrine Fisher's statement that "the consense is clearly keep" - I think it bears mentioning that while there certainly are more "keeps" than "deletes" and "merges" combined, I don't believe that sheer numbers should override policy to this degree (though trust me, I'm not a die-hard policy junkie or anything). "Consensus", to me, implies that there's a compelling reason beyond sheer numbers - and I'm not seeing that here. A good portion of these "keep" comments are the same basic argument - either 1) "WP:ILIKEIT" (in a nutshell) or 2) "these are very notable episodes because the TV show is notable and they have been seen by a lot of people". Neither of these two statements is what I would consider a compelling argument. I have yet to see my question answered - probably lost in the discussion here - so I'll ask it again in a different way: how is any given article of this series any different from my making an article about Diet Coke 204 of Action Jackson IV's 2006 Diet Coke Drinking Binge, The lightbulb in the local Wal-Mart's back room, or this sparrow Action Jackson IV saw in his front yard yesterday? Diet Coke, lightbulbs, and sparrows all have notability. Some individual lightbulbs (like the one in the firehouse that's been working since 1906) have notability. Does this mean all light-bulbs automatically deserve an article of their own? I'm coming off as slightly antagonistic, but trust me, it's just the Diet Coke talking - I really do want to see more of the "why" behind these keep votes. --Action Jackson IV 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say (with no offense intended) that's a rather flawed analogy. For one thing, its a problem of numbers. There are millions of cans of Diet Coke in the world. Also, there's nothing unique about a single can of soda: one is the same as another. Not so with episodes of a tv series like this one. Now then, what I think is at the crux of the matter, is just how far a plot summary can go. WP:FICT uses the term "reasonably short", which obviously calls for for some judgment to be applied, which will, in turn, sometimes lead to differences of opinion. It (WP:FICT) further states that sub-articles ought to be made when "encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article". Now, in my opinion (and, I think, the opinion of many of those say keep) providing encyclopedic coverage in this case does, indeed, call for sub-articles. They could be made into a list, true, but, in my judgment, a list providing encyclopedic coverage of each episode would be too long to be useful or practical. Obviously, some editors will disagree: that's why we have discussions. A judgment call is called for here, and we're finding out what the consensus is.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyre has it right. If you have a million viewers, spending 1/2 hour of their lives watching a show, then that's 500,000 of what I'll call media hours. In my opinion, 500,000 media hours per episode is enough notability to warrant not only a show page, and a list of episodes, but individual pages for each episode. Per Wikipedia:Summary style if you must. If all we can find to add are short reviews, standard ones that local papers write about lots of episodes, that's fine. Wikipedia is a television encyclopedia as well as an everything else encyclopedia, and episode pages are pretty much part of our mandate. - Peregrine Fisher 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that isn't how notability is defined here. Madness Combat is a Flash series viewed millions of times all over the internet which easily earns it "500,000 media hours" by this point. It was still deleted, showing that your perception of WP:N being flawed not a common or accepted one. Obviously the internet notability guideline is a little different than the rest, but if it followed your "number of views = important" thought, the AfD would have been different. The closing admin even decided to delete it even though the keeps outnumbered the deletes because it failed to meet the guideline; hopefully that will be the case here.

Why do you still continue to call your improvements to that one episode good? You have be shown by various people that it does nothing for your case. Reliable articles aren't built from minor reviews that are less than a paragraph. Nothing else has even shown that the same material can be found for the rest (that's a special episode isn't it?). You drone on these small points, and you never back them up. Nemu 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Something called Madness Combat was watched for over 500,000 person hours? That sounds like something notable, or else the hours weren't added correctly. Were those hours repeated for 65 different versions of it? Something like 30,000,000 person hours? I know that's too much, but if you can show me a ref that says that Madness Combat was watched for over 500,000 person hours, I will create an AfD proof page for it.

2) I think those improvements are good. Are you aware that opinions can differ? I'm not trying to complete these 65 pages myself, I just wanted to improve one to show it can be done. I'd improve another one if I thought the delete voters would care, but I don't think they would. - Peregrine Fisher 10:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - someone attempted to add a keep to Talk:Kept Man. I pointed them to this page, and they blanked that page. - Peregrine Fisher 02:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, the argument behind pretty much all of these Keep votes is WP:ILIKEIT, which is no real argument at all. Notability not demonstrated, these articles are not the subject of multiple non-trivial works, etc etc. MichelleG 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Com - eh, Keep. These are, or can reasonably considered to be, subarticles, kept separate for better coverage. If (say) the "Schlock Mercenary" article got too big, and I split off "Characters of Schlock Mercenary," would I need multiple RS for the characters as well? (Honest question.) --Kizor 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What would/should happen if (and this looks likely because the result looks like a deadlocked vote) the episode articles were kept? WAVY 10 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But this isn't a vote, it's a discussion giving for and against arguments for the deletion of this article. Since the "against" arguments have no real substance, deletion is the correct outcome, at least according to policy. If the article is kept, it's yet another precedent to allow TVcruft to continue expanding exponentially on Wikipedia. MichelleG 12:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Not only is this not a vote, but the closing admin needs to be especially careful in closing not to go by raw numbers since there has been a ton of canvassing with a pro "keep" slant. I'm not surprised there's more quantity "voting" that position, although with no policy to support it. --Minderbinder 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The relevant guidelines, WP:N and WP:EPISODE, support merging them. However, the initial two editors working on the episode articles couldn't agree on whether or not to merge them, so they ended up here. Phony Saint 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Read my (long) discussion of this at ANI [45] for what I think is a keep argument with substance. (Quick summary: Episode articles always have at least one source, the episode itself; series or season pages are sufficient for some shows, but for popular shows, episode pages prevent overly long, difficult to read, and constantly edit-warred-over season or series pages; the benefits for readers that episode pages provide outweigh the concern about limited sources in this case.) Pinball22 13:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Popularity has no direct relationship with episode articles; what matters is what "reliable, third-party published sources" have written about them (and in this case, little has been written about a typical Disney Channel comedy.) Edit wars don't qualify as an appropriate reason unless there is some previous consensus for the series in question that there were problems and that was the necessary thing to do. Phony Saint 14:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, it does have a relationship with episode articles, in the sense that more popular shows will attract more attention and get more information added about them. I'm not saying that these are reasons that all shows should have episode articles, or that edit wars would be a problem for every show. I'm saying that shows should start out with a series page, which should then be broken out into season pages and then episode pages as people contribute information, and that plot summaries written by watching the episodes in question are a valid type of information gathered (appropriately according to WP:RS) from a primary source. Pinball22 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        People edit war over cult followings and less popular TV shows too; people edit war over anything and everything. Nothing says that using primary sources is inherently bad; however, there are WP:PLOT, WP:FICT, and WP:EPISODE#Content, which emphasize short summaries. Phony Saint 14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope we are so fortunate as to have TV "cruft" expanding exponentially on Wikipedia, Michelle. Information is a good thing, it's what we're here for. It would be completely outrageous for this to be closed as delete or merge when the delete and merge votes together are heavily outnumbered by the keep votes, and I am confident the closing admin would not do such a thing. Actually, we're bordering on a consensus to keep. Everyking 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since this is not a vote, factors like "outnumbered" are completely irrelevant. --Minderbinder 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I consider it a vote, but even if you don't, surely you can acknowledge my point. Consensus to delete cannot possibly exist when a majority are in favor of keeping it. Numbers have to matter on some level, or the concept of consensus can't even be applied. Everyking 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You consider wrong. And consensus can absolutely exist when a majority want something but aren't supported by policy. See WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus. "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works (see Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy) and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." "Note that the numbers are not binding on the editor who is interpreting the debate, and should never be the only consideration in making a final decision. Judgment and discretion are essential to determine the correct action, and in all cases, the discussion itself is more important than the statistics." --Minderbinder 15:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are talking about vote counting, not consensus. A consensus cannot exist when a majority of people disagree with the decision. If someone were to pull this "the majority's viewpoint isn't compatible with policy" stuff, they still couldn't claim the minority's viewpoint was a consensus. Everyking 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When the majority does not have the knowledge to properly participate in a discusiion, the minority can achive consensus by ignoring them. Jay32183 00:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's preposterous to claim the majority isn't informed. Are you telling me I don't have the knowledge to participate in this discussion? It's also, needless to say, preposterous to say consensus can be achieved by ignoring everybody who disagrees with you. Everyking 01:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a difference of opinion. You are factually wrong. Opinion doesn't play at all. You have no evidence to support the claims you are making. The fact that you continue to make those claims shows, at best, that you are uninformed. It's find the sources or the articles get deleted, no opinions necessary. When it's objective like that, no one's opinion matters. If team A scores 5 points and team B scores 4, then team A wins. It doesn't matter that you think team B played better, or that you think team A got lucky. Jay32183 02:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What claims have I made that you think are factually wrong? My arguments were that the show is quite notable and that individual episode articles give more room for content and facilitate further expansion. I feel that you are wrong about the sourcing issue because the show itself easily meets notability criteria, and the episode articles merely constitute spin-offs of a higher level of detail, in which case having only one source for those articles (the episodes themselves) is fine. Multiple independent sources are necessary to assert the notability of a basic topic, but not necessarily to assert the notability of specific elements within that topic. In this case, since these individual episodes are seen by millions of people, we have no rational reason to consider them non-notable elements of the topic. Additionally, I am sure some of the episodes have received some degree of coverage in magazines, for example "Odd Couples", in which Ashley Tisdale's character kisses Zac Efron's character, so in that case do you want to keep an episode like that and delete the others? Everyking 03:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Notablitlity for a stand alone article is determined by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject, so these articles all fail the notability requirement. It doesn't matter how notable you feel they are, there aren't sources to back it up. If you find sufficient sources for one the rest should be deleted, but you must find the sources first. No sources means everything you say is completely meaningless. Since plot summaries are supposed to be small, you can't expnad plot summaries to claim there is too much content. The arguments from the keeps have been I like it, useful, not harmful, inherited notability, interesting, lots of viewers, and let's not lose content. Jay32183 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Everyking, you are factually wrong. Consensus can be a minority when the majority isn't supported by policy - all "votes" without a valid reason should be ignored by the closing admin, particularly in a case like this that had extensive canvassing. --Minderbinder 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Will people please stop using essays as justifiable arguments? Guidelines would be valid here, but these are essays. As I said before, it appears that this all started due to one series' episode articles that follows the same guidelines that most (if not all) of the other series' articles follow, and it seems that that was only brought up because the user doesn't like the show or something. I don't watch that show either (I don't dislike it; I just don't watch it), but if an article on Wikipedia doesn't hold my interest, I don't read it; simple as that. Anthony Rupert 13:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ATA (all of those links up there) isn't being used as an argument. It is being used to show why the various keep arguments are trash. The actual arguments to delete come from WP:EPISODE, WP:N, and WP:RS (and possibly more that I'm forgetting), not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nemu 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-May I make a humble suggestion? Let's try to keep the discussion to the points at hand, and leave the (unenviable, I think) task of measuring consensus to the closing admin when the time comes.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on a random sampling of these pages, I see the following flaws:
- Lack of "multiple independent non-trivial third-party sources" as required by WP:N
- Absence of "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" as required by WP:FICT. The small amount of such context that is included is unsourced (e.g. asserting that one episode is the favourite of one of the actors)
- Much of the "trivia" sections is pure listcruft, e.g. counting how many appearances recurring characters have had up to and including the episode in question. I don't believe these problems could be easily rectified. JulesH 15:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we just end this thing? WAVY 10 14:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, can we? It's not a vote, thus it has no real bearing on whether the articles will be kept or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by COMPFUNK2 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep per opinions Lizzie Harrison 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whie many people like this show, we have to deal with the question of "IS each episode notable?" In this situation, I have to vote no. However, in drama shows where each episode ACTUALLY HAS AN EFFECT on the next episodes, such as Heroes, Daytime Soaps, Lost, ect.. I would more then likely vote keep in said instances. But since this comedy show has almost no plot and nearly every episode could be watched out of order and the difference wouldn't be noticed, I shall vote delete. The Placebo Effect 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not every episode of a sitcom is notable, but when did every episode of a drama become automatically notable. Your reasoning is that it is because the episodes tie together, which is true of soaps and more recent dramas like 24, but what about older dramas like Bonanza or more recently MacGyver? And how would, for a sitcom, one determine notability/signifigance for an episode? WAVY 10 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notbility is always estblished by multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. Drama episodes are not automatically notable just because there's a running story line. Jay32183 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was for shows where they tie together, dramas was just a better example. The Placebo Effect 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If an IMdb entry indicates notability, then such a show is also "notable".Jewishprincess 23:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) — Jewishprincess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

An IMDb entry does not indicate notability. Jay32183 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the show, It's about individual episodes. The Placebo Effect 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4[edit]

Number 4 is considered unlucky by the Japanese and Chinese due to the fact it sounds like death. Which I will that this debate does soon. Motion to close deletion nomination already!!--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, if we say this isn't setting a precendent, every other episode AfD will doubtlessly become an end- and pointless debate of wether that particular series is notable enough. Second, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Since obviously there are enough viewers and contributors to create and read these episode articles, they should just stay. Really, who does it hurt? Malc82 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the series at all. It's that these article do not have multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources independant of the subject. I can't believe you actually presented that argument after it was explained that "lots of viewers" and "who does it hurt?" were shown not to be valid arguments because they aren't based in policy or guideline. The precedent you're afraid of setting can't happen because the grounds for deletion isn't "This is an individual episode". Jay32183 18:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's be frank here, its hard and oftenly impossible to meet WP's notability guideline (or your interpretation of it) for something rather trivial like a tv episode of pretty much any series. Also keep in mind that notable secondary sources (pop-culture research etc.) usually take some time, while the episode recap should be provided shortly after it's first airing. On the other hand, thousands of contributors spend tens of thousands of hours on episode and tv character articles (btw, I contributed about 10 words overall on tv episode articles, so I'm not one of them). Some of these contributors are also improving the more scientific parts of WP, many might become valuable wikipedians in the future. Since articles about tv shows are on average well-written and a useful resource, I think we shouldn't be too strict in judging them. Deletion seriously discourages every editor of these articles from ever contributing to WP again, and will harm WP much more than risking some more "Jimbo's Bag O'Trivia" allegations, which won't stop anyway. The WP-guidelines cited are not written in stone and I think we shouldn't hold episode articles to the same high notability standards that we (rightfully) demand for a controversial political concept or a biography. Malc82 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is basically WP:NOHARM, which Jay just posted. There are close to two million articles on this site with millions more being possible. If a person can only become a good editor by working on episode articles, something is wrong. And most episode articles are not well written; they are either bloated with plot summaries and trivia, or they're stubs. The only decent articles I can think of are Simpsons episodes, and the Dr. Who serials, which still are a far cry from being that good (besides some specific ones). Currently, most episode articles fail too many policies and guidelines to just say "oh, we can bend them." Nemu 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most people don't start out as a wikipedian, they find an article, use WP frequently and may (as in my case) not create an account until years later, when they feel they could seriously improve some articles. What "decent" articles are may be in the eye of the beholder, I just wanted to provide some arguments that one should consider before making a decision. Granted, there will never be a consensus on m:Inclusionism vs. m:Deletionism. Malc82 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why the notability requirement is based on sources rather than having to make a judgement call. There aren't reliable sources to allow for in depth coverage; anything beyond that doesn't matter. Jay32183 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close deletion nomination already!! Beating a Dead Horse here!! 5 days are up!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Action Jackson IV. I believe Z&C to be far less notable and culturally pervasive than Doctor Who, Star Trek, or the Simpsons. It should set a precedence for other similarly less-than-notable episodic pages, and does not set a precedence for others. -- LeCour^T:C 15:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are many good quality articals that fit into this catagory, for example Doctor Who and Torchwood articals are very well sourced and written. --Wiggstar69 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Invalid nomination. Redirects should be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. WjBscribe 00:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambulance services in the United Kingdom[edit]

Page now blank redriect page - all inbound links now changed to new page Owain.davies 15:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this should really go on WP:RFD. I can't see any reason to delete the redirect - they're cheap, and someone might conceivably search for this. Hut 8.5 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redirect should not be deleted as it contains an active page history. Road Wizard 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Redirects do no harm. Peterkingiron 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WjBscribe 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hywel Gwynfryn[edit]

I removed an inappropriate speedy delete template since there is an assertion of notability. This is a procedural AfD on which I therefore abstain. TerriersFan 17:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This could be made into a good article, but at this time there is no claim of applicable secondary source of bio information; and hosting a radio show certainly doesn't go anywhere near the notability criterion and that's the only claim in the article besides a very brief statement of birth and education. Coren 18:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that if some of that information from the Welsh 'pedia establishes notoriety, my vote would change to keep. Perhaps there is someone from the Welsh Wikipedia that can be found to comment? Coren 21:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reaffirm my delete. I've checked [the welsh article], and it seems exactly as stubby as the english version, and since I see no more cites on that page I expect it has no more established notoriety. Coren 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as this article was created today and based upon talkpage statement that there is a great deal of additional information on the Welsh Wikipedia that can be brought to the article. It can be renominated if the article does include greater assertion of notability after a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad 21:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment My initial impression, on encountering the Hywel Gwynfryn article, of satisfaction that somebody notable (to me) had made it to the English Wikipedia, was tempered by surprise that it had immediately been listed for speedy deletion. The suggestion that hosting a radio show isn't enough to make somebody notable is perhaps contradicted by the article belonging to a category for Welsh radio presenters, itself a sub-category of wider categories of radio presenters, most of whose members are there simply because they host a radio show. The notability criterion refers to enterertainers who have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". As a radio presenter, Hywel Gwynfryn has made a significant contribution to Welsh-language bradcasting. Before the introduction of Welsh-language channel BBC Radio Cymru in 1977, Hywel Gwynfryn hosted the innovative Helo Sut 'Dach Chi? show, one of very few Welsh-language radio programmes in the 1960s/1970s, and probably the only one listed to by young people of the time. When BBC Radio Cymru was launched, he was one of its main anchors and continues to this day. But quite apart from his work as radio presenter in both Welsh and English, he has presented television programmes, is an author and charity fund-raiser, and is almost as well-known for his witty song lyrics and Welsh pantomime contributions. All this will, no doubt, become clear, with citations, as the current stub develops. It is true that the Welsh Wikipedia doesn't say a great deal more, but to be fair it must be recognised that the Welsh Wikipedia is still some way behind the English in terms of length of articles and standard of citations.D22 22:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment-comment I would probably argue that this makes her notable enough for the Welsh Wikipedia, but dubiously so for the english one. YMMV. Coren 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Him, by the way. KP Botany 01:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete, (A7 - non-notable bio). — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Devlin Ardboe[edit]

I believe this is a on notable biography failing WP:BIO, WP:RS, appears to contain OR. Vintagekits 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony vanity[edit]

This is an autobiography, and a poorly-written one, at that. There are no references, only a listing of accomplishments, the verifiability of which are open to question. A representative sentence: "But He is well know for being a Internet celebrity (myspace.com)". That just about says it all. An album and clothing line are said to be coming soon, though no idea is given of when. In the end, all this is is a MySpace page, and as I have said many times "Wikipedia is not MySpace". Charles 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly not notable, fails WP:BIO. Gwernol 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Conflict of interest" - but there is another word for it! -- RHaworth 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Delete, WP:SNOW - speedy, if an admin wishes to take a liberal interpretation of CSD G1 or CSD A7. There is a word for autobiographical articles like these, but for some reason I can't remember it. The word's on the tip of my tongue, too. Ugh... funny how these things work... --Action Jackson IV 05:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't make sense. --Listen up friend 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this titlespamcruftisement. MER-C 08:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative analysis of the Russian and Ukrainian open-end diversified mutual funds markets (according to statistics 2006)[edit]

Contested speedy. Article fails WP:OR. Wikipedia is not the place to publish essays or analyses on Russian and Ukrainian markets UnfriendlyFire 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as waay to specific. Also as OR per nom. meshach 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, specifically: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Someguy1221 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially empty, except for a list of related articles. A true analysis would likely be OR, unless there were sufficient published comparative analyses. This isn't even that.DGG 23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. —dima /talk/ 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send the title to BJAODN. Just when you think you've seen everything... YechielMan 04:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is clearly just an essay. --Haemo 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rename, as title is way too long. No sources either.--Sefringle 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 05:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete by Woohookitty (non-notable. Seems like made up nonsense). WjBscribe 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lasagne pie[edit]

Seems like a vanity page to me. See talk page - someone else things it should be gone as well. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 13:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - it seems odd to even have to give a reason, but since this is a discussion, I'll say that it doesn't pass WP:Food :) Seriously though, obvious fan page, neologism (can that apply to food?) - BierHerr 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete as a non-notable map/game-guide for WoW, WP:WEB and WP:NOT both refer. (aeropagitica) 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advent of the Zenith[edit]

No claim to meet WP:WEB. No independent coverage. Wikipedia is not a game guide for fan-made Warcraft maps. — Scientizzle 18:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks more like some sort of advertising more than anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kessingler (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - the article fails WP:WEB totally, and is just advertising for someone's map. Very WP:NN. Ale_Jrb ^talk 20:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hold up on that a second. Right now, the art was just made by the map creator, and as such is POV. However, the map is one of the more used ones on Warcraft III. Seeing as Dota is on and considered notable enough, I would say that AotZ can be notable as well. As such, the only issue is writing style, which can be changed (and which I will get around to doing ASAP). VfD is a tad harsh for PoV writing, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platonic Nirvana (talk • contribs)
- Defense of the Ancients/DotA Allstars has at least a claim to notability:
  DotA Allstars v5.84c was featured in the Malaysian and Singaporean World Cyber Games 2005 national finals and the Cyberathlete Amateur League now runs an Open, Intermediate, Main and Invite division using DotA Allstars v6.41.
  This one doesn't. POV text isn't the issue here... — Scientizzle 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable local meteorological event; more a news item than an encyclopedic article. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Event in Ohio: 7/11/06[edit]

Not really notable - just a couple of storms. Also poorly referenced. Biruitorul 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlike named storms, etc., this is a non-notable event, and WP:NOT Wikinews applies. Tornadoes like this are a dime a dozen (I think there were three near where I live last week?), and this doesn't seem to fall under topics of historical significance... in the news. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the very name of the article says it all. There are weather events, well, every day everywhere. When the weather is notable, someone gives that weather event some sort of name. Wikipedia is Not an indiscriminate collection of information on the daily weather in various locations. Cool3 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The primary author has put a significant amount of work on something that is few steps below a case study. If he wants to work further on it, he can do so there. Of course, if he doesn't run up against notability issues, he may eventually hit the NOR wall, when he'll probably need to take this some other place. (I will concede of course that this isn't the primary purpose of userification, but I elaborate below). While this has been sitting around for nearly 9 months, what concerns me is where the notability bar is set. This doesn't appear notable at first blush to me, but a lot of meteorological events that are commonplace are notable for their effects; a lot of low impact events are notable for meteorological reasons. My instinct is that this isn't the case here, but I'm uncomfortable enough to give this one the benefit of the doubt for further improvement--in another forum. –Pakman044 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good sense[edit]

There seems to reason whatsoever to regard this as a topic distinct from common sense, and the article gives no support for the notion that reliable sources exist showing an established and notable distinction or concept here. Wareh 18:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article I made major improvements on April 27th from what it was as a stub previously. One day later it is then nominated for deletion with no discussion as to what the problems might be. There is no Talk or comments by any editor in Discussion of this article, so I can not know what seems to be the objection to the improvements. If there were specifics and some Talk perhaps then corrections could be made. Shouldn't there be steps made to improve the article instead of just nominating it directly for deletion. I noticed there are steps for deletion of an article, however there is also a policy to be bold in updating pages. There was no attempt by the person that nominated it for deletion to make improvements - he just wanted it deleted directly. Seems like there should be steps taken to improve the article before directly deleteing it. There was no time given (one day) for any other editors to work on the article before it was nominated for deletion. Other editors should be allowed to work on the article to get Third Opinions. The nominator for deletion should assume good faith and try to improve the article instead of just directly deleting an article, just because it doesn't meet their style or what they like (personal preference). When it was a stub it was not nominated for deletion, so apparently the nominator didn't like the improvements I made and went directly to deleteing it instead of trying to make any improvements or even discussing what improvements could be made or even allowing other editors to work on the article. I would think other editors should be allowed to work on the article and there should be "Third Opinions" from several other Editors before deletion. Just because a person does not like the improvements made by a certain editor shouldn't be an "excuse" to delete the article totally. The policy of improving an article should be done FIRST, instead of just jumping directly to DELETE and bypassing all Policies set up. If an editor can get away with that, then they will always just DELETE the article TOTALLY when any improvements are made that doesn't meet their personal approval (therefore regulating its design and regulating the improvements made or if any improvements could be made to a particular article). They could then do this to ANY other articles as well. This could then be taken a step further and this original editor could solicit other editors to help in deleting an article that is not within the taste of the original editor, therefore "stacking" votes in his favor to delete an article, like in these examples: [46] and [47] and [48] and [49]. Up until now no other editors have found anything wrong with this other article I improved of Nous, which this same editor is soliciting other editors to help in deleting that article I worked on. Then the next step would be a version of "sock puppertry". --Doug ^talk 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to accusations. I have not canvassed for the deletion of Nous (or this article). I think Wikipedia should have a quality article on nous, and the postings of mine Doug links are quite obviously (unsuccessful, by the way) calls for knowledgeable editors to assist in cleanup. I've now explained this, and the reasons why the article needs cleanup, at Talk:Nous. This seemed appropriate to point out; I won't address the ludicrous insinuation of "sock puppertry" (sic) here. Wareh 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several definitions for common sense and this article is just showing a "relationship" to one of its definitions. One of the definitions to Common Sense is:

what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.

This article is not of this characteristic and is not defined as: that which they sense "in common" as their common natural understanding.

Good sense is defined in the first line as:

from the viewpoint of a practical application.

The article is not what people in "common" feel but is related to "good". The point being that "Good sense" is different than "Common sense". It is therefore unique! The article on common sense relates to what people in "common" feel. This article is unique in that it relates to what is "good" or "practical" - not of that which is "common". The idea as it relates to "good" has been much referenced and there are many sources provided showing this in the article. While good sense has common sense in it, they are not one and the same. Good sense has one definition (related to practical knowledge), while "common sense" has several definitions. Good sense is not necessarily what people "in common" feel; otherwise we wouldn't have rules and Laws. I have shown that Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1971 definition of good sense is sound judgment often instinctive or unlearned. The article on common sense gives several other definitions, many pertaining as to what people in "common" feel. Good sense could be a minority of people (i.e. those educated in practical applications). People in general (in "common") don't necessary have practical knowledge; otherwise we wouldn't have so many fat Americans. It is good sense to be within your correct weight range for your height, however apparently it is not "common" as the average American is at least 20% overweight. It is good sense to not smoke, however it is "common" that people in general do - even though they realize it is not practical and can lead to early death and many illnesses. --Doug ^talk 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about something established, notable, and unique. In other words, there is no good sense (practical reason) in deleting this article. Lately I have made several major improvements to the article to address some of the issues brought up (i.e. delete dictionary definitions, better references). Had there been discussions I could have made the improvements before this article was just nominated for deletion directly right away (one day after initial improvements made from it as a "stub") because the nominator didn't like the improvements made (didn't meet their personal approval). A nominator should work on improvements, not work on just deleting work done by someone. --Doug ^talk 13:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. My entire point is what Doug says above: definitions in terms of "sound judgment often instinctive or unlearned" or "practical knowledge" are not, under any established or reliable definition, outside of the scope of common sense. Wareh 20:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is not if these definitions are within the scope of that for "common sense"; the point is if this term is a previously shown term by another source (established) and if it is unique and notable. This term fits all three:

The article shows that Antonio Gramsci established the term.
The article shows that the term is unique: several definite definitions with references for good sense.
The article shows that the term is notable by Diana Coben who wrote several books and articles showing the difference.--Doug ^talk 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the overall article being a mixture of OR and dictionary definitions. The part worth preserving somewhere is the list of references. Possibly a good article could be constructed based on these sources; this phrase may or may not be distinguishable from common sense, and I can't tell that without knowing what the sources have to say. The article itself provides no evidence. DGG 21:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not read what the sources have to say? That's what source citations are for, after all. I suggest starting with the paper by Coben that is cited in the article. Uncle G 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The phrase defines it as being from the viewpoint of a practical application:

The article shows Gramsci explains it as implicit in practical life in his "philosophy of praxis".

Continuing it says: .....when applied with prudence (wisdom with regard to practical matters):

The article shows the Catholic Encyclopedia in item 3 as the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles ("recta ratio").--Doug ^talk 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion, but if the article is not kept, it should redirect to common sense instead of being deleted. YechielMan 04:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary definition--Sefringle 04:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dic def, eh? Let's look in the dictionaries then: from the OED good sense is the same as one of the defs of common sense, and from websters thesaurus they're the same thing (couldn't find that one online, though). Someguy1221 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point isn't if certain dictionaries have the same definition for each, but is if this article is about something "notable" and "unique". The article is! --Doug ^talk 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The argument that dictionaries give the two as entirely synonmous with one another is an argument that the concept here is not unique, and not distinct from the concept of common sense. Your counterargument is to point to a reliable source that demonstrates that there are two distinct concepts here. Uncle G 01:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself points this out with Diana Coben's books (some are with ISBN numbers) and articles about Gramsci and Paulo Freire papers talking about the differences of the two. In # 3 under The term "common sense" designates it references the Catholic Encyclopedia and the meaning of "good sense" (also being of the "right reason"). In the article I pointed out that good sense is closely associated with (synonmous) common sense - however it is unique in that it is an established and notable separate term and expression; which is associated with the word "good" and the word "practical". It points out common is to a particular period and a particular popular environment. Good sense is associated with 'practical consequences' or real effects - where "common" means it is mutual and a belief = where good or practical are not an issue or not a part of the belief. I gave the example that smoking is quite common (a large population smokes and it is quite common in a crowd of people of the general population), however it is not good sense (meaning it is not practical or good). The article points out Gramsci says good sense goes beyond "common sense" to become a critical conception.--Doug ^talk 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Article under FootNotes: - The Study of Philosophy it defines good sense as practical and empirical as defined by Antonio Gramsci. He further defines "common sense" meaning the incoherent weight of generally held assumptions and beliefs "common" to any given society. Key: "common" verses "practical".--Doug ^talk 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't establish that "good sense" is a notable concept in the history of philosophy and significantly different than common sense. The two concepts seem to be different in the thought of Gramsci, but the place for that material is Antonio Gramsci--unless it can be shown that his concept of "good sense" has had a significant impact on the development of philosophy (or critical theory, political theory, whatever). In addition, the stuff in the first few paragraphs that aren't about Gramsci seem to be original research, specifically a "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference Diana Coben's book "Radical Heroes" (Gramsci & Freire) ISBN 0-8153-1898-7 and The Study of Philosophy Colorado College.--Doug ^talk 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, it might be helpful if you explained why those references are relevant. If they demonstrate how the concept of good sense is important outside of Gramsci, it will not be difficult for you to give a relevant quote. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia item (3) first paragraph of the definition of Common Sense says:

(3) the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles (recta ratio, good sense). --Doug ^talk 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to have much to do with Gramsci. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the work that Doug cited (the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, by the way, not the "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia") presents the two as synonymous. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the link in the upper left had corner it says "New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia" - that's all I can go on. Is that not correct?--Doug ^talk 23:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the section entitled "publication information" on that page. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was going to say. Also, New Advent is the name of the website that has republished the encyclopedia online, now that the copyright has expired. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as unsourced original research. (aeropagitica) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial D trivia articles[edit]

Similar to Initial D real-life locations and popularity, these articles are largely trivia and track listings for an anime series. All of these articles are unsourced, probable original research, don't meet the notability guidelines for fiction and are collections of indiscriminate information. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete song selection and terminologies articles - indiscriminate and non-notable, the latter acknowledges its lack of reliable sources. Undecided about the car modifications article. It looks like it might be reasonable under WP:FICT in gathering these into a list article but I won't cry any bitter tearsif it goes. Otto4711 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 17:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable event, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshama Technical Festival[edit]

A contested PROD, tag removed with a "it's not a fake"-style rationale. From what I can find, this is a non-notable event, no evidence from WP:RS of meeting WP:ORG (probably the closest barometer one can use for an interuniversity event; template also claims it is a "Student Run Non Profit Organization"). "The festival boasts of being the biggest of its kind in the north part of the country"... but nothing to back that up other than its own website. Weak Google presence, little outside of original source, which is odd considering this is a technology-related event. Delete unless properly sourced and notability clearly established. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is dubious, and the external links are insufficient as sources. YechielMan 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Burnett[edit]

The entry offers nothing but information that can be found on KDKA-TV's Web site. Additionally, not every local television news person warrants a page. Wiki isn't a popularity contest or a directory, therefore this entry should be deleted. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Re-Write - Gotta disagree with ya. Jon has been at KD for years and like some Washington, DC anchors, I think that a certain amount of time at a station should get you a quick mention. Not for a kid who just started in the business, though. I say keep it and have someone re-write it. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom --TREYWiki 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jon Burnett is an award winning journalist and weathercaster with more than 30 years of experience. He is certainlly deserving of a page. Kd lvr 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If all of the information can be found on KDKA-TV's website this may be an indication the article has been thoroughly researched or the article is a copyright infringement. There are other proper places to deal with these issues. Your comment that "Wiki isn't a popularity contest ..., therefore this entry should be deleted" is a non-sequitor, but I think you know that, and I'm beginning to wonder if you and a group of your friends are just playing a joke with these deletion nominations. On the chance you are serious, please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, simply ask the birders or the editors to add information and sources. Please read and respect the box at the top of WP:AfD:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

KP Botany 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and possible copyvio. Nearly every KDKA personality page that has been put up for AfD was taken directly from the KDKA site. I disagree with Write's and Trey's reasoning. Those are really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT than a concrete reason for deletion. DarkAudit 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it not possible for more information to be gathered from another source, perhaps? Kd lvr 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see The Proposed Community Ban for Kd lvr and Kdkatpir2. Think of there comments invalid. --TREYWiki 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A local TV weatherman? I wouldn't even assume that national TV weatherman are automatically notable!- fchd 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He is currently serving as a weathercaster, but he has experience as a journalist and a talk show host as well.Kd lvr 03:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... never won an Emmy, no substantive local media coverage. Calwatch 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't think weather people can win an Emmy. Regardless, that's not the issue or the standard we should be using. You can win an Emmy (for instance, as part of a group of people or an organization) and not be notable and you can never get so much as a 'World's best dad' award and be notable. In this case, notability outside of the local market is a bit problematic but I'm willing to err on the side of keeping the article. Seed 2.0 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Significant media figure in a big and important market.Nucleophilic 00:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Della Crews[edit]

The article lacks information, it lacks a defined layout. The article offers nothing. Articles about television news anchors in local markets do not automatically warrant a page. Write_On_1983 talk | contribs 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, I know it goes against what I just said above, but being the article is paragraph total, it's gotta go. Unless someone can re-write the thing so that it will standup to the notability, etc. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 20:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete it seems as only KDKA's people have wiki pages. Strong Delete, per nom --TREYWiki 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Say What? Where do you get KDKA from this one? There seems to be a distinct cut-and-paste feel to your comments, as every newsperson AfD you commented on was with the exact same statement. And at no point do you give a true reason why the article in question should be deleted. DarkAudit 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Say What? Got that right, on the other hand it was nominated for bogus deletion reasons also. I think we're being played by a group of kids having fun on Wikipedia. KP Botany 18:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nominator failed to use Wikipedia process for AfD. Almost all articles on Wikipedia lack some information, that is not a reason for deleting all of Wikipedia. Poor layout requires tagging or fixing, not deletion. It doesn't matter whether other articles about television news anchors in local markets warrant a page or not, that's a policy consideration, discuss that with the community. What matters is if this article is about someone sufficiently notable to merit a page.
And please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, simply layout the article better if it needs that, or post a wikification tag. Please read and respect the box at the top of WP:AfD:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

KP Botany 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news anchor, a couple of bit-parts in TV movies? plus article is completely unsourced. As it stands, fails WP:BIO and WP:N. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Americans in the Venona papers[edit]

Whoa. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and ESPECIALLY WP:BLP. Lists screens and screens of people, the article asserts "Many academics and historians believe that most of the following individuals were either clandestine assets and/or contacts of the KGB, GRU and Soviet Naval GRU".

Furthermore, article states: "The following list of individuals is extracted in part from the work of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; as well as others listed in the references below."

??? Original research? This list is compiled from which sources, below? In how much part? And since two of the sources below are declassified gov. documents that have been highly censored in their release, how much of that is conjecture? How much of that is the conjecture of the contributing editors? The individuals on the list are not matched to any source. In a review of the talk page for this article, questions about original research are rebuffed with: "go through the sources, and see them for yourself".

Somehow, I don't think that's right. An editor compiles a HUGE list of people, insinuates by their inclusion that they're communist spies, then dumps a pile of references at the bottom that aren't cited to any of the people on the list... and we're to reverse enigineer through thousands of pages to verify/cite it FOR them if anyone's concerned? Bad faith answer to a good faith question.

This was debated into the ground on the talkpage, but I submit here that this is a BIG potential problem article. If no one's willing to cite every name on that list so it can be verified, it's potentially OR and defamatory.

I would have asked for a speedy on this, but I had not idea what category it would go under. Thanks, Wysdom 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the state of the article is poor, I do believe that the topic in general is worthy of having a page.Dxco 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the only relevant page, see also Category:Venona Appendix A. I urge those commenting to first read Venona project, especially the section on criticism. (I have posted a link to this AfD on the talk pages of those two articles.)

As I understand it, the true problem is that although many individual's names were deciphered, any individual one of them may or may not have had an actual role in espionage--some probably were included as potential recruits; and many were people convicted of espionage who guilt remains disputed (Of course, some of them were self-confessed spies, and not necessarily ashamed of it.). With respect to BLP and NPOV, the list is a accurate report of the names from the sources, ultimately based on public documents which are thereby free from libel. However, the inclusion of the list alone without appropriate qualifiers in each case seems problematic, especially for those individuals for whom there is no WP article. The category is safer: the place for the discussion of the appropriateness of any individual being so identified belongs on the talk page of the article on that person. It would probably be appropriate to write short articles for those without, as I think anyone so named is historically notable. and then the category would be sufficient. DGG 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is why I'm such a pain in the ass about sources being cited on everything--because, due respect to those involved--if this had been done right in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't have to guess who was actually in the document, what the document actually says, if any of this is defamatory or defamatory conjecture or worse, defamatory OR. Turgidson insists there's no OR here--how exactly do you expect us to know that? Last time I saw, WP:TAKEMYWORDFORIT wasn't a reliable source. I'm not insinuating dishonesty, I'm just saying Turgidson, DGG et al are assuming a lot more than I am personally comfortable with.

The article clearly states "extracted in part from the work of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; as well as others listed in the references below. Those "others" include the Venona documents... and that leaves a big question in my mind: Did the contributor/editor do any "extracting" from the Venona documents, him/herself? Because that is OR. And until we have everything on that list cited to a source that's plain as day, there's no way to be sure. DGG assures that the list is ultimately "based on" public documents--that's not very reassuring. If there was OR or some enthusiastic theorizing, extrapolating, or even hyperbole--that is NOT free from libel. --Wysdom 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is nothing OR about this list -- as the article indicates, it all comes out of the findings of the Venona Project (a long-running and highly secret collaboration between intelligence agencies of the United States and United Kingdom that involved the cryptanalysis of messages sent by several intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union, mostly during World War II), as recounted in the book "Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America" (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, ISBN 0300077718 ), written by two respected scholars, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes. We even have a special category devoted to the topic Category:Venona, with several subcategories, including Category:Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. The articles on the individuals named in the Venona papers make it plain what their involvement with Soviet espionage was, and to what extent that involvement has been established. If there is a doubtful case, by all means, let's hear about it, and deal with it accordingly. In the meantime, the list plays a useful role. I say, let's keep it, and improve on it. Turgidson 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I fail to see how this list "violates WP:BLP". How many of the persons on the list are still living? After all, we're talking about events related to World War II, and its immediate aftermath -- some 60-65 years ago. I checked (and edited) several of those articles, and all their subjects died quite a while ago, e.g., John Abt in 1991, Solomon Adler in 1994, Elizabeth Bentley in 1963, Frank Coe in 1980, Jacob Golos in 1943, Alger Hiss in 1996, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, Greg Silvermaster in 1964, etc. Please clarify how WP:BLP is supposed to apply to these situations. Turgidson 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Establish that all of the people on this list are deceased, and you will have established that WP:BLP is not an issue here. RedSpruce 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the ones who claim that WP:BLP applies. As far as I can tell, this is a Red herring. Turgidson 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per nomination and DGG's comment. Without a specific citation attached to each name, this violates WP:BLP. Even with such citations, many in the list would probably still be in violation, unless some very careful wording was used to explain and qualify the person's presence in the list. There is a lot of uncertainty around many of these names; not merely whether or not they were spies (which is implied by their presence in this list, despite the cautions in the introduction to the article), but also about whether or not they were actually "named" in Venona documents. The identification of such-and-such a person as corresponding to such-and-such a Venona code name was rarely certain or clear-cut. The most famous, but by no means the most extreme example of this uncertainty is Alger Hiss. I also question the "usefulness" of this article. At best, it lists Americans whose name or code name was mentioned for some reason at some point in some decrypted or partially decrypted Soviet cable transmitted some time between 1942 and 1945. So what? RedSpruce 22:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even giving this the benefit of the doubt, both in terms of original research and in terms of accuracy, Wikipedia is not a directory, and this article is nothing more than that. --Action Jackson IV 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Offer On the AfD for Nadia Morris Orispovich, earlier, I offered what I hope is an acceptable compromise--I'll restate here:

A compromise then--because, I'm sorry, matters of libel and defamation re: living people are far too serious to just take your (or anyone's) word for it: The list and all little bios associated with it need to be blanked, and can be restored as they're verifiably sourced. That would be my solution. I'm not comfortable just letting this sort of thing "hang out there" waiting for you to add sources which might not exist as clearly, reliably, or verifiably as you seem to believe they do--or be easily accessible. This is going to be a huge project and every day these potentially defamatory, unverifiable statements stay up without citation is a day too long. Can we agree?

Based on the facts and situation as I currently understand them, this is the only acceptable alternative to deletion. Wysdom 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been there since 2005, and the other articles on the subject have similarly been there a while, and have been discussed on their talk pages. We are not the first people to have looked at them, and it is not an emergency. I would want to reread the articles and their associated talk pages first. This is a material from what was originally a government report, and therefore not libel. The authors would never have been able to publish the books otherwise. There is no legal exposure. The books report their being on the list, and we say just that. With respect to BLP, I am not sure how we handle a situation where many of the people are known to be deceased, and most of the others may well be. I've asked for comments at that talk page. DGG 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Persons not known to be dead must be considered to be alive--to do otherwise would be enourmously irresponsible. Treat the matter as though they're alive and you risk nothing--treat them as dead and be wrong, you're libelous. Why is this even a question?
- With due respect, DGG, you're deliberately avoiding the concerns about OR, hyperbole, and extrapolation on the part of the creator/editor of the list. I've stated all that above. I've also made a perfectly reasonable suggestion--blank it and add it back as you source it. You've indicated that you don't intend to do any work on the article yourself--and I don't blame you, that's a hellish mess to clean up--but now what I'm seeing is 1) You want the information to remain; 2) You don't want to fix it yourself. Where does that leave us?
Strong, Speedy Delete Per WP:BLP. This completely unsourced and unsustantiated document needs to GO--years ago. Arguements from "Keeps" that insist the list is "well sourced"? How do they know? If they have the source materials on hand to confirm this, why is no one willing to source the material? The arguement that BLP does not apply is false--persons not known dead must be assumed living. Therefore, this article and its associated articles should have been removed immediately without discussion. Libel and slander are far, far too serious to take the word of a few editors who point at the list, then the sources at the bottom, and call it "sourced". Withtout a verifiable citation to every name and fact, this list is violating Wikipedia RULES, not guidelines. My good faith suggestion that the pages be blanked and content restored as it's source has been rejected--I see no alternative but to delete. --Wysdom 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are we following the AfD procedures here? I thought that Wysdom, as nominator, had already voted. How many times does one get to vote here? I'd rather hear some new (and more reasoned) opinions, than the same old. Turgidson 02:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turgidson, AFD is not a vote. Generally it is considered superfluous for an editor to nominate as well as enter an explicit !vote, but it isn't a violation of any rule. The decision is made by consensus, not counting heads. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - appears to be well-sourced, and is notable. If someone is proved to be living and an uncited, potentially defamatory claim is being made against him (but, let's be honest, the great majority of these people are probably dead), then let it be removed - but that is not reason to delete the whole article. Let's not hide evidence of Communist subversion against the United States. Biruitorul 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This page is little more than a blacklist. Every attempt to add significant qualifiers on this page about the disputes over identification have been removed by a handful of anticommunist fanatics. The argument that since most are dead therefore we need not care about facts and fairness is horrifying.--Cberlet 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I take exception to this comment--nobody said that, please do not set up a straw man. The nominator has invoked WP:BLP as being essential to his case; it is perfectly reasonable to bring up the fact that that policy does not apply here, since basically all the persons on the list are not living, though of course one needs to take care about facts (and citations, and verifiability, and all other WP policies)-- who said we don't? No need to use hyperbole, or personal attacks, such as referring to fellow editors as "anticommunist fanatics". Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Turgidson 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should verify beyond the unresearched assertion of "basically all" and check to see if everyone named is actually dead - I wouldn't be surprised if some are not. Even then, this list is rather problematic without detailed sourcing. Since codenames are used in the actual Soviet transmissions, names in this list need to be sourced to the individual sources that identify them as a person mentioned. Some are widely accepted and some were even admitted by the subject; for many others, the identification is less sure, or is at least disputed. For NPOV, such disagreements need to be listed. Without that, it implies that the least certainly associated and the most strongly associated are equally associated, which is not the actual truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little going through the linked biographical articles shows that (in my sample) about two-thirds have no definitive statement about whether the person is living or not. One that did have a death date listed it as 2006, pointing out that some of these people are likely still living. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, all identifications are at best conjectural. I have here a list ... This is not enough for our purposes and is effectively guilt by association. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - first, it is simply untrue to say that of "all" identifications - do you deny that the Rosenbergs or Hiss were Soviet agents? Second, there were Communist spies in the State Department, and you do the authors of this article a great honour to associate them with that glorious anti-Communist fighter, Senator McCarthy, a man who, as Murray N. Rothbard points out, "was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites – to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly." Biruitorul 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Bias noted. Keep the rhetoric in a drawer. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I wasn't the one who raised the spectre of McCarthyism; when the good Senator's reputation is attacked, I will defend him. Biruitorul 08:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "All identifications are at best conjectural"? How's that? Here's a detailed list, with references and all, provided by author John Earl Haynes, an American historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. See: "Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. A Research Historian’s Working Reference". Turgidson 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While sources are indeed listed, the article says explicitly that they could be from any of several sources, and that the process of including someone on this list involved guesswork, circumstantial evidence, and what frankly sounds like conjecture in some cases. Since the Venona papers did not identify people by name, but rather by codename, the list cannot simply be sourced to them. Rather, the inclusion of each individual on this list must be sourced to a specific source that claims that they are one of those codenamed individuals, as a minimum. At the very least, any still-living individuals on this list MUST be removed immediately until their presence on it is traced to specific sources. Even if that is done, without better sourcing, this assemblage of conjecture from multiple sources is original research. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would be right if that was a biography of a living person. But it is not.Biophys 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains biographical information about living persons; furthermore, the information contained is controversial and not the kind of thing we want an accusation lying around Wikipedia of without good sourcing. BLP does not only apply to biographies; it applies to biographical information in any context, especially stuff that might be considered negative. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. List of people with description, references, not easily categorizable... I see nothing meriting discussion; unlike many lists on Wiki this is at least midly useful as a reference tool.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi Piotrus, good to see you joined in the discussion. Well, the list may not look so great at first glance, but with some work, I think it can get much better (there are some constructive suggestions on the Talk page, from DGG). As for usefulness, look, I got to go more carefully through the list last night, and managed to find some nuggets in there (that otherwise I would have missed). Take a look if you wish at Bolesław Gebert, Oskar R. Lange, and Mikhail Tkach -- I expanded a bit those articles, but surely they can get even better. And, pray say, where else on the wiki would you see these guys bunched up together on a single page, with the likes of Alexandre Feklisov (another interesting character)? Turgidson 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, there are no WP:BLP violations here. WP:BLP applies only to BIOGRAPHIES of living persons. This is is not a biography of a living person. Further, involvenet of many people from this list in espionage was supported by multiple reliable sources (see WP articles about them). So that could be included even in their biographies. Second, there are no problems with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS that would justify deletion of the article. Some of the people on the list are supported by provided sources; others are supported by references provided in WP articles about them. If some specific information is not properly sourced, this should be discussed, marked as ^{[citation needed]} and perhaps deleted if no sources provided. There is no way to justify the deletion of the entire article. I disagree with Piotr that such people are difficult to categorize. This is affiliation with spy agencies, not "conservatives" and "liberals". See also List of alleged secret agents. Biophys 16:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. But the list must be carefully checked. Why was William Browder included?Biophys 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I... see. So potentially libelous statments are OK, as long as they're not in a biography? Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, involvenet of many people from this list in espionage was supported by multiple reliable sources (see WP articles about them).

- Many of the people on this list. Thereing lies the problem. There should be multiple, reliable sources for ALL the people on this list. And without the list being cited (so editors can check to make sure this is true), we only have your and others word for it. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that could be included even in their biographies.

- Wait... I thought you said there were no 'biographies' here, and therefore no BLP issues? Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, there are no problems with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS that would justify deletion of the article.

- ANY problem with original research, reliable sources, and verifiabilty justifies deletion--IF said problem cannot or will not be corrected, as seems to be the case here, since I've only asked that these facts be cited and no one seems willing to do so. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people on the list are supported by provided sources; others are supported by references provided in WP articles about them.

- Again, some. What about the people who have no articles about them? I counted 17 names that are red Wikilinks. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some specific information is not properly sourced, this should be discussed, marked as ^{[citation needed]} and perhaps deleted if no sources provided.

- Yes. Yes, and yes. The fact that NONE of the names are properly sourced (i.e., there is no citation beside them) is the ENTIRE problem. I'll happily go into the article and put ^{[citation needed]} next to each and every name... but I doubt it will help. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to justify the deletion of the entire article.

- Yes, there is: my justification is that I've suggested the page be TEMPORARILY blanked and names be added back as they're verifiably sourced and cited. I don't find this unreasonable. No one seems to be willing to accept this compromise--so I've voted for deletion. Even the POSSIBILITY of libel is too serious toy around with. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Piotr that such people are difficult to categorize. This is affiliation with spy agencies, not "conservatives" and "liberals". See also List of alleged secret agents. Biophys 16:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. But the list must be carefully checked. Why was William Browder included?Biophys 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A compromise solution might be to include this list to Venona project article, although that would be less covenient for reader.Biophys 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I fully agree the list must be thoroughly checked and revamped, as warranted. But sorry, I could not find the William Browder link (that would clearly not belong in this list); all I can see is Earl Browder. Any misgivings about that? Turgidson 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed him from the list. Please check. This man was Putin's supporter but hardly old time spy. Biophys 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good catch! Let's discuss on the talk page if there are other links that need to be checked, and removed if necessary. Turgidson 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- It's not original research; and it cannot be such if you can find it in the Venona. Even the sincere communists should want the facts to remain out there. There's no excuse for covering up history. -- Randy2063 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's really appalling to me that people keep falling back on "covering up history" and other such arguements--no one wants to do that. The only thing I've asked is that those parties interested in retaining the list do the work that the original author did not--cite the facts to the references. In that way, we know that someone, somewhere, DID list these people--whether it was in the Venona papers themselves or in the books written about said papers. I don't care who said it, as long as it's verifiable and cited.

That this list was compiled without being referenced (PLEASE read WP:CITE) is bad; to leave it that way would be worse. I have proposed that FOR NOW, the pages be blanked while those interested completed the research and verify the fact the original editor did not. As the facts are verified with citations, they can be added back to the page. Why is that so unreasonable? Wysdom 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to look at a comment I left above, or look again at the article, you'll see that I did just that -- I provided a link to a detailed list, with references and all, coming from the web site of John Earl Haynes, an American historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, and coauthor of the book on which the list we're debating is based. Here is the link, yet again: "Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. A Research Historian’s Working Reference". I hope this helps. Turgidson 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Turgid, thanks for the list. Have you read it yet? It's interesting. I haven't read it entirely, but I decided to check it--just for the names that are red Wikilinks in the article, since I figure those are least likely to HAVE references. Here's what I found:

Elliot Goldberg, engineer for an oil equipment company in New York -- Appears on "our" list, not in the reference you provided.
William Henwood, Standard Oil of California -- Ditto.
Leo Levanas -- This name appears on both lists, but there is nothing mentioning Shell Oil--where did THAT info come from?
Rose Olsen -- both lists... however, "our" list fails to mention that this is a PSEUDONYM/cover name... not to be identified with anyone's "real" identity. That's just effin' irresponsible.
Paul Pinsky -- Does not appear in the reference you provided.
Alfred Kaufman Stern -- There is an Alfred K. Stern in your reference. Not Kauffman. Neither is there anything identifying him with the "Popular Front".

I think Randy2063 is right--it can't be OR if you can find it in Venona. The question then becomes--how much of it CAN you actually find in Venona?

First of all, please make an effort to keep a modicum of decorum. You may address me as Turgidson, not "Hey, Turgid", Okay? Second, the list is what it is, I didn't create it, but I'm willing to work to improve it. Third, I do not intend to get into an extended discussion about the article on this AfD page, beyond what I had to say -- this is not the right format for it, and besides, all the red herring and straw man accusations bandied about above are getting tiresome. I simply do not appreciate the tone of some of these comments, Okay? As for the redlinks on the list -- feel free to delete them, I don't much care for them either. But I do not see how that affects anything of substance as regards the list under discussion, which is made mostly of bluelinks, is well-referenced, plays a useful role, and conforms to WP policies. Have a nice day. Turgidson 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blink blink* I'm not sure what's so indecorous about the above, unless you're refering to the use of "effin' irresponsible" in my describing one of the names included--I can see that. Not that it matters, but it was far and away more decorous than what I said out loud, here at home. Anyways, I apologise for offending you with the foreshortening of your username. That wasn't intended.

Once again, I don't think anything that doesn't have citations, especially when it's so controversial, is "well referenced". Well researched is another matter--it might be that--but there's a big difference.

As for tone, I'm sorry? I was criticizing the research, mostly, not you. I was probably a little snarky with the "Have you read it, it's interesting" comment--but I was also a little annoyed at your "If you look... you'll see I did just that." Did just what? I appreciate the reference material, truly, but it's not as though that solves the inconsistencies, does the research, or cites the article. Someone else is going to have to do that, probably me, if this article is voted to remain. Best wishes, Wysdom 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents itself, from its TITLE, as being a list from the Venona documents. But it's not. SOME of it is from Venona. Some of it is clearly conjecture. AGAIN, I strongly urge that this information be REMOVED and added back as it can be verifiably sourced. Wysdom 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turgidson I must ask you to stop removing legitimate tags from the article in question. No one can argue that the article needs to be checked against its sources--the ((NotVerified)) tag applies. It's not slanderous or a caution not to READ the article, it's not a page balnking or vandalism--it's simply a caution to the reader that these assertions may not be accurate. As editors, we have a responsibility to the people who come here for information. Secondly, while you may feel that "BLP dispute" does not apply because this list isn't a biography--fine, I disagree, and strongly, but rather than engage in an edit war with you, I'll compromise on that one. The "Not verified" tag goes back on, though, and there it must remain until this article is either properly cited entirely, or deleted. Wysdom 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wysdom, I think this is really remarkable that you as AfD nominator can not wait until the end of AfD discussion and are making these changes to prove your point. Could you please justify your every change at the talk page prior to doing it? I checked some of your (*) markings using Andrew and Mitrokhin book. This is a relaibale secondary source, and it claims these people were indeed Soviet agents. So, your changes are questionable at best. Could you wait please untill the end of AfD discussion?Biophys 01:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys I apologise for trying to improve the list and save it from deletion. I'm beginning to feel strongly that I was wrong to do so. Here's the thing: this is a list (see the title of the article) of people who appear in the Venona papers. NOT people who are suspected to have appeared, people who were spies, or anything else. I just put a LOT of good faith work into cross-referencing, updating, and citing that list so I could change my vote, because I agree that good, verifiable information is valuable... to have them reverted wholesale by you upsets me more than I can say.

I am going to revert your reversion and continue working. If you can add a citation to anything I change, please--change it back. But ONLY if it is somehow an omission from Haynes' exhaustive (updated to Feb 2007) list of people who DO appear in the Venona documents.

By the way--I didn't do the (*) markings. Check the version history. They were there when I discovered this article. The changes I have been making are ONLY to remove names that do NOT appear in the Venona documents, correct misidentifications of people who have the same name as those who DO appear (See Samuel Bloomfield--there's a big difference between the manager of a bookshop and someone from the Office of Strategic Services), or note clearly identifications that were made by the government v. inferred identifications by the researchers, later. Wysdom 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, but you just deleted names of people who were claimed to be in the Venona list by certain sources. Deletion of disputed information without discussion is certainly violation of WP rules, and you are making a lot of such deletions.Biophys 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, re-read what you just wrote. I don't mean that insultingly, but it's important--people /claimed/ to be in Venona. /By certain sources/. Okay, my solution to that is: find where they're claimed to be and add the information back with a reliable source cited. I don't think I'm asking for the world here.

When dealing with research that was cited this poorly, one has to go back to basics. That, in this case, is the Source. Therefore, if a name does not appear de facto in the Venona documents, out it comes. If you know these names that are being removed should be on the list, then it should be a simple matter for you to find the corroborating info, right? Please do so.

Many thanks, Wysdom 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The entire discussion makes no sense. This is a list of persons presumed to have spied for the Soviet Union. Most of the discussions assumed that this accuses these persons of a crime. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Maybe some Americans consider spying for the Soviet Union a crime. Probably many communists would consider it an act of bravery by which these people were acting according to their beliefs. It is not up to Wikipedia to say who is right, every reader should be able to draw his own conclusions. Many of the discussions are based on the personal views of those participating in the discussion, which is wrong. I also have a personal oppinion on what is right or wrong. But that has nothing to do with the decision to keep or delete the list. There are many controversies regarding actions of celebrities. Many germans, who were not National-Socialists, considered Marlene Dietrich's attitude during WWII as a form of treason - many americans would consider it brave. Jane Fonda's visit to Hanoi was hailed by peace activitst, while others considered it an insult to the american soldiers who were risking their lives. And the list could go on. Wikipedia should present the facts without either glorifying or condemning them. The article we are discussing does not and should not say if it considers spying for the Soviet Union the right or the wrong action. It simply presents a list.

Besides, deleting the list has no practical consequence. Most of the persons on the list have their own article and these state their involvement in the espionage. If we delete the list the articles are still there.

We should keep Wikipedia neutral, state the facts and not try to make any moral judgements. 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia should state the facts, which includes full and accurate citations and details. If those are not provided, the article should be deleted. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per violations of WP:RS, and ESPECIALLY WP:BLP. Allegations and rumors are not the source of the encyclopedia article. Vlad fedorov 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and who might some of these living people be? Hiss? Harry Hopkins? The Rosenbergs? Biruitorul 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The Venona papers are not "allegations" or "rumors" -- they are transcripts of messages sent by NKVD/OGPU/GRU/NKGB/KGB officers operating in the US in the 1940s, as deciphered by the Signals Intelligence Service (SIS). They are publicly available on the Venona site, operated by the National Security Agency, the successor agency to the SIS. Just look them up. Turgidson 14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most. :-) There's an opinion that will be fun for the closing admin! :-) What I mean by that is that this is mostly a source document, which would be fine for Wikisource, but not for Wikipedia. Most of the names here don't have articles of their own, or, rather, do, but shouldn't. Just as a random example, Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov - reading that article says he is notable for ... appearing on the Venona list. He is referred to ... on the Venona list. All that we know about him is that ... he appeared on the Venona list. :-P. George Vuchinich same thing. They're almost all like that. Delete most of the entries that only read like that. Delete the red links. Then see what is left, and if it's just the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, delete the article. If there really are people who have articles otherwise, are actually covered, in depth, in multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources, then keep the list. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Instead of deleting articles, I think it's much better to go one by one, and see whether info and citations can be added--I've been doing just that. As for the first case yo mentioned, I think he's the same as this guy I quoted in this edit a while ago. I added a couple of scholarly works to the article, and modified a category for the time being. The article clearly needs more work, but simply deleting it is not the best way to go, I submit. Turgidson 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+Delete; the majority of entries are cited to a single right-wing historian, and many names don't even appear in the transcripts at all but are "inferred by researchers" (this is according to the article itself). I don't see how this article can possibly be consistent with WP:BLP, and even if most of the subjects are dead, there's still WP:V and WP:RS to deal with. If the article is kept, all "inferred" entries should be removed and there should also be consideration of removing entries that are sourced only to the Haynes book and nowhere else. *** Crotalus *** 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few points:
- First of all, the list is based on the book Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, by John Earl Haynes, a historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, and Harvey Klehr, a professor of politics and history at Emory University. The book was published by the prestigious Yale University Press, (New Haven, 1999. ISBN 0-300-08462-5), and is widely accepted as a reference book for the Venona project.
- Second, the list has been double-checked against the notes of John Earl Haynes, "Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. A Research Historian’s Working Reference", by the nominator for this AfD, Wysdom, and myself (as far as possible in a few days -- more work is needed). By the way, what is the reason for labeling John Early Haynes "a single right-wing historian", and how does this supposed label affect one way or another his credibility as a scholar, or the validity of his research?
- Additional information comes from many other sources, such as the The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era, by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev (Random House, 1999. ISBN 0-679-45724-0). By the way, Allen Weinstein is the Archivist of the United States, in charge of the National Archives and Records Administration (he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2005).
- The primary source for much of this list are the actual transcripts of messages sent by Soviet intelligence agents in the United States in the 1940s, as kept on the Venona web site (operated by the National Security Agency, the successor agency to the Signals Intelligence Service, who originally decoded those messages), as declassified by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy.
- WP:BLP: this has been debated at length above -- I fail to see how this is an issue. WP:V and WP:RS: there are tons of reliable and verifiable sources, as I indicated just above. Turgidson 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is notable, verifiable and sourced. It's not original research. According to Wikipedia policy there is no reason to delete it. Nick mallory 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajin Genki[edit]

Unreferenced, unencyclopedic. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, no ghits that have anything to do with this. Someguy1221 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. YechielMan 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete as a content fork. 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth I and her Conflicts[edit]

There's nothing in this article that isn't already covered in Elizabeth I. Editing Maniac 20:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary content fork. YechielMan 04:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Re-cut_trailers#Kill_Christ. NawlinWiki 11:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Christ[edit]

Unverified, no assertion of notability, no sources, no independent commentary. Been sitting like this since mid 2005. Nearly 2 years. Sort it or kill it. -Doc^g 21:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't figure out this wasn't speedied in the first place. Wouldn't this have qualified for db-web? ---Charles 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. A non-article, a bit of self-promotion apparently, from a Carnegie-Melon DSL. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call by FCYTravis. Yes, redirect to Re-cut trailers. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - relevant content is already merged into Re-cut trailers, so it's logically redirected there. FCYTravis 21:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Em? Redirect to another mention of the same that's also has "no assertion of notability, no sources, and no independent commentary." That's not terribly attractive as an option.--Doc^g 21:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google on "Kill Christ" + re-cut trailer suggests that it could and should be reliably sourced (mentions in Chicago Tribune blog, 1UP.com, etc.). But it's doubtful that there's enough for a stand-alone article. FCYTravis 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if information exists elsewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Poodle hybrid WjBscribe 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor dog crossbreeds[edit]

After the failure of my earlier AFD attempt, here's another try at deleting some articles on dog crossbreeds that have nearly empty articles. All of the articles in this group were created en masse in what appears to be an attempt to create identical stubs for all the names listed at Poodle hybrid. Rationale for deletion remains similar to last time:

These "breeds" aren't recognized by any registries of note.
The articles fail to describe any features which are unique to the crossbreed, or - in fact - anything beyond its composition.
The articles fail to source information to reliable sources. Each articles cites a boilerplate page on dogbreedinfo.com and the AKC definition of a mixed breed.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkiepoo for a precedent on one of these articles - the issues raised there apply to all of these articles, as well as a number of others which I'll be nominating separately in the future.

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

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

Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Poodle hybrid. All these really say is "A $mix_name is a cross between a Poodle and a $breed_name". (They have photos too, but the photos all violate the first Fair Use criterion and will have to be deleted regardless of the outcome of this AFD.) It's unhelpful to readers to click on a name in the list at Poodle hybrid and find no information that isn't already on the list. Better to redirect these and remove the wikilinks to them, until and unless there is something more to say. —Cel ithemis 23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Poodle hybrid, per Celithemis. Ideally what should happen is that this should start as a list in the Poodle hybrid article, possibly expanding to sections as more information from reliable sources is added to the article. If and only if a section on a cross gets big enough that it overruns the list should it be spun off to its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, there is no information that needs to be merged, and we don't need article names for all these niche designer hybrids. If one becomes a notable breakout breed, fine, but keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind. That said, I don't strenuously object to redirects. --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all. I don't support delete, as I think these are reaasonable search terms. Someguy1221 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to poodle hybrid. All are non-notable and shouldn't have their own articles. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) (The Game) 12:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redir all. There's a 'Ling-Ling's head' joke in here somewhere... (for those who've seen the prank flyer...) ThuranX 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per Dhartung. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 01:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not even the parent article is properly sourced. Sentences such as "Poodle hybrids have become very popular as pets" could be easily challenged, since the author of the article does not provide statistics or surveys to prove it. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 02:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 12:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon cranko[edit]

Child skateboarder. While there have been mentions of her in the industry press, these have been minor. The article has existed since October 2005 and has not been sourced or grown beyond a stub. Mattinbgn/^talk 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, because of bad faith nomination.--63.3.1.1 00:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you know? There's a big conspiracy among Wikipedia editors to delete people's hard work! Muhahaha... anyway, Speedy Delete, db-bio. JuJube 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and WP:POINT the anon to WP policies. :) YechielMan 04:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and tagges as such. --Sigma 7 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uh, wow. Good faith contribution maybe, but I think violates basically every single notability policy we have. Lankiveil 09:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FC Woot[edit]

Non-notable local six-a-side football team. WP:Vanity also a concern, as only someone within/linked to the club could have such detailed knowledge. Number 5 7 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't seem to be part of a notable league. YechielMan 04:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The absence of sources and quantity of red links may indicate insufficient notability. Possible fancruft (more likely than vanity). Adrian M. H. 16:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ and think vanity is definitely more likely, as six-a-side teams comprising a bunch of friends who play at their local indoor sports centre on weekday nights don't generally have a fanbase. Anyway, totally non-notable team, so delete ChrisTheDude 08:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. As far as I can tell, no 6-a-side (or 5-a-side or any other variant) teams have reached the level of notability suitable for such an article. - fchd 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - totally non-notable. Note to nominator: This could have quite easily been speedied or prodded, please bear that in mind next time you nominate such an article. Qwghlm 08:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qwghlm... The Rambling Man 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete utterly not notable --Dweller 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as above, non-notable.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7 Day Theory[edit]

Completely unreferenced conspiracy theory, unencyclopedic, violates WP:OR and WP:RS. east.718 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable conspiracy theory (full disclosure: I either started or expanded this article years ago, although a fair amount of it is frankly terrible knowing what I know now about how this site works). There'd have to be sources out there on this theory, but a quick Google is hampered by the fact that it shares its name with the title of an album. I'll work on sourcing, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup comment - A Google for "7 Day Theory" (in quotes) and "dead" (not in quotes) nets a series of results. Due to the nature of the thing, none of them are academic papers or anything along those lines, but there's certainly a lot of people arguing about it. It could almost be a meme of a certain type by now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be notable as an internet meme, but as far as conspiracy theories go, it doesn't approach other articles such as those on 9/11 conspiracies or JFK conspiracies. This article, which was mainly developed by one user claiming ownership, has no sources, is compromised by weasel words and most of it is garbage ("this mysterious man may resurrect at a Walgreens, Metarie, LA [sic]", Makaveli rearranged spells "K am alive"). east.718 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are, in the main, fair points. However, very few of them are reasons specifically to delete the article. If there's a user claiming ownership, that user should be cautioned about that. If there are no sources, sources should be added assuming there are some (there appear to be some from my Googling, and I'll see what can be usefully added). If there are weasel words, they should be removed. If sections are garbage (that anagram may appear to be garbage, but there's an awful lot of anagramming involved in this theory in the first place), then they should be removed as well. As far as its notability versus other well-known conspiracies, it should be noted that this one is (or was, at the very least) one on which pretty much everyone in a given subculture had an opinion. That it didn't spawn books and the like may simply be because it didn't involve a spectacular terrorist strike or the death of a powerful politician. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands right now, without citing a reputable source, the whole article is original research. Unless reliable sources can be found, the article should be deleted. east.718 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more citations and removed the more egregious examples of people flying kites. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article regards a fairly well-known conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.142.21 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This anon has only 10 edits. east.718 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep partly on the ground that albums have been made referring specifically to the topic. I consider this as relevant as print. And the amount of discussion seems amazing. DGG 09:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the albums "refer to the topic" so much as "are part of the theory" (the Tupac album "Seven Day Theory" is cited as evidence in the theory), but there are definitely songs and remixes of songs which relate to it all. Why I couldn't think of that earlier is beyond me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable conspiracy theory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by License2Kill (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Would you just LOOK at this article. "He died in 1996, those digits add up to 25, 25 adds up to 7, so he's alive"? This appalling pile of scattered rumors and facts shouldn't earn the title of "notable" in the slightest. Beyong the fact that it's all totally unreferenced, nothing here has the slightest validility. People backing this up aren't building a reasonable argument for Pas being alive, they're just sad about the way things are, and wish they were different. Sorry, but associating Tupac with the number 7 in as many ways as possible DOESNT MEAN HES ALIVE. Also, just because some moronic people actually do believe that stuff, that doesn't mean they "follow the 7 Day Theory". That was just the subtitle of one of his albums, it doesn't mean anybody set up a theory under that name. This article reads like a message board for idiots. Definitely worth deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Pac (talk • contribs)
- Nobody's trying to use this article to prove that anyone's alive, dead or otherwise. There remains the fact that a large number of the claims can be backed up (as in "it it can be backed up that people believe X", not "X is true" necessarily). It's not the greatest name for a theory, but that's what it seems to be popularly called. Argue against the validity of the theory all you want, but that isn't a reason to delete it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random collection of trivia, with no reliable sources. All references to components of the "theory" are Tripod or AOL member pages. No references to WP:RS showing that this particular conspiracy theory (as opposed to the general contention that Tupac faked his death) has any traction anywhere. Comedy skits are not reliable sources, either. Eggishorn 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: violation of WP:TRIVIA, WP:CS, WP:NPOV. The conspiracy itself may be notable, but the content of this article is (and will be) nothing more than a list of trivia and unverifiable guesses. I think that the section dealing with this subject in the article about Tupac Shakur suffices. --Tinctorius 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hata blockas[edit]

This appears to have been made up. If it wasn't, it should probably be moved to Wiktionary. Rtucker 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up at the nightclub early one morning. This is just an unnotable synonym for sunglasses. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 The article isn't really about anything. YechielMan 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and potentially made up by the author. Not at all encyclopedic. Adrian M. H. 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dakota 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gilson De Lemos[edit]

Does not meet WP:N, WP:V, and is less than five sentences long. Anynobody 22:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was full of uncited and uncitable statements. Evidently the product of the article's subject, Michael Gilson de Lemos. I have no objection to a properly cited article, but what was citable does not demonstrate notability.--Fahrenheit451 23:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — related organization, Libertarian International Organization, also nominated for deletion. A walled garden? — ERcheck (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What little content is available should be kept in the article about the organisation, which has itself been nominated. No valid reason to keep this. Adrian M. H. 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Dakota 01:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alien/Human War I[edit]

All these articles relate to a yet to be created fan created film and movie series, clear violation of numerous policies. Such as WP:ATT WP:CRYSTAL. Creator has removed numerous speedy delete tags. My advice make these movies then make Wikipedia articles not the other way around. Daniel J. Leivick 23:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Nuke them all. Creator himself says "Am making the series, but i need a crew, cast, and all the stuff i need". That quote says it all. There is violation of everything - conflict of interest, verifiability, attribution, what wikipedia is not and above all lack of reliable sources. --soum (0_o) 23:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Mgiganteus1 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other related pages that should also be deleted: Aliens: Total War (Game), Aliens: Tv Series (disambiguation), Talk:Alien/Human War I. Mgiganteus1 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sped those, suggest similar fate for this. Alai 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure that any of this user's contributions are valid. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics_2.0[edit]

Nominate for deletion based on WP:NEO, single-purpose self-referencing account author, and Wikipedia is not a blog. I originally proposed speedy, which was removed in favor of prod, which the SPA removed with no explaination given. Michaelbusch 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, topic sufficiently covered by netroots. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netroots refers specifically to grassroots efforts. Most of the Internet political activities do not fit into this category, being candidate driven. Politics 2.0 is also the much broader concept with which netroots might be a small component, so if anything it would make theoretical sense, if any merging, to merge netroots into the larger concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHammer (talk • contribs)

Delete unless sourced until the end of this AfD. Alternative (if sourcing is borderline): redirect to that netroots article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I would like to see if the promise of suitable sources is fulfilled, but as it stands, it smells of Neologism. If those sources are available, why are they not already referenced? A forum, a blog and YouTube are not reliable sources. Adrian M. H. 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be greatly adding (improving, fleshing out) this article over the next two weeks, but am busier today and tomorrow. Web 2.0 and Business 2.0 are very strongly accepted and referenced terms (see also Wikipedia entries) and similarly Politics 2.0 is increasingly becoming so (this will be detailed with strong refernce documentation and support). The effect of web technologies on politics is increasing at a very rapid and influential rate. Everything from YouTube videos, to social networks, to online viral marketing. Politics 2.0 - the convergence of politics and web 2.0 techniques, strategies and tools - is probably the most important growing influence in all of politics today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.202.71 (talk • contribs)

I moved this from the top of the page to a more appropriate location. Note that this is not a place for speeches. Michaelbusch 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning reference and documentary information on Politics 2.0 (Links on Politics 2.0 Wikipedia page, thank you):

Politics 2.0 refers to the utilization of Web 2.0 techniques, tools and strategies in politics.

Leading media sites are examining Politics 2.0, it's reach, scope and influence, including: GigaOm Web 2.0 Gives Birth to Politics 2.0 and The Politico Politics 2.0.

A search of Google News for the phrase [Internet Politics] catalogs thousands of current media results, while dozens of current blog articles at any given time reference [Politics 2.0] in their titles.

Politics 2.0 is a revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary progress in communication, community and delivery systems, etc., in politics, focused on interactive Internet tools, processes and communities.

Hillary Clinton sample Politics 2.0 campaign elements: [blog], [video][(Hillary Presidential website)], [online fundraising], [MySpace page], and [YouTube channel].

John Edwards sample Politics 2.0 campaign elements: [blog], [Video, Audio, Podcasts and Downloads][Edwards Presidential website], [online fundraising [MySpace Page, and [YouTube channel]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHammer (talk • contribs)

Delete - Adding "2.0" to the end of word X and then saying "It's like word X, but it uses Web2.0" is not an article. Artw 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to GigaOm and The Politico (both major and respected) news sites references for their detailed articles on Politics 2.0, just added also New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller on the importance of Politics 2.0. AlexHammer 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope people will agree that the article is improving (being more fleshed out). That is going at a slow and steady pace and will take a bit of time ongoing. I hope that I have now already made a good case (it's obvious to me, but I'm in the field) in regard to mainstream and leading media's coverage of both this topic and term, and the actual critical importance of this content area to politics that is not covered elsewhere (netroots is a much much smaller principle, and really only a sliver of this content area). If you agree, I'd hate to see Wikipedia readers deprived of the role and content of Internet, interactive (including community) and Web 2.0 mediums across politics.

Finally, I am the new person here and ready to learn as I make any mistakes. I copied this from the article deletion Wikipedia page, and unless I am missing something my article doesn't fall into the basic categories covered that lead to deletion (although I'm sure there can be lesser smaller subcategories as well, and maybe I missed something on that page also). "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace." AlexHammer 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Continue to work on. Thank you. AlexHammer 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Postdlf (Empty page). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCO v. IBM Linux lawsuit: Press coverage[edit]

Originally proposed for deletion with the comment "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. This page hasn't been updated since October 2006 and has very little encyclopedic value" by user:Shinmawa. Although I agree with the policy I feel that some of the content should be merged to the main SCO v. IBM article - i.e. particularly notable press coverage. I also see potential in this article for it to be used as commentary on the press coverage as a breakout article from the main SCO vs IBM article, the list would need to be trimmed somewhat though. Thryduulf 23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have marked this for speedy as WP:CSD#A3. It's just a really big and old example of it. Someguy1221 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged the page for speedy deletion per CSD A3. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Coulson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league (Premier, Championship, Leagues 1 and 2). This is a multi-nomination for:

Delete all. BlueValour 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 00:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they currently stand, with no prejudice against recreation of any one article if the respective subject does play first-team football in a full professional league, at some point in the future. Qwghlm 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Herbert and Simpson Ditto Qwghlm's with no prejudice to recreate. KP Botany 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Qwghlm. I see no reason to keep Herbert and Simpson (irrespective of which of the two Simpsons it was that KP Botany was actually referring to), neither has played at a fully-professional level ChrisTheDude 07:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither do I. Punkmorten 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But, Robbie Simpson is a full time professional, has substantiated interest from Championship level clubs^[1], has national level recognition (from the England National Game XI) and has had multiple awards for achievement at a professional club (WP:BIO lists as suitable biography candidates: "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" - the distinction here is arbitrary, particulary since the Conference is all-but professional). I suggest that, at the very least, Robbie Simpson's profile be kept (although I would argue that as professional sportsman playing for a professional club in a 90% professional league, all the above are worthy of a bio according to WP:BIO's criteria).Oli 16:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, my bad, I noticed that and thought I corrected it. Robbie Simpson is currently a professional footballer, and his article of all of them should be kept. If your reason for deleting is that he hasn't played at professional level, then please change, as this appears to be incorrect information you have from the sports line. Also you didn't sign your posts, please do so. KP Botany 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In what way is it "incorrect information" to say he has not played at a professional level? He has never played at a level higher than Conference National, and Conference National is not a fully professional league. Dozens of other Conference players have had their articles deleted over the last couple of years for this specific reason ChrisTheDude 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm, well, you said it accurately, "Conference National is not a fully professional league" as only some clubs in the league are fully professional, but then failed to include the pertinent information about Robbie Smith, the subject of discussion. If "dozens of other articles were deleted for this specific reason," namely, your calling Conference National not a "fully professional league" then they were deleted in error for the wrong reason. The issue is Robbie Smith's page. But, actually, the article is so poorly written, it won't be harmed by deleting it, and I can't quite get too worked up about it. KP Botany 22:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh? Who's Robbie Smith? Do you mean Robbie Simpson? What is the "pertinent information" you refer to? There's nothing anywhere in his article to indicate he's played in a fully professional league, therefore he doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Nowhere in that guideline does it say that speculative interest from higher-level clubs qualifies a player for an article, nor playing for England at a non-professional level. I also don't understand the point you are trying to make when you say that the other articles were deleted "in error for the wrong reason". They didn't satisfy WP:BIO requirements so they went..... ChrisTheDude 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Simpson. If you stand by your comment that "Conference National is not a fully professional league" means that none of their players are professional footballers, you better do a lot of editing to correct misinformation all over the place which indicates that some of their clubs are professional and others semi-professional. KP Botany 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My comment that "Conference National is not a fully professional league means that none of their players are professional footballers"? I never said that. I am not disputing that these players are professionals, but as repeatedly stated above, players have to play in a fully professional league to qualify for an article, and Conference National is not a fully professional league. So whilst these players are professionals (note that I'm still not disputing that fact), they don't satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. This discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere in a hurry, think I'll go to bed ChrisTheDude 22:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I missed this Wikipedia policy. Please post a link to the exact page where it says that "Players have to play in a fully professional league to qualify for an article," and we'll be done with this another time. KP Botany 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BIO#Athletes BlueValour 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually that page seems to have been re-organised a bit and the specific section is now at WP:BIO#Special cases ChrisTheDude 10:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Reply You appear to have not read the page you quoted:

Athletes:
- Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis
- Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports.

You just directed me to a policy that puts amateurs at the highest level in the same league as fully professional. Not surprised, though, that you got precedent and the quote wrong, as the overarching policy is each page can stand or fall on its own. Let's not take you as a Gills expert, either. KP Botany 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now you're just being plain insulting, please desist per WP:NPA. I also don't see in what way I "got the quote or precedent wrong" - the policy states that competitors in amateur sports can have an article if they have played at the highest level. Football is not an amateur sport and is therefore covered by the first clause which says competitors have to have played in a fully professional league ChrisTheDude 06:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shane Herbert is listed as being on loan to Gillingham in the 2005-06 season. However, no details are given as to whether he played for them or not. If he did play in the Football League for Gillingham would that qualify him to be kept? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a Gillingham fan myself, I can confirm that he never played for the first team, nor do I recall him even being in the recognised first team squad, in fact I'd never even heard of him prior to this AfD and have no recollection of this supposed loan spell. Soccerbase also has no record of him playing for the Gills and shows that our goalies that season were Jason Brown (39 games), Paul Crichton (1 game) and Tony Bullock (6 games) - hope this helps ChrisTheDude 06:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fair enough, as you would know as a Gills fan, so on that basis my vote would be to delete all as currently non notable♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent. HornetMike 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Robbie Simpson now plays for Hudderfield![reply]

^ "Simpson Unsure Of Best Move". skysports.com. 2007-04-26. Retrieved 2007-04-28.