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. Avi 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personalities from Iaşi[edit]

Personalities from Iaşi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is a POV duplicate for List of people from Iaşi. The user who created it has decided to fork content after he had tried to delete list entries that he considered "non-notable", although they obviously meet the criteria for inclusions (they have, or are likely to have articles written about them, and they were born in Iaşi). He has then proceeded to create a list of people whom he considers important over other for Iaşi, to whose names he has added misspelled and inaccurate summaries. Therefore, Delete. Dahn 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is different from the other one in that in must have people with major contributions. I repeat, MAJOR. I still have to see an article why Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor has any importance (bad or good, it doesn't matter).

And about the POV: who decides who is important to have an article here? You? I repeat: if I make an article about me, I am allowed to include myself in the list? If yes, I hope you understand about what my list is.

If you think someone is not notable enough to be a "Personality", it can be removed (presumbly you give some reason). If there is any list you could delete, it's your list: your list can be constructed if you only put a tag "Iasi" to the article of the person born in Iasi. Simple enough, so if you want I can do it for you.

If I misspelled any name, forgive me, I would correct the entry.

I would not discuss the other points because they are not relevant for the topic: deletion of my list.

cristi 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out what we discussed until now: User_talk:Cristi.falcas#Personalities_from_Ia.C5.9Fi, User_talk:Bogdangiusca#.22Personalities_from_Iasi.22, User_talk:Dahn#list_of_people_from_iasi.

cristi 08:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list around a subjective criterion is not a list. A fork created for a subjective reason is still a fork. Dahn 08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective?? I can give you examples of national or international recognition for every entry. How is this subjective? About your argument that my list is just a fork where I removed the entries I didn't liked: I specifically told that the list for personality would have people who had big contributions to Romania or Iasi. What is the contribution of Nicolae Vogoride? Just because he was a Moldavian governor he deserves to be in the list with personalities? For that matter who is Samuel Leibowitz? Hes entry is 3 lines and he was an attorney in USA. I am very sure that it is not subjective for me to not consider him a personality. I stand by my argument that you have a list with people that are born in Iasi, mine is with people who contributed to the advancement of Romania. For me this is complettely different from what you want. I told you, your list could be generated if you put a tag born-in-Iasi to the articles. cristi 09:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Association fallacy. Moreover, you make no note of the fact that there is no objective difference between people and "personalities", which is what the issue actually is. I also note from you repetitive "tags" comment that you have little to no understanding of how wikipedia works. I also challenge you to come up with an example where such content forking has been allowed on wikipedia. (I can come up with about 1,000 where it has not.) These points are painfully obvious, so I'm done debating your appeal to probability. Dahn 10:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. bogdan 10:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what is the problem. You don't know what subjective is.Let me help you with this one: modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background (from Merriam-Webster). Let me point to you an other word: Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. If I say some one is not important doesn't mean that I am subjective. In fact the fallacy applies to your argument: there is no objective difference between people and "personalities". Maybe you should check the link yourself.

So, I don't see where I'm subjective if I only state what the majority of people are saying (I feel I must explain to you that "majority of people" means, in my context, what is considered to be intelligent people. Not you or me, but people who managed to demonstrate that they are capable to judge a person *objectively*. Again, check the definitions.).

One more thing, because I feel you need it: personality - distinction or excellence of personal and social traits; also : a person having such quality b : a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety. Hope it helps you understand what the words you use mean.

• Delete. Not only is the article poorly written but it's difficult for me to believe that all (or any) of the red-linked individuals are notable pursuant to WP:NOTE. If this article is not deleted, it should be merged to List of people from Iasi and all that birthdate and death date stuff should be removed. If the person has an article, his or her birth and death dates will be in the article. If the person doesn't have an article, he or she shouldn't be on the list. --Charlene 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, in English calling someone a "personality" carries the connotation that they are a little peculiar, strange, not quite normal. It's often used as a euphemism for "really weird person". Which may be one of the reasons why Wikipedia uses the wording "People from Iasi", not "Personalities from Iasi". --Charlene 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In Romanian, the word "personalitate" means "personality", but also "remarkable person, celebrity". :-) bogdan 23:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's poorly written, but it's a copy of the other list with the persons that are not notable removed. The reason for deletion was POV. About the birthdates, they can be removed easily if it's a problem. The other points apply to the other list as well (the red links). I did this list because I didn't wanted to be polluted by small time, insignificant people. A list where only the persons with great value for the city will be inserted. What is so hard to understand? I want to know if the reason for deletion has changed or it's still because of my POV, like in the first line on this page. It seems Charlene didn't even read the first line of the discussion, but she still want's the page deleted. If "personality" is such a bad word (but from the english definition it has the same meaning as in romanian), it can be changed with something else. I want to know the reason why it has to be deleted: it is still POV, or the quality (I can work on that), or both. I have some definition for the words used in this discussion in my other post, so maybe you should read those before posting (this is for Charlene). For the last time: my list is supposed to have great minds and people with a great impact on the lifes of the citizens. Dhan, maybe you should respond to Charlene also, because we had some discussion about some of the red links I removed. cristi 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing, because I don't know where to ask. I think it will be better if we had a standard for the cities, like there is one for the countries. Just an ideea. cristi 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I just found this link: Cimitirul_Bellu. Don't tell me on that link they should insert all the people buried there? cristi 13:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and this is the last time I'm replying on this topic (given that the issue is as clear-cut to me as clear-cut gets): the red links that you see there are to future articles (part of which I'm planning to create in the future). Since I do not particularly enjoy creating illegible and ridiculous stubs such as the ones you created for various people (such as Gheorghe Brăescu), I take my time in creating actual articles (Bujor is on my list, and I have already mentioned him in three articles or so). Also, since I do not want to go and do the same research over and over again (or reverting once I do create those articles) I would appreciate it if the list is not purged due to who some guy has hard about and who he has not.

A while back, I bumped into a question about Bujor and any details of his life, as posed to Wiki reference desk. It had been answered by an editor, who indicated that Bujor was [at the time] only mentioned as red link in the PSDR article (which I had created). See Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 September 18#Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor. Following the same theory as Croisti Falcas, one would remove red links willy-nilly in that article as well, leaving us with no context or data on a relevant person.

As it is, I am one of two or three persons contributing information on the entire interwar period in Romania, as well as on related subjects. At a quick glance, Bujor is mentioned, with details, in 4 major sources I have tapped into. I cannot be expected to continuously furnish information on topics, and I certainly will not do it because some user, who is not even polite to me, and who has contributed nothing of any value to the project, is pretending I cannot prove they are relevant. I also cannot help but point out that the said user has no idea of how wikipedia works, and, for some reason, imagines that collecting particular data on particular persons is an easy job.

As I have mentioned already, virtually all those people are on the list are mentioned in the standard issue (and not at all exhaustive) Romanian Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1978. It is utter bullshit to claim that there is some other, hidden, criterion of notability that has somehow elluded me, and that it is "objective" just because Cristi Falcas can type certain words in ALL CAPITALS.

You, Cristi Falcas, on the other hand, have no access to sources, and little knowledge of your own country's history (it is frankly embarrassing that a residence of Iaşi found out who Nicolae Vogoride was yesterday, and that this Iaşi resident has produced theories about the depth of my culture).

Bottom line: deleting those entries is hurting the informative value of the project, and only answers to the whim of a person who has not even understood what this project is about. Dahn 14:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I just responded to Charlene about the removal of red links, no reason the call me names for this one. I have removed the link to people from Iasi because I started to see what you want. I still have other points unsolved, but I will take them on the List of people from Iaşi discussion page. Have a good day. cristi 15:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Tubezone 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar_Bianchi[edit]

Oscar_Bianchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I saw the photo at the top and I knew this page was total garbage. Sure enough, it was deleted in a previous AfD, and the writer put it back up. I strongly recommend a speedy delete and salt. YechielMan 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G4. So tagged. For what it's worth, YechielMan, you can do that yourself if you see it in the future - the proper tag is ((db-repost)). --Dennisthe2 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and clean it up its sourced, i might not care about this guy and the article is unorganized, but he is notable because he won a prestigious award that is already listed here, and he has an article in a national online article--Juju 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pure vanity, (unless written by another and then the picture suggests its pure cruelty). Avalon 05:31, 14 January 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 and delete. BorgQueen 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen sacrifice example[edit]

Queen sacrifice example (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I don't think we need an entire article just to illustrate one example of a queen sacrifice in chess. About a year ago it was started as a sub-article for Queen sacrifice but since then it hasn't gained any content other than the images. Crystallina 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete anything that is on there could easily be placed on Queen sacrifice. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then delete pretty clear; not worthy of own article. Akihabara 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Delete per nom. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. James086Talk 13:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete This article proveides no context, but the images could be added in the main article. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article should be merged and then deleted as it's not really got enough important info on it to have its own article. Should be deleted soon. Tellyaddict 15:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The images can be useful. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merging. The example is pretty poor - I don't think a two-move combination counts as a Queen sac at all. It shouldn't be too hard to find a famous sacrifice to illustrate the idea. A better player than I would have to do it, though... -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge per above. Stand-alone example provides no context and is largely uninterpreable without the Queen Sacrifice article to support it. Also, it would be nice to have a notable example. --Shirahadasha 21:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't merge. The main article queen sacrifice speaks for itself. The additional diagrams are not particularly useful, and are not conventional to use in most other Wikipedia chess articles. YechielMan 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A single example does not normally deserve an article, and this example is stunningly uninteresting. An article devoted to a tactical theme, I could see, or something particularly notable like Philidor's legacy or the Saavedra study. But this, no. --OinkOink 04:26, 18 January 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. Nishkid64 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Missile[edit]

Nikita Missile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Big fan of the games, but ultimately a very minor weapon that's completely non-notable. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should be covered, if at all, in the various Metal Gear (series) articles. There does not appear to be notability even within the game. --Bejnar 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --D-Boy 20:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Static Universe 00:27, 18 January 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. Nishkid64 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brains:_Philosophy_of_Mind[edit]

Brains:_Philosophy of Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is an article about a blog. WP:BLOG is only a proposal in the preliminary stages at this point in time. Kenosis 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about blogs, is that reason for deletion? --Kenneth M Burke 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had reason to believe that unless a blog is sufficiently notable, WP is not the place to introduce them. But I'm willing to stand corrected if wrong about this. ... Kenosis 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to concede your reason for deletion if you find policy for such reasoning (or care to develop one through democratic process,) but believe I can find a wholesome list of pages for blogs like it on wikipedia. --Kenneth M Burke 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading of the policy, I do not find that it is need of being deleted. --Kenneth M Burke 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The statement by the article's creator and sole author (just above, which said: "After reading of the policy, I do not find that it is need of being deleted") is a conclusory statement without any evidence in support. I do not see a reason to withdraw the nomination or change my opinion on this issue at present. I do recognize that it can be an ever-bending issue in a forum such as Wikipedia. For instance, not long ago the accepted position was that only colleges should merit inclusion as articles in WP, and fairly quickly many more of the AfD debates have moved to high schools, and even to elementary schools. Similarly with blogs maybe; but I've been under the impression that WP:notability, WP:Reliable sources and other relevant guidelines have still been intended to mean we shouldn't use WP to introduce and attempt to disseminate a blog, but should instead constrain ourselves to describing such an endeavor only after it achieves widespread attention of its own accord. ... Kenosis 03:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are blogs notable and reliable enough to be on Wikipedia? I believe they are fine, but if you want it deleted . . . perhaps we should have them all deleted, make a project of the ordeal? --Kenneth M Burke 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, depends if they meet WP:WEB. Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable blog. Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "Are blogs notable and reliable enough to be on Wikipedia? I believe they are fine, but if you want it deleted . . . perhaps we should have them all deleted, make a project of the ordeal?" That logic does not follow, especially in light of the fact that some blogs receive much more notable, reliable 3rd party attention which does not appear to be true in this case. Axem Titanium 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the letter of the law. I'll look into WP:BLOG and explore the possibilities (that will be a project).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs)

• Delete, Do I have to say that for its finality? I didn't mean to cross the line . . . no offense intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs).
• Delete, I failed to find any non-trivial mentions in independent non-blog sources (links ghits1), and so it seems to fail WP:WEB. Whois indicates the domain was created on 14-Jul-06. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources for an article yet. Groklaw is an example of a blog meeting WP:WEB. skip (t / c) 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The page appears to be of the category of candidates for speedy deletion Category:Candidates for speedy deletion - don't you wish I didn't was your time?--Kenneth M Burke 05:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, This blog doesn't have enough notability to be in an encyclopedia. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per all of the above, and WP:NOTE. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 08:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:WEB. In addition, I'd say it's a strawman to say all blogs should be deleted. Many are covered in independent 3rd party sources and meet our requirements. --Larry laptop 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Because this is an academic blog of professors, it could potentially be notable. But no evidence has been provided that it is now. What distinguishes this blog from academic blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy is that those other blogs have been regularly cited and quoted in other publications (like the New York Times in a way that clearly establishes notability. Not true of this one. Until the academic culture develops a way for academic blogs to get more notice in other academic publications, it may be, perhaps unfortunately, the popular press that distinguishes between a notable and a non-notable academic blog. --Shirahadasha 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The end, delete it --Kenneth M Burke 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kenosis sent me an email of apology (which was not entirley necessary), to which I responded:

Hey, No problem at all, I certainly understand and agree by Wikipedia policy that it really did not belong. Here in the Missouri, U.S. it was late, I just hope that my tone did not come off as too cranky. It was just not a priority for me at the moment to really try to defend the page being on Wiki. Perhaps in the future as I gain experience with the encyclopedia, a policy and project could be designed for academic oriented sites (if not through the encyclopedia, through another site). You arguments were well defined, certainly no need for apology. Do take care, Kenneth.

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. Nishkid64 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Core beliefs of the Conservative Party (UK) of 2004[edit]

Core beliefs of the Conservative Party (UK) of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article covers a single advertisement placed by the UK Conservative Party in 2004. There is no real assertion of that add campaign's notability. Every ad campaign by a political party cannot be notable and Wikipedia is not a list of irrelevant information. The article has not been edited for 6 months and is unlikely to grow beyond its present coverage. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertisement, nothing notable about such a campaign. Terence Ong 05:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at this, it seems the first version of the page was simply a copy of the advert. It was then pared down to just tell the story of the advert (under the "Wikipedia does not contain copies of primary sources" rule, presumably). But in hindsight, it is clearly not worthy of a separate article; the advert may be worthy of a mention in Conservative Party (UK). Sam Blacketer 11:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a record of an ad campaign, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. James086Talk 13:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as by James086 and by WP:V, if there must be an article at least it should be sourced. Alf photoman 15:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 20:34, 14 January 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 and redirect to Blender. Cbrown1023 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne (Blender primitive)[edit]

Suzanne (Blender primitive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not particularly notable, since it's a primitive unique to the Blender platform. Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect into Blender. It's not individually notable, but the article is an interesting bit of Blender lore. (It desperately needs better sourcing.) Suggest a similar fate for Suzanne Awards also. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable independent of Blender, doesn't have sufficient length to justify a fork. Also is an unlikely search term, and the Suzanne diambiguation page already has a link to the Blender article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No WP:RS for notability independent of Blender (software). Merge any usable content with Blender (software). --Shirahadasha 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an invalid vote. We cannot merge and delete per the GFDL as it removes attributions. It has to be one or the other. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. The above comment by Shirahadasha does seem self-contradictory & may be best regarded as a merge opinion. Of course, only Shirahadasha knows for sure. --Ssbohio 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there might be some useful opinions expressed here: Talk:Blender (software)#Merge the two articles?, in which I participated (though I did not tag the articles originally). In regards to Shirahadasha's vote, it's a convention I've seen in other AfDs, typically used to mean "delete, but move any applicable information first." Virog^{It's not}_{my fault!} 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found this article by doing a search with Google, and found it to be valuable. Since this is Blender's version of the Utah Teapot, I see no reason that it shouldn't have its own page. Omeomi 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - refer to other WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 2007-01-21T16:00:53 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 15:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Pardon my boldness, but this article just needed some cleanup. I've turned it into a disambiguation page- the rest of the relevant information is covered at Midnight Sun. --Wafulz 07:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Midnight Sun[edit]

Land of the Midnight Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Poorly developed, covered better in other articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DurinsBane87 (talk • contribs).

• speedy keep. "Poorly developed" is not a valid reason for deletion. `'mikka 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Article title is very commonly used, and the nomination is actually not an argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Didn't know it was beyond just Alaska... that's kinda cool. Or cold, pick one. =^_^= Clean it up. --Dennisthe2 04:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep It does need a bit of work, burtetttttttttttt no reason for deletion. SkierRMH,05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, article should be cleanup, not sent for AFD. A poor article does not mean it should be deleted. Terence Ong 05:14, 14 January 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. Nishkid64 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryad Vox[edit]

Ryad Vox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

del vanity or hoax. No reliable traces in the internet. For a person from a "New York Hall of Fame" it is a red flag . `'mikka 03:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 03:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —S.D. ¿п? 04:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Terence Ong 05:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, fails WP:BIO or WP:MUS whichever you care to apply. James086Talk 13:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:28, 14 January 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. Nishkid64 04:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo bandits[edit]

Flamingo bandits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Clear violation of WP:NOT - "Things made up in school one day". Contested prod from April 2006. I would have speedied this under CSD G1 if it wasn't for that technicality Caknuck 03:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and Speedy Delete under CSD:A7 could be applicable here too -- wtfunkymonkey 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons brought up by Caknuck. —S.D. ¿п? 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & not funny Avalon 05:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. --Kukini 05:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom and above. Tagged. Bigtop 07:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable whatsoever. James086Talk 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Administrator Tijuana Brass (talk · contribs) removed the speedy A7 tag. James086Talk 13:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:29, 14 January 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. BorgQueen 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Wii[edit]

Donkey Kong Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article provides no source of the game's existence. Jonny2x4 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources are there, and three of the four are reliable gaming sites. However, nobody seems to have too many details on the game yet. But searches on different search-engines found some results. The article does need work and if there are more details out there they need to be found, but for now I think it's alright. Ganfon 03:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Recreation of content deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong (Wii). Nothing has changed since then. --- RockMFR 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - We can't examine the previous, deleted version to be sure, but from the previous nomination it would seem to indicate that the Donkey Kong (Wii) article was only sourced to the related Gamespot page. This has four sources, not one. While notability might not have been proveable back in November, it is now. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All four sources are still trivial and speculative. There is nothing substantial at any of them. --- RockMFR 04:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon further investigation, the IGN/GameStats links don't even refer to this game. They are pages for DK Bongo Blast, a completely different game. --- RockMFR 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial and speculative outside sources are still outside sources so long as they are reliable. The fact that two of them aren't even about the right game is a good point though. Article doesn't establish notability so well anymore. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly Indifferent and Speedy Keep - I have no idea what the nominator was thinking, but the article provides not one but four sources which confirm to a relative degree of certainty that the game (or a plan to develop it) does exist. Meets WP:V, WP:RS, and (barely) WP:N. It may be stubby in nature, but most articles about upcoming games stay in stub form for a while. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm changing my opinion to Delete or Retarget to DK Bongo Blast per my above comments to RockMFR. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm calling crystalballery just based on some of the arguments in this very AfD. --Dennisthe2 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We're not ready for this. Delete per nom and Dennisthe2. Bigtop 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 12:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; violates WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not WP:CRYSTAL because it's sourced. Sure, it's a stub and will stay a stub until more information is available, but the game still exists (or will exist, barring cancellation,) so what's the problem? -Ryanbomber 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Oops. Didn't notice that the sources were for a different game. -Ryanbomber 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We got articles like W.I.T.C.H. (game)--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 02:16, 19 January 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. Majorly (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Hix[edit]

Dj Hix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

NN-DJ. prod removed by page creator delete Cornell Rockey 04:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sign of notability. -- Mikeblas 04:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete db-bio, nothing in the article to state notability. JuJube 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, speedy may not apply since he has a radio show which claims notability though doesn't prove it. James086Talk 13:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. High profile club DJ and event organiser who promoted major club nights in Belfast, bringing many acts who had never before appeared in Northern Ireland. Currently writing for longest running black music magazine in the world, and broadcasting on major UK black music station, which certainly proves notability. -- Omq101 19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for additional sources, for example this one. A quick search suggests this may be a notable individual and the sources may be there. --Shirahadasha 21:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Wait and See I have several problems, the biggest perhaps being that the page author is an account that was created the same day as this page, and it is the only page he has ever edited. It makes me suspect self-promotion. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 21:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Up and coming, quite possibly. Notable now, doesn't seem so. The BBC satellite radio gig, for example, is a one-month stint as part of a listener promotion. Robertissimo 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a googlesearch of bluesandsoul.com (the website of the magazine he's a columnist for) gives zero hits for "dj hix". He's not listed as a presenter at the WP BBC 1Xtra page. The top five hits for Google searching anywhere include (1 & 2) some kind of DJ self promo site, (3) his myspace page, (4) his own site, (5) a BBC page written by him and (6) this WP article. Nobody but DJ Hix himself seems to be writing about him, which I'd say is a testament to his lack of notability. --DeLarge 14:12, 21 January 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. Nishkid64 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Perrin[edit]

Marguerite Perrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable participant on a reality television show. Mikeblas 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - probably one of the more well known contestants on American Reality Television. I come up with nearly a million ghits and a handful of news ghits. The article could, and should, probably stay - though relistically it could be trimmed back a bit. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, she got widespread attention from shows beyond her original appearance. Nontrivial coverage in secondary sources = notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of outside sources to confirm her notability. JuJube 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability established, reliable independent sources to assert her notability. Terence Ong 12:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sadly she meets the notability criteria --Kevin Murray 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep she certainly is on TV enough, and even though she is a little out there, she is notable since there are sources on her. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 18:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per non-trivial coverage.--Jersey Devil 20:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. As much as I hate that this person could possibly be notable, she is notable. Letoofdune 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Reality TV is a huge part of today's entertainment landscape and Marguerite Perrin is at the forefront of those who are most widely (no pun intended) recognized in this category. SpearsLover 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Her meltdown was notable enough, and the number of views and parodies (via YouTube and such) she has circulating ought to indicate just how much. And as for her so-called "fame" as a reality TV star, I don't recall any Real World alumni or even a Survivor winner getting this much publicity over a five-minute scream-fest...at least not enough to warrant an appearance on Leno and dolls and t-shirts made in their honor. Tipsy Firecracker 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Recognizable cultural phenomenon people talk about. It's more than notable.
• Strong Keep - Certainly notable inasmuch as people are looking her up. I don't see any reason for deletion. Dkorn 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She'll be back in the spotlight soon enough. Longshot1980 01:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let the fat cow have her infamy posted on Wikipedia. --293.xx.xxx.xx 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Had widespread public interest, and will soon be making another appearance. -128.208.47.97 05:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What do you mean she is no-notable, she is the most well known character from Trading Spouses. This article is an article of interest, although as it stands now it could use some expanding. She will be appearing on that show again, no one else has done that. If Star wars kid warrents a Wikipedia page than she does also. —The preceding User:BenW comment was added by 204.62.200.20 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 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 merge target. Eluchil404 08:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch with Kevin McDonald[edit]

Sketch with Kevin McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No notability, no context. Don't merge with Kevin McDonald, because I already took care of that myself. Just delete. YechielMan 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Merge - If the article content is already merged, the appropriate course of action is to redirect the page to the other article, especially when the page title is a likely searched term. I'm trying to assume good faith here but this AfD nomination seems like a pre-emptive salting the earth attempt. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Your assumption of good faith is correct. I take things to AfD when I'm not sure what to do with them because I know that somebody will look and see what needs to be done, if deletion isn't it. I figured this was an obvious case of merge and delete, but I wasn't recommending a salt. It didn't occur to me to redirect because I didn't think anyone would search for or link to the "Sketch" page, but it doesn't harm to redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - Well alllllllllllrighty then. No harm, no foul. Hopefully this AfD will be speedy closed now that it appears to be unnecessary. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:57, 14 January 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. —bbatsell ¿? 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bayliss[edit]

Adam Bayliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I'm going to invent a "three-template rule": if an article has three or more templates at the top, saying that it's POV, non-notable, etc., then it's probably a good candidate for deletion. YechielMan 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Why is an editor with a one-month history at WP already proposing articles for deletion and trying to create policy? --Kevin Murray 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Eastmain 09:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN John Vandenberg 14:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notability claims are all to red links...! The JPS^{talk to me} 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The red links simply indicate that the films don't have articles yet. (They may or may not merit articles.) It's not relevant to this discussion though - notability is specifically about what's outside of Wikipedia. CiaranG 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks fixed expanded to blue or removed as non-notables subjects unlikely to merit articles at WP. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep YechielMan is way off base. The number of tags is irrelevant to the AfD. These are put in the article as a means to suggest improvement. The AfD discussion should be related to the notability of the subject and the adequacy of the sources. The quality of the writing is relevant to a rewrite. I see multiple non-trivial sources, with an award, and a need for editing. --Kevin Murray 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see one non-trivial source, the Australian Film Commission. What's another? CiaranG 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider the http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1344512/ to be independent at least. It discusses Several more sources were found as of --[[21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)--; his work which in my mind meets the BIO standard of "attracting notice." Whether the work was important seems specifically irrelevant to the WP standards. --Kevin Murray 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edited to remove weaselly-fluff and removed NPOV tag. Remains unlinked from other articles, but I don't see that as a fatal flaw. --Kevin Murray 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the poor reason given for nomination the article fails WP:N, so he worked in the art department, doesn't mean he deserves an article. Making his own short films doesn't show notability either. Firelement85 18:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The following quote is from the WP Guidelines: "Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness"."
• He has attracted notice and won an award. The references meets the criteria for multiple independent sources. Firelement85's opinion of whether he "deserves" an article is his/her "own subjective judgements" specifically prohibited by the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Being included in meaningfull film festivals is the equivilent of independent reviews of his work --Kevin Murray 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He is still not worth noting, more than some people true but not enough to be included in Wikipedia. He worked in art departments of some notable Australian shows. Doesn't mean he's notable. He has worked with Latent Image Productions and Rebelstudio on WillFull which isn't notable, Latent Image Productions could be considered notable by the fact that the CEO was the Executive Producer of The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert but that was before Adam joined. That he was given finance to create a short film is great but if the film then doesn't do much it's not of any importance, yes it showed in a couple of film festivals where hundreds of other films may have been shown, unless the film is nominated for an award or receives acclaim then it isn't worth being noted. (Kevin you should rework the article you created Raw Nerve Short Film Initiative as the text is cut and pasted from other websites and likely in violation of copyright.) Firelement85 07:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, information from other websites, but not cut & paste. The text was rewritten, but there are only so many ways to say the same thing. --Kevin Murray 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no news articles to be found in with google news or the EBSCOHost system which shows he has not even attracted local news interest. Looks like a good film producer but has not made enough of an impact in the world to have verifyability from reliable sources - Peripitus

I've looked through this after Kevin's expansion and, although the article is not too bad, he still misses the notability required to meet biographical requirements. The 7 news link does not mention him, his IMDb bio paints him as just another crew member. All of the links I've followed show the short films he's produced as being shown but there are no reviews of their importance, no online bio information on him outside the Australian film corporation and the only news article (the Age from melbourne) mearly notes the plot elements from Luna and the Moon. What we're still lacking is commentary on his importance from reliable sources. Even a news article about Adam Bayliss would help but I can't find that anywhere. There are mentions in the press that his films are showing at the festivals listed but no mention of Adam himself. Based on the username of the creator the article also is an autobiography at least in it's original form... - Peripitus (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk) 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems well cited now and reasonably notable. --Kukini 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Kevin, I didn't explain myself well enough. I was looking through the list of pages tagged as problematic for notability and found this guy, and there were two other tags also, and I figured it was a lost cause, so I sent it here. I could have written in my nomination "nonnotable, fails WP:BIO but I got bored. Anyway, I acknowledge that the article has been improved significantly. (By the way, I have been making sporadic contributions to Wikipedia, sometimes as an IP address, for more than a year.) YechielMan 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to rain on you unduly, but when editors spend time writing an article the AfD to remove their hard work should be serious business. But on the other hand we are all volunteers and it should be fun as well. Welcome! --Kevin Murray 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your frustration - clearly a lot of work is on the line here. Unfortunately adam is not in the class of John Safran but more like Olivia Rousset, the winner from from Race Around the World but still without an article- Peripitus (Talk) 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sourced marginally well but he still fails WP:BIO. GassyGuy 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cannot find any references for him under a search for "Adam Bayliss" film in Google News Archive [2] or Google News [3]. A similar search of Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand Reference centre also failed to find sources. I would reconsider if reliable sources were found. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has improved a lot recently, but I'm persuaded by User:Peripitus that we should be holding out for some outside press comment on the significance of his work. Adding references that only prove the films are being shown does not seem sufficient. EdJohnston 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Well, it looks like were going down in flames here. I don't think that losing this artile will shake the pillars of WP, but neither would keeping it. I think that Adam is in the grey area of notability. Oh well; oh hell! However I think there are some confusing precedents being asserted here:

(1) Capitalistroadster says that we don't have relaible sources. But we have many citations in the bibliography. Is that because our sources are online?

(2) EdJohnston says "we should be holding out for some outside press comment", what is the outside press? Is that referring to printed material?

(3) People keep saying he lacks "importance", while WP Bio specifically says that "notable" is not as high of a standard as "important" or "famous".

(4) I think that people are equating the short length of the movies with a lack of impact. Because the genre is less noticed, doesn't mean it isn't noticed.

(5) People have said that the references are about his work rather than him. I think this is fallacy; when the body of work is notable so is the creator. Inherently the producers are in the background compared to the directors and actors, but their contributions are none the less notable.

(6) The author has provided some background information about Adam's TV work, but some critics above have focused on the non-notable contribution to the more famous genre, rather than look to the notable contribution to the less famous genre. It's a lack of being able to see the trees in the forrest through the clutter of underbrush -- a writting style of building to the climax, rather than putting the NOTABILITY in bold in the first paragraph.

--Kevin Murray 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Paragraphs reordered to emphasize notablility --Kevin Murray 15:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The guy seems notable enough to me. You know, if Wikipedia had been around when Vincent Van Gogh was alive there wouldn't have been an entry on him either. Of course, he's no Van Gogh but come on, the fact that his short films have received worldwide distribution is enough to consider him notable, even if not world famous, which are not synonmous.A mcmurray 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I thought he was notable even before I found some more references. -- Jeff G. 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I don't know that he strictly meets the WP:BIO guideline as the primary subject of multiple articles, but this is now a well written and well sourced article. There are enough verified minor claims to notability to jointly justify the article.--Kubigula (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well constructed article about someone who has notability, albeit modest, but he's not just making films in his backyard with college chums. The latter is not notable. Tyrenius 23:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails Bio. I don't even see this as a borderline case. Most of the cited links seem to be there to pad it out because they aren't even about Adam but rather TV shows he worked as an assistant dresser on. Please. Sarah 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah, please see my note above about not seeing the forrest through the trees. There are 2 references (now none 19:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)) out of 18 which relate to his minor TV experience; you need to look a little deeper at the references before accusing people of "padding". --Kevin Murray 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin, I opened and viewed every single link listed under "Bibliography" and "Notes". Most of those links only cite his name, some don't even mention that and then you've got a couple that list his very, very minor professional TV credits. As I said, the links pad out the reference list and give the appearance of notability when in reality this guy simply isn't a notable Australian and he isn't a notable film maker. He's making not-notable shorts, some as part of courses, to send in as entries into film festivals and to community TV. He's just not notable and his films are just not notable. Sarah 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah, I didn't write this article. I found it at AfD in pretty poor shape and have worked to remove a lot of "puff" and focus on the only notable aspect, which is as a film producer. However, other editors have felt that citing information about his TV work was important; I moved it to the bottoom of the article to deemphasize it. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, there are links to sites which mention him as included in the festivals etc.; it's not how he is mentioned that is important, but where he is mentioned that supports the verifiability of the text. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• We seem to have different opinions on what is notable, but don't read in that I'm trying to subvert the process. --Kevin Murray 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it's an absolute stretch to call him an "award-winning Australian Film Producer" on the basis of the Raw Nerve Initiative. The Raw Nerve Initative is a partly government backed minor funding program, not an awards program. It gives a very small amount cash and very limited services to make a short film. That's it. Sarah 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Borderline satisfaction of notability requirements, in my opinion, so erring on the side of keep. CiaranG 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to point out that Australian International Film Festival is by no means "recognized"; it a new festival that has assumed the old name of a notable film festival, Canberra International Film Festival. So much so that I feel a bit dirty having created the article on Wikipedia, but I had already done the research and felt it was important to point out how non-notable it was (maybe a dab page is in order). John Vandenberg 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I had not included the Canberra International Film Festival in the text but added it now, as his film is listed at that site --Kevin Murray 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have cut the article to reduce puff per Sarah's comments. Tyrenius 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• *I agree with removing the citations to the "puff". I've done that in the past though and gotten into edit wars with editors who think that every piece of trivia deserves a footnote (I didn't put in those links). --Kevin Murray 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per above... Addhoc 16:59, 20 January 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. Nishkid64 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villains from comics and graphic novels[edit]

Villains from comics and graphic novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list, there are way too many comics with villains for this page to be manageable (also, neglecting to point out that the article is a list in the article's title is not a "keep" reason). A similar category surely exists and other indiscriminate lists are being deleted as we speak. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes. Axem Titanium 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per nomination. Indiscriminate, massive, near useless list that will grow wildly out of control, is not cited and likely never will be. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Waaaaay too broad a topic for a list. 23skidoo 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note this list was broken out from the article List of villains which is also up for deletion and that the article's creator is OK with the notion that this article could be deleted. Otto4711 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and no I'm not OK with the notion of this article being deleted: merely OK with the matter being brought here for discussion. Anyway my vote is strong keep: this is a useful navigational tool, falling squarely within what lists are intended for (see WP:LIST). It is neither indescriminate nor too broad to be useful. Categories and lists are never redundant with one another (see WP:CLS). I'm mystified by comments like "useless" above: surely useful to someone looking into, oh I don't know, maybe villains in comics. Obviously, if kept I agree with a move to List of villains from comics and graphic novels. AndyJones 13:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Didn't mean to misrepresent your thoughts about deletion. Otto4711 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The article is a mish-mash across dozens of genres of comics and graphic novels. The concept of "villain" is poorly defined (a cursory glance shows Catwoman is villainous enough for inclusion, as well as Elektra (comics), Emma Frost and others). For example, List of Batman villains is a more manageable list of decent scope and actually provides basic info about each entry, which is the defining characteristic of a good list. Axem Titanium 17:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete totally uncontrolable listcruft. --Larry laptop 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per AndyJones Jcuk 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy Jones. Might work better if there were separate lists by publisher, but that's not an issue for AfD. --JJay 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of lists-related deletions. -- Axem Titanium 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - All the villains & heroes categories are getting deleted at WP:CFD so lists are preferred over categories. (That doesn't speak to this particular list, however, which may indeed be too broad.) --lquilter 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Browsing the categories today, I didn't see any CfD nominations for the comics-related villain and hero categories, or even for Category:Fictional villains for that matter. --GentlemanGhost 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The purpose of this list is better served by existing categories, such as Category:DC Comics supervillains, Category:Marvel Comics villains, and Category:Supervillains by publisher. --GentlemanGhost 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepShivaDaDestroyer 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rationale? I guess your vote doesn't count. Axem Titanium 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted in the link cited above, these decisions aren't made by a direct vote anyway. Rather than saying that his opinion doesn't count, perhaps we be more encouraging to Shiva to elaborate. --GentlemanGhost 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is certainly better than a category. Even so, "villain" is a tricky word. "Supervillain" is fairly objective because it has specific criteria, generally the characters are specifically labeled as such, but "villain" in general involves a lot of opinion and interpretation. I question the need for this list, though. Most villains in comics and graphic novels are supervillains. As for the minority who aren't, how have they been defined? Does the list cite outside sources that identify the characters as villains like the strict criteria we follow at the anti-hero list? For now, I'll say delete (and a pretty strong delete at that) for the use of a vague term that invokes POV. Should the list gain more objective criteria with external references like the anti-hero list and define itself in a way that reduces redundancy to the supervillain lists, I could easily change my "vote." Doczilla 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's too much worry about what is subjective in these debates. (You just mentioned opinion and interpretation, someone in a related AfD voted "delete all subjective lists".) If it were genuinely the case that subjective or normative things are inherently POV and shouldn't be on wikipedia, we would have to delete pretty-much everything on the humanities, leaving just an encyclopedia that covered math and science. But that would be to ask the wrong question. The real question is about verifiability. Someone is a "villain" (or whatever other subjective term you're worried about) if reliable sources say that he is. AndyJones 09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, classifying someone as an anti-hero is also subjective, but that list survived an AfD because it is carefully sourced and policed by a number of editors to reject any additions that don't have external sources labeling the characters as anti-heroes. This villains list, however, does nothing of the sort. Doczilla 19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, although WP:V issues are matters for cleanup, not AfD. AndyJones 20:27, 19 January 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. Cbrown1023 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEGO[edit]

WEGO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

WEAF (AM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Disputed prod; my prod reason was "notability not asserted". Appears to be a minor community radio station. DGG removed the prod with "may be just as notable than the others on this list--just needs some editing". There have been an enormous number of radio station stubs added over the last two months; are these stations notable merely by their existence? I doubt it; hence this AfD.

Let me add WEAF (AM) to this AfD; simply because I prodded both at once. After prodding these two I noticed how many had been added, so I stopped at that point. It'd be great to get some consensus here. I'll stay neutral for this. Akihabara 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There ought to be a policy which says "all radio stations are notable". The only relevant policy-like document that I could find is Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) which is labelled as inactive. I would argue that most radio stations which have ever existed are notable in the context of the culture, news and politics of the cities and countries in which they operate or operated, and that establishing notability in individual cases is difficult without detailed knowledge of the station's operations. A band or musician may have gotten its first big break by getting airplay on a particular radio station (which would help establish notability for that station), but how easy is it to verify this 25 years later? This is another example of the gap between notability and demonstrable notability. I would prefer to keep these articles, even if they are just stubs, and avoid deletion votes for radio stations which will be a lot like the deletion votes for high school articles, which satisfy noone and exhaust everyone. That way, when a radio station becomes famous for breaking a news story or being the first to broadcast a particular song, Wikipedia will have a good stub on which to build. --Eastmain 06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every one is notable? Even campus radio stations, for example? Akihabara 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Eastmain) I don't think notability should be either speculative or inherent. Even if it turns out that, say, some band really did get its first play at WEGO, that would not automatically imply that WEGO is notable. Notability on Wikipedia is a totally practical concept: are there enough external sources that we can use to write a verifiable article? In this case the answer seems to be no for both WEGO and WEAF (which is no surprise -- most small radio stations wouldn't pass WP:N). Of course, if the articles are deleted now and appropriate sources surface later as you suggest might happen, nothing prevents anyone from recreating the articles. Pan Dan 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete, there absolutely ought not to be a policy which says all radio stations are notable. Nothing, IMO, could be farther from the truth. Many are barely notable within their community (see WP:LOCAL), let alone outside. In any case, however, in the absence of tspecific policies and guidelines, more general ones must apply, This does not assert any notability nor does it provide independent reliable sources, so it must go! Change to keep if independent reliable sources are provided before AfD ends. Xtifr _tälk 22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Federal Communications Commission's page listed at External links "Query the FCC's AM station database for WEGO" is an independent reliable souurce. http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?call=WEGO --Eastmain 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists that include all (stations ) or anything else are trivial sources for the purposes of notability --See WP:N ( "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.) DGG 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral I asked for the AfD to get just this sort of discussion. We judge the subject as being notable, not the article, and I can tell what stations suit my interests, but not whether or not they are notable, so I was hoping for some guidelines. If there aren't any they all must stay is at least as stubs. A poorly written article which for some reason doesnt have the detail of the 100s of parallel articles needs the detail in, not the article out, and just needs to be marked for expansion.

On the other hand, looking at a number of radio station articles, most of them don't have much to say. They all have the same sources, which are reliable if not very informative. Some belonging to major chains have more (they CBS ones, for example, have the CBS box at the bottom.) The only one in this geographic area with real content has been protected over a debate on the reliability of a web site. In almost all cases the sources are 1/ the website 2/lists that include all radio stations. Neither of them counts. I don't want to do it myself as a project like the removal of transmission towers, but any argument for removing these 2 applies to 95% of them.

As I said, I'm neutral. In or out. I dont think it is essential content, since the outside lists are available & they all have websites. Someone thought them worth the boxes and the categories. Take a look at a few others before you vote. DGG 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under WP:N or WP:CORP, take your pick. The references in the articles, and the passing mentions I find in local papers in Lexis-Nexis, are trivial as they are nothing to build a Wikipedia article on. Pan Dan 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:AFDP: Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Ergo, keep, and end debate — because until a new policy discussion takes place on the matter and decides on something different, established precedent is the final and non-negotiable word. Bearcat 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the subsequent text Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable. It is not clear to me if this applies in these cases. Akihabara 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part 15 stations are not listed in the FCC database, because they're not licensed operations. Since WEGO does have a page in that database, by definition, it has to be a licensed station. A Part 15 station wouldn't have a four-letter call sign beginning with W, either.Bearcat 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misread it. Are these lower power stations? Some I saw seemed to be. The rest of the text is an example, not an exhaustive list. Akihabara

I haven't misread anything. I was personally involved in the process of determining how best to write that particular precedent statement, so I know exactly what it means. What it means is that if a station operates under a legally-issued FCC license, then it gets an article. The exclusion applies to unlicensed operations. It does not permit any kind of cutoff that splits FCC-licensed stations into licensed-and-notable vs. licensed-and-not-notable piles on the basis of some arbitrary minimum transmitter power. If it's FCC-licensed, then it's in, period. That is the established AFD precedent, and that is what the precedent statement expresses. Bearcat 07:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be taking this the wrong way; perhaps I could have worded better. My apologies. It doesn't say what you claim though; if it did it would read "As an exception, Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable."

Regardless, prior consensus is not set in stone and can change; this has happened several times already. What little consensus exists in this discussion does not match what it apparently was before. As another example, today you de-prodded the campus station WPPJ; however I really fail to see how that station has any genuine claim to notability. In other words, I think the precedent as you see it is too broad. Akihabara 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a radio station is duly licensed by the appropriate media regulation authority, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. I'd really love to know how else you propose to distinguish notable radio stations from non-notable ones beyond that. Bearcat 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Established precedent is neither final nor non-negotiable! It does (generally) reflect a growing concensus, but concensus can change! Precedent ranks lower than guidelines which rank lower than policy. And only policy will absolutely trump AfD debate, since new issues may raised in any given AfD which may lead to a new precedent or even new guideline. (Of course, they'd better be very good issues to survive deletion review.) In this case, I stand by WP:LOCAL, WP:RS, and even, as raised by Pan Dan, WP:CORP. Address any of those, and I'll reconsider my position. Xtifr _tälk 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misquoting me. Allow me to rephrase myself: until such time as somebody articulates a new policy specifically about radio stations, the precedent on radio stations is the final word on the matter of a radio station. It's not sufficient to cite general policies about which people can and do genuinely disagree on whether radio stations meet them or not — the precedent as it stands reflects a lot of debates in which those policies were already taken into account, and the determination was that radio stations do meet them if they're duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority and originate at least a part of their own programming schedule. It's not as though you're introducing some radical new litmus test that nobody ever thought of before; in fact, you're citing the exact same policies that were brought to bear in setting the precedent in the first place. So if you don't like the precedent as it stands, then try to build consensus around a new policy statement that specifically addresses radio stations in particular, because as things stand right now, it's not as though you're citing anything that hasn't already been taken into account. Bearcat 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Bearcat) The debate between you and Akihabara about what WP:AFDP actually means in regard to radio stations is fascinating but irrelevant. It's irrelevant because WP:AFDP is a description of what has happened in past AFD's, not a prescription for what should happen in future AFD's. Outcomes of prior AFD's have nothing to do with whether these 2 articles should be kept. In fact it says in bold at the very top of WP:AFDP that "This page is not policy." By contrast, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:CORP are derived from WP:V and WP:NOT, core policies. I would say those trump WP:AFDP. Pan Dan 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply to Xtifr above. Bearcat 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The precedent on radio stations is the final word on the matter of a radio station." -- I beg to differ, it's not even the final word on the specific radio stations that were nominated -- they can be AFD'd again -- and it's certainly not the final word on all radio stations ("This page is not policy").

"The determination [at prior AFD's] was that radio stations do meet [the general policies] if they're duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority and originate at least a part of their own programming schedule" -- You are citing AFD outcomes as if they can determine general policy. They cannot. Please, if you are convinced by the actual arguments that were made at prior AFD's that all such radio stations are notable, then cite those arguments. Those arguments may or may not convince others in this AFD. But outcomes of prior AFD's are neither binding nor convincing. Pan Dan 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• commentIf N and V are properly applied, they will give consistent decisions. If similar cases coming up now are being decided differently, then the standards are not being properly applied. The AFDD page states what is intended as an honest summary of past consistent decisions. As WP evolves, it may be desirable to change some of these. Some matters, like the wording of the N standard itself, are changed in a legislative sort of way by amending the standard; if thought desirable, a standard or guideline on radio stations could be developed. At present, it's essentially a judge-made standard, made by continuing AfD discussions such as this one here. I understand the meaning of precedent in WP to mean that we should continue prior practice in individual cases, until we intend to change it. As in the RW, one of the factors to consider is how such change will affect the cases treated in the previous decisions. Since WP has the peculiar rule that articles kept may be brought up repeatedly, those interested in consistence may want to re-discuss early articles.

So, do we intend to change it and make some radio stations NN? We can adopt whatever rule we like--there are adequate reasons for either policy. Or do we prefer a hit-and-miss approach? DGG 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support and take part in creating a brief guideline for radio stations; no need to make it too long or wordy IMO. As a starting point I'd suggest notability is given by broadcasting to a sufficiently large area (certainly all large cities would qualify) or having a DJ or presenter that is notable. However I don't think mere existence should be one of the criteria. Akihabara 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Bearcat. Vegaswikian 08:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat. NTXweather 03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced. Lengthy keep arguments are meaningless. If you want to keep the article add some reliable sources. Addhoc 15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market America[edit]

Market America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article concerns an apparently non-notable company, and cites no reliable sources. John254 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn company, per nomination. --Kukini 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per CSD G11 (((db-spam))) Wrs1864 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. advert--Hu12 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. User:Gringo1965 has repeatedly resubmitted copyvio text fro the company's website. This is all spam and should be speedily wiped out, and is so tagged. Ohconfucius 07:00, 17 January 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. Majorly (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IS group[edit]

IS group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The article is original research and according to the article's creator, a member of the group, (see article's talk page) there are no verifiable sources independent of the group to indicate notability. ragesoss 05:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, no WP:RS by author's admission; violates WP:COI. Akihabara 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Needs RS. delldot | talk 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Background. As the original author of the IS group entry, I would like to provide some background information on how and why this entry was made. I am new to Wikipedia editing, and the IS group entry was my first contribution. I was inspired to add this entry by The Reality Club entry and modeled my entry after that one. At that point in time, I was blissfully unaware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since that time, I have learned a lot, but still have much to learn. Seeing the short Reality Club entry inspired me because, as a scientist, and scientific administrator, I am very interested in the history of science, particularly the informal aspects of science (such as what happens behind the scenes -- see, for example, the excellent book Tuxedo Park). As an administrator (former Division Director at NSF and former chair of OSTP committees and present chair of an NAS board) who has done federal service, I have grown much more aware of how science policy can be shaped in ways that are not always apparent and not always reported in standard venues. I am also aware of the importance of ethnography, ethnomethodology, and oral history in documenting events, including events related to the history of science. Because of The Reality Club entry, I had thought at the time that Wikipedia was interested in such articles, as long as they were notable and verifiable in some way. Thus, the IS group entry was started on Nov. 22, 2006. On Nov. 23, 2006, a Wikipedia editor named weregerbil raised concerns about notability and verifiability. I took these concerns very seriously and did what I thought was appropriate at the time to establish both the notability and verifiability of the entry, spending a lot of time and adding what I thought was appropriate information. I indicated that I was both the author of the entry and a co-founder of the group, but I do not recall at the time weregerbil raising any COI concerns. Please also note that, contrary to what some have said above, as author of the article I have NOT admitted that there are no reliable or verifiable sources, I have only stated that "...I am unaware of any verifiable PUBLISHED sources ..." Instead, I based both the notability and the verifiability on the reputation of the members of the group and on the notability (and verifiability) of the research that has been influenced by this group. The reliability and verifiability and notability of these individuals is easy for any independent individual to establish if they know how to do a literature search or use a library. I certainly think that I have gone to considerably greater lengths than what has been done for entries such as The Reality Club (by the way, I commend having "The Reality Club" entry on Wikipedia, and feel that it should remain). More recently, on Jan. 11, 2007, the Wikipedia COI policy was been pointed out to me by ragesoss. I wish someone had done so earlier and apologize for not familiarizing myself with it on my own. However, I still think that the IS group entry has value, is notable, can be verified (though perhaps not in printed sources), is not original research, and should remain on Wikipedia. I strongly feel that it makes a valuable (though very small) contribution to the history of informal science. Progress in science is not always made only by publication, but often by the social links that foster collaboration and influence theoretical directions. In addition, often the best way to hear about an event is through oral history, as long as this oral history can be verified in some way (which is often by corroboration of known individuals). A more nuanced approach to verifiability is needed than apparently presently exists in Wikipedia. To not ponder this issue and, hopefully, improve policy related to it means that Wikipedia may become overly reliant on certain kinds of publication and runs the risk of being driven by the desires of the dominant media which increasingly are being controlled by fewer interests. Because of the COI policy, I will refrain from editing the IS group entry in the future. However, I am hoping that those who really care about informal aspects of the history of science, oral history, and ethnography will make a better case than I can for why hearing from the horse's mouth of those who have participated in events can sometimes constitute a valid form of verifiability and can both help Wikipedia become a stronger, and more accurate, encyclopedia and can also make for a richer and more exciting history of science. Thanks for bearing with this flame and thanks to the Wikipedia editors, weregerbil and ragesoss, who have urged me to consider these matters more carefully. Ddp224 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, I used the term "verifiable" here in the Wikipedia sense (per Wikipedia:Verifiability), which is by definition a published source. Wikipedia is not the place for unpublished work (which is by Wikipedia's definition, as opposed to common usage, original research). But there are other possible venues. If seeking out a more formal publication venue, like a journal in your field(s), would be too onerous, try wikinfo, a wiki encyclopedia with different editorial policies.--ragesoss 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ragesoss -- Thanks for the clarification. I am just trying to explore and understand better some of the Wikipedia concepts and guidelines. As should be crystal clear at this point, this particular entry is not critical to either Wikipedia, the history of science, or the survival of the larger world. However, there are larger principles here that are, at least to me, fascinating, and potentially of some importance, including how they relate to how behind-the-scenes information can be gotten into the public record in some "reliable" (not, apparently, in the Wikipedia sense) way, and the possibilities they raise for nurturing innovative approaches for documenting the informal history of science. Your mention, above, of "verifiable sources" led me to WP:V and WP:RS, and resulted in my being even more unclear about a few things. Is official information, such as press releases, news, information, etc., published on academic and commercial websites, such as Yale and Microsoft, considered to meet the test in certain circumstances for what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources? Is such website information considered to have appeared in what Wikipedia would view as an appropriate "published source"? One reason that I ask is that there has been, for some time, an IS group description on the Haskins site (http://www.haskins.yale.edu/ISgroup.html). This is a corporate, not personal, website that has a full-time, paid website manager, and that also requires that material that appears on the site have editorial oversight and be vetted and approved by a website editorial committee, and finally approved by the President of our Laboratories and, thus, gets multiple views and scrutiny before it appears. Of course, there still may be COI issues with such a source. (Please also note that Haskins is not formally affiliated with the IS group (listing it as an informal affiliation) and takes no responsibility for its actions or the actions of its members.) On WP:RS a number of issues seem related to sourcing and verifiability on this type of informal article. Putting verifiability aside for the moment, the material in this entry seems to be non-controversial and is more just a historical listing of when certain things took place, why they happened, their possible importance, and who was involved. Controversial conclusions are not being reached and, if they are, should be removed if they cannot be verified. Finally, the issue of "Self-published sources" did seem relevant. In WK:RS it says, in that section, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-know professional journalist, has produced self-published material, they may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Again, I don't want to push this too far, but many of the IS participants (it is not a formal group, and does not have membership), including me, meet these tests and have numerous publications in respected, credible, third-party publications, including professional journals, books, etc., to establish their credibility and reputation. Should such factors be taken into account when establishing verifiability and reliability? Apparently, Wikipedia thinks that they should, at least to a certain extent or in certain situations. Clearly, such approaches for establishing verifiability and reliability are not the preferred approach, but often this may be all that is possible. This situation does not seem to be the same kind case as an earlier example that you mentioned to me, in which a bunch of high-school kids create a fake entry as a lark. Most of those involved with IS are credible, known researchers, academics, physicians, etc., and their credibility can be verified. By the way, your comments are worth a lot to me. I am learning a great deal from this process and appreciate the time that you are willing to spend on this. Ddp224 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS. However, I believe the section on self-published work by professionals is intended to only apply in limited circumstance; in this case, I think the intended interpretation would be that, because you and/or the author of the website are not experts on informal science, it would not apply here. The bigger underlying issue is Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia's notability requirements are, in my view, flawed in some ways (and rather byzantine). But the self-publishing exception to WP:RS would absolutely not apply when the self-published source would be necessary just to establish the notability of the IS group. If there was an independent source establishing the notability of the IS group, then the group's website would probably be accepted as a valid source for filling out the article. --ragesoss 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I am not entirely clear which websites are being referred to in your most recent message, above. There are 2 websites in question. The Haskins site is a professional, corporate website, that gets its content from academics of known reputation and from paid science writers, who are familiar with both formal and informal science. The IS group website (http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/is/), which is not affiliated with Haskins, is a self-published site, maintained by Simon Levy. The responsibility for this site is his. Simon is an academic of established reputation (http://www.cs.wlu.edu/~levy/) who also has experience in formal and informal science. Starting in 1992, Simon was the editor of Exponent (http://www.extropy.org/history.htm) and other Extropy Institute newsletters, which published material related to formal and informal science. Simon has also been a presenter at meetings that include both the formal and less formal aspects of science (e.g. http://www.transhumanism.org/tv/2004/presenters.shtml). Regarding your comment, above that " ... you and/or the author of the website are not experts on informal science," I, reluctantly, would point out the following about myself. As noted above (and as can be found by all on my website and on other websites), I was formerly the Division Director for Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences at the National Science Foundation. In that role, I had responsibility for 10 fields: Archaeology, Cultural Anthropology, Physical Anthropology, Geography and Regional Science, Environmental Social and Behavioral Sciences, Child Development, Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental Psychology, Social Psychology, and Linguistics. Part of my responsibilities included reading, reviewing, and signing off on each and every award or decline made on each grant proposal from all academic universities in the US in each of those areas (this, by the way, was a lot of work, which is why I no longer am doing it). I was also the first chair of the most recent NSF priority area, Human and Social Dynamics, and served on the Science and Technology Centers operating committee, responsible for giving out among the largest of awards at the NSF. In these areas, I would often deal with issues related to informal science, and with issues related to informal science education. I would also work with those in the NSF Informal Science Education programs. I deal with such matters on the National Academies Board that I chair, and have dealt with such issues on the OSTP Committees that I have chaired or worked on in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Finally, I have also lectured in this area. One example is a recent presentation at Dartmouth College ("Turning Fears into Public Policy: Grey Goo and Government." Invited talk, SEAC (Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum) 8th Annual International Conference, 2006, Ethics Institute, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, Nov. 16-18, 2006.). Other examples can be found on my CV on the Haskins website and would, I assume, be considered to be both verifiable and reliable. Much of my recent career has been related to the intersection between science and public policy and falls clearly in the domain of what is considered to be expertise in informal science. Others who have been affiliated with the IS group have expertise in informal science. For example, one of the participants, a physician, academic, and scientist, is currently a Slate columnist and NPR pundit, where he writes about speaks about health, medicine, and the informal aspects of science related to these matters. But, enough on this. I would like to close this overly long missive by raising my concern that there seems to be a small degree of "bait and switch" (or perhaps just dealing with a moving target) in the criticism of this particular Wikipedia entry. I start by apologizing again for the COI matters, which were not clear to me until recently. In Nov. 2006, the main concerns of weregerbil were with notability -- thus, considerable time was spent attempting to establish this notability. More recently, the concerns moved over mostly to reliable sources and verifiability, which have been discussed at length, above. In your most recent comment, you seem to indicate, again, that the crucial underlying issue is notability. As noted in previous discussions, and assuming for sake of argument that reliability and verifiability and COI are not the major problems, one aspect of my viewpoint on this is that notability, in this case, relates to the fact that this informal group has brought leading (at least in their fields) scientists (and other individuals) together and, to at least a small degree, helped to shape their research and scientific efforts in important ways, both by exposing them to the materials being read and discussed and often by no more than the simple act of intellectual interchange cemented by social contact, a little good beer, some crap to eat, and a fun movie to watch. If that ain't informal science, I don't know what is. In addition reliable information appears on at least 2 websites (one commercial, the other self-published, but by a known, verifiable, reliable source) to establish the existence of this group and provide a short description of its activities. Sorry, as usual, for going on so long and hoping that this has been of some interest and use to you. Ddp224 23:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my explanation seemed like a bait and switch. The issues of verifiability, reliable sources, and notability are closely intertwined. In a nutshell, the issue is that there are no sources about the IS group independent of the group; the Haskins website in nominally independent, but obviously the informal connection is significant. The convention on Wikipedia is to exclude such material based on the Notability guideline, at least until an independent published source exists. The establishment of notability is dependent on verifiability through reliable sources, but establishing notability has the additional burden that the sources must be independent. COI is (or at least supposed to be) treated more as a user behavior issue than a content issue; the decision of whether to keep or delete content is, in theory, independent of COI issues regarding who created the article.--ragesoss 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to imply that your particular response was a bait and switch. Rather, I was attempting to express my frustration with the overall process, which continues to seem like a moving target to me. I have asked specific questions when interacting with Wikipedia editors (such as my attempt to find out whether or not information on websites can be considered, in certain cases, to be "published sources" and, if so, what those cases would be), but have not always received specific answers (or, perhaps, I have not understood the answers). For example, I am still confused about your answer to one of my earlier questions about one of your statements (The statement of yours that I was inquiring about was: "If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS".). In this statement, are you referring to (a) the Haskins website, or (b) the IS group webpage? Since the IS group entry was made in Nov. 2006, I have been trying to deal honestly and carefully with criticisms and/or concerns when they have been raised. I am aware the many of the issues are intertwined. I am also aware that newcomers such as myself can find these complexities to be inhibiting. However, I have tried to persist and attempt to untwine some of the intertwined strands. I have tried to carefully deal with each issue as it has been raised, by either providing sourced information in the entry (and other entries I have worked on in the past), or by providing detailed background on discussion pages, or by requesting clarification from Wikipedia editors. However, in the responses that I have received, a slightly different concern seems always to be raised by Wikipedia editors. These have seemed not to be always because topics are intertwined, but sometimes because the editors are looking for other reasons to dismiss the entry. On another matter, Haskins Laboratories is absolutely independent of the IS group. Although there is a historical connection, Haskins has NO connection with the IS group, not even an informal one. The Haskins website is a source independent of the IS group (certainly more independent than The Reality Club entry, which inspired the IS group entry, is of the Edge.org sourcing). Reference to the IS group on the Haskins website is treated as we would treat professional organizations or other entities that are of interest to our employees or website visitors, or whose activities seem relevant. For example, consider some of the professional societies that I belong to or other Haskins people belong to, such as AAAS, IEEE, the American Psychological Association, AVISA (Audiovisual Speech Association), the Linguistic Society of America, ISEP (the International Society of Ecological Psychology), etc. I assume that many Haskins people are members of these societies, are possibly officers of some of these, or other, societies, may have played a role in founding some of these societies, etc. The same would be true throughout academia. The Haskins site may link to such entities, and Haskins may even be supportive, in a general way, of their activities. However, organizations such as Haskins (and other such academic organizations, such as colleges, universities, etc.), are usually considered to be independent of these professional organizations, even if faculty members are members (or even officers) of the professional organizations. The individual faculty member, of course, would not be considered to be independent of the organization. Referencing and/or discussing such organizations on a website does not violate the independence of these organizations. These kinds of connections are standard and do not seem to be significant. The Haskins connection to the IS group is, in some ways, significantly weaker than some of these connections. There are no membership connections, no financial connections, and there is even a disclaimer on the Haskins website ("The IS group is not formally affiliated with Haskins Laboratories. Haskins Laboratories takes no responsibility or credit for the activities of the IS group, but encourages activities that foster multidisciplinarity and rigorous exploration of the frontiers science, particularly when done with a spirit of fun and enjoyment.") Information about the IS group appears on the Haskins website because Haskins is supportive of multidisciplinarity and because the early history of the IS group involved Haskins connections and, finally, because when people inquire about the IS group because of individual employee connections to the group, past or present, it was felt that it was important to point people elsewhere because the IS group is not formally affiliated with Haskins and so that people interested in the IS group would not bug people at Haskins, because Haskins IS INDEPENDENT OF THE IS GROUP. In a similar way, we refer to Haskins Laboratories at Pace University. Many years ago there used to be a connection between the two organizations and even though they have similar names, there is no longer a connection between these two organizations -- they are completely independent, both formally and informally, even though there once was a strong connection between the two. I have continued to persist with the discussion of the IS group Wikipedia entry because I feel that the information provided in the entry is valuable, providing a small, but significant, contribution to the history of informal science. Although aspects of the entry are not ideal as they interact with important Wikipedia policies, such as COI, notability, verifiability, etc., I feel that these concerns are outweighed by the fact that the sources that back up the verification of this entry, coupled with the notability of these sources and the entry, the independent published source, and the significance of such difficult to find information, would encourage retaining this entry. I have looked at the entry again and found it to be non-controversial, fairly benign, but potentially useful to those interested in exploring connections between scientists and the evolution of scientific ideas. However, I would appreciate hearing back from anyone who has read the entry to find out if they feel that there is any particular information that they think should be removed (aside from removing the whole thing). I would also like to hear from a Wikipedia editor about how this entry differs from The Reality Club entry, which I also feel should be retained. Hearing about the differences between these two entries might help me to better understand the subtleties of Wikipedia policy that I appear to continue to be missing. I certainly understand the importance of having information in Wikipedia this is verifiable. Although not ideal, I continue to feel that this entry is verifiable and that its notability has been established. Ddp224 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite probably The Reality Club should be deleted too. We have lots of articles at any given time which really should go, but which no-one has gotten around to deleting yet; therefore the existence of one article is no defense for another. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was not to use the existence of one article to defend another, but instead to beg and plead that a Wikipedia editor (or someone else) help me understand the differences between the two entries, if any, by using them as a basis of comparison. If there are differences, that is okay, it would just help me understand Wikipedia policy if these differences were explained. If there are no differences, that is also okay. I personally do not feel that The Reality Club entry should be removed. To me it is verifiable, notable, and adds important information to Wikipedia that is useful for understanding the history of informal science. The entry seems to be non-controversial and reasons for removing it seem to be technical quibbling and an over-attention to formality that, in this case, does not seem to be beneficial to the quality of Wikipedia or anything else. Ddp224 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Club is a sub-par entry right now, but there seem to be many independent references to it; Google Scholar turns up several in journal articles not by members of the club. It would probably survive a deletion nomination. I'm surprised to hear that you were inspired by that entry, though. It contains almost no information.--ragesoss 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired not by the quality of the entry, which is poor, but by the fact that the entry was there at all. Again, influenced by things like reading the book Tuxedo Park, I have come, over time, and after government and federal service, to realize that much goes on behind the scenes and in informal groups. Science policy, including at hidden levels, can often have strong influences on what becomes the science enterprise. Much of this is hidden from the public and hidden from the history of science. I believe that it is time for this to end. It is particularly difficult to get at this information without hearing directly from the participants. Waiting for books or magazine articles to be written can often result in critical information being lost. Often, the best thing to do is find the critical players and see how you can get the information out of them. Thus, I was pleased to see this tiny entry because I am delighted to begin to hear about things that I would not normally hear about. Having started several groups, I am particularly interested in informal groups, particularly when they go on to have some influence. I was particularly pleased that Wikipedia provided a vehicle for publishing such information. Of course, this was before I started to find out about the rules and restrictions of Wikipedia. It is true, of course, that the particular entry is fairly weak. Hopefully, someone who knows about the topic and the history of the club will strengthen the entry, but, unfortunately, from Wikipedia perspective this will probably be a conflict of interest. Common sense would seem to dictate that there has to be a better way to provide options for allowing such information to get in, as long as some sort of verifiability path can be established, but, of course, we have been through all of this before. Thanks again. Ddp224 06:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the article is interesting, by the letter of the rules I don't see how it can be kept without reliable sources (WP:RS). Since Wikipedia tries to echo whatever reliable information is generally documented out in the world, when a topic comes to us that is not generally documented, our normal instinct is to keep it out. It may well be that this topic deserves more coverage than it has received, but it's not up to us to be the first vehicle for such coverage. EdJohnston 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

break point[edit]

Ok, you bring up a lot; I'll do the best I can, and try to get a few other editors to weigh in.

• On moving targets: You've experienced something that is, to some extent, endemic in the lived experience of Wikipedia. Wikipedians generally learn the system more by participation than by following the codified rules, and in a lot of ways deletion is a stochastic process. There are philosophical disagreements (see m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies) about what is and is not acceptable content, and different editors develop different ideas about what it is important to keep out or allow in. Sometimes motivations for trying to get something deleted are orthogonal to reasons stated and policies invoked.
• On my statement ("If the article was restricted to information found on that website, then a case could be made that the article did not violate WP:RS"): Some of the information in IS group (e.g., about half of the "Activities" section) is found on neither website; to the extent that you (in your capacity as as an editor) are the source for the information rather than the websites, it violates No Original Research because editors cannot be reliable sources. I used the singular "website" because the IS group website itself has no relevant information. If the article was limited to material published on the websites, then it might pass WP:RS. However, the notability problem remains since demonstration of notability has to invoke "multiple, non-trivial published works" independent of the article's subject. (As an aside, I think the "multiple" aspect is excessive, but that's the way things currently work.)
  • Not to be too much of a pain on this point, but the above illustrates what I mean by moving target. After several months of working on Wikipedia, this is the first time that "multiple" or "non-trivial" has been brought up. I am, of course, familiar with these criteria and I don't deny either their existence of importance, but just wish to express my extreme frustration that there always appears to be something new that is used by editors to make their case. If these concepts were so important (and they are), I would have hoped that they would have been mentioned earlier. This would be of great help to newcomers like myself. Please note that even after all of this time, I am still not clear on what is allowable, as opposed to preferred, and how much flexibility there is related to verifiability, notability, autobiography, COI, multiple sources, etc., particularly as it related to the non-controversial nature of entries and their ability to be corroborated in other ways. I remain unsure if Wikipedia editors are being overly formal in their interpretations in this case, and if there isn't more for flexibility with entries of this sort. I have been a Wikipedia contributor for only a brief time, but have been a reader/user of Wikipedia for much longer. My sense, on entries that I have some expertise with, is that the reality is less formal than this instance, without the quality being reduced. Of course, there is variability in entries and the rules help to ensure quality. Hopefully these rules will not have the unintended consequence of reducing quality. I think that there are other checks and balances, such as common sense and expertise, that might profitably enter into the equation. These appear to be taken into account by Wikipedia, in certain instances, but it is not clear how far they extend. Ddp224 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• On the independence of the IS group and Haskins Laboratories: Given that the IS group was founded by members of Haskins Laboratories, and you (one of the founders) are the primary contributor to both articles, it seems obvious that while formally independent (after all, the IS group isn't even formally connected to its participants), they are not independent enough to avoid the appearance of a close connection. The Haskins page about the IS group is unsigned, but I assumed (perhaps rashly) that it was written by a participant in the group. (While COI with respect to editing activity is not relevant to content decisions, COI or the appearance of it regarding an article's sources is relevant.) In a nutshell, it looks like no one not associated with the IS group has published anything about it even on the internet. Maybe my impression was wrong; if the Haskins info is truly independent of the IS group, then the article would probably not be something I would spontaneously choose to delete. (However, lacking multiple independent sources, it would still failed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.)

--ragesoss 04:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I agree that there is a close connection between the IS group and its founders, including me. Haskins Laboratories does not have "members" nor does it have any kind of connection to the IS group. It is a world-renowned research laboratory that has been around since 1935 and has helped to shape the history of science in various fields and continues to make discoveries at the cutting edge. It has employees, volunteers, and friends and is, in general, a pretty informal place. The original founders of the IS group have had affiliations with Haskins in the past and some continue to have such affiliations, but some of the individuals have also had affiliations with Yale and the University of Connecticut and, again, I contend that there is no close connection between Yale University or the University of Connecticut and the IS group. The process of adding content to the Haskins website varies. Source material is usually provided to professional science writers (contractors independent of Haskins), who then synthesize this material into a final product. This material is then subject to review by a website editorial committee, further edited by a webmanager (who is not me or anyone associated with IS), and approved by an administrator (who is not me or anyone else associated with IS). Websource content would, of course, usually be dependent on interviews and/or conversations with primary sources. Much material is from oral histories obtained before participants either left or died. Other material is from interviews with professional journalists. Other material is from newspaper articles and press releases. Haskins is not associated with the IS group and has published minimal information about it, but it has acknowledged on its website the historical connection to the IS group formation and has also published a strong disclaimer about any existing connections between the two entities. Conflicts of interest, which I am very familiar with from federal policy and regulation, and also from a corporate standpoint, etc., is usually mitigated by a number of events, including the passage of time. Thus, judges who have a COI with former colleagues from, let's say, their former law firm, usually recuse themselves for a period of about 2 years, depending upon the nature of the relationship. After this, the COI usually no longer exists. There is, of course, variability in this, depending upon the circumstances. Thanks again for your input on these matters. Ddp224 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our requirements here are not formal, but substantive. We require three things, which overlap: verifiability, neutrality, and non-originality; we have, as a consensus-based organization, developed many ways to say these same things. In principle, any article must consist of sourced statements, phrased in a neutral manner, derived from sources which any reader can confirm, independent of the author's personal knowledge. (Do we fully meet these standards everywhere? most places? No, of course not.)
        • (a) I would consider a requirement such as multiple-sources to be both substantive and formal, if there are no exceptions (or clearly defined limited exceptions) to the requirement. Requirements imply, to me at least, formalities. If possible, please define "formal" and "substantive" and clarify the differences for me. (b) Part of what I am trying to understand relates to your last point ("Do we fully meet these standards ..."). I, of course, would also haved liked to have met the standards, but have also been trying to understand the degree of flexibility that is allowed (in principle or practice) and how it rates to the mundaneness of the entry. I am not interested in this out of desire to exploit the system in any way, but because of what I see as a potential benefit for getting more informal than usual information into Wikipedia, as long as it can be verified in some sensible way. Thanks! Ddp224 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For these reasons and others, we strongly recommend that editors, like yourself, eschew autobiography. (I know one editor who has an article about himself, which unquestionably meets our requirements. His only edit to it added his birthday.) This article is a larger autobiography, and has the same problems. I hope you will come back, and make contributions about things less important to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated. Putting autobiography aside for just a moment, I continue to believe that portions of the IS group entry consist of appropriately sourced statements, are phrased in a neutral manner, and are derived from sources which any reader can confirm. Some of the information that appears in this entry was added not because I originally thought that it should be there, but because after starting the entry and hearing from a Wikipedia editor (weregerbil) about notability, I attempted to provide what I thought (at that time) was appropriate information to establish both notability and sourcing. Since being informed of COI and autobiographical concerns (that I was previously unaware of), I have refrained from modifying the entry in any way, because it would appear to me to be inappropriate to do so. Thus, material in the entry that does not meet these tests has not been removed. Other material seems to meet some of the Wikipedia criteria to varying degrees. But, as has been noted, there are issues of multiple sourcing, etc., that weaken this entry. As a newcomer, I have been very intentionally trying to learn about the rules and flexibility of Wikipedia, not to push the limits, but to explore how informal material is handled. This article was not intended as autobiography, but a simple attempt to report verifiable, historical events that I thought were of some interest and importance to those who use Wikipedia as an importance refrence. Perhaps I misled myself by starting the IS group entry after looking at The Reality Club entry and believing that the latter was a standard, appropriate Wikipedia entry, but that I could do a better job than was done in that case. My experience with Wikipedia has not been bitter, but it has sometimes been very frustrating and time consuming. At times I found the editors insulting (see interactions with weregerbil), inappropriately inaccurate (such as ragesoss comment about the lack of expertise on my part and the part of others with informal science), off the point, and, to my mind, not very competent regarding clearly and simply explaining the Wikipedia policies to newcomers. I realize that this is a volunteer effort on the part of the editors, and appreciate their effort. Nevertheless, I don't feel that direct questions that I asked were answered clearly, nor were Wikipedia policies explained in a timely fashion. For those reasons, coupled with my density on some of these issues and my desire to more fully understand Wikipedia's flexibility on informal issues, this process has stretched out. I certainly would consider adding appropriate information to Wikipedia, but doubt that I would bother spending times on things that aren't important to me. Thanks again. Ddp224 13:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brevity is the soul of something or other... Robertissimo 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Discussion becomes the basis for the recommendation of deletion. Apparently, I continue to misunderstand both the practices of Wikipedia and the soul of its community. I had thought that this section was for conversation and debate regarding proposed delection of an article, and perhaps also for providing assistance and guidance for newcomers like me regarding appropriate Wikipedia practices, and did not realize that brevity, which is clearly not my strong suit, was desired. Sorry. By the way, the full quote is: "Brevity is the soul of wit," from Hamlet. In addition to brevity, a little more wit would be nice. Ddp224 14:54, 20 January 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. Nishkid64 22:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florentin Smarandache[edit]

Florentin Smarandache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article exists solely to promote Florentin Smarandache, who has promoted himself via extensive sockpuppetry in various & sundry places on the Internet. Here's an excerpt from one of my personal favorite sockpuppet episodes (there are many more): Hello from India! [4] posted from an ip address belonging to UNM-Gallup, the employer of Smarandache. Now that this bio is up for deletion, we can expect a flurry of sockpuppets coming forth to cheer for Smarandache & question the motives of everyone in sight. Please in the name of all that is good let's not reward sockpuppetry and self-promotion with a Wikipedia article. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 06:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Smarandache may be a wacky self-promoter and much of the sort of math he does may be the kind of unmotivated axiomatics and base-specific number theory that more serious mathematicians find trivial, but he's well known for it and therefore notable. —David Eppstein 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment added later: "reward"? Since when is being in Wikipedia a reward to be handed out only to the virtuous? Notability is not the same as quality. —David Eppstein 08:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as quality. Yes. So what? Relentless self-promotion doesn't make him notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article fails the WP:PROF test and other tests on WP:BIO. I don't know that he is well-known for "unmotivated axiomatics and base-specific number theory". That seems like quite the stretch. --ScienceApologist 08:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable doofus. -- Dominus 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most of the information about Smarandache outside of Wikipedia seems to be written by Smarandache himself. If material written by Smarandache is excluded, it is unclear that much of anything is left. Hence, this person is non-notable outside of what he has written on himself. Dr. Submillimeter 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A search of Amazon.com for Smarandache comes up with 182 books, many of them not written by him. When you can get a dozen authors--W. B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Linfan Mao, Mladen Vassilev-Missana; Krassimir Atanassov, Amarnath Murthy and Charles Ashbacher, Yi Yuan and Kang Xiaouyu, Howard Iseri, Sebastián Martín Ruiz, Ion Soare, and Wenpeng Zhang--to write books with your name in the title, you're notable. As for verifiability, Thompson Gale's Contemporary Authors series--which should be neutral, and available in most major academic libraries--has an article on him, which is available standalone from Amazon for six bucks. I'm getting a strong feeling that people are confusing dislike of the person with notability. I don't know much about the guy, but even if his works were insipid cultic trash, getting this many people from around the world to write about his work, plus the biography in Contemporary Authors, makes him notable. P.S. Can we avoid the preemptive attack on all who would vote to keep this article? It runs into WP:AGF area.--Prosfilaes 09:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tried to look up these books. Most are self-published books, some of them filled with mathematical garbage, next to some meaningful but entirely unexceptional stuff like you'd expect any associate professor to be able to produce.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Dominus nailed it. DavidCBryant 10:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Purge. The point is not whether he is notable, but that the article violates Wikipedia rules for a bio. Exclude material only written by Smarandache himself. pom 11:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Wikipedia rules? It doesn't impress me as a featured article, but there's no glaring NPOV problems, and WP:AUTO doesn't demand that self-written articles be deleted, nor that information from the subject be excluded (WP:AUTO--"One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information."). Also, generally "merge", "delete", and "keep" are acceptable responses to an AfD. If you request is that the article be edited in some way, "keep" it and make the changes or bring it up on the talk page.--Prosfilaes 11:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, so Delete. pom 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Submillimeter. Akihabara 12:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence this person is notable. Did I miss something, like that he is mentioned in The Guinness Book of Records as the worlds' top self-promotor? Even if the person was notable, if you remove everything from the article that is completely uninteresting or unverifiable, nothing of encyclopedic value is left.  --Lambiam^Talk 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I get a feeling that people are a bit biased against this guy? His theories that a dozen people have written books on isn't a bit notable? A hypothesis listed on Eric Weisstein's World of Physics isn't a bit notable?--Prosfilaes 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The way this hypothesis is presented on Eric Weisstein's World of Physics is as follows:

    Several authors have published theories claiming that the speed-of-light barrier imposed by relativity is illusionary. While these "theories" continue to be rejected by the physics community as ill-informed speculation, their proponents continue to promulgate them in rather obscure journals. An example of this kind is the Smarandache hypothesis, which states that there is no such thing as a speed limit in the universe (Smarandache 1998).[5]

    Maybe they are "a bit biased" too. If you look up the reference[6], it is really totally unscientific even in comparison with your run-off-the-mill piece of pseudo-scientific junk. It reads like the typical junk faster-than-light speculation posted by a freshman on a bulletin board. I don't know whether Smarandache was picked randomly, or as a particularly egregious example of ignorant speculation.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, provided the 134 published titles factoid is true. (How many do you have?) As for the wacky self-promotion, clean it up. (Maybe it's a Romanian thing that the rest of us just can't understand.) Lou Sander 13:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  His books are published by vanity publishers. Please reconsider. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I counted the number of pages on his website where he manages to use his own name, whether for Smarandache Social Paradox, Smarandache's Law on Sensations and Stimuli, Smarandache Notions, Quantum Smarandache Paradoxes, Smarandache Geometry, Smarandache Anti-Geometry, Smarandache Function, Smarandache Palindrome, Smarandache n-structure, Smarandacheials, Smarandache Zero Divisors, Smarandache-Rodrigues-Maiorino Theory, Smarandache Divine Paradoxes, Smarandache Semigroups, Smarandache multiplicative functions, Smarandache Complex, Smarandache Groupoids, Smarandache Number, Smarandache-Zero Divisor, Smarandache's Illusion, Smarandache's Syndrome, ..., it just goes on and on. I found 336 such pages. The guy is just incredibly prolific. Most of it (established by sampling) either makes no sense, or is completely elementary and utterly trivial. A Lambiamoid Number is a prime number plus one. Lambiam's Theorem: 3 is the only odd Lambiamoid Number. Lambiam's Hypothesis: There is an infinite source of energy. Lambiam's Paradox: 0×0 = 0, therefore 0 = 0/0 = undefined. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that several people writing articles in the walled-garden Smarandache universe are the Master himself writing under a pseudonym.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. notable. John Vandenberg 14:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep (it should be very weak!), there is some borderline notability there but Wikipedia is to be an ancyclopedia not a collection of autobiographies, which is why we have WP:AUTO, it should be written neutrally as in WP:NPOV,it should include multiple neutral sources as in WP:BIO and should be independently verifiable as in WP:V, autobiographies are generally neither of the above and I better stop writing or I'll be swinging to delete Alf photoman 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is painful. What can we say about this guy in accordance with WP:BLP? Not much I'm afraid. We do know Smaranadache is an associate professor at a two year college in New Mexico. He got promoted recently (from assistant prof!). He writes a lot, and with a few exceptions, publishes most of it in vanity presses and most of it is trivial, wrong or a rehash of known stuff. He styles himself a painter. Is this notability in the style of Archimedes Plutonium? I don't think so.Delete.--CSTAR 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If this article is going to be kept, then the article should include references about Smaranadache that were unambiguously not written by Smaranadache. Can anybody identify such materials? If not, then the article should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's an odd guy and lousy mathematician to be sure, but I think he is notable enough. Besides it warms my heart that he got a PhD from Moldova State University :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Oleg. BTW is that a tie or a loin cloth that he's wearing in the picture?--CSTAR 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I usually vote delete for guys who do this kind of self-promotion on the internet using aliases and other dirty tricks. But this guy can be considered a success story for a mathematician without any notable result. For example, I see that Eric W. Weisstein has some stuff on one of his theories. :-) bogdan 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. At least he's listed in the University of New Mexico faculty directory. (Look HERE and enter Smarandache.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• keep but limit to verifiable info. (I demonstrated just now by removing one unverified section) The Gales series is selective, and is the sort of objective secondary source suitable for WP purposes. I don't like him is bias, plain and simple. DGG 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Smarandache sequences and Smarandache-Wellin numbers have extensive articles in MathWorld, so maybe a kook, but still a notable one. Article could be pruned/cleaned up, but this is not sufficient reason for deletion. Gandalf61 12:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If these topics are notable we should have articles on these topics. We have articles on Atkin-Lehner theory, Bradford's law, Klinefelter's syndrome, and Zappa-Szep product, to name just a few, without articles on the namegivers.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we do have an article on Smarandache-Wellin numbers. And I think it's slightly perverse to say a concept can be notable but the person that it's named after may not be - but I won't press the point ! Gandalf61 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a much better example than the one CMummert found of a subject that should be a missing topic despite its presence on MathWorld. I've prodded for notability. —David Eppstein 18:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would actually prefer that biographies like this would not appear here on wikipedia, perhaps just some articles on some things that Smarandache has done. But currently we can read many such entries on wikipedia, so according to how the wiki rules are applied in practice, we cannot delete this article. If we delete this article then a large number of similar biographies should be deleted as well as other articles on marginally notable topics. E.g. what about The Hockaday School and St. Mark's School of Texas.? Count Iblis 13:30, 18 January 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. Nishkid64 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian existential humanism[edit]

Christian existential humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The term seems to occur mainly on Wikipedia sites and its mirrors, and the creator's personal site, besides probably self-promotion on blogs etc.
Appears to be, very much like "Reconstructivism" which has been proposed on 11 Jan2006 by someone else as Afd as well, a strictly personal opinion, which comes to the article being a hoax, and created by User:Kitoba mainly to promote his personal website "Kitopedia" by Christopher "Kitoba" Sunami. That user had in August been asked on his talk page to remove links to his personal website, apparently without result (even after my today's removal of such link from another but assumedly serious article Christian existentialism before I realized what had been going on.) The here proposed Afd links towards forementioned other Afd. See early article history and also the other article's. I repeat my suggestion as with my deletion vote there, to check out other contributions by the article's creator, look for possible sockpuppets and historically used IPs. — SomeHuman 14 Jan2007 06:10 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, promo and original research, and lack of any WP:RS. Dragomiloff 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dragomiloff. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WJBscribe. Static Universe 04:56, 16 January 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. Nishkid64 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kai-ki[edit]

Kai-ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

• delete Non-notable - I think this is made up - please see the articles Talk page.Peter Rehse 06:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability or references from WP:RS can be provided. Akihabara 12:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any reliable references by Googling, and found one suggestion on a martial arts blog[7] that kai-ki is a synonym for Kempo - this was the closest thing I was able to find to a proper reference. What's described on this page is not, at any rate, Kempo; and while the article stays unreferenced and the content unverifiable, I'd go for deletion. Squeezeweasel 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as i have done this martial arts before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpandaxx (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Keep. Nishkid64 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows and Linux[edit]

Comparison of Windows and Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete This simply is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. If anything this should be an article about comparisons that other people have made with appropriate WP:RS cites. Instead we have fanboys for whichever platform coming in and "fixing" the article back and forth to fit their own POV. AlistairMcMillan 06:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous debate/nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Windows and Linux

Comment The deleting editor has tried this technique before with Windows v. MAC OS-X e.g. previous debate/nomination for similar article here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X_(second_nomination) where the article was very similar looking 30 minutes before the AfD [8] but was then rapidly gutted by many edits after the AfD failed e.g. [9] . The Windows v. MAC OS-X article now fits conveniently on a 3.5 x 2 inch business card. Ttiotsw 09:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you accusing me of making a bad faith nomination or whatever you are insinuating. However if you look at the edit history you'll see that the last time I edited the Win V Lin page was back in July 2006. You'll also please note that the Win V Mac page also now only contains cited information. AlistairMcMillan 13:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, welcome back, but with no edits on the page for 6 months you say hi with an AfD ? I was contrasting that method of arriving at consensus with your edits to the similar class of article at Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X. That article is now less than 100 words long: the article on belly fluff is over twice as long and 4 times as many wikilinks and yet these two OS are some of the largest software projects in the world backed by very focused and large companies. This just doesn't feel right. Ttiotsw 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being too subtle. I think "Comparison of operatingsystemX and operatingsystemY" articles are a mistake. I don't think they are encyclopedic. I think they are a magnet for POV edits from people who really don't care about our policies. Unless someone is going to make a lifetime commitment to keeping this article under control, I don't see how this article can be kept in a NPOV manner, even if it is tidied up enough to reach an NPOV state in the first place. Note that this article has been here for two and half years now, and never reached a healthy state. Two and a half years. AlistairMcMillan 16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned it's been 2 weeks or so (busy too as kids back to school) since I started on this article. For others maybe 1 day or for yourself it looks like 2 or so years. Linux has new kernel releases every few months, KDE and GNOME have had many updates and even Microsoft have finally got out their latest though in the interim have issued service packs and other stuff. Microsoft, Linux and Wikipedia are all moving targets. They never will stable !. What happened last week is a distant memory and certainly what happened 2 and 1/2 years ago is completely irrelevant to today. POV edits to me are more interesting than vandalism. Look at an article like Tennis ball. I don't care less for Tennis but every few weeks I revert vandalism. So does antivandalbot and others. I have no idea why it attracts crap. Is it a reason to cull the article ? No. Has it ever been "stable" ? No if the past month is anything to go by. Your noble quest to AfD'ing articles that doesn't stabilize within some timeframe you have in mind is to me quixotic given the fluid nature of Wikipedia and that I do not see a policy that says this is what has to happen. Ttiotsw 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Most other comparison articles are straight side-by-side lists of features; this one delves heavily into original research to draw conclusions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the question here, given that we have numerous other "comparison" articles on Wikipedia, is whether or not the ultra-controversial nature of the article itself will directly prevent it from being maintained in a policy-compliant form for any length of time. If, as AlistairMcMillan suggests, the article is (and will remain) a constant source of POV-based edit wars by either "camp" then the article very well may need to be deleted. If, however, it is possible to clean up the article into a policy-compliant form and keep it that way then it should be cleaned up and remain on Wikipedia. At least, that's my interpretation of this AfD. Discuss among yourselves. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not suitable. Bigtop 07:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too close to WP:OR#SYNTHESIS. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's a review or opinion piece. Agent 86 07:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - I've only just started to look at this article in the past few weeks and I feel that there is sufficient material around to fill out the "citation needed" tags with trustworthy cites. Part of the problem is that there is quite a lot of disinformation, from both camps. Fact is that the article has 46 references and 10 citation needed tags now in an article 44 kbytes long so doesn't feel that bad from looking at other articles. The article will understandably be complex as OS's are probably some of the most complex software projects that humans have created. It does seem odd that this quite extensive (i.e. encyclopaedic) article that is slowly settling on a NPOV (remembering that Wikipedia has no version 1.0) is tagged for AfD whilst at the same time the editor requesting the delete is busy editing the very slim article on Comparison_of_Windows_and_Mac_OS_X e.g. [10] in a positive way. The AfD states "This simply is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia." and yet they agree with the idea of comparing any two OS's by editing another similar class of article. This indicates a bias; why not simply edit this article to fit their idea of what the article should look like ? I call this AfD nonsense on that basis in that it is a subject for an encyclopaedia as Windows and Linux is extensively compared in the tech community and the deleting editor actually edits in a positive way the same class of article and that the article has "refs" outnumbering "cites needed" by 4:1 showing a need to expand on the cites and not delete the lot. Ttiotsw 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has been around since last July (2006) and a review of the long and contentious history does not indicate any tendency for the article to resolve itself "into a policy-compliant form". The article shouldn't be a comparison, it should be about the controversy and the stances of the various participants in the controversy. That can be factual and can be based on appropriate sources. If the proponents of this article want to write that one, then let us delete this one, and they can create a new "Windows vs. Linux Controversy" article from scratch. How long is it appropriate to allow them to fight before quashing it? --Bejnar 08:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as similar articles exist, but anything that doesn't come from a reliable source explicitly comparing corresponding aspects of the systems, is on borrowed time. Contentious articles (e.g. Israeli-Palestinian conflict) often end up having to accept a stricter application of verifiability. Gazpacho 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm sure that this article could be improved, like most thing in WikiPedia, but it is clearly a notable topic and seems well referenced. NBeale 12:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Content fork of Comparison of operating systems --froth^T 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Ttiotsw. Comparisons between these two OS are a common occurrence, making this notable and verifiable. As a result, AfD isnt a good way to address POV problems. John Vandenberg 14:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been around since August 2004. It has always been POV. What do you suggest should be done to fix this? Should we wait another two and a half years for this page to sort itself out? AlistairMcMillan 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Enforce WP:V and WP:OR by requiring everything about merits of the systems in practice (security, cost, stability) to be cited to reliable sources comparing the two systems. Side-by-side comparisons of basic implementation details, like file access control, are OK, but they should be cited as well. Gazpacho 22:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Be WP:BOLD and trim the article down to what is NPOV. If a edit war develops, follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably where this request should have been taken. John Vandenberg 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fabulous. So we get it into an NPOV state... what happens then? Check back every other day for the rest of my natural life to revert the nonsense that WILL attach itself to the page? Are either of you volunteering? This page is a magnet for POV edits. It will not stay in an NPOV manner. Please examine the edit history, others have tried. AlistairMcMillan 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's now on my watch list. John Vandenberg 00:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it's a straight list of stats, I see no chance (looking at the history) that this article will ever escape it's POV and OR roots. --Larry laptop 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if people want to present information about various operating systems, comparison of operating systems is by far the better choice. This article however, tends to create a problem in its direction. Note, however, that the information itself is certainly not completely out of place, if anywhere though, it would be best placed in the article on the given operating system. FrozenPurpleCube 20:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many technological differences between the systems (notably in the security model, file system and the device drivers/kernel). These differences are verifiable and encyclopedic. While individual entries may discuss these differences, an overview of these differences is needed. --h2g2bob 02:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So, why can't this role be filled by the more generic Comparison of operating systems article? I know some people may wish to just compare Linux or Windows, but I'd rather choose that page than this one. FrozenPurpleCube 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The Comparison article can't really go into any depth on this topic. It assumes a wide range of knowledge without explanation (which is good for a quick reference, which it is). If it needs to be merged, I think it would be better merged with Windows vs OSX, as differences can be discussed more in depth. --h2g2bob 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So, why not add that desirable depth to the other article? Or to the respective operating systems, if there is some need for the information there? FrozenPurpleCube 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, numerous sources and studies have directly compared Windows and Linux, and this provides plenty of material from which to write a well-sourced and NPOV article. An assertion that this has not yet happened is an argument for WP:SOFIXIT, WP:RFC, WP:CU, or even a complete stubbing and rewrite, depending on the depth of the problem, but not for deletion. Many comparisons are directly between Win and Linux, not between other OS's, so this article provides a place for information which is not adequately covered by Comparison of operating systems. Seraphimblade 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Per Seraphimblade. For complicated topics that require large articles, a comparison is useful as a summary. It can be done objectively. Even a comparison of people's opinions can be done objectively, and it is sometimes wiseto keep it off the main article.DGG 05:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I've seen worse articles get better treatment. You're never going to get it just right, as is Wikipedia. At the very least, I would say that unless the article has the title Why Linux is better than Windows or Why Windows kicks Linux's ass, this should stay.Mitch 08:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Deleting it because it atracts POV bias is like not going to the market to buy food because it rains. The point is whether you are hungry and need the food, not whether it will be confortable to buy. To me the subject deserves an encyclopaedic entry, as potentially many people can benefit from resorting to Wikipedia to find this info. — Isilanes 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, this will be a magnet for POV, but it's improvable. As regards to "not suitable for an encyclopedia", what do you say about http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Windows+Linux+comparison&btnG=Search "Results 1 - 10 of about 38,800,000 for Windows Linux comparison"? Check out Torchic: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Torchic+-wikipedia&btnG=Search "Results 1 - 10 of about 125,000 for Torchic -wikipedia." {Slash | Talk} 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the point you are making? --Larry laptop 21:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By not suitable for an encyclopedia, I meant that we could mention that people do compare the two operating systems. What we shouldn't be doing is making the arguments in the article ourselves. Which is what is currently happening. AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the article being improvable... people said the same thing six months ago in the previous AFD. Did the article improve in those six months? Yep a few people had a go, but they all eventually lost interest. What is going to be different this time? AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Frankly, I've written too much good content to stomach the deletion.

As to the argument that this piece attracts POV, there are dozens of Wikis with more inflammatory subject matter. GW Bush, for example.

This article is inherently an opinion piece. Many of you seem to feel the best route is to restrict the whole thing to 'facts'. I would counter that there are few, if any absolutes in such a comparison, and that only way ever approach NPOV is to back up everything you say with reasoning and support. The conclusion alone isn't enough; there must be context and references. In short, the 'why' must be present, and in a rote recital of 'facts', it is not. Dave Indech 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must commend you on managing to hit virtually all of the points covered in "arguments not to use at AFD" in one short paragraph - we have WP:OWN, WP:ILIKEIT, "what about article X" and an admission that it's an op-ed piece! (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV!) Oh plus an rebuttle to those who want to keep a wikipedia article to "facts" (WP:V, WP:OR). --Larry laptop 09:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. Be civil or please don't talk.

The most important word in my first line was 'good'. The fact that I wrote the content is irrelevant. My contributions are legitimately worth keeping because they add to the encyclopedia, and that's the reason I would rather the article remain.

'Like it' was not in my post.

The comment about the George Bush article remains valid. The sole reason for a delete cannot be because an article attracts POV. A bad article with POV is better than no article. Eventually, it will improve.

Finally, NPOV is an entirely relative concept. A comparison, by nature, depends on the relative values of the person making it. It can approach neutrality, but never achieve it. Moreover, the value judgements that color NPOV add to the worth of the article.

While this comparison will never be a shining paragon of the Wiki way, I feel it should nonetheless remain.

Dave Indech 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS- There seems to be a bit of an identity crisis over what Wiki is and is not. One article says, "articles must be encyclopaedic". Another says, "Wikipedia is not Britannica; we're not limited to that". I'm firmly in the latter camp. It's articles like the one we're debating that keep me coming back.

Someone needs to invent a barnstar for that. AlistairMcMillan 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and more clearly assert notability in first paragraph in NPOV phrasing. If you read a variety of major computing-related magazines, both "industry" and "consumer" types, you know that this specific comparison has been widely featured in recent years to an extent not just part of Comparison of operating systems's scope. Well-sourced, doesn't appear to need much cleanup, except trimming to better meet WP:NOT a how-to guide or tech manual. Barno 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: On review, while there are a lot of online sources, this article could add citations from at least a dozen monthly print magazines that have done cover stories. Barno 18:45, 16 January 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. BorgQueen 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JRPG (game)[edit]

JRPG (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable video game that lacks reliable sources, news coverage, etc... PROD removed with the edit summary, "This game is a free tool for learning japanese, and is notable because it is the only one that is free of cost and is under a free license.". Delete as lacking any secondary sources and no real claims of notability. Wickethewok 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no signs of being anything other than something some guy made. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a interesting idea, but suffers from lack of sources and WP:COI. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Software isn't notable for being free, it's notable for being popular (which could come from being free). --froth^T 13:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, not notable. 87.19.32.28 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've seen it referenced at many online japanese learning communities, and been directly told about it by many people. Google "jrpg zabor" highlights many of those references, including reviews of the tool itself made by people who, like me, are studying the language.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you point out somee of these "references"? I'm looking through the google results right now and don't see anything that approaches what a reliable source should be. Wickethewok 18:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Umm. That google search gives about 66 unique hits, 17 or so are wikipedia mirrors. The remaining are mostly forum, blog, and nonsense entries. We need reliable sources to verify notability. (Notability is something that cannot be measured by an editor's testimony that something it notable, it needs to be backed up with reliable sources.) --Kunzite 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability is presented in the article. It misses proposed software guidelines. --Kunzite 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V. The only thing Google searchs come up with is this article, the game's website, and a ton of blogs and forum posts, all unreliable sources. Mitaphane _talk 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability established. Note that the JRPG disambiguation page already covers this sufficiently. --Alan Au 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Usefulness does not lend it notability. Dekimasu 09:44, 19 January 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. Cbrown1023 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Dana Surf Shop[edit]

Killer Dana Surf Shop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Request deletion. This is a non-notable surf shop. The Killer Dana that takes up some of the article is notable, but it has its own article Killer Dana, that does not provide notability to the surf shop. Two editors previously noted the lack of notability when the article was first posted in September 2006. All that the proponents did was merely to assert notability without discussion or citation and to remove the questioning tags. This does not meet WP:CORP, plenty of time was provided. --Bejnar 07:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Local surf shop with three stores. Fails WP:CORP. Dragomiloff 05:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Global presence- compare to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jon and further research WP:CORP, as it is clear that this article meets requirements and stands as an article of import, esp to clarify the article Killer Dana from the corporation Killer Dana Surf Shop Be careful to suggest delete without fully understanding justifications for articles such as this to exist, such as in the case with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Jon Eng500 16:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Global presence"? Where? Because they have a web site (on which they don't even call themselves global either)?
  • Ron Jon: There is no comparison. Ron Jon is a widely known tourist destination, and recognized by just about every Floridian (due to Ron Jon seemingly buying more billboard space than any other advertiser), and the billboards are about the first thing tourists see when crossing the border. Killer Dana isn't a tourist destination, it's a surf shop known mostly to surfers; it certainly doesn't have the name recognition throughout the state that Ron Jon has. I don't see this as a valid comparison.
  • Furthermore, you don't need a separate article to make a distinction between a geographic location and a surf shop; that can be done in one article. =Axlq 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further clarification It doesn't work to use opnions as to which retail has a stronger presence or respect among tourists- this is not provable information and is geographically biased information. Ron Jon's isn't even well known (nor taken seriously) in Southern California- arguably the mecca of surfing in the United States. As someone educated in surfing history, I confirm that Killer Dana is a well known retailer (of over a decade) that is an intregral part of the Southern California surf industry, epecially in Dana Point. The Global referrence was merely explaining the distribution of it's product worldwide. But you are correct, it is not a "global" corp. in the sense that it has headquarters on other continents. Killer Dana is also a manufacturer of apparel, especially Boardshorts- also the largest single retailer of this same item. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eng500 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Ron Jon isn't taken seriously by surfers in Florida either, which just strengthens my point that it's invalid to compare a surf shop with a tourist destination. Again, you don't need a separate article; all the information I see so far can be made part of Boardshorts or other articles. -Axlq 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Not notable, I'd recommend speedy per A7 if not for the other AFD. delldot | talk 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, preferably speedy. =Axlq 05:47, 16 January 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.