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

The result was Merge to Drexel University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:15Z

Drexel Shaft[edit]

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

This article is a biased entry about a term coined by Drexel University students for getting treated poorly by administration. There are absolutely no citations, nor does the article have a neutral point of view. This entire article is basically about a little-known slang expression, and how it was used as a nickname on a nearby smokestack. The article is in no way notable. Crashintome4196 02:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted on the talk page, it is not "something made up in a day." It is notable to any student or alumni of that school. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edeans 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Drexel University. This term, both to refer to the smokestack and the colloquialism, is already mentioned in the main article and there is no need for a spin-off article. Being notable to a student or alumni of the school may count for DrexelPedia, but not for this project. Natalie 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or redirect as above, per neologism Jeepday 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#DICT Jeepday 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Univ. article. Xiner (talk, email) 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. /Blaxthos 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Drexel article where it was before it was split into a separate article. I suppose this doesn't really need it's own article, and it will fit just fine as a subheading under "Student lore and traditions"--TexasDex 14:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This article actually discusses two things: a lore at Drexel University, and the heating plant for the 30th Street Station. Thus, Merge the discussion of the student lore into Drexel University, merge the disucssion of the heating plant into 30th Street Station.-- danntm ^T _C 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Danntm. At Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, it was called the "Tute Screw" - whichever way you turn it, it goes in... --Brianyoumans 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I haven't had time to find information to make a suitable article in regards to the heating plant (as I previously stated on the talk page), it is best merged per danntm. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if being notable to some students at one school were enough to satisfy WP:N, there are no sources to establish that this is actually the case.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't support a merge. There are minimal references and frankly, the article is incapable of NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article is not "incapable of NPOV". Students at Drexel are frequently unhappy with administrative treatment. That is a fact. It is evidenced by very poor results in the Princeton Review. The term "Drexel Shaft" is frequently used to refer to this dissatisfaction with Drexel university. That is also a fact, although it is harder to find sources for. There is nothing inherently non-neutral about facts, even if they make somebody or something look bad--although the article could do more to mention that the administration has made several attempts, such as the "Drexel Shift"[8], to improve the situation (or at least get students to stop complaining so much).--TexasDex 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Danntm's two-fold merge suggestion seems the best bet. Verifiability is not negotiable; what's left would not justify its own article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Tin Foil Phoenix. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:42Z

Steven Kray[edit]

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

Appears to be an auto-biographical or self-promotional page. User:Stevenkray could be using sockpuppets on this, adding links to a variety of articles. {among them is a duplicate page he created here, which I redirected). Google test showed no signs of notability under WP:BIO. Band may be (just barely) notable, but this page seems excessive, and contains unverified claims. I say delete, and maybe merge sourced essentials into the band's page. Danski14 02:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The band's limited notability doesn't extend to this member, especially given that all the sources seem to be connected to the subject in some way. There has been apparent sockpupperty on many articles associated with this subject and an excess of self-promotion. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote Mr. Kray and his various enterprises. janejellyroll 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I agree. I am just beginning to scrutinize the related articles.. for instance, Lady Venom and C4 Records. However, they are of the nature that any AfDs on them should be dealt with on an article to article basis. I also just realized that Steven Kray was previously speedy deleted. Danski14 02:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Josh Parris
• Delete per nom. Edeans 03:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edison 04:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Revision as of 14:36, 9 September 2006 by Stevenkray added substantial spam links to the article. I removed these today, and added some links which are in the reference section of Tin Foil Phoenix (TFP). The support that he was a member of that band and discusses some other history of Kray. As it stands I assume that TFP is notable since it has an article at WP. Is Kray notable as a member of the band? At minimum I see this as a redirect to TFP. I will put a spam warnig at Kray's talk page.--Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the article is kept, I think that most of the article should be trimmed to reflect the issues of notability, music, though what we did before and since is pertinent, but should not be prominent.--Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Strong Redirect per my comments above. --Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-I agree that a redirect to the band page is not a bad idea.. If someone felt like it, short bios on each of the members would be appropriate. I still hold that he is non-notable, and there has been too much promotion going on here and with related articles. Danski14 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a truncated version of the text to Tin Foil Phoenix. So lets redirect and blank this page --Kevin Murray 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, looks good, just have to wait until the discussion is closed. Danski14 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:43Z

Leota Junior High[edit]

Leota Junior High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to assert notability. Exclusively school cruft. Soporific. Josh Parris 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the best you can do is listing what the cafeteria serves for lunch, you just aren't notable. Resolute 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination... their "infraction" system sounds pretty harsh too! --Candy-Panda 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure schoolcruft. Edeans 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Makes no claim to notability; WP:BEEFSTEW score is 4/10. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no evidence that this school is notable. What makes this school stand out from its peers ? The article doesn't say. WMMartin 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:43Z

Accidently Like A Martyr[edit]

Accidently Like A Martyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"Accidentally" is misspelled, and there is little or no information in the article Proofreader J-Man 02:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not an article, and if anything of interest could be said about the song it would have been. It might not event be misspelled, artists are funny like that. Josh Parris
• Delete. Great album, but not one of the truly notable songs from it. Edeans 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:MUSIC and general WP:N Jeepday 04:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. ShadowHalo 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Islamic studies scholars. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:44Z

List of Muslim scholars[edit]

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

This article is just a bunch of links. Wikipedia is not a directory. Sefringle 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edeans 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete someone may want to categorize it, but does not make sense as a list. Jeepday 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category would make more sense and is easier to maintain. Xiner (talk, email) 04:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I think the author put a lot of good work in and it is useful information. It would be worthwhile transforming it into a category, so that the effort is not going to waste. HagenUK 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A valid, verifiable, finite list. No violation of WP:Lists here. Also happens to be a valid research topic. i kan reed 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Islamic_scholars a much better organized list of the same thing. This was discussed on the talk page. I highly recomend not deleting regardless of merging or not. i kan reed 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Proabivouac 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of Islamic scholars; convert to a redirect as a plausible search term for that article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:46Z

List of guest voices on Avatar: The Last Airbender[edit]

List of guest voices on Avatar: The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable listcruft. I see no other "guest voices" for cartoons lists, this should be no exception. RobJ1981 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could someone tack this onto this AFD: Avatar: The Last Airbender media information. It's more listcruft. As an added comment: alot of the Avatar pages should be either cleaned or deleted. There is a "major secondary" and "minor secondary" character list pages as well. This listcruft madness needs to end. Notable characters should be listed only, in my opinion at least. RobJ1981 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-All the pages you mentioned have significant histories. At the very least, they need to be their own AFD, not just tacked on to a related one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edeans 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivia. Xiner (talk, email) 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft and listcruft. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial and indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. JuJube 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Split to individual episode articles. The information is relevant to include in the episodes, but it shouldn't be collected like this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As a member of the appropriate Wikiproject, I do believe that I should add my two cents. If you look at the characters lists and actually watch the episodes, you will find the some characters, while not major characters, are more important than others. I agree that the list of minor characters should be trimmed down. However, since that is not what is the current topic, i will adress this one. All the articles already list guest voices in the infobox and it would be easy to find the information if needed. So since that article, in essence, has already been split, my vote is Delete The Placebo Effect 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Asian Americans. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:46Z

Malaysian American[edit]

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

It has been over 8 months since creation and this article still does not have any content. Sefringle 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete# A3. Natalie 03:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Incidentally, I just raised a move request on this page at WP:RM to put it at a better title like Immigration from Malaysia to the United States or something, since the current title violates WP:NEO. I also suspect the topic itself may also be non-notable in the sense of not having any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources; (most emigrants from Malaysia head to HK, Taiwan, or Australia) but I don't see any harm in letting this run the full five days to see if someone gets last-minute inspiration to expand it. cab 04:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT Jeepday 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it can't be expanded. Xiner (talk, email) 04:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT but this article is not a case of WP:NEO. A common-sense combination of two terms is not automatically a neologism. There is an established English-language convention in these cases of giving titles to individuals with multiple group affiliations--in this case, ethnic/national origin and citizenship (e.g., Irish Americans). Black Falcon 07:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, redirect to Asian Americans. If and when someone wants to create a longer article on this, they can do so. But in the meanwhile, I think the page ought to redirect to "Asian Americans" (of which Malaysian Americans are a subset) as I find it very conceivable that someone would search for "Malaysian Americans". I may change my vote to keep if content is added to the article. Black Falcon 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with redirect. (I decided to erase the previous vote) I didn't really find anything and I doubt I have the time too.--T. Anthony 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of immigrants from multiethnic states, it's a lot more common to refer to them using their ethnic origin (e.g. Hmong American, Uyghur American) rather than their national origin, and most immigrants from such states identify based on their ethnicity rather than their former/ancestral nationality. The most prominent historical example of this: immigrants from the USSR were virtually never referred to as "Soviet Americans" or the like, but instead as Russian Americans, Kazakh Americans, Estonian Americans, etc. The title "Malaysian American" is a problematic neologism because it implies a group identity that probably doesn't exist in the first place (and to which no reliable sources attest); it's probably a mistake to call a group of people by a name with which they themselves wouldn't primarily identify. cab 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but there are also counter-examples. For example, I do not imagine anyone would identify as a Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa American, but instead a Rwandan or Burundian American. Likewise, Filipino American is used instead of Tagalog American and Bolivian American in the place of Aymaran American. Despite that, I still do not think "Malaysian American" or "Rwandan/Filipino/Bolivian American" are neologisms as they are simply combinations of two common identities for which an English-language convention exists (in this case, nationality/country of origin followed by current citizenship). I view "Malaysian American" as a categorization rather than a particular group identity that individuals may or may not adopt. Oh, and as you noted, detemplate from ((Asian Americans)). Cheers, Black Falcon 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect is fine by me. Should also be removed from ((Asian Americans)) cab 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and detemplate per cab. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Aelffin 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:46Z

Laser (wrestler)[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion with reasons "Unreferenced since MAY 2006, no substantiation of notability, stubbed for practically a year, no sources for titles held". Procedural nom. BanyanTree 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced, no way to verify notability. /Blaxthos 09:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any relevant sources to make this notable Whilding87 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nomOo7565 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable indy wrestler. Don't know why I vested time into improving this article. Normy132 07:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also heads up theres a afd discussion for another Puerto Rica wrestler at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amazona_%28wrestler%29_2

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:47Z

Australian albums[edit]

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

This article seems to have no purpose. It might be intended as a list article, in which case it is misnamed. Freekee 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a dicdef, possibly of a neologism. 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Natalie
• Delete Albums are listed by label, and only in categories, this user should be told. Xiner (talk, email) 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albums are categorized in several ways, including nationality, and the user was informed of this. -Freekee 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't have a clue what this article is trying to say, but it is definitely not useful. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- even if this was a list, a category (which already exists) would do a far better job of it. - Longhair\^talk 05:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see any possible use for this article. --Roisterer 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is clear that this article is not very usefull at present, but is that a reason for deletion? Maybe we need to wait for the editor who wrote it to explain what it is really about and move it forward in that direction. I reserve judgement. --Bduke 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete un-necessary.--cj | talk 12:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It certainly looks like it is intended as the header for a list. They can try recreating it as List of notable Australian albums, and then we can have the discussion as to whether that is really necessary. --Brianyoumans 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bit of an odd one to start and leave. Topic is better handled through categories anyway. --Madmedea 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment X would be better handled by a category is not a reason for deletion in my view. At least, not without some explaination of HOW or WHY it would be better handled by a category. Jcuk 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not even clear if this is intended as a list. But if it were, it would be impossible to maintain it as well as Category:Australian albums. If it's not meant to be a list, the info should probably go in Music of Australia. In answer to above, the author has been notifieed, and he is active daily. -Freekee 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely and utterly unmaintainable as a list, and the category already exists. ShadowHalo 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:48Z

Philosophical creationists[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion because it looks a great deal like just a statement of one person's personal philosophy. I say this because of the personal tone of the article, the fact that it has only one contributor, and the fact that I was unable to find a single other source for the topic on Google, though there were references to "philosophical creationists" of a completely different nature, i.e., those who defend Creationism on philosophical grounds. Mycroft7 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although I personally disbelieve evolution, per WP:NEO the article should be deleted. Wooyi 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hope all creationists are philosophical. Creationism would be the place for this. Xiner (talk, email) 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be just original research, or someone's personal essay. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Could not find any references supporting it. Seems to be someone's personal take on a form of Deism. Danski14 05:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chairman S.. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poor orginization.--Sefringle 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:13Z

Luciano Fadiga[edit]

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

Neurophysiologist with work in some apparently notable projects. Procedural listing. BanyanTree 03:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why delete? Wooyi 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added that this is a procedural listing (after a speedy nomination) to the top. Also, a connection to something notable doesn't make one notable; there are any number of bit part actors in notable TV series whose articles are deleted. - BanyanTree 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article lists a significant research contribution, and there's plenty of reason to expect it to grow. There's also plenty of reason to give it more than the two weeks it has thus far been given. It takes a while for laypeople to write articles about academics and scientists, who are not as well covered in the popular press, and whose accomplishments are mostly buried in not-easily-accessible academic journals and databases. Mark it as a stub and let people work on it. --lquilter 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I submitted this for speedy deletion because there is no assertion of notability in the article and the subject fails WP:BIO. This was not in agreement with the administrator who converted it to this AfD. What significant research contribution is given in this article? If it is his participation in RobotCub, then he is no more notable than the other dozens of people involved in the project. If it is his neurobiology research, then I don't see how it rises above other professors' work. There does not seem to be any large, independent review of his research and definitely no review outside his research area. I have worked in multiple research labs and his body of work does not stand out from any other researcher's contributions in their fields. There does not appear to be anything to add to this article. He correlated brain signals in monkeys and humans (and he didn't even find the location in the brain that directly correlated to the monkey's F5 section) and he works on RobotCub. That's all there is to his research and that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. ju66l3r 04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ju66l3r, could you expand on "he didn't even find the location in the brain...". The Google scholar hits and "impact" for this persons articles are quite good (i.e. above average), so normally I would say his work is well cited, and vote keep. However, it sounds like you can explain why the google scholar hits are out of whack with reality (or robotics as the case may be). John Vandenberg 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • See my response below. ju66l3r 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete This guy is clearly not a complete bozo, but I am persuaded by Ju66l3r, who seems to know what he is talking about. I would be more impressed if Prof. Fadiga had written a textbook, some review articles, etc. He may well be notable in a few years, but perhaps not yet. --Brianyoumans 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note for future reference: bozo the clown has an article here. Tparameter 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this guy does meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO. If you search for him using Google Books and Google Scholar he is widely published, mentioned and referenced.--Madmedea 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, you appear to say the same on every Afd. Please remember that the intention of Afd is not to convert a stub into a good article; we are trying to determine as a group whether it is a notable subject. Thats all. And to that end, doing some research and providing content-specific comments are preferred to rhetoric. John Vandenberg 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In almost every Afd, yes. If there are no references in an article it goes against WP:V and should therefore be deleted, especially then when we are refering to a still living person. Alf photoman 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article does have sources; they may not be great sources, but we have a tag for that: ((primarysources)); also any sections or statements that are unfounded should tagged with ((unreferenced)) or ((cn)); i.e. identifying weaknesses so others improving the article. To delete an article purely because it isnt perfect is a violation of WP:FAITH and would mean that 90% of stubs could be culled, and Afd would be overworked. John Vandenberg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep additional referencing by DGG establish notability, the article needs more work though Alf photoman 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, there was no additional referencing. Only a sentence enumerating how many papers Dr. Fadiga has his name on was added. Secondly, discussion here shows that a substantial portion of these 38 publications are middle authorship (not notable) and that later in his career he became last author (non notable, that's what happens when you run the lab instead of work in someone else's). ju66l3r 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. At best, this guy has the notability of an average junior professor at an average university. If we consider him notable then all biology professors are notable. For those outside the field: look at the CV of an HHMI investigator for an example of what's notable. --Dpryan 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I make no judgement regarding Fadiga's merit nor against the creator of this article. But more notability must be shown unless this article must be deleted. Shaundakulbara 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More notability was shown here before you commented, by Madmedea; books and journal articles indicate that there is a good chance this person is notable according to WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Have you taken that into account? What are your thoughts? John Vandenberg 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I feel that guidelines make it necessary to to have the article assert notability. The discussion is the place to point out that it does or doesn't. I have happily changed my "vote" in AfD debates in the past. So I advise introducing your evidence into the article. If you want to drop me a note after this has been done, I'll be glad to take a look and (if applicable) change my "vote". I think many, many articles get deleted that shouldn't, and many don't get deleted that should, and am always trying to tip these scales towards what guidelines recommend. Shaundakulbara 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am not very impressed with the evidence introduced by Madmedea. The Google Books search did not turn up any books by Fadiga, only some citations (which are nice, but lots of people get cited.) There are a truly enormous number of Google Scholar hits... until you realize that "fadiga" is a word in (Portuguese? Maybe Italian as well?) He has published a number of papers, but it is always hard for an outsider to evaluate how valuable those are. I would be more impressed with review articles, books, awards... --Brianyoumans 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Google Scholar, if you click on the link on the left "L Fadiga", it reduces the number to only entries where the person is one of the authors: 35 in notable journals and these articles are regularly cited by other articles. Each of those citations (1000s) can be considered a "review" of this mans work, by his peers. It is hard for outsiders to judge, and that is why I asked if Ju66l3r can give more information. If the work has has been discredited since then maybe it can be discarded or merely noted on the appropriate page.

Also note that he has written chapters in books[9], and is considered to be "the first to provide evidence that human beings have a system of mirror neurons analogous to system found in monkeys" [10][11][12]. John Vandenberg 04:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be recognized that nearly any researcher who publishes is likely doing so as the "first" to observe something. The contribution by the subject of discussion was to see parallels between primate and human brain responses (the region of the human brain responsible for what was observed was later determined by others according to the New Scientist article). This does not reach above what any other professor accomplishes during their careers. 35 publications (per Google Scholar) is not necessarily above average for tenured faculty. Many of these publications appear to be work primarily by others and list L Fadiga as a middle (often collaborating) author. I am more moved by the 3 book citations provided above than the publication list. The Guardian and New Scientist articles are about the total works of multiple professors' scientific contributions to fully characterize the F5 motor neurons and Dr. Fadiga is not the subject of the article in either case. I do not see the notability requirements being met which is not to say that his research has not been important to its field. Unfortunately, nearly every professor has contributed to their fields in important ways (it's part of what warrants their status in their profession) and so the notability requirements at Wikipedia are held fairly high to be sure that the encyclopedia is not flooded with every professor and simply becomes a Who's Who of PubMed/Citeseer/etc. Furthermore, it should be noted that Dr. Fadiga's work was passed up in favor of reviews and work by his colleagues instead in the Mirror neuron article, suggesting that his work alone may not notable to the Wikipedia community improving the same scientific topic. That his name is missing from that Wikipedia page is certainly more circumstantial but something to consider. ju66l3r 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Continuing on what I wrote above, I checked ISI's HighlyCited.com which lists the 250 most-cited authors in each of 21 fields and did not find Dr. Fadiga. You may feel this is too restrictive, but I felt it was important to note that it is not as if he is an abnormally highly cited authors in neurobiology as a previous comment felt to be suggesting. Furthermore, I looked for more independent articles on mirror neurons and found an article by the New York Times from a year ago that thoroughly discusses the topic and does not note Dr. Fadiga. The television show NOVA by PBS has a site related to a story they did on the mirror neuron. Dr. Fadiga's work is not mentioned in the links nor are any of his 3 book chapter contributions part of the books listed for references by NOVA. The more I dig on this, the more I find that Drs. Ramachandran, Rizzolatti, and maybe Dr. Iacoboni are notable in this area, but not Dr. Fadiga at this time. ju66l3r 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proper use of ISI highly cited. This source covers the period from 1981-1999, and will miss anyone whose work has been primarily published since that date. To verify that it hasn't been updated, i checked 5 neurophysiologists at random, and they each of them had their entire productive careers earlier than that, sometimes much earlier. DGG 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The original dataset for ISI HighlyCited was the 1981-1999 dataset, but every year the 20 year timeframe is shifted forward per their own description of how they calculate the citations. Dr. Fadiga's citations are included in the current dataset but do not rise to the level of "highly cited" as defined by ISI. ju66l3r 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: media articles are usually biased on these topics because they do only sufficient research to be on safe ground. i.e. It is easier for a journo to omit the correct attribution than it is for them to mention all of the people who should be given credit. That said your articles do call my three into question, and your point about not being the primary contributor on most of those articles is what made me second guessing a vote for keep. I've delsorted it to Science/Medicine on the hope of an opinion from someone in the field. If one isnt forthcoming I'll ask someone specifically. John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry neurobiology isn’t my field of expertise - I did this article because I saw he was heavily mentioned within robotics world. And I did the mistake to forget adding the stub tag at the beginning, I've been clumsy. But I still think he does meet the notability requirements Gilemon 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am a neuroscientist and a quick search with Pubmed indicates that this person has very few first or last authored publications. He has only one top-tier hit via pubmed and it's a perspectives piece in science where he is was only the second author. That's pretty far from notable in our field. To be notable in neuroscience, you either need to publish a highly-referenced first authored paper in a top-tier (Nature/Cell/Science/etc.) journal or be a PI with last-authored publications in said journals frequently (i.e., every year or so). Perhaps this person is notable in robotics, about which I can not speak, but as a neuroscientist he is not notable. --Dpryan 00:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• first or last--since either can be the principal author position in biomedicine. I checked in pubmed. Of the most recent 38 papers listed there, 17 had his name as either first or last author. More revealing, 12 of the most recent 20 did --meaning that most of the ones that didn't, were when he was a beginner. Google Scholar doesn't sort by year. PubMed does. DGG 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per user request (CSD G7). Thanks in particular to Brianyoumans and Manik Sethisuwan for a cordial discussion. - BanyanTree

Manik sethisuwan[edit]

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

Thai citizen interviewed by CNN about his photos during the recent coup. Article apparently created by subject. Contested speedy; procedural listing. BanyanTree 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain quite an important figure if connected to the coup, which is a current event. But, the article apparently violates WP:AUTO. Still have a question, how did this Thai guy write English, did he learn it? Wooyi 03:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people living in Asia can write in English. --Charlene 13:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity. Edeans 03:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any notable info in coup article. Xiner (talk, email) 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 15 minutes (notability). /Blaxthos 09:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. by article provider, I re-edited the article in question with attempt put less emphasis on person/article in question and tried to refer to project Mosaic in Green which seems would be more important? with regard to User:Xiner can this article be deleted as article and simply merged into section Photo-timeline of the coup, from dusk to dawn in 2006 Thailand coup d'état? This person was one the few citizens who got stuck in the heat of the coup as the military closed down roads and laid barriers to prevent people from entering the area of the Government house. He had to seek refuge with crew of CNN during that day. with regard to User:Edeans, the person is a Thai born of Indian origin, this found at http://sethisuwan.hi5.com.Manik Sethisuwan 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being commissioned to make a documentary and hanging out with the CNN film crew during a coup do not add up to notability, although I'm sure he has some interested dinner conversation from it. I wish him luck with his film-making career, perhaps we will see this name back in Wikipedia someday. --Brianyoumans 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (by article provider). Thanks Brianyoumans for your regards, and I agree with you. I have some other projects later in the year and I hope it succeeds in its scale and objective. Until then its better to remove all existant references and rather be reffered later with more significance and notability. Many regards :) Manik Sethisuwan 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I deleted hyperlinks from all other articles / stubs that link to this name. I respect wikipedia as much as you guys do. Cheers. Manik Sethisuwan 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:48Z

Chsh[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a mirror or repository. This article is just a duplicate of information from the chsh man page. Compare with chsh(1) – Linux User Manual – User Commands. (note, this doesn't mean it's a copyvio. Linux documentation is all under GFDL or the equivalent. It just means it's a duplicate, and and why should Wikipedia be a mirror of what's widely available elsewhere?) adavidw 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clarifying my nomination. The article has been expanded significantly, and the reasoning above no longer applies. There's still a question of notability. Surely not every Linux/Unix command is notable. In my Linux/Unix experience I've never had occasion to use this command. However, my experience is relatively small, and I don't feel qualified to judge the notability. I'll leave that for the rest of y'all to debate. I'm officially no vote on this one. --adavidw 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete It is a very small article with little or not context to the reader, WP:CSD#A1. Article has no promise for being expanded. Non-encyclopedic. Jerry lavoie 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Info easily gathered as well. Xiner (talk, email) 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not man(1). This program is much less notable than ls or cat, and I know several engineers who have never used it, despite hacking on Unix systems for years. Additionally, the program is not specified in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. All of this adds up to non-notability. Grouping several of these minor utilities into one article might be suitable, however. --N Shar 05:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not a copy of any manual page. It's not small. It doesn't lack context. And it clearly could be expanded, because it has been. Uncle G 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it can be expanded. Is it notable? --adavidw 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest trying to determine that for yourself by evaluating the depths of the available sources. Look at the published works cited in the references section of the article, and any other published works that you can find, and seeing whether our WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. If it helps, notice that there are two classes of books when it comes to guides to Linux distributions and to Unix: those that simply re-print the manual page, and those that actually devote one or more pages to their own, original, discussions of the command. The books cited are in the latter class. Uncle G 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks to Uncle G's improvements. The article has changed greatly since this AfD started. Notability is fine since it's a common Unix utility and sources are provided. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very widespread command, and the article fulfills a useful encyclopedic purpose in comparing chsh behavior on different systems, while a man page will generally only tell you how it works on your own specific system. —David Eppstein 16:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would've agreed with the delete before the changes; nice job, Ungle G. - grubber 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the article as it currently stands serves an entirely different function than a chsh manual page, includes references, and builds the web by including relevant wiki links. Also, a note for the original nominator: GNU/Linux documentation does not always use the GFDL; I would speculate based on my experience that most non-FSF documentation uses the same license as the program it documents. --Josh Triplett 09:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is not notable notable. We can not cover every shell command there is. --Tunheim 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:10Z

List of Children of the Presidents of the United States[edit]

List of Children of the Presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of children of the Presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Delete - since this aricle is being (improperly) cited as a defense for the also-nominated article Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada, I thought perhaps this one ought to be nominated now rather than later. The children of world leaders, whether they are the children of a US president or of a Canadian Prime Minister or a Filipino president, are not inherently notable in and of themselves. The proper place for the otherwise non-notable offspring of presidents to be listed is in the article about the individual president. Otto4711 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is an indiscriminate list of trivia. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE Jerry lavoie 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Could not find where it applies in WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Jjmillerhistorian 15:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I haven't seen the other debate. This is one of the few instances where I feel justified to invoke WP:NOT#PAPER. I feel the information about children of presidents should be preserved, especially since many (but not all!) of them do have articles, and because presidents themselves are inherently super-notable. Perhaps I would have created this information discretely in each president's article, but what's done is done, and it's too much trouble to alter the status quo with a massive merge. YechielMan 04:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above. Just because information may come up in a game of 'trivial pursuit' doesn't mean the information is trivia. This is a discriminating classification of people a sufficiant number of which have by their actions shown that this classification has historical relevance.

4.156.111.151 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom or Merge to daddy's article. If they are notable in their own right, like a novelist son of Franklin Roosevelt or a soldier son of Theodore Roosevelt or a lawyer son of Abe Lincoln, they can certainly have their own articles, but being related to a notable person only entitles you to possibly being mentioned in thir article. Edison 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about them being "entitled" to anything. Being included in a list isn't a benefit, and it doesn't suggest that they need a separate article if they're not notable. This logic would apply, basically, to eliminate any list. --lquilter 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you hit the nail on the head. To be worth keeping, a list has to provide a benefit over and above other ways that we can present the information. With this list and the related list of children of Canadian Prime Ministers, there needs to be some value in the list itself. Ask yourself: why would anyone need such a list other than for the sake of knowing trivia? If you can't come up with a good answer, then the list should be deleted. --Richard 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I don't need to repeat myself; later in the page I point out that the children of political leaders have been studied within political biography, history, and sociology, and give a few cites. Apparently, people go with their gut instinct on what is trivia. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a very useful rule.--lquilter 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, us Wikipedians contribute as best we can with the knowledge we have. It is one of the joys of Wikipedia that in the course of AFD, I learn all sorts of stuff that I didn't know before. I read what you wrote below and it is perhaps convincing. What I propose is that somebody (perhaps you) write the article as a stub right now (a paragraph or two with the references you provided below will suffice). If this had been done at the outset, this entire discussion might have been different. I suspect, however, that it will eventually turn out that children of Presidents are not far different from children of CEOs and other community leaders. That's just my personal speculation, though, and, as OR, has no place in this discussion or anywhere else in Wikipedia. --Richard 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooh, ooh, how about this one? "You don't go to Wikipedia with the knowledge you want, you go to Wikipedia with the knowledge you have." --Richard 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Children of U.S. Presidents are inherently notable. This list is not indiscriminate. Once again, I ask if anyone using the word "indiscriminate" actually knows what it means. Anyone? --- RockMFR 05:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is useful information. They may not all individually be notable enough to have wikipedia articles, but there are issues that come from being a child of a US president / world leader - that can and will make it useful to have such a list. (And it's exactly the sort of thing that, if it were to come up on WP:CFD, I would say delete and listify. In fact, the fact that they aren't all notable enough to have their own articles only makes the list that much more useful; because there couldn't even be a category even if we wanted one.)--lquilter 05:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see how this is useful information, since the same information is conveyed in the articles for individual presidents. We don't need lists of children for every head-of-state in the world. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A list gathers information ... that is its useful function. The fact that it is redundant is irrelevant. --lquilter 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Information already found where it belongs - in the article on each Prez. Being a child of a President is not inherently notable, and the subject of "Children of U.S. Presidents" is not worthy of an article, thereby making this list similarly unencyclopaedic. GassyGuy 06:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Being related to someone, even someone as obviously notable as the President of the USA, does not confer inherent notability. Individual sons and daughters merit a passing mention in the parent article, that's all. - fchd 06:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At present Wikipedia indicates it acts as an Almanac to some extent. It's not unusual for children of Presidents to be listed in Almanacs. It's also useful for when Presidents die and you see the kids on TV.--T. Anthony 07:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per fchd. Being a child of a president doesn't make you notable per se. --Folantin 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reason to create lists of non-notable people. Moreschi ^Deletion! 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Would Folantin, Morschi, and all the other people who say this is a list of non-notable people please explain how a list of "non-notable" people has so many blue links (and I note that some of the ones who don't, should, and will, no doubt, someday)? And why a topic which is of obvious sociological importance -- the study of access to power & transfer of power among kin -- is being dismissed as "non-notable"? I would refer people to the entire Category:Nobility, an automated list basically tracking families with political power, and ask for someone to make a clear distinction about why political families in democratic country are somehow "not notable". --lquilter 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty obvious really: because nobles inherit titles and power and hence notability, whereas in democracies children of presidents and premiers don't. --Folantin 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then those would apply only to the method for inheritance, such as primogeniture; and I would note that in democracies children of presidents are considerably more likly to become presidents themselves, than children not of presidents. ... Regardless, "non notability" applies to articles dedicated to the individual; it doesn't apply to them being mentioned or listed in other articles. An article (list) about children of the presidents of the US must be judged as to whether that topic, is, itself, notable. Judging by presence of published literature and scholarship on the subject, it is. Inclusion or being mentioned in the article doesn't require independent notability. --lquilter 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and categorize (which will also ensure only notable subjects will get articles, and not just Foo is the son of President Bar type articles. /Blaxthos 09:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me tell you, this will not survive as a category (it may have been deleted already). A category is simply an automated, alphabetic, non-notated list; so if you think something is appropriate as a category, then it is definitely appropriate as an article-style list. --lquilter 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep many people on the list are notable whether being a child of a President or not. Were they not notable then as the Bush twins are today? I guess Chelsea Clinton and JFK, Jr. are nobodys too. Throughout history the media has made them notable if they hadn't made themselves notable. Many of them have just been forgotten like several Presidents. This page should be kept. Jjmillerhistorian 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. RockMFR makes a good argument. References listed, including "All the presidents children", so it meets WP:V and when someone writes a whole book on the subject, it meets WP:N as well. The president's immediate family are always well covered in decent biographies, so the subject is of sufficient interest to support a list like this. Many of the children have individual articles, and the page is therefore a useful navigational tool as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reason given for the Canadian article; just as valid and encyclopedic as a listing of first ladies. 23skidoo 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to point out that there are, in fact, a number of books and studies on this specific topic -- e.g., Underwood, All the President's Children; Zwicker, "America's Royalty", Presidential Studies Quarterly; Wead, All the Presidents' Children; Angelo, First Families: The Impact of the White House on Their Lives -- and that's just the top few listings from an amazon.com search; I haven't yet done a search of a major research db. This is a well-studied topic, clearly a topic which begs for an article; and a comprehensive list would be an indispensable complement to the article. --lquilter 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep family and friends of world leaders affect their characters and decisions, making them notable and important to historians, biographers and political scientists. No one would argue about a list of, say, First Ladies of the United States. -Markeer 14:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked all through Wikipedia:Notability and could not find where it said notability was inheritable. There is no need to merge as if the child is not on the parent article, it's lack of notability there speaks for it's self. Jeepday 14:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, Wikipedia:Notability addresses a subject's suitability for individual articles. This is a list; therefore while some of these individuals may not, on their own, warrant individual articles, taken as a group, they do. Put another way, presence of some of the more obscure First Children on this list may preempt the creation of articles on said children later, in turn preempting future AFD debates when their articles are nominated for deletion. 23skidoo 22:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a list of President's pets! Are pets more notable then children? I'd say their children have done more notable things then the pets, unless pooping on the White House lawn receives highest notability. Jjmillerhistorian 15:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an argument for getting rid of the list of pets, not for keeping this one. --Folantin 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to get rid of the pets list, I was making a point Jjmillerhistorian 16:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Alas, making a point like this generally backfires in exactly this way (in fact, if I interpret Otto4711 right, that's how this particular AfD started) - seems to work better to hunt up references instead as has been done here by others. --Zeborah 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't need to hunt up references, I have the book by Doug Wead. References are mentioned in the article. I see your point, it could start an unintetional delete the pooch list. Jjmillerhistorian 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per several above, especially Lquilter. Nb Members of royal families (a category quite widely defined) are, under a proposed guideline, inherently notable. This is the relevant passage from Wikipedia:Notability (royalty):

Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable. The definition of a royal family may vary by country, but generally includes the spouse of the reigning monarch, any or all surviving spouses of a deceased monarch, and the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and cousins of the reigning monarch, as well as their spouses.

This includes former monarchies - if the person was born while the monarchy was still in existence, they are notable on that basis. Any children of a deposed monarch, even if born after the deposition, are automatically notable (thus, for instance, the younger children of the former King of the Hellenes, or all the children of the former Kings of Romania and Bulgaria). Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO.

- since the US seems to be moving fast in the direction of a hereditary political class, the same could well be argued for this lot. Johnbod 17:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to say "grin" but it's actually more of a rueful grimace of acknowledgement ... --lquilter 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment note that Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. with a history since 13:07, 7 September 2006 while WP:BIO is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia with a history since 14:16, 1 August 2003 Signed Jeepday 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I said it was proposed; actually its history goes back to August 4,06. Johnbod 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RockMFR. Mathmo ^Talk 17:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RockMFR, Iquilter, Jjmillerhistorian. - Jord 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that Jimmy Carter is notable does not make his kids notable in any way shape or form. Jcuk

• Jack Carter (politician) and Amy Carter not notable? Are you sure? This list contains many notable people, some not, but more notable than you realize. I'm sure years from now there will be people who think the Bush twins aren't notable. Notability should not be an opinion. Jjmillerhistorian 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said they were not notable in their own right. They are not notable just for being the fruit of Jimmy Carter's loins however. Jcuk 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge with President's article if not notable in their own right. It is appropriate to list all children, notable or not, in father's article, as it relates to father's biographical information, but the list on its own is a simple repository of trivia. --lightspeedchick 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject is notable, as others have pointed out with published titles on the subject (even if, as a non-USAn, it seems bizarre to me that an elected official's children are important by virtue of association). --Zeborah 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment when Gerald Ford died Wikipedians were editing his children's pages like crazy. I even created the missing article someone was looking for. Then we have Jenna, Barbara and Chelsea making national news doing common things, like having a fake I.D., having a purse stolen, or have voter registration problems. If they weren't children of U.S. Presidents noone would care about what they do. Nothing else is notable about them, yet they have their own articles in Wikipedia. Jjmillerhistorian 12:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I suspect that the people who are voting delete don't get the historical significance of the relationship, probably because this is merely a list (which raises a trivia red flag for folks). It strongly suggests that the list, as such, needs at least a preface describing the scholarship that has studied these people as an identifiable group, and their significance in political and biographical studies. It's a larger problem with lists: That some lists are clearly trivia, and some lists are really the germ of an important idea; but it's difficult for people to distinguish between the two without context and information. Perhaps the deleters (who appear to be a minority, albeit a substantial one) would be willing to suspend judgment for a while until the most robust of these Children-of-leaders articles (the US presidents' kids) can be fleshed out with some additional text & supporting references. --lquilter 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a few references to books but don't have time right now to do a full search in Historical Abstracts or a US history database. --lquilter 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, much for the same reasons in the children of PMs debate. In fact, I'll plagerize myself and repeat what I said there, as I think it's just as applicable. I see nothing being said in defense of this article that goes beyond it being "useful" or "interesting". Many useful, interesting things are not encyclopedic. To me this is more a specialized genealogy directory or something that belongs in the (literally) parent article. For those individuals who have achieved some sort of notability in their own right, beyond what their parents have done, having a separate article is enough. Agent 86 20:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I'm stunned this is even being debated. Notability is not inheritable, but the children of US Presidents have always and will always be notable people -- they are members of the First Family of the United States. While I understand that just because every item of a list is notable the list itself is not necessarily notable -- that's simply not the case here. The people on this list have been thrust into a common spotlight. The US President is not just president, but also Head of State. This is notable, verifiable, discriminate, not original research. No grounds for deletion exist on this article.--JayHenry 22:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last I heard, the Head of State of the United States is not a hereditary position, despite the lineage of the current incumbent. Neither is notability. Agent 86 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Agent86, I did say in my second sentence that it is not inheritable. But this is a straw man argument. I do not see anyone suggesting that "Notability is hereditary". What is being discussed is whether or not there are grounds to delete List of Children of the Presidents of the United States. The fact is: there are not grounds. It is notable by any standard to be the child of the president. It is also verifiable. It is not indiscriminate. The people trying to delete this seem concerned that the inclusion of this obviously encyclopedic list would somehow set a precedent that would make the children of Dustin Diamond notable. It would do no such thing.--JayHenry 04:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is NOT notable by my standard to be the child of anyone, including the president of the USA. If the offspring are notable in their own right, fine - they then deserve their own article. But this list - no way. - fchd 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By your standard fchd, because it's an opinion to you. Now thanks to JayHenry I have to scap my 'children of Saved by the Bell cast' list idea erg! Jjmillerhistorian 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, by my standard. It was a response to JayHenry's statement that It is notable by any standard to be the child of the president. (my emphasis). My opinion still stands, that while individual children of the President of the USA may become notable, a list like this is not. - fchd 16:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My point is that by any possible reading of Wikipedia's own definition of notable, all these people would pass. Here, give it a gander: Wikipedia:notable. These are U.S. Presidents -- they all have multiple authoritative academic and popular biographies. All their children are mentioned throughout these biographies and in the constant news coverage that has surrounded every president in American history. What portion of Wikipedia:notable does a single person on this list fail? Or even the list itself? Being a member of the first family is obviously notable. And countless non-trivial books and news articles have been written on what it's like. It's a perversion of Wikipedia's notability guideline to suggest that the children of U.S. Presidents or a list of those children, wouldn't pass it.--JayHenry 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list, and it provides context beyond what can be achieved through the MediaWiki categorization scheme. If I were researching children of United States presidents I would find this to be very useful to have handy. (jarbarf) 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's next? List of Pets of the Presidents of the United States? --Vsion 06:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering, ... then I found it. Here you go: List of United States Presidential pets. :D --Vsion 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list is encyclopedic and worth the few bytes of space it occupies. RFerreira 09:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of these children become more notable then others, especially those put in the spotlight or have a political future because of their political parent's status. They would most likely be considered 'nobodys' if they were not children of a president. They play an important part in the life of the president. Look at the Bush twins, they have done nothing notable, yet because their father is President of the U.S. they have become notable. Take away his Presidency and his daughters wouldn't even have an article in Wikipedia. Same goes for Chelsea Clinton, no Bill and they'd say "who's that girl?" Being a child of a U.S. President or any world leader, current or not, is notable. Jjmillerhistorian 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: A number of people have argued, above, that the list should be deleted because it contains people who are not notable (gist: "If they're notable give them their own article."). That is a misapprehension of how WP:N works. WP:N applies to the subject of an article; not to every individual fact within an article. In a biographical article, the subject of the article -- the person discussed -- must be notable. In a article about a topic (which is what a list is), not every individual component need be individually notable. See, e.g., WP:FICT which describes making lists of characters in books, rather than individual pages for books.

• WP:N: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. I have already added references to multiple works on the list itself. (Some have argued that actually all children of US presidents are individually notable; my point is that they need not be notable to be mentioned in an article, and a list is a type of article.) My own take on this list/article is that it really should be an article with an embedded list, which would contextualize the list aspect and make the significance clear; however, even as a list with a bit of prefatory material, the subject of the list is notable.
• WP:5P: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. This is the sort of list that would be (and is) included in specialized encyclopedias of political biographies.
• Wikipedia:List guideline: 3 purposes of lists, each of which this article provides: information, navigation, and development. Information because it is an independently notable topic. Navigation because this is a group of people with commonalities, but it would not be desirable for this to be a category. Development because, looking at the list, some members of it need articles and don't presently have them.

--lquilter 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada. And I hope those arguing for "keep" here will do the same over there. Children of the leader of a government are notable by virtue of their relationship to him or her; and such lists act as useful aids to research for biographical anthologies, etc. Fishhead64 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All of my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada are hereby incorporated by reference. --lquilter 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:LISTCRUFT puts it best: In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. Children of the Presidents of the United States is not a legitimate encyclopedia topic. JChap2007 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it was a legitimate topic for the multiple books listed in the References and Further Reading sections of the article, so why would it not be a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia to cover? Dl2000 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • U.S. Presidents are legitimate enough to have the list of their children. Their children are even in a section of each of their articles dealing with Early Life, etc. Even Chelsea Clinton has her own article and there is nothing notable about her except she is the daughter of a U.S. President, nothing more. Jjmillerhistorian 12:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an indiscriminate method of organizing this information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan McBeth (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• DeleteOpinion withheld pending creation of an article on Children of the Presidents of the United States per discussion with User:Lquilter above.

  I believe that every article on a US President (or Canadian Prime Minister) should list that person's family (spouse and children). If the children are notable in their own right, then they should get an article. However, this list has no justification for existence. --Richard 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per supporters above. First families are a notable topic of interest as demonstrated by multiple works listed in References and Further Reading sections, not to mention various journalistic works. Besides, it's skewed priorities to demand deletion of this list while accepting as encyclopedic such lists as, List of students at South Park Elementary. Dl2000 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An excellent point D12000 -- here are some other encyclopedic lists, List of Pokémon references or spoofs, Minor characters in 24 (and stop and think about this one. Fictional president David Palmer's children deserve to be listed, but Chelsea Clinton does not), List of historical cats, List of China Inland Mission missionaries in China, or how about List of BitTorrent RSS feeds. Honestly -- if people are this concerned with non-notable lists -- let's start with some really grevious offenders and allow this list which, after all, has been the subject of numerous books and countless news articles. I am really appalled that anyone could consider this list unencyclopedic.--JayHenry 03:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentI think the problem is not whether or not the children of Presidents are individually notable. Obviously, many of them are. The question is whether the group is a worthwhile collection of information as a group. Many graduates of West Point are notable but a list of every graduate of West Point would be ridiculous, partly because of the number but also because so many of them are non-notable. At the risk of repeating myself, the question is - "To whom would this list be useful?" If, as User:Lquilter suggests, the group is of interest as a group then we should keep this list but then the article on Children of the Presidents of the United States should also be created. --Richard 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are people who can use this information while researching U.S. Presidential history. Their children play a big part in their lives, some even effect their politics. Franklin Pierce even mentioned his last of three sons to die in his inaugural. His three sons may not be considered notable, but the event of Benjamin Pierce's death definately was. The article also helps compare all the U.S. President's children all at one time; who is the oldest, how many are still alive, how many did each President have, etc. It is useful to those who are obviously interested in this. If you have no interest in Presidents or history it would be easy not to care and suggest to delete. There are alot of "lists" here I would get rid of, but I know there might be a reason to keep them. This article is very new and still needs work. Not every article has to be useful to every person. It is definately useful to those who want to keep it. Jjmillerhistorian 12:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Article creation comment - A couple of people have now suggested that the list is appropriate if an existing article is there to support it. I initially preferred a single article, with text and an incorporated list, and I wrote two paragraphs at the top of the current list that could serve as a stub. But now I see perhaps the virtues of a separate article: One article could explain the sociological aspects of being a child of a political leader, placing it into context with inherited nobility, economic class, personal life outcomes, and so on; and there could be short sections that discuss any specific national effects, national political history, or other specific national research that have been done, which would link to the relevant supported lists (children of Canadian PMs, children of US presidents, and so on). (Heck, we could probably cannibalize some of the arguments on this page to flesh out the text.) --lquilter 14:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentEdward Baker Lincoln died at the age of three, nine years before his dad became a U.S. President, yet he is notable enough to have his own article as a child of a President. Then I'd say they all are notable enough. The article creation idea by lquilter sounds excellent. Jjmillerhistorian 14:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Yes, a very good idea. Without wishing to sound peverse, even those of them who went on to lead totally "normal" lives have an interest by virtue of doing just that. Johnbod 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Children of political leaders ? If it's a broader topic then "Children of US Presidents" and "Children of Canadian PMs" could redirect ? --lquilter 16:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention the "Children of Presidents of the Philippines", if that hasn't been chopped already. Some interesting contrasts between the three I expect! Johnbod 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, they chopped it. At least the Canadian one survived. Not enough people supported the Philippine list apparently. All three lists deserve to stay. Jjmillerhistorian 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The List is relevant because it reflects important information about the Presidents. For example, alleged slave children such as Sally Hemmings's, say something important about the character of President Jefferson that is useful to historians and other researchers. Children are relevant to understand the psyche of presidents.Swampyank 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that a number of the notability "voters" miss the point. Of course some presidential children aren't notable (though a few are even as children). But this is a list covering a notable topic (as shown by sourcing) and may in fact help prevent the creation of stubs of non-notable presidential children, since they can have their bio-stubs here. Eluchil404 09:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subjects that we know generate curiosity and (limited but serious) historical interest should be kept in Wikipedia. Usefulness (as a record related to the serious historical interest) and Being Damn Interesting to, say, tens of millions of people should be standards of inclusion in Wikipedia. If that means we keep the Children of the presidents of Pakistan the world will not come to an end. At least not for a while. Noroton 14:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Walt Disney. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:08Z

Walt Disney School[edit]

Walt Disney School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable elementary school in Pennsylvania, except that it's named for a famous person. Less than 100 ghits for this Walt Disney School (there are others elsewhere). YechielMan 04:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a school to be notable it should either be famous itself, have notable alumni, or be the venue of notable events. This one is none of these. Wooyi 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, schoolcruft. Edeans 08:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Schoolcruft? Is that what I found in the locker rooms? --UsaSatsui 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If being named after someone famous were a criteria, nearly every school would be in. Do you have any clue just how many Kennedy schools there are alone? --UsaSatsui 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Walt Disney. There may be many schools named after presidents like Kennedy, but it is unusual for a school to be named after an entertainment figure. That doesn't mean the school by itself it notable enough for an article, but it should be mentioned in the Disney article as there can't be many places like this named after the filmmaker. 23skidoo 13:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found at least three other schools in the US named after Walt Disney, in a Google search. YechielMan 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment reply'. That's still only three (and they should also be mentioned in the Walt Disney article). But unless they have achieved notability, they probably wouldn't warrant separate articles, either. That said, if the article under discussion survives AFD, it needs to be given a disambiguation name due to there being more than one. 23skidoo 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. I don't really see why this article shouldn't be deleted, just because it is named after Walt Disney doesn't make it any more notable than any other elementary school. However, we could put it in the Walt Disney article as it is an interesting little fact (is it a fact? It needs citing!) about Walt Disney. As said above, not many entertainers have schools named after them. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability; inadequate references. WMMartin 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the reasoning provided by 23skidoo. Another possible option would be to create some sort of a disambiguation page and then redirect each school to the appropriate locality in which it resides. In either case the title should be preserved as this is a plausible search term. (jarbarf) 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by way of replacing with a disambiguation page, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. Silensor 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Non-notable" is a valid reason. --UsaSatsui 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Silensor, this should serve as a meaningful disambiguation page. No objection to merging existing content as suggested by others. RFerreira 08:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Disambiguation to what, exactly? We're questioning the notability of one school, and you believe we should change the page to mention three non-notable schools? If there's more than one notable Disney School, that's when one mentions disambiguation. I'm not buying this "it's notable because it's unusual to have a school named after an entertainer" argument either. There's a school named after a horse in Portola Valley, California, which has to be rarer than a school named after an entertainer, and it isn't notable either. --UsaSatsui 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep turn into a disambig page.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:07Z

James McGee[edit]

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

This article is entirely unreferenced; my efforts to find references have been unsuccessful. A lack of references renders it impossible to verify whether a recent edit is correct, or should be reverted, or, indeed, to determine whether any of the information in the article is actually true. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Edeans 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found and added a reference with small bio. Tikiwont 14:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep WP:BIO requires multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the personJeepday 14:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote - two independent references have been added to the article . I verified the reference and changed the format to citation style. I also add a Fact tag to the trailing sentence, which does not adversely impact the article. While the article is still a stub and needs work it appears to currently met all three core content policies

• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - More sources for this stub of a major of a large U.S. city might be provided by the contributors of the article, which they are more likely to do if notified of this AfD. As this has not been done yet, I've done so now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I edited this article back in March - unfortunately I was new to Wikipedia and didn't cite anything. I have no general knowledge of the subject and I am certain I pulled any info I added from several newspaper articles that appeared in the Dayton Daily News after his death. I don't have access, but I think they are available on the newspaper's web archive (and likely on LexisNexis); article titles include "Former Mayor McGee dies" and "McGee changed city he dearly loved, served". In general, I don't think there's a lack of press coverage if someone was able to do the research - he was one of the first black mayors of a city as large as Dayton and was quite active with the NAACP - but due to the timeframe of McGee's service I doubt much will be available on the web. -Big Smooth 16:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the guy is prominent enough (first African-American mayor and longest serving mayor of a large city) to warrant an article. Any unsourced information should be marked for cites needed. Acsenray 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was surprised to read that Dayton only has a population of about 150k, but the greater Dayton area is close to 900k. So how notable is the mayor of a 150k city? But since he was the first black mayor this seems more significant if the sources are available. --Kevin Murray 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 09:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Acsenray. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:49Z

Haydar Hatemi[edit]

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

Edit history suggests vanity (see also the edit history] on Jesus). Unless notability is independently established, delete (and even then, the subject of the article is strongly advised not to make conflict of interest edits. --Nlu (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WP is not a private art gallery, either. Edeans 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that these seems like a vanity article. fraggle 09:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if the accomplishements listed were independently referenced the bio would not be noteable. Jeepday 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:51Z

Antonio Ribeiro Telles[edit]

Antonio Ribeiro Telles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:AntonioRibeiroTelles.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

The article does not verifiably demonstrate Telles' notability A. B. ^(talk) 04:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following AfDs for Portuguese bullfighters are somewhat related:

• Antonio Ribeiro Telles -- AfD
• Vasco Taborda, Jr. -- AfD
• Vitor Ribeiro (bullfighter) -- AfD
• João Moura -- AfD

If a fluent Portuguese-speaker could find some reliable sources to verify their subjects' notability and serve as article references, that would be helpful! Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources on the web, including in the somewhat known site tauromania.pt, but that does not help if they are not included in the article. As far as he man himself he is not a t the top, yet not either one of the bunch of the rejoneadores so I guess he could pass WP:BIO if someone bothered to reference the article Alf photoman 15:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Absolutely no assertion of notability at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edeans 08:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources on any of these people. fethers 12:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:51Z

Vasco Taborda, Jr.[edit]

Vasco Taborda, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)