< July 23	July 25 >

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, rename.. Navou ^banter 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder
Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder (2nd nomination)

Unless they have a similar category for other non-mental illnesses then the existence of the article in itself shows prejudice.

This page is preposterous. It borders on slander, in addition to which few, if any, of the individuals, living or dead, can be clinically verified as having been diagnosed BiP DashaKat 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove entries from the list which are unreferenced (especially unreferenced living persons) and entries of living persons who have not themselves been open to the public about possibly having bipolar disorder. Q0 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to keep this list unsourced/nonsense free but still agree with nomination. If only for the name "believed to have been". Garion96 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Believe to have been affected"? That is not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps there could be a list of people who have been medically confirmed to have this disorder, but "believe to have been affected" seem in-discriminant and encyclopedic. BLP issues are bound to occur regularly. Until (1 == 2) 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and consider renaming. Many of the entries in there are from people who have openly admitted to having bipolar disorder. Others are from reliably sourced publications, and the article explains the use and criteria of those sources at the top. The title phrase "believed to have been" is causing the confusion. The Touched with Fire list includes a lot of long-dead famous people who were never formally diagnosed, but that was probably in the days when there was no such diagnosis as bipolar disorder. The NAMI list relies on biographies by others. At a minimum, a list could be generated from people who have openly admitted to having bipolar disorder -- there won't be any WP:BLP issues there. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and rename per Elkman. Restrict the list to individuals who have been medically confirmed to have, and/or those who openly acknowledge having, the condition.--JayJasper 15:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure listcruft, unmanageable. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and consider renaming. Many of the names on this list are diagnosed individuals.
Keep, but needs definite rename, and cleanup--Jac16888 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup & rename. If a historic figure has been written about by a reputable source and that source can be named, it should be ok to mention it here. Random speculation does not belong, however. I find this list and the vignettes to be fascinating. --Andy 09:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all previous reasons. Too much speculation, not sure the article really adds anything. I think it's more beneficial to focus on individuals who certainly have bipolar disorder. --Midnightdreary 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, and consider renaming - There is considerable encyclopaedic merit to having this article. Keeping it encyclopaedic will continue to be a challenge, but that's not a reason for deletion. For the most part it is thoroughly sourced, this could be an example on how to write about potentially tricky issues relating to living people if the proper pruning is done. I think we can now dispense with the Touched with Fire persons, as that was always shaky. The title is vague, but do we have the confidence (and will to considerably shorten the list as would be necessary) to move to List of people affected by bipolar disorder? LukeSurl^{t c} 21:49, 19 August 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. The Wall Street Journal article lists the company among many others (i.e. trivial coverage); to meet notability criteria, there needs to be secondary sources speaking about the topic as the primary focus - of a newspaper or magazine article, of a book chapter, etc. This is not currently the case for the company here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masterplans[edit]

I believe this article's subject is not notable, and the whole article is structured as an a advertisement. CyrilleDunant 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete: seems advertising to me. Rama 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because I read the WSJ article citing this company, which means it's possibly notable. Any other sources? Bearian 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Entirely too many companies that don't meet the criteria listed as it is. Advertising. Pharmboy 16:19, 26 July 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. John254 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nude photography[edit]

This is one of those funny, weird articles where you think there might be a pretty good article until you look at what we've actually got. This was created in September, 2005 as Non-Nude Pornography and shortly afterwards passed a deletion debate with a unanimous keep. There are some serious problems with the article.

The article never seems to have had any references, and this was tagged up in October, last year, but nothing has been done about that.

The article makes various vague unsourced statements such as Detractors of non-nude photography claim it is unequivocal softcore pornography, and prefer to call it "non-nude pornography", and Fans of NN often consider it a hobby, and cite a number of reasons for participation. This is all a bit airy-fairy, and is clearly just a result of editors inserting their personal opinions into the article and negotiating a "neutral" version by consensus--no verifiability so it's just down to whoever edited it.

There are some apparently sourceable statements, for instance: NN sites with underage content have occasionally been condemned by child advocacy groups, or subjected to increased scrutiny by law enforcement. This negative media attention about underage photography has prompted many NN sites to implement an 18+ rule.

If there is law enforcement and media attention, and I've some reason to believe that this could be true, surely this statement can be sourced.

So, it's a bit frustrating, really. Here we have an article on a reasonably important subject that has been around for nearly two years and hasn't got a single reference.

I suggest that we put the editors who want this article to continue on notice: source the thing properly, improve it, make it verifiable and ensure that it really is neutral. Or else perhaps we would be better off without it. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is an article that needs citations and a little cleaning up, but it is relatively well written and the subject matter appears valid. In short, it seems like a perfectly fine B grade article. I don't see the issue for deleting, only for improving, and "this article needs work" doesn't sound like a valid reason to delete an article. Pharmboy 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now I'm neutral on this. I didn't even know this crap existed until I stumbled across the article and saw in what an awful shape it was in. But as the primary editor of the most recent rewrite of the article in question (including the author of a few of the above quotes) I just want to say that while at the time, I thought the article seemed notable and simply needed cleanup, now I'm wavering. Though the existence of a vast amount of nude sites is not in question, I doubt that the subculture has received a significant amount of media coverage necessary to prove notability. I'm awaiting further work on sourcing before I come to a conclusion. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now per VanTucky. The subject is obviously notable, but it seems that nobody wants to clean up the page and help assert notability. I don't see an argument for deletion here, just one for cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Glamour photography. Should any of the material turn out to be verifiable, merge it. Otto4711 00:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the idea that this subject is directly analogous to glamour photography is pure nonsense. This is a well-defined term and it exists for a much different purpose. If we're going to delete and redirect, make it soft-core porn or lad mag or something that makes more sense. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - but if this is kept, and then not cleaned up, I'd move to delete it next. --Haemo 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question is there any kind of documentary or other work defining this genre or whatever you call it? Conceptually, I recognize the idea of NN-photography, but I do not know if it's defined as anything in particular. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you're wondering if the term is a neologism? I would say no. Thousands of sites use the term, which has distinct parameters as outlined in the article. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm not asking whether or not it's a neologism, I'm asking whether or not there's a source for a definition of it. Usage may be widespread, but documentation of the genre is another matter. Not that it's uncommon for genres to be loosely defined, there are disagreements about SF and Fantasy genres too. FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Needs cleaning, but is a valid topic. Arundhati lejeune 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep something about porn I didn't know. WP is great. When I read this article, I thought of Pin-up girl and "Cheesecake" or "Beefcake" but alas our pin-up girl article is more a list of famous exemplars and short on the content. Lots of books and articles have been written on the subject of provocative but not nude "sensual" photography, so sourcing seems quite possible. To delete for lack of sourcing, it has to be well-nigh impossible to find WP:RSes; here, I doubt that premise. Carlossuarez46 03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Yes, it lacks sources, but it is a well-written and informative article about a subject which seems deserving of coverage. JulesH 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a valid topic (the nominator agrees, so this seems like "process" to me). The article needs work but if we decide to delete articles purely on no/poor referencing then we'd lose a massive chunk of our content - maybe we should do that, but as things stand right now we don't. violet/riga (t) 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. But, make it Non-Nude PORNOGRAPHY, and not what it currently is. ViperSnake151 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the term "Non-Nude Pornography" may seem a contradiction in terms, it may be appropriate here and I would support that, with my Strong Keep above. Pharmboy 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that non-nude pornography is the appropriate title; our article Pornography defines "pornography" as "in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief. It is similar to erotica, which is the use of sexually-arousing imagery used mainly for artistic purpose." The normal meaning of the word explicit in this context would seem to contradict "non-nude". The title is a bit odd, because I would assume non-nude photography to be photography that doesn't have naked people in it which is basically 99.99% of all photography. How about Non-nude sensual photography? Carlossuarez46 06:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject itself is notable. IMHO, a deletion debate should be about whether a subject is worthy of inclusion, not the current state the article is in. Pats Sox Princess 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and retitle as suggested for what is apparently an important subject --it may sound strange at first, but the present title is non-descriptive.
Weak keep per Pats Sox Princess and violetriga, and per my comments on other AfDs -- good start to a notable article, which is verifiable, although nary a cite in sight. Bearian 00:48, 26 July 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 a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirshok Karunakaran[edit]

Article with no content with the exception of 1 infobox. From what I could gather, the article is about a Canadian wrestler. There are no references, no external links. There's not even a single sentence. I tried to expand it, but a Google search left me with 6 hits. I say storng delete. Boricuaeddie 23:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A3 -- no content whatsoever. Possible hoax too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who thought it should be deleted. --Boricuaeddie 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Iotha 01:29, 25 July 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 Consensus to keep, though improvement is needed. Until (1 == 2) 18:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Var'aq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Var'aq

Fairly nonnotable prog language. Was prodded in June. Prod removed without addressing the concern. "Notability" tag ignored as well. Of 1,300+ google hits (about 300 unique) I failed to find reliable third-party sources. The language itself is fairly nonoriginal. Claiming to be a Klingon programming language, it lacks the personality and iron humor of Klingon language (although the translation of Hello World does show that the author is aware of it). `'Míkka 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per lack of reliable sources Corpx 05:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to track down some non-blog sources. [1] (SlashDot), [2] (trektoday.com). It got a mention as a possible undergraduate project at Oxford Brookes [3], and has an entry in ESR's Retrocomputing Museum [4]. (Also a snippet in NTK.net's weekly digest[5], but I'd tend to discount that one myself) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage to satisfy me. Corpx 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with those cites and Ghits. Bearian 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DemanusFlint 22:00, 26 July 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vertabase Pro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Second nomination. Still appears not to be notable enough to merit article. Also has quite a lack of sources. -WarthogDemon 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It is written like an advert, and seems to exist to route you to their websites, but there are 3rd party links (weak ones). Almost on the fence, but would lean to delete for the double linking to themselves. Pharmboy 00:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute deletion. Comments on talk page. Will add more sources. Not an advert. Same type of content as other project management software like ProjectInsight by Metafuse, AtTask and Ace Project-Standpipe

still seems obviously and advert to me. If the two main sources for info are wikipedia and their homepage, it seems like spam to me. Pharmboy 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the references show main sources of information as numberous notable computer magazines e.g ComputerWorld Magazine, ColdFusion Developer's Journal, Insurance and Technology Magazine. homepage is simply an external reference. Standpipe July 26 2007

Delete. If possible, speedy as a recreation. These sources do not meet our standards, although it is nice that user trimmed most of the fluff from the previously-deleted version. Cool Hand Luke 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute deletion. The sources are all valid secondary sources. In many cases there are more sources here (and of more third party nature) than similar content as other project management software entries such as ProjectInsight by Metafuse, AtTask and Ace Project. -Standpipe

15:38 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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 retain talk-page. The club currently does fail to meet minimum notability criteria; however, if plans unfold as anticipated, the club might warrant inclusion here after the next season or two. Currently, the team is a) an associate member of the BCAFL rather than a full member and b) slated to play "demonstration games" in the coming season rather than competitive games. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield Hawks[edit]

Unlike North America, where university sports are notable, in the UK only a few university teams attract attention outside their college and this is not one of them. The article simply lacks the secondary sources to meet WP:N. I merged the encyclopaedic content into the University article and set up a redirect which has been promptly undone. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you might be opening a can of worms here. This team is not that different to Sheffield Hallam Warriors mentioned in the article, or indeed a whole lot of teams included in Category:British Collegiate American Football League teams. Do you want to delete all of them? I am not coming to a conclusion yet, if ever, as I do not understand this sport. --Bduke 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's basically a club team. I know university sports is a different deal in Britain, but it's still pretty much a club. Maybe the other teams' articles should go, too, or be put into one summary article. Realkyhick 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my arguments and the decision rendered in a previous AfD involving another BCAFL team - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surrey Stingers. - Masonpatriot 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a very minor club team. Mainstream sources are never going to write about this team unless someone dies an extraordinary death on the pitch. Abberley2 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't keep on precedent we keep on notability that requires multiple, reliable secondary sources. Amateur American Football has little profile in the UK, so any team is going to have to work hard to cross the notability threshold and this one hasn't played a match yet. TerriersFan 03:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club is not yet sufficiently notable for inclusion. The club has only played one season and has yet to show it will continue for another. The players are in effect academic students participating in secondary sports as a hobby, rather than as potential professional players. Richard Harvey 09:26, 29 July 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. Peacent 01:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Unicorn[edit]

The entire article is unsourced and fails WP:WEB and notability standards in general quite miserably. Suggest the most speedy deletion possible after discussed. Burntsauce 23:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Appears to be self promotion. Slow deletion is ok, as long as it is painful ;) Pharmboy 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is better and more humane. It's self-promotion, nearly spam. Realkyhick 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, it's cute. No, I don't think it meets any of the notability guidelines. It was a major stretch to find sources for Salad Fingers, and this is not in the same league. --Haemo 01:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Iotha 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This is a series that is quickly gaining popularity around the web and among gay communities. It's easy to source, and the fact that this series is becoming more and more popular is reason enough to have a factual article on it. Misterpartel 23:00, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay, if it's "easy to source" then could you produce some reliable sources for this article? --Haemo 04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources - None found on a google news archive search Corpx 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it is cute per Haemo. Bearian 23:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I must admit, I have seen the videos, and it is hilarious! Sebi _[talk] 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's on YouTube, so it must be notable. Right? Oh, apparently not :( Giggy _U^CP 09:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn- No reliable sources found to establish notability of the videos. The article is almost spam. --Boricuaeddie 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus - but there is consensus that the article needs better sourcing and I will tag it as such. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian humanoids in fiction[edit]

Keep: How do you get more clear about the subject"Reptillian Humanoids in Fiction"? All entries are related to and relevant to subject matter being "Reptillain Humanoids in Fiction". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.236.176 (talk) 15:28, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

List of loosely associated topics. Not permitted per WP:NOT. --Eyrian 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, tightly associated topic: a cliche image of aliens. An informative list. `'Míkka 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. Vaguely similar reptilian aliens, cliché as they may be, are simply not an encyclopedic topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slight variant of culturecruft, the seemingly never-ending sea of "____ in popular culture" articles. Realkyhick 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikka Mandsford 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Well, to start, it's not a list, nor is it of aliens. It's of "Reptilian humanoids in fiction"...kind of. Not always aliens, and not actually always in fiction. This is on the border of being loosely related, and it's not informative in any way that isn't trivia. --Haemo 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikka. Iotha 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is less cite list - like every time someone said "reptilian humanoid" - and has more content than the run-of-the-mill "in popular culture"; it may have potential to evolve into a decent article. I am willing to extend a benefit of doubt. Carlossuarez46 03:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If reptilian humanoids don't exist in fiction then where do they exist? As per Carlossuarez46 I'll extend the benefit of the doubt. The main article and this one do seem to require some expert editing. Canuckle 03:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at Reptilian humanoid. In fact, the first line of the lead here pretty much summarizes this entire article. --Haemo 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that could be a resting place for the information. It would be nice to hear from editors who've been workign on these two pages.Canuckle 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who exactly classifies these things as "Reptilian humanoids" ? I think a bit of WP:OR is needed to make this jump. I think this is no different than "<mythical character> in popular culture". Corpx 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a possibility, but needs sourcing, or merge with Reptilian humanoid per above discussion. Bearian 23:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep and merge as suggested. No possiblity of confusion. DGG (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep great informative article just in need of sourcing a bit and not even much clean up

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. Peacent 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kita Kejuo[edit]

It seems that WP:NOT#MEMORIAL applies, as the bulk of the article is written as an obituary. Pharmboy 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put the header on this discussion. I fixed that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, no memorials. The gentleman wasn't notable by WP standards. Realkyhick 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable person. Iotha 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost had me at acting charge d'affaires but I came to my senses. Very accomplished diplomat, no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, almost fooled me as well, until I realized he was not actually an ambassador. DGG (talk) 23:48, 25 July 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 with major revision~~. It is difficult to discern consensus elements among the responses. Many of the requests to delete are based on general opposition to this class of article. In order to satisfy most of the people most of the time, here is what I suggest: the article should be whittled down to instances where the use of Morse Code is a major plot element which can be supported by a secondary source citation, which would in most cases apply to instances of literature (movies, novels, etc.). For instance, the Rudyard Kipling book A Code of Morals and the use in the film Independence Day are good examples of this; the vast majority of other references are trivial. The same holds true for music (songs, themes, etc.), except in this case the vast majority are trivial references. What to do with the material to be excised? I was thinking that category usage might be appropriate ... but I'm concerned that such categories would appear for deletion based on the same argument as was used to bring this article up for deletion. Perhaps a template so that all instances of use can be identified via what-links-here? Whatever the fate of the 'trivial' content, the fate of the 'notable' content is to retain in this article (name changes and mergers might take place later and are not disallowed by this decision). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV overturned the original closure of this AfD to outright delete. Xoloz 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morse code in popular culture[edit]

Again, Wikipedia is not a place to throw a trivia collection list like that. Delete per trivia cruft--JForget 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial mentions of Morse code with no deeper understanding of cultural references. --Eyrian 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia `'Míkka 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Culturecruft, yet again. Realkyhick 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial collection of loosely connected items. --Haemo 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as I think maybe some of those trivia bits could use a mention on the morse code article, to demonstrate that morse code has had a notable impact on popular culture. Iotha 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently, there are a lot of hidden messages in movies, and these are known only to persons who know Morse Code. I'd like to see some sourcing for this, however... _ _ _ ... Mandsford 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge, then redirect. There are at least a few bits of trivia here which are undeniably notable, and which could be easily integrated into the main article. For example, the use of Beethoven's 5th in World War II radio transmissions by the BBC is definitely notable; Nokia's use of Morse "SMS" in various ringtones should also probably be mentioned either here or elsewhere. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely a cite list of the in-universe folks; I'm only surprised that no one thought to throw in every redo of Beethoven's 5th, which echos Morse letter "V" (as in Roman 5) ...- (as in dum-dum-dum-DUM), which apparently was Morse's source for his choice of encoding. Carlossuarez46 03:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to something more appropriate. This isn't an IPC article, it's mostly a list of Morse messages appearing in notable works. We have a list of List of backmasked messages, this is a similar list. Needs sourcing though. Crazysuit 05:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why not use of computers in popular culture, or usage of telephones in popular culture? This is a trivial list (WP:5) Corpx 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be merged into Morse code or into List of backmasked messages Use of telephones in popular culture is reserved for a list to be written in 2057, computers IPC in 2107. Mandsford 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I am not sure what to title it (most are not backmasked) It is not like the other ...IPC articles, there are no major works where it forms the major plot element or theme (though Im glad someone else remembers A Code of Morals). I thank Corpx for other suggested articles, but this is a much more manageable topic. DGG (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another compilation of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 16:54, 28 July 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 as A5 by User:Natalie Erin. Non-admin closure. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 07:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo's World: Balls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Elmo's World: Balls

Exact word-for-word copy of article listed on Muppet Wiki, more appropriate for that Wiki than this one. Created by user with history of hoax children's television articles and information in existing shows. Nate 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as trans-wikied article Rackabello 23:47, 24 July 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. Sr 13 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jörmungandr in popular culture[edit]

The article is mostly contain trivia and WP is not a place to throw up trivia collections like this. Also there is no sources provided and the tag on the article was there since March and nothing was done. Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V.--JForget 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, references that generally share only the name. --Eyrian 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be nothing but a giant Trivia section that just doesn't use the word Trivia. Pharmboy 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's those three words again "...in popular culture." Realkyhick 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - laundry list of trivia loosely related to the subject. --Haemo 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appear to be no WP:RSes that show that Jörmungandr's role in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. CaveatLector^Talk 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep well-associated by common character or plot element, but I dont see them as very significant as compared to some of the other similar articles.DGG (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 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. Sr 13 03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikyos[edit]

A merge is suggested for this article, but no content can be salvaged. Fails just about every policy (WP:NOR and WP:N, for example). What is most important though, is that the article has no hope to ever become a good article, because the subject is too limited, and no source has written about it.

Co-nominating :

Sky Passage

User:Krator (t c) 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think merging might be a game-guideish thing to do. Fictional place with no real world notability Corpx 05:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. WP:NN and WP:OR. No WP:RS provided. --Evb-wiki 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominators have given more then a good enough reason as to why this should be deleted and I agree with them fully. I just took a read of the article... Confirmed what they've said.Deliciously Saucy 20:39, 28 July 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. Peacent 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rostam in popular culture[edit]

This is likely an incomplete list but it is only trivia for the most part which WP is NOT and it is also a stub and unsourced. Most edits were on June 9 and nothing done after to expand, a merge can be done possibly. Delete per the WP is not a trivia collection--JForget 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Culturecruft," which is shorthand for yet another "____ in popular culture" article that must be done away with before we're overrun with this crap. Realkyhick 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no meaningful references. --Eyrian 23:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another directory of loosely associated topics that does nothing to increase our understanding of Rostam or the fiction that makes reference to him. Otto4711 00:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was on its way to being a good article, but stopped short and became a trivia article. --Haemo 01:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rostan. I get it, he's the Persian version of Hercules. Still, one cultural reference isn't much. Mandsford 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no WP:RSes that show that Rostam's role in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's hardly anything here. Crazysuit 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TRIVIA collection (small one), WP:5 Corpx 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --not enough for an article.DGG (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is barely a list. Punkmorten 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick. Metamagician3000 12:14, 28 July 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julisa kardasian[edit]

Sketchy bio, might not pass WP:BIO. Also there seems to be a conflict of interest here. Last of all, seems not to have sufficient sources. Note that the same context is on the user's userpage. -WarthogDemon 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam Rackabello 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Realkyhick 23:15, 24 July 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 as copyvio. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Dejoria[edit]

Written about an NN motivational speaker, reads like a detailed autobiography with a hint of promotional advertising. No sources, a quick google search finds that he won some type of award, but I don't think this passes WP:BIO and WP:N Possibly an CSD A7 and G11 candidate, but because of the length, I felt AfD was more appropriate. Blatant copyright violation, see tag on article or my comment below. Rackabello 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Copyvio Its taken verbatim from here [6], the google search reveals Rackabello 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyright violation. It's gotta go now. Realkyhick 23:15, 24 July 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. Sr 13 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Halvorsen[edit]

Individual medical practitioner without clear claims of notability (many people write books, it is unclear why his would be important). Article reads like an advertisement. Implicit endorsement of Andrew Wakefield, presently undergoing GMC hearings for scientific misconduct and therefore not at all neutral. 'Delete. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our contemporary colleagues are estimable characters, and some may be shown in future times to have been notable. At present, this doctor is not among them, or we have not reached that time. Given the subject matter and nature of the initial writing, I think this fits the description of "contentious editing of a medical topic" which is the subject of Ombudsman's parole.Delete Midgley 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Ombudsman is coming awfully close to violation of his parole as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO (no more than trivial mention in independent secondary sources, that I can see). Currently article also appears to be a WP:COATRACK for anti-vaccinationism, a subject which has been POV-forked to death in the past. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's just another doctor. Doctors and professors and the like are not notable for being doctors or professors. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Qworty 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete only trivial mentions from those articles and not much else to establish notability Corpx 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book mentioned has a current Amazon ranking of 2845 [7] and reviews in major daily newspapers (eg [8], [9]). Halvorsen's stance on vaccination has been covered by the press (eg ([10], [11]), and he's been quoted as a vaccination expert in the popular press (eg [12], [13]). Espresso Addict 10:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An amazon.co.uk ranking of 2845 translates into what - one or two copies per day? Moreover, this is the week of release; to avoid recentism, we should wait a few months to see if anyone's still buying the book. If we find the book has had an impact, let's create an article about the book and include a couple of lines about the author. (Unless he becomes notable for something else, he won't need a separate bio.) Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. He's just a doctor who's been quoted in the press a couple of times recently. The article appears to have been created to give a platform to the subject's views. Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be an unbalanced WP:COATRACK article being used to push a particular point of view espoused by the article's only author. It seems unlikely that the subject would warrant an article on his own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and seems to mainly push the anti-vaccine position.--Mantanmoreland 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per sideshow bob roberts, give it time and if the book turns out to be notable, we'll see. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:50, 26 July 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. Sr 13 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G41 Community Newspaper[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY Mais oui! 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Mais oui! 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no-notable small periodical. Realkyhick 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As creator. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 19:52, 26 July 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 Illegal immigration to the United States. Sr 13 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States immigration debate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete namely because the article is an incoherent collection of information from various other articles. All of the issues covered in this article are sufficiently covered in the following articles: Illegal immigration to the United States, 2006 United States immigration reform protests, Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, DREAM Act, etc... As such this article serves no purpose. I should also point out that the mere title of the article "United State Immigration Debate" plays into recentism as it assumes that issues about immigration have only become prominent since 2004 which is not the case. Jersey Devil 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Illegal immigration to the United States. Not notable, somewhat of a POV fork. Realkyhick 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Illegal immigration to the United States. Its meant to cover purposed federal legislation and the ensuing debate. It’s a good idea, unfortunately its proven nearly impossible to keep current, and it has certainly acted as a POV fork at time. Brimba 02:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with other articles, POV-forkish. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also Immigration law. Bearian 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - per Jersey Devil, who makes it sound like a nice template might do all the work this article currently does, by the way. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes we already have Template:IIUS.--Jersey Devil 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it suffers of recentism, but the subject is notable. Yes, it has some overlap with other articles, but this subject is clearly different from Illegal immigration to the United States, Border protection, and others. Must be improved of course.Biophys 06:30, 28 July 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. Anas ^talk? 16:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the Woods Rustle[edit]

Non notability of translations of Bulgarian/Macedonian folk songs Mr. Neutron 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the two pages are two different versions of the same song in Bulgarian and Macedonian:

After discussion about possible merging of the two articles I was advised by an administrator to offer both articles for deletion. Neither article is actually linked by any non-redirect page, and all they have caused is a heated debate of the nationality of the song, is it from the Republic of Macedonia, or from Bulgaria, or are they in fact two different songs with slight variations, or two completely unrelated musical pieces (at least in terms of lyrics). Mr. Neutron 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I cant find anything about this on google - maybe that's because the translation of the title isnt accurate. So, not notable until proven otherwise Corpx 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After my explanation the Administrator didn't say that we have to delete the articles. The only thing here is that some Bulgarian nationalists like to vandalize all articles related to Macedonia and Macedonian people. The song Slušam kaj šumat šumite (Slusham kaj shumat shumite) is a sample for the Ethnic_Macedonian_music and it cannot be deleted because there is no reason for that. There are many articles about songs at Wikipedia. As for the Bulgarian song When the Woods Rustle I cannot comment and you can delete it if you like. The main thing is to stop some Bulgarian users to vandalize the articles related to Macedonia. Regards, --Amacos 08:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though my opinion on AN/I is nothing but my own opinion (as opposed to any Official Writ). However, I don't see any room for expansion in this article; I could very well be wrong, and I'll change my attitude if it is shown the article can be fleshed out with anything more than "this is a song and this is what it's about". For example, what is the historical importance of the patriotic song? Is it like "Yankee Doodle"? Is it something that has remained in the Bulgarian tradition as a rallying cry against foreign domination? Why is there an article about it at all, other than that it's mentioned in another article? PS: Wikipedia is not a battlefield; we don't care one whit about Bulgarians vs. Macedonians except in articles about the relations between the peoples. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from me, too. The only thing this or should I say these articles do is create controversy and cause endless edit-wars. The edit-wars were not at present though before the appearance of 2-3 newly registered contributors. Maybe one day when we are all more mature such an article might become useful (with a lot of work on it). --Laveol ^T 00:05, 26 July 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. Sr 13 03:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borders before and after Yugoslavia[edit]

This seems like a needless fork of about a thousand other articles. All the information presented here would be more at home in places like Kingdom of Yugoslavia, History of Serbia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav wars, etc. Also, there has been heated dispute over the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article since the day it was created and has been a breeding ground for nationalistic conflicts ever since--we don't need redundant articles anyway, but especially not such troublemaking ones as this. K. Lásztocska 22:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unclear criteria for the borders selected - the states immediately preceding Yugoslavia are not all included (to wit the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, an important predecessor to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, later Yugoslavia is not included). Additionally a few randomly selected much older borders are included in the Serbia section. All in all a mess. Bigdaddy1981 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the article has been from the very start a breeding ground for nationalistic disputes between pro and anti Serbian editors. The relevant information in this article belongs in the articles for Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. Parsecboy 00:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above. Zello 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article has become monster. Rjecina 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Dahn 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the current content of questionable encyclopedic value, but it also shows little room for improvement (unless we turn it into a copy of an already existing article, which is useless in a different way). K issL 13:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning above. Hobartimus 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is WP:SNOW in order here? Bigdaddy1981 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. Not even the creator of the article, Rjecina, wants to retain it. Let's just trash it. Parsecboy 21:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User Rjecina just created new twin article (same as original version of this article), no matter that he voted here for its deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rjecina/Borders_before_and_after_Yugoslavia What should be done about this problem? PANONIAN 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's on his user page though so it's not doing anyone any harm Bigdaddy1981 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, he's just keeping it in a "sandbox"-type thing in case there is any actually useful information in the article that can be later included in other articles. I wouldn't worry unless he tries to recreate the article (or something similar) in the mainspace. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he posted it into categories like real article, so it is obvious that he done this to avoid deletion process. PANONIAN 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: what is point of this deletion process if authors of deleted articles can simply to create them again with new title starting with "User:.../"??? Claim that this is just "harmless sandbox" really does not stand because it had all characteristics of deleted article, it could be also found on google search like deleted article, etc, etc. The main problem here is very controversial content of this "harmless sandbox" and such content really damage reputation of Wikipedia. Normal Wikipedia articles are usually written by users with opposite opinions and therefore if any article have controversial content these users could change it and make it more NPOV. But what we have here? We have "harmless sandbox" with controversial content and since there are users who do not want to watch there such content that damage reputation of Wikipedia, does it mean that they can change content of that sandbox or that they can start revert war there with author of the sandbox or that they are not obligated to respect 3rr here because this is not an article but just a "harmless sandbox"? Finally, what is a point of the fact that you all voted for deletion of this article when its author just created it again? Does it mean that he does not respect your votes? I really do not think that this was a purpose of the voting process (transformation of article into "harmless sandbox"). PANONIAN 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd prefer not to speculate as to the reasons he's kept it, so I just now left him a message requesting that he explain. I'm a bit mystified by the whole thing myself....K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have noticed this is 3rd article which I have put on my user page. There is clear writen that all this articles has been put for deletion because of different reasons which in my personal thinkings are wrong. I hope that we will all agree that this article on my user page and article which is for deleting are really different story. If I delete this article which is on my user page I will give to demands of nationalistic user which do not accept reality that all today states are having borders in time of Habsburg era end. I will not give to demand of person which is saying that Habsburg empire borders are only borders between administrative units and nothing else. I will not give to demand of user from Serbia which is refusing fact that Croatia-Slavonia has been kingdom inside Austro-Hungarian Monarchy with right to secede. Croatia-Slavonia has used this right to secede in 1918 and secesion has been accepted by Hungary which has after Croatian parlament vote declared death of Croato-Hungarian personal union. Point of this long nationalistic story is that I will not give to demand of person from Serbian Vojvodina which is not accepting fact that Vojvodina has been annexed to Serbia after conquest during end of Habsburg era. This article on my user page will not be returned on english wiki until 3-5 wikipedia on different language accept that article is good enough. Do not be afraid this will not happen this year because until now only 1 other wiki is having this article. We must not forget that in the end this article will be deleted on english wikipedia only because user PANONIAN has been against him (I speak that about article revision of 3 july). No other user has any problem with that article. --- Rjecina 14:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually no, there are more people that Panonian who think the article should be deleted...just scroll up for the list of names so far. My concern (and as far as I can tell, the concern of most of the others) is not about the specifics of treaties or the interminable arguments between Croats and Serbs, my concern is that the article is superfluous, redundant and moreover, a lightning rod for trouble. I suppose there's nothing wrong with working on a new version of the article in your userspace, but given the concerns raised here about the very usefullness of such a concept for an article, I wouldn't be surprised if even a new version got deleted as well. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry I will not play in near future with this article. He will stay minimal 6 months (I think it will be much longer) on my user page. --- Rjecina 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 18:24, 28 July 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 Wikipedia:Deletion review#Allegations of American apartheid). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Evidence of notability not established, and the topic appears to duplicate existing articles (specifically Racial segregation in the United States, which already has a section on apartheid comparisons). Editors are reminded that "other stuff exists" and "all or nothing" are not valid arguments to retain an article. Editors should also be aware that "It was only created for..." is not necessarily a valid argument for deletion, though I note the admission cited by User:Victor falk, which I believe merits further investigation. -- ChrisO 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of American apartheid[edit]

This article’s subject is a certain class of rhetorical statement – an “allegation of apartheid” – of which it produces five or six instances, arranged in a small quote farm. The subject matter in which these five or six rhetorical statements arise is – in every instance – racial segregation in the United States. There are no secondary sources describing the allegation itself (giving its history, for example, or describing its political or rhetorical effects, or saying who uses it and who doesn’t, or contesting its legitimacy); indeed, no secondary sources indicating that the allegation or phrase or meme or whatever is itself even notable. There are prominent memes relating to contemporary American racism that have occasioned a great deal of secondary-source commentary – for example “institutional racism” and “de facto segregation” – but “American apartheid” isn’t one of them. There are only these five or six primary-source examples of its use, data-mined and gathered together by a Wikipedian who is interested in them for other reasons – namely, so that the resulting “article” built around them can be used as leverage in his ongoing efforts to secure the deletion of Allegations of Israeli apartheid, through a kind of unofficial horse-trading whereby he agrees to cease his disruptions upon satisfaction of his demands.

The primary sources consist of: two supreme court opinions; the title of a book and a review of the book (the book uses the word “apartheid” generically and doesn’t discuss South Africa, and the review appears never to mention either); and the title of a Harper’s article (again, which seems to mention neither apartheid nor South Africa), later expanded into a book. Each of these is a primary source; it uses the word “apartheid,” hence "alleging" it.

Wikipedia’s notability guidelines clearly require that “sources address the subject directly in detail." The subject here is the allegations, which none of the sources addresses directly. The notability guideline also stresses that sources are "defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources." WP:NOR stresses that "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources," while conceding that "there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources."

This is not one of those rare occasions, and no exception needs to be made. All of this subject matter will merge very nicely into Racial segregation in the United States, given that is in every case what the sources here are actually talking about.

The distinction between primary and secondary sources isn't some odd technicality. It is a crucial mechanism for establishing notability "objectively" (as WP:N and WP:NOR explain), and for leading hobby-horse articles like this one off the track and behind the stables, where they may be summarily shot. If a topic is important, there will be secondary-source commentary on the topic itself. The word "nigger" is a notable epithet. We know this not through primary-source materials in which it's used, but rather through secondary-source material in which it's discussed.

The issue for this AfD is only the lack of sourced notability of the analogy itself – not any supposed "outrageousness" of it. Indeed, the half-dozen examples of the phrase gather by our original researcher do not appear to have occasioned any outrage at all; what commentary and controversy they generated had to do with American segregation itself, not the phrase "American apartheid." America's own legacy of racial oppression – slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, lynchings, the KKK, segregation defacto and dejure, schoolgirls being spit on and old ladies sent to the back of the bus, firehoses and police beatings – has left it with an enormously rich native vocabulary for current discrimination; we no more need to import our metaphors from South Africa than Brazil needs thence to import its mangoes. Which is probably why when these four or five sources used the term "apartheid," no one noticed. This article should be deleted as part of a disingenuous campaign that has had a profoundly disruptive effect on other parts of Wikipedia; its salvageable content will move seamlessly into Racial segregation in the United States. G-Dett 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. Titles must be as neutral as possible, but this one doesn't even try to appear neutral. The title throws mud, and some it it will lodge in the mind of the reader. Any relevant material belongs in articles about racism, segregation and slavery. Golfcam 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a synthesis of primary sources which is quite redundant with other articles we already have. Closing admin, please don't be swayed by votes that this should be linked to other articles - the only thing they have in common are the word "apartheid" in the title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment judged by itself, the article seems rescuable, & I am reluctant to vote for a delete on the basis of allegations about a cabal. Could the nom substantiate? DGG (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How much do you expect a nom to write for heaven's sake? Abberley2 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all DGG the motives of this article's creator is really a secondary issue; substantiated or unsubstantiated, it is not a reason in itself to delete. The reason to delete is that the article has no secondary sources, no objective evidence of its topic's notability, and is clearly nothing more than an odd, exotic POV-fork from Racial segregation in the United States. Your vote to keep or delete shouldn't hinge on the motives of those cultivating this hothouse-plant-miniature-quote-farm-POV-fork; that said, I will answer your question. First of all, there's no "cabal." A cabal is a secret organization full of intrigue, usually up to no good. What we have here, by contrast, are openly affiliated editors up to no good in broad daylight. Have a look at the edit histories of Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Allegations of American apartheid, Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, etc.; see who creates these articles, who sustains them with substantive edits, who defends them in AfDs, etc. Then go look at any of the six AfD's for Allegations of Israeli apartheid; the very editors who have objected vehemently to that article because of the word "apartheid" in its title have created and sustained seven or eight "allegations of apartheid" articles, as well as the "allegations of apartheid" template and of course Allegations of apartheid. If you object to any of these on WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR, or WP:N grounds, these editors will wave the policy issues aside and make clear that the problem for them is an Israel article with the word "apartheid" in its title, plain and simple, and that if their demand for the deletion of that article is satisfied, they'll agree to delete the seven or eight badly sourced "allegations of apartheid" articles they've created and heretofore defended through block-voting at AfDs. Again, no cabal; the demands are more or less open and candid, even if the delivery is slightly oblique and euphemistic in a Corleone-ish kind of way. See the recent AfD discussion for Allegations of French apartheid, which survived because of block-voting from the non-cabal. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid, which is a collective attempt to deal with the disruption caused by all this. Let me know if you have any other questions.--G-Dett 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork, synthesis, original research. Realkyhick 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another WP:POINT violation, created for political reasons having to do with the Allegations of Israeli Apartheid page. (Btw, if anyone's curious, there was a legitimate American apartheid page created as a redirect some time ago.) CJCurrie 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a rather pointy POV fork article. Yeah, there probably could be an article written on the subject - but this isn't even close. --Haemo 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A strained collection of slurs assembled for a purpose that cannot comply with Wikipedia:Neutrality, whatever it may have been. Abberley2 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Racial segregation in the United States#Comparisons with apartheid. Apartheid is de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. The instances cited in the article are suggestions of the latter. As with South Africa prior to 1989, there was "apartheid" in parts of the U.S.A. until the 1960s. If it happens now, it's in defiance of the law. However, if someone wants to argue that it still exists because the law isn't enforced, and if they have sources, they can do that in the segregation article. Mandsford 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use of "apartheid" outside of the South African context is akin to use of "cult" outside of ancient ritual. We shouldn't use it in titles. As for "allegations" articles, they tend not be encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—while the comparisons to apartheid are made by notable people, the comparisons themselves are not notable (or noted). So, these comparisons are not suitable as the subject of an article. Allegations of American apartheid is an example of synthesis more appropriate for a term paper than a general encyclopedia. Gracenotes^T § 04:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of secondary sources on the issue. While we all know segregation existed, no expert (to my knowledge) considers this apartheid. Pats Sox Princess 22:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: William O. Douglas, Douglas Massey, Nancy Denton, and Nathan Glazer all are experts. Who is, if not judges and sociologists? ...and how could the assessment by an U.S. Supreme Court Justice not be notable? Provided the allegations series is encyclopaedic, and most think so, this article is, too. --tickle me 00:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every utterance of a notable person is itself notable; notability is established by secondary sources, of which this article has none.--G-Dett 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for all other articles with similar titles "Allegations of [your favorite country] [your favorite issue]", such as Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, and many others ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it needs to retitled as ..in the united states -- that it occurred historically is enough to justify the article, and it seems to be admitted that there is not real doubt about that. Anyway, the article is not apartheid in the ... , but allegations of apartheid, and I cannot see how anyone can reasonably doubt that the allegations have not been brought. The articles is well enough sourced to show that.

as for some other questions I had--I totally agree with G-Dett that the article must be judged by itself, and so I did. AGF, I prefer to interpret the introduction of some of the other articles as a reasonable attempt to avoid singling out Israel, which would be political POV as it is hardly the only offender. But, I had not realised there was a community discussion. since there is, this AfD can be seen as a well-intentioned but incorrect attempt to assume the result of that discussion. if we're discussing the general question of how to handle these articles, the discussion of how to deal with an individual one should wait on that. If its decided to do it differently in general, this discussion becomes moot.DGG (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever direction the free-form community discussion takes or doesn't take, individual articles will need to comply with policy. The question for the "allegations" articles is not who the "offenders" are – we are not a tribunal – but rather where the allegations have become a notable topic in themselves, as established by secondary sources, per policy.--G-Dett 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the parent article, Allegations of apartheid. This sub-article doesn't really have enough sources to stand on its own yet. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Allegations of apartheid (1st choice) or Keep (2nd choice - as long as we keep other Allegations of apartheid in X articles). FYI, I've added more content about the book Medical Apartheid. The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the article into Racial segregation in the United States since the focus on the term apartheid is too narrow. There are lots of examples of modern social, economic and political segregation in the US that have not necessarily been called "apartheid" while, on the other hand, everthing mentioned in "Allegations of American apartheid" can easily fit in the racial segregation article. This means Racial segregation in the United States is the more appropriate destination. - LOTHAR
Delete Per nom, WP:SYNTH and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks ("The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article"). Mackan79 05:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Allegations of apartheid until further sourcing. However opposing merge into Racial segregation in the United States#Comparisons with apartheid.--Cerejota 06:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As G-Dett already wrote it, I'd like to point out to another AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid. A lot of the arguments here have already been discussed overthere. I did not had the opportunity to express my opinion overthere, but i do think that all the Allegations of... are NPOV articles, mainly an unliked list of quotes where apartheid appears in without any relations inbetween them, and that they should be deleted. BUT if no more reasons are given here to delete this article than there were overthere to delete the french article, i would see no particular reason to delete this one, and to keep the french one. NicDumZ ~ 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't establish the legitimacy of one article based on its superficial resemblance to another article; that's what got us into this whole mess. There are eight "allegations of apartheid" articles, seven of which have no secondary sources establishing the notability of the allegations they describe. Each of these has mimicked the phraseology and format of the sourced article, in the hopes of tricking editors into evaluating them collectively. See for example the comment by Urthogie (author of six of the dummy articles) below.--G-Dett 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge-- it's not NPOV to keep some countries with sources and remove other countries with sources.--Urthogie 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. --Shamir1 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note that various bad faith appeals to motive and proofs by assertion are not relevant to AfDs. Also, red herrings regarding "secondary sources" are just that, red herrings. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Nor are strawman arguments relevant to AfDs. As I said above, votes "to keep or delete shouldn't hinge on the motives of those cultivating this hothouse-plant-miniature-quote-farm-POV-fork." They should hinge on the mere fact that this is a hothouse-plant-miniature-quote-farm-POV-fork, and one lacking secondary sources on its subject, thereby failing WP:N and WP:NOR.--G-Dett 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I oppose this nomination based on the un-civil manner in which it has been proposed and defended on this page, with accusations of "disruption" and "openly affiliated editors up to no good in broad daylight." As I said in response to one of the same editor's other nominations, I don't think this sort of thing should be tolerated, much less encouraged. She explained on another AfD page that, basically, this is how she has fun -- whistling while she works, she called it -- in other words, spreading toxic and vicious accusations against other editors. I thought that was the sort of thing that would draw a block or ban on Wikipedia. Regardless of what I think about the article, I don't want any part of this nomination. 6SJ7 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC) However, given the realities of the situation I will express my opinion anyway:[reply]
Merge into Allegations of apartheid. 6SJ7 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6SJ7, accusing another editor of "spreading toxic and vicious accusations" is a personal attack, and I have never seen G-Dett level either. If you disagree with her comments, I would think there are much better ways to address this. I understand people make heated comments, and that people are often misunderstood, but I think this is something we should all work to keep in mind. Mackan79 06:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6SJ7, I am sorry to read of your distress. Please know that when I wrote of "whistling while I work," the reference was to salty ironies and straight talk, not to "toxic and vicious accusations." Given the level of organized disruption, trolling, and disingenuousness in this whole affair, my remarks have been quite moderate. Please also recognize that we all have different temperaments. For me the greatest affront is the constant evasiveness and unwillingness to discuss policy; which is why, no matter how saucy my remarks can be, they are always detailed, direct, and policy-oriented. Reciprocation in this regard would be appreciated; I note with some regret that – notwithstanding DDG's fair point about the comprehensive discussion – not one of the keep votes has addressed the sourcing, notability, and original-research issues I took the time to explain at some length.--G-Dett 16:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Dett, you can call your comments what you think they are, and I will call them what I think they are. And other people can decide for themselves what to think of accusations of "organized disruption, trolling and disingenuousness" made in the same breath as a denial of "toxic and vicious accusations." 6SJ7 00:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, 6SJ7, but take care that your concern about "toxic and vicious accusations" doesn't become a pretext for same. When editors closely aligned with regards to POV argue passionately about the intrinsic illegitimacy of WP covering "allegations of apartheid," and just as passionately nourish, sustain, support, and defend an extensive series of article about "allegations of apartheid," it looks a heck of a lot like WP:POINT-making. Your heat and zeal might be better directed towards countering that conclusion, not to mention answering the questions of notability that arise when article after article in this vexatious series is devoid of secondary sources. Those questions won't go away.--G-Dett 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Allegations of apartheid.--Mantanmoreland 16:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Allegations of apartheid.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a WP:POVFORK; its subject falls entirely within the scope of racial segregation in the United States, and could easily be summarised there.

It was created to make a point; in WP:POINT#Examples, one can read:

If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD)...

- do make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.
- don't create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD.

This has been explicitly admitted on several occasions; one of them:

“

(...) why we created other apartheid articles. All allegations of apartheid articles are meant to antagonize people of that culture; the Israel one included. They are all POV forks. Their existance on wikipedia is proof that WP:NPOV does not apply to article titles or afd's. Since these articles cannot be balanced on their own, the only way to balance them is to create similar articles about other countries, thus making the attack page have less effect since country X isn't the only one being alleged of being an apartheid state. There is nothing encyclopediac about accusing somebody or some culture/country/religion of apartheid. It is all an attempt to push a POV. Anything legitimate belongs in an article like Criticism of Israel, or Human rights in Israel. --Sefringle 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC) [14][reply]

”

It also fails several other policies, notably WP:SYNTH, WP:N, WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE, and others mentioned upthread, but each one of the two reasons above is more than sufficient to justify deletion in and by itself.--Victor falk 14:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what relevance Sefringle's comment has here, seeing as how he did not create this article, nor has he ever edited it. 6SJ7 00:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, Sefringle doesn't appear to have created any of these articles, nor does he appear to have edited any of them aside from Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which he edited 21 times, and Allegations of apartheid, which he edited 3 times. I guess User:Victor falk is saying that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a WP:POINT article "on an entirely silly topic". I'd love to see his other examples of whatever he is claiming being "explicitly admitted on several occasions". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I say nothing about Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I say that editors who think Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a "silly topic" have created this article and a series of others to make a point.--Victor falk 12:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sefringle didn't create the article. However, it's just a simple fact that these articles were created and expanded by the same group of people, in reaction to the Israel article. Like most of the others, this article was created by Urthogie, who has used very similar reasoning to that in the above quote from Sefringle, including in this AfD.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, Mansford, and many others. While some of the information may be useful to articles on segregation, the article as it is is just a random collection of instances where apartheid has been used to refer to segregation in the US. Tiamat 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article makes it clear that both the concept and the phrase itself have significant currency, and there is certainly enough to say to warrant an article. Everyking 05:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has sourced content from notable and relevant commentators, and has recently been improved, adding even more of these. Isarig 05:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has not seen significant improvement since it was nominated for deletion.

That's false. A new section, "medical experiments" has been added, fully sourced. Isarig 10:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fully sourced" in the special lingo of supporters of the "allegations of apartheid" series means giving the name of a book or article that uses the word "apartheid" once or twice according to its dictionary definition. It doesn't mean and shouldn't be confused with a sourced discussion of the nominal topic of this article, "allegations" that "draw a parallel between the current situation of blacks in America today and the situation of blacks under South Africa's white minority rule." This article has no such sources and certainly none have been added. In this case, an author used the word apartheid in the title of a book on medical experiments, then a Wikipediana wrote a sentence about that book and inserted it in this article, then created a section heading to house that sentence. That's the "significant improvement" Isarig is talking about: a section containing a sentence about a book whose title contains the word "apartheid," used in its regular dictionary sense to mean state-sanctioned separate and unequal treatment (the book doesn't discuss South Africa, even for the purposes of comparison). What Isarig calls "significant improvement" I call "added crap."--G-Dett 13:48, 29 July 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. Anas ^talk? 16:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Chasse[edit]

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. No reliable sources for verifiability since November 2006; no assertion of notability as an individual, and no coverage in external sources. Valrith 21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mantanmoreland. Bearian 23:31, 25 July 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. Sr 13 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naga in popular culture[edit]

More laundry-list trivia. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 21:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a pure laundry list of trivia, totally unreferenced, hard to verify, you name it. Nagas are pretty cool though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Nāga. And properly reference each statement to avoid wikilegal issues. Shrumster 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merger - yet another directory of loosely related topics. Otto4711 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 as obviously another useless and unsourced IPC article.--JForget 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Culturecruft. Will it never end??? Realkyhick 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion I use for judging "X in popular culture" articles (and sections) is "Does this material contribute to an understanding of X, or of X's influence on later works or thought?" If not, it's nothing but a repository of loosely associated topics. This list, like so many others, is just a collection of mentions of a word or thing that contributes nothing to an understanding of the topic. "In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode Shadow, the antagonist Glory summons a large snake-like creature with a humanoid face and arms. The term Naga is not mentioned" is a particularly egregious example of irrelevance, but the other entries aren't much better. Deor 00:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deor seems to share my rationale, and assessment. --Haemo 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A collection of un-assessed factoids is not a legitimate article. Abberley2 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, damn spot, delete! Oh, and possibly Categorize actual notable instances into Category:Japanese folklore in popular culture. CaveatLector^Talk 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RSes that Nagas' role(s) in popular culture is notable. Carlossuarez46 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really dont think this popular culture list helps the mythical character. Trivia - WP:5 Corpx 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 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. Peacent 01:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rossi (porn star)[edit]

Seems to flunk WP:PORNBIO but since its been around for a while, I changed my mind on the speedy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails to meet the crieria established by WP:PORNBIO Calgary 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO. Carlossuarez46 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO; just another non-notable porn actor. 72.68.31.242 07:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may encourage people to copy some of the things he does in the films which is immoral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemrw (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 03:28, 27 July 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, with the prevalent reasoning being failure to meet notability threshold. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Pope[edit]

Clothing retailer of dubious notability. The article seems to be written almost entirely by a SPA (User:Nowayanthony) and by anonymous IPs; most of the contributions by established editors seem to be basic housekeeping or complaining about the advertising-like tone. Looks like a vanity article. —Psychonaut 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be a notable store, at least not yet. 13900 results on Google, but 13898 of them seem to be directories and yellow pages and whatnot. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it's not a bad article and I'm sure it's a very nice store but at the end of the day, that's not what matters. I hardly even see an assertion of notability and there are no sources. It also does not appear to pass WP:CORP and the sources listed on the corporate 'About us' page all look rather trivial to me. This might make a very nice addition to the corporate Myspace site but I'm afraid it doesn't merit inclusion here. --S ^up? 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of WP:RSs. Corpx 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertising for nn company. Open to recreation if they make "top100" status -- SockpuppetSamuelson 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Gravity Pope may be a small company in the scheme of things, but it is an integral part of the communities in which it does business, with mention in the articles about the communities: Strathcona, Kitsilano, and 17th Avenue. The company is quite notable in western Canada. The article itself is meant to give fans and customers of the store access a resource of company information and history. Look at this blog and the comments below, people have used the page as a resource: [15]. I'm learning about wikipedia as I go, I've made a couple of minor edits on related articles, I don't feel confident or knowledgable enough to be doing lots of edits. I realize that I look like an SPA because the Gravity Pope article is kind of my baby on wikipedia and I've been trying to get it to conform to wikipedia policies, while learning how to create articles on wikipedia properly.Nowayanthony 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe's Eats may be an integral part of Podunk, USA, but that doesn't mean it's notable according to Wikipedia's standards. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to give "fans and customers" information about the store—that's what the store's own website should be doing—but rather to summarize independent published information about the store. —Psychonaut 23:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:24, 25 July 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, not encyclopedic, fails WP:V. Until (1 == 2) 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golem in popular culture[edit]

Trivia without analysis, often sharing little more than the name with the myth. No cited analysis for those seeking an understanding of its popular evolution. --Eyrian 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is woefully overgrown. The most notable authors, such as Isaac Bashevis Singer, should be mentioned in the main Golem article. Shalom ^Hello 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per another one of the neverending list and cases of listcruft trivia IPC articles .--JForget 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, part of the seemingly never-ending stream of culturecruft. Realkyhick 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after severe pruning of trivia. A quick Google found a couple reviews of Golem in pop culture. [16] [17] Seems like more sources for analysis would be readily available for interested editors. Canuckle 23:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not opposed to some article about Golems in popular culture. However, it should be a short section in Golem, not a laundry list of trivia like this one. --Haemo 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs trimming, but there is a WP:RS, Folklore magazine that has a 14-page article on the subject. Amazon shows a couple of books using the legends of the Golem to illustrate fears of biotech, etc. It's a lesser-known Frankenstein, but not a wholely unnotable one. I am willing to concede that there is a "pop culture" aspect to Golem that reliable sources note. As for the quality of the article, that's not a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 03:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do those (very interesting) articles have to do with this current bag of trivia? Was the search for them aided in any way by its existence? Vote on the article as it is, not as it might be. --Eyrian 04:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current content is an editing matter and not for AfD. The potential for the article and the appropriateness of the topic is what AfD is for.Canuckle 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Golem#In_popular_culture covers this topic enough. This article is just trivia in the current form. Someone could userfy this page and fix it or maybe even more it into the subspace of the main article? Corpx 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless trivia. There is already a Golem article with a popular culture section that says all that needs to be said about this topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever the decision, Golem (disambiguation) might also factor in the tidy-up. I have found the dismbig page a good dumping ground for WP articles that are associated only by the name. Canuckle 16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carlossuarez46. A notable subject, though the article needs work obviously. --Mantanmoreland 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tidy up per Carlossuarez46. Remember that AfD is about whether an article on a given topic should exist at all, not whether you like the current article on a topic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a laundry list of mostly trivial references. The most notable ones should be mentioned in the existing Golem#In popular culture and this article should be deleted. Crazysuit 18:42, 29 July 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, with lack of notability being the consensus reason. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Houghton (Canadian actor)[edit]

Delete - prod removed and IMDB link added, but the gentleman does not pass WP:BIO which requires "significant roles." His credits don't warrant an article. Otto4711 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable (yet). Realkyhick 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete From what I gather from the IMDB filmography, all his roles were minor, plus there's no reliable sources to establish notability Corpx 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he only appeared in a handful of episodes in SG-1, and he guest starred in the other series. Extremely not notable. » bye ee 07:52, 27 July 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. John254 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauder - Morasha School[edit]

Non-notable school Kolindigo 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By virtue of being the first Jewish school in Warsaw since shortly after the Holocaust, it is notable. Shalom ^Hello 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I made this. Kappa 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in Jewish-Polish history (and Poland has been one of the key nations in Jewish history). Golfcam 22:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable school, and I do not know what led the nom to think otherwise, since no detailed reason was given.DGG (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. First Jewish school angle clears the notability bar. Realkyhick 23:40, 24 July 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 and protect, target = Good Girl Gone Bad. Protection should decrease the chance of a new article being created until/if there is sufficient notability to justify it; redirection is ok as this would qualify as Template:R to list entry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate That I Love You (song)[edit]

The same as when I nominated it for deletion when it had a different name: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Hate That I Love You. The song is not much more notable now than it was then, and it's still not a single. All I could find was rumors and blogs; nothing reliable at all. This seems to be crystal-ballism again. The original, "Hate That I Love You", is salted. Acalamari 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna stated on 106 & Park on the date July 20, 2007 during an interview that "Hate That I Love You" is the fourth single from her album Good Girl Gone Bad after Don't Stop The Music (Rihanna song).I don't see how its crystal-ballism when the artist herself confirms this.Bigga123 21:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The artist is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, perhaps even speedy. I can't find any reliable sources verifying this as the next single. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (and ThatGrapeJuice.net is not a reliable source.) Re-create the article if and when the single is released. Precious Roy 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the artist not a reliable source? I was watching the moment she confirmed this on 106 & Park. I suggest keeping the artcle for now, and if things change then delete this article. Bigga123 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS, it lists what is and is not a reliable source. Word-of-mouth interviews are typically not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Good Girl Gone Bad. "X is the next single" is never enough to warrant an article. Good album articles will have a section about singles or the songs, so it's enough to mention this song there. When it's released, information about the song should be spun off into a separate article. 17Drew 22:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with 17Drew. Don't delete the article, just redirect for the time being until some articles are posted on the internet. But I'm positive, Rihanna did confirm this on Jul 20, 2007. Bigga123 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy would have been fine. Sources, future looking, and doesn't help that it sounds like a press release. Pharmboy 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per 17Drew. Iotha 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Precious Roy. I'm sick of seeing articles like this. They all end up deleted anyway (eg. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Back (Britney Spears song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More (Black Eyed Peas song))— *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 07:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. ~~And I think interested people should vote on this debate too!~~ :) RaNdOm26 12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please don't canvass, RaNdOm26. Risker 23:10, 28 July 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. Peacent 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Pamela "Peggy" Bolton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marguerite Pamela "Peggy" Bolton

This person doesn't actually seem to have done anything notable, herself. Her parents were notable, but having notable family members does not make oneself notable. — MusicMaker 5376 20:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, absolutely no claims to notablity outside of notable parents. Possibly a speedy A7 candidate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, hate to say 'ditto', but it is for the exact same reasons. Being the daughter of someone famous doesn't make you famous. Pharmboy 23:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When she was a baby with a small role in a film, she was 'kidnapped' by Rudolph Valentino to be baptised. [18] Interesting perhaps but not notable. Canuckle 00:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an easy-to-miss claim to notability in promoting a revival of her father's plays. It's a weak claim but it's there. I haven't found anything on Google beyond the Variety obituary to support it aside from a copyright on dialogue in Sitting Pretty. Canuckle 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Children and grandchildren of marginally notable people have a bad habit of coming to Wikipedia and inserting themselves into articles. But regardless of who is responsible for this one, it must go. Qworty 01:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing but a series of name-dropping episodes in her life. Bearian 23:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable herself, regardless of family connections. Fairsing 16:26, 26 July 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. Sr 13 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tengu in popular culture[edit]

Just a list of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indiscriminate trivia collection per WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grab-bag of disjointed ephemera; also fails WP:V/WP:NOR due to lack of sources. Sandstein 20:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per another trivia collection.--JForget 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I'm going to make a template tag to insert for all of these culturecruft articles. Realkyhick 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a laundry list of indiscriminate trivia loosely related to Tengu. --Haemo
Comment Is it just me, or did the same three persons decide to nominate all these mythical creatures "in popular culture" during the same week? I notice that Eyrian, Jay and JForget seem to take turns nominating and joining the debate. Coincidence? Mandsford 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot about me. I demand to be included in any vague intimations of conspiracy, dammit! Otto4711 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! My apologies, Otto. Not that I disagree with (I'll say it) Delete, but I've seen so many imps, raccoon dogs, Japanese ninja girls, etc. that I may be losing my already loose grip on reality. Mandsford 12:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there weren't so many articles that failed WP:NOT no one would ever notice a pattern like that. The problem is the articles, not the nominations. Jay32183 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda is self-fixed. I'm pleased to see other editors take the initiative, but I can assure you that there is no cabal. Or if there is, I'm very upset at being left out of it. --Eyrian 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RSes show that Tengu's role in popular culture is notable. For conspiracy theorists, note that I have commented delete to many, but keep to at least one; does that make me an unreliabe conspirator too? If someone can find reliable sources that these things have a notable role in popular culture, not just a list of cites which someone's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that screams "see, it's everywhere it's notable in popular culture..." which is what these lists are really saying, then the outcomes may be different, but the lack of such sources speaks volumes about whether these are notable. Carlossuarez46 03:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:5 as a trivia collection. Nothing but a list of _______ appearances in tv/anime etc Corpx 04:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated? Yes. Trivia? Yes. Crazysuit 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand "loosely associated" somewhat differently from the way it is being used in these discussions-- to be a list of songs recording in April are loosely associated, or a list of books &c that all have the word Love in their title. Things all primarily about a subject is a close association--that's more or less what is meant by association--things can be closely associated for having the same author or participant or producer--or subject. Same for "trivia" being about a common subject is not trivial. DGG (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying all these things are closely related because of tengu is a ridiculous claim, that not only shouldn't be made on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be made anywhere. Jay32183 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of trivia, perhaps after dumping it into Talk:Tengu, though I imagine that the huge majority of it will excite little interest there. -- Hoary 02:57, 28 July 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 all. Peacent 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Networking Enclosures vs. Server Enclosures[edit]

Contested prod. A how-to article of sorts, though heavily edited from original version. I believe the original author may be connected with a company that sells such enclosures, but I can't prove it. Subjects are not notable, and article has the feel of a news release.

I am also proposing these related articles for deletion:

These are basically fragments of the first article broken into pieces. Realkyhick 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:NOR. Sandstein 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Comprehensive article at 19-inch rack, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Its written like an ad, and per WP:NOT#HOWTO. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All written as how-tos, with some unforgivable errors like claiming that "most network equipment is passive and does not generate much heat" in Network enclosures. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:17, 25 July 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oshare kei[edit]

On May 30, 2007, this article was deleted and redirected to another page. Officially it was "merged" - but none of the information was merged into article Visual Kei as stated in the edit summary. Per the WP deletion policy, merging is described as "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list."

The information was not merged because the user felt the information should be deleted per WP:V WP:OR (following taken from Wikipedia:Deletion policy:

Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed

Per WP:Music: A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia.

Therefore I am requesting a formal proposal for deletion of this page, as it has been formally requested to "merge" this article and delete the content contained once again.

Oshare Kei is a sub-set of Visual Kei. You will need to look at old edits of this article to find references, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oshare_kei&oldid=146946006) because the references have been removed. You will also need to look at old edits of Visual Kei to find any information on it - Cyrus XIIi has not allowed any edits to the Visual Kei page since January 2007, including simple things like adding a stub tag.

If you do a google search, you will find most the references to Oshare Kei will be on blogs, community boards, and fan pages. (Be careful, you will also find many copies of page on other wikis, that information should not be taken into account). You can also try searching for information on some of the bands - such as Antic Cafe. Every sentence has been sourced to remove all traces of potential "original research" Denaar 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, WP:V, even if this style (or whatever) were notable (WP:N). This is even though I do not quite understand what the submitter means to say in the above text. Sandstein 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oshare_kei&oldid=146787958 <-- You would need to look here to find the sources, under the current edit they were removed. Justification of each source is given on the talk page.Denaar 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:V/WP:OR and probably WP:N. - Cyrus XIII 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and redirect to Visual kei, for reader convenience. - Cyrus XIII 22:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Visual kei. If the subject matter is not notable, it should be deleted. If it is notable, it should be kept and merged like the Japanese version of the Visual Kei page. Denaar 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Visual kei per reasons given above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:02, 29 July 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, A7/G4. --Eyrian 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreated after first AfD closed as delete. The sources cited are not explicitly about "Jesusism", which seems at best to be a neologism, and a quite nebulous one at that. Pastordavid 19:16, 24 July 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pule[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Also nominating the related Puley the Pule Duck

Delete - fictional holiday from a single episode of a TV show. There do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this topic. An AFD from about two years ago closed merge and redirect however the merge target Holly Jolly Jimmy was deleted as a copyvio. Given the lack of notability, the lack of a merge target and the apparent lack of interest in creating a merge target article, this should be deleted. Otto4711 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are both notable subjects. There are many other articles based on fictional holidays (see Category:Fictional holidays). Pule is no different than any of these holidays. I would support merging Puley the Pule Duck's page into PuleFrank Anchor 19:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to say that they are notable. It is another matter to provide the reliable sources which establish that notability. Pointing at other articles does not establish the suitability of this one. Otto4711 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jay32183 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Other fictional holidays are, I think, more significant than this one which apparently appears in one episode of one TV show. Thin sources, which leads to WP:N and WP:V problems. Sandstein 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius which is where it was until about 7 months ago. It is a holiday that is mentioned in one episode of the show, so the page should really go to the show's page, and a section should be created in that page about Pule. Baseballfan789 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Add a one line mention into the other article and delete this one because of no real world coverage. Might wanna redirect to the other article too Corpx 04:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to Merge and Redirect per previous debate and Baseballfan789. I believe a more appropriate target is the character Hugh Neutron as he created PuleFrank Anchor 15:31, 27 July 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. Peacent 01:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-point energy in popular culture[edit]

Grab-bag of trivia, using a pseudoscientific label as point of union. Indiscriminate collection sharing little more than the name. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zero-point energy -Inventm 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FIVE does not apply here, but WP:V and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE do. As with other "...in popular culture" articles, this is an indiscriminate list of anything labeled "zero-point energy". Do not merge. Sandstein 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contains WP:OR, the cited book does not contain the information. [19]. The only chapter which is about anything like it, does not even talk about it. -Flubeca^Talk 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on its fellows. Golfcam 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep, not merge. We do not want all this nonsense is a reasonable scientific article! Seriously, this is so large it would overwhelm the scientific article. I'm inclined to a weak keep, if the OR can be removed and the sources are OK. --Bduke 00:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the trivia, and merge the little section that looks good back to the main article. --Haemo 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated trivia list. Crazysuit 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Losing power, losing power, losing power.. Spazure 04:23, 27 July 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 It may make sense to discuss this issue at Jehovah or in an article about the JWs. Moot becuase it has been merged to the main article on Psalm 83. JoshuaZ 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm 83:18[edit]

The entire substantive content of the article is: Psalm 83:18 is a widely quoted verse of the Bible, often used to prove "Jehovah" as the personal name of God. That may be so, and it's even possible to reference the statement, but the proper place to discuss this is in places like Jehovah, not in giving a single verse of the Bible its own article. There simply isn't that much more to be said about it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Otto4711 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough as a verse unto itself. Notable verses might include John 3:16, for instance. Realkyhick 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, even though he ought to know that it is possible to say much, much more, as with any scripture subject to commentary. Since there's no evidence of that commentary, however, I think it ought to be merged or deleted. Argyriou (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be a lot more to say, yes. If only this was an encyclopedia of scripture commentary. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual verses of the Bible are never notable, but the concept that they refer to may be notable. (This is my personal opinion, but I think the application here is clear. The verse can be mentioned in an article on Yahweh, and that is all.) Note to admin: Please delete "Psalm 83:18" from the associated navbox template. Shalom ^Hello 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would respectfully disagree with Shalom's first statement but I do concur with the notion that this is not sufficiently notable. -- S ^up? 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I smell WP:SOAP. Frankly, there are other verses of the bible that can prove that God's name is something else - "I am" comes to mind here, somewhere in the early part of Exodus. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as the contributor) Personally, I do believe this verse is notable, as it is very clear, even in the KJV where it is usually translated "LORD". Abbott75 ☺ 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I'm having here is etymology: Jehova(h) is a latter germanic mutation of YHVH, which itself is a mutation of something else - specifically, God's unpronounceable name. (Reference: The Joys Of Yinglish, Leo Rosten et al.) I do ask you forgive the above pull of WP:SOAP, but do understand I am not casting it at you, it is simply at they who would purport that getting God's name right is more important than God Himself. (Really, I don't think God cares all that much about what we call Him namewise - but that is just me.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to a separate article on Psalm 83, possibly with a separate heading for #Verse 18. Limiting this article to a single verse is a little excessive, regardless of the importance of the verse. Also, the broader scope of the article would allow for more content, and make it less likely to be deleted or merged later. John Carter 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename according to Jon Carter's suggestion. Many individual verses of the Bible are notable, considering the amount of commentary that has been written.This probably is, though no effort has been made to deal with the secondary sources.In the meanwhile, the article on the psalm will do. DGG (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To Abbott, Dotar Sojat, and DGG: The notability claimed for this verse is purely an artifact of translation, not "proof of God's name" in any sense. For reasons of their own the KJV translators chose to render YHVH "Jehovah" in that place; it's not a theologically significant rendering for historical Christianity. The LXX has "Kyrios" there; the Vulgate has "Dominus", and the Jews read it "Adonai" as they do everywhere they encounter haShem. If some groups think it is significant, it's their own peculiar POV and should be covered in the articles about them, not about the Psalm. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware of that. there's quite a lot of discussion of just that point. The present article ignores it, as does the single reference used. DGG (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First it is a bad article; the mere fact that it ignores all translations that contradict its premise indicates a soapbox. Second, it is highly POV; no commentary except that of JWs, which is okay if it were a subsection in a JW article. I am not aware of any other group that uses this scripture except JW's. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't ignored translations that contradict it, I simply don't know of any. If anybody knows of some I would be more than happy for them to be added to the article. Abbott75 ☺ 06:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt. This can only be a case of not looking for information you don't want to know, because this isn't difficult information to locate. First: Every translation in every language before the KJV uses the usual "LORD" or a cognate there, including the standard Greek, Vulgate, Slavonic, and Coptic translations, just to name those I'm able to check on my own. (I don't even guess at Georgian or Armenian.) For modern English translations, there's the NIV, NASB, ESV, CEV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and the updated Douay-Rheims of 1899.
    - If anyone feels that other quotes should be added, add them! This is a wiki after all. Abbott75 ☺ 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you are ignoring is that this is making a theological mountain out of a translator's molehill. It simply doesn't prove what the article currently claims it does. Perhaps there are some people who believe it does. That may be a good reason for mentioning it in the article about them, but that's not really a good reason for this article to exist. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not saying the verse proves anything, the article states it is used as proof. Whether or not it is in fact proof is not what is being debated. Abbott75 ☺ 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given this statement, it puts it more in perspective. Perhaps, then, an article about the name of God would be a more appropriate home for this? Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's already brought out at Jehovah. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed it is. My !vote stands then. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has come to my attention that many of the editors asking for this article to be deleted are adherents to religions who do not believe that Jehovah is the name of God. Do you want this article deleted because it does not belong in an encyclopedia, or do you want it deleted purely because it conflicts with your personal views on the subject? Abbott75 ☺ 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't personal or religious. Why don't you assume good faith and accept that the delete votes are here for the reasons stated? The question could easily be turned around you know, but I'm sure none of us want to go there. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm quite aware of how the same could be said of me. I was purely making a point of the fact that people saying "Delete" have faith against the topic of the article, whereas people saying "Keep" do have faith in the topic. Both sides of this debate have a vested interest. Abbott75 ☺ 11:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with the last statement above. I think a more accurate statement would be that one side has a vested interest to keep it for purely religious reasons. Based on the article's present lack of content, and total lack of references for the non-quote statements, however, there is I think a fairly good objective reason to have the content put in some other article or deleted outright. Those reasons would be addressed if more substantive content were added to the article, however. As the article is, though, I question whether this kind of article is really relevant to wikipedia at all, as it is almost entirely a collection of quotes, which could just as easily be placed in Wikisource. John Carter 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, unless it's that I am interested in the quality of this encyclopedia, which I do not think this article improves. Of course I believe it to be foolish as a matter of both faith and reason to make theology out of a translational peculiarity, but if a notable group does then Wikipedia ought to say so. The question is whether that peculiarity is, in and of itself, suitable for an article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough as a verse unto itself. Notable verses might include John 3:16, for instance. -- SECisek 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, unsourced, SOAP, and POV. Bearian 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The name Jehovah occurs some 6000 times in the Masoretic Text,[20] and it is completely arbitrary to single out this one occurrence as having specific significance. --Lambiam 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While commentary on scripture might be a good wikibook, and I think that the one source doesn't quite give the verse notability, I'd give the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps there could be a little bit more sourcing showing that this is a notable use of Jahova? Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After sleeping on it, I have come to the realisation that is does not bother me if this article is deleted. Although personally I feel it is notable, the consensus is that it is not. And after all, this is Wikipedia and consensus is important. From now on I shall try to focus on less controversial and subjective topics, such as the list of cattle breeds. Abbott75 ☺ 04:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abbott, do note that its notability lies in a portion of an ongoing debate that is, in my opinion, on par with the classic vi versus emacs ~~holy wars~~ debates that have been raging on since time(T)=minus infinity. =^_^= The subject is certainly notable, no question, and I'm not going to deny my bias against Jehovah being the proper name of God - but when put in a more objective POV, it's my opinion that, had it not already been mentioned there, a merge to Jehovah would be a more suitable option. At any rate, your understanding is appreciated. God bless. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have taken the initiative in retitling and adding some text to the article in question. I will also fix the incoming links to link specifically to the section which previously was the entire content of the article. I hope I didn't screw things up too bad. John Carter 16:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's certainly an improvement. But considering that articles on individual psalms have been limited to those with widespread liturgical use, or which are particularly memorable, well-loved, set to music, or stand out in some other way. I don't see that this one is like that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 29 July 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. Pascal.Tesson 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring the French Foreign Legion[edit]

Films feature everything and anything. There is nothing especially notable about these three groups appearing in a film, especially if the film is not concerning them. Bulldog123 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These sorts of lists are not appropriate to Wikipedia, though I am happy to see them elsewhere. —SlamDiego_←T 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please see the prior discussion for the USMC article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines. Note how the other two lists say at the top: "This is a list of films featuring the French Foreign Legion in which the French Foreign Legion is portrayed either through its plot or by a main character." I think that is clearly a statement that simple appearance is not sufficient to be added to the list. In addition, you need to actually add the AFD notice to each page. Failure to do is a bad idea. FrozenPurpleCube 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have added AfD notices to the two other lists. PrimeHunter 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize, listcruft. Realkyhick 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete French Foreign Legion and IRA lists unless brought somewhere near the standard of the USMC list before the end of this AFD. The USMC list was greatly improved in the course of the last AFD discussion so if the desire to keep the other two is strong enough then the work can be done. Otto4711 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all reasonable articles with appropriate lists, useful for information as well as navigation. The ones I know seem well characterised and the criterion is clear: either the plot of a film is mainly about one of these or it isn't.DGG (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG. The USMC is a good example that more lists should follow. Clear criteria. The other two should stay because content needing clean-up/development is not a valid reason to delete. They are relatively young (started in May). The idea of a 'clean-up or else' deadline is wrong.Canuckle 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps a link to Wikipedia:Lists Canuckle 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per DGG and Canuckle. Three articles written by different authors shouldn't be bunched together for deletion-- talk about a list of indiscriminate information! However, I've looked at all three articles. I agree with Canuckle that the USMC article should be the model for the others. And I agree with Bulldog to the extent that these should be limited to those films (like D.I.) that are about the subject, and exclude those where only a passing reference is made to a character's association with the Legion, the IRA or the Marines. Mandsford 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment Mainly to everyone who put "per DGG." I hate to use a "What about X?" point here, but given the exact reasoning for keep, it should be mentioned. So, as long as we can make a bullet-list (as these lists are) with a clear criterion that is navigable (what list isn't?), then Carlos' Films that feature draperies is a "reasonable article" per your definition of a reasonable article. Correct? In which case, what isn't a legitimate "list if films featuring" list? Is everything that can be sourced by (lets say) timecode from the movie legitimate? Bulldog123 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's obvious to me that drapery is something of minor importance, it's a piece of scenery. A movie about these given organizations is not. Frankly, I wonder why such an inaccurate comparison is being made. Do you not realize how obviously preposterous the suggestion that draperies are as important a thematic detail as the USMC, the FFL, or the IRA is? FrozenPurpleCube 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not preposterous at all if you want to consider movies where props are essential to the plot. Here, we actually don't even know if these institutions are essential to the plot. For that very reason the list was entitled featuring instead of about. Bulldog123 02:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A movie about" is not "featuring". I have reservations with "films about", but this goes much further. "Featuring" is a pretty all encompassing word one quick shot of people drilling in uniform and bang-o there you have it, instant featuring and categorization, at least the draperies and their transformation into clothing were part of the story in my examples, here anything that merely mentions, alludes to, the USMC, or the other nominees is includable and what, then, pray tell do those films have in common other than the triviality to which this category caters? Nada. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all films that "feature" something is hardly definitional; what's next Films that feature draperies so that Gone with the Wind and The Sound of Music can have yet another meaningless category added to them? Carlossuarez46 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not logically follow. There is a different between an organization and a piece of scenery. Trying to link the two as if they were at all similar in terms of importance is an inaccuracy. I'm baffled that you would even try such a preposterous argument. FrozenPurpleCube 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - While the USMC article does look better than the other 2, I think all of them should be replaced with a category. - Category:Films featuring USMC or something similar. Just adding the a short description and the release date doesn't warrant a list, in my opinion Corpx 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and categorize is an excellent idea, the list are loosely associated btut they would work as categories. Crazysuit 05:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have an intense dislike for anything that reeks of trivia in an encyclopedia; these three do. THe articles should go; a category may be worthwhile. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This is not trivia, and these lists are all useful.--Mantanmoreland 21:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with categories, much easier to use. --Joffeloff 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think there would have been less opposition if the nominator hadn't included the USMC list here, because it's better than the other two. Having said that, I don't think the topic is notable enough for a list, at best it could be part of a larger "films featuring the military" list, which is more of an actual genre. Saikokira 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SlamDiego. J-stan ^Talk 01:36, 31 July 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. Sr 13 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New World in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Rid wiki of all these humiliating lists. Bulldog123 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics and trivia dump. Otto4711 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current content of this article is unsourced and loosely-associated trivia. However, Brave New World (which has a good section on adaptations and related works) links to this In Pop Cult article with "The cultural influence of Brave New World has been extensive and most modern dystopic fiction owes at least something to the influence of the novel". If this claim can be sourced and tied to specific works, then an article about those works could be a keeper. Canuckle 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on its fellows. Golfcam 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Again, trivia-filled and barely sourced.--JForget 22:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for trivia in a encyclopedia.Marlith 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a short article, or section could be written about this topic. However, this article is a laundry list of trivia. --Haemo 01:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a vote to delete or keep is based on the idea of "save" or "get rid of" ALL pop culture lists, that's not much of a reason. Each list should be judged individually. Some are quite good. Some are, I agree, "humiliating" in that they take a great film or book and make cheap references to every time it was alluded to in (usually) a TV show. This one is in the latter category, tossing in almost every time someone said B.N.W. in the course of a film or TV show. Eliminate those from the list, and it's a pretty short list. Mandsford 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection/WP:5 - List of every time ________ is mentioned on TV/songs/movies Corpx 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated trivia collection. Crazysuit 05:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indeed an influential book, and there might well be scope for an article about its influence. However, one can't merely compile a list of unrelated factoids and claim them as evidence of its influence - that would be original research, specifically a synthesis. An article which began with something like "Brave New World is a very influential novel (reference)" and then launched into a laundry list of trivia would be scarcely better. Rather, it would be necessary to find sources which discuss the book's influence, and then provide meaningful discussion of the topic, perhaps with reference to some of the works cited by the examples. In short this isn't even the beginning of a good article - it would have to be rewritten from scratch, and possibly renamed, to be of any encyclopaedic value. Iain99 08:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything worth merging to Brave New World, it should be. Titanium Dragon 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of these are specifically about the theme, and in most cases there will be reviews to show it. But unreferenced or inadequately referenced is not a reason for deletion. I understand loosely associated somewhat differently from the way it is being used in these discussions-- to be a list of songs recording in April are loosely associated, or a list of books &c that all have the word Love in their title. Things all primarily about a subject is a close association--that's more or less what is meant by association--things can be closely associated for having the same author or participant or producer--or subject. Same for "trivia" being about a common subject is not trivial. DGG (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things on this list are not primarily about Brave New World. Many of them don't even mention BNW; they are instead things that incorporate some element that might also have appeared in some form in BNW, or use a word that BNW also uses, or has a name that has "Brave New" in it. Otto4711 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The astute reader will note that half of these very well might refer to the same place that Huxley got the name, i.e. Shakespeare's The Tempest. Of course, you'd never know because they're all uncited. --Eyrian 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 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 A7 by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 07:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Americans United[edit]

No evidence of notability. Article declares “Because the group is relatively new, the full scope of its intended activities is not known.” (Would be a good candidate for speedy deletion, but I expect that to be contested.) —SlamDiego_←T 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all references are to the group's own website or to other very opinionated sites (and one to Stormfront), no indications of notability in the article. However, if it's the continuation of National Vanguard, which *does* appear notable, then this might be too. Don't think so, at this time - the new group says it's not associated. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references that assert notability. The references are either their own site, or a news site that appears to be written by a member, or a forum, which isn't supposed to be a ref. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clear-cut A7 candidate Rackabello 23:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems obvious that goal of article to get you to their website. Pharmboy 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to have been speedily deleted. —SlamDiego_←T 09:34, 25 July 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. Sr 13 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Sign in popular culture[edit]

List of times an (albeit famous) sign has been seen in various media. A simple trivia collection, not permitted per WP:FIVE. --Eyrian 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a list of trivia, unsourced and unmaintainable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - just trivia at the moment, but can it not be ammended or merged? Someone's worked hard to compile this list :-( Lra drama 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All together now, people: "Culturecruft." Realkyhick 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia collection - WP:5 Corpx 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alter and Merge with Hollywood sign -Inventm 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Hollywood Sign seems appropriate. Canuckle 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator may also want to take a look atthe very similar article, World Trade Center in popular culture Calgary 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I take it that you don't want to be remembered as the guy who took down the World Trade Center in popular culture. Odd that you want the nominator to take on that task. I think that one would get a lot of opposition. Mandsford 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes it is a famous sign but yes this list is not famous at all especially since it is listcruft, trivia filled and unsourced. We cannot throw a long list of appearences by this sign and this is completely failing the WP not a trivia collection criteria.--JForget 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a laundry list of unsourced trivia loosely connected to this sign. It's iconic; we get it. We don't need a list of every episode of S Club 7 where it shows up. --Haemo 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Actually, the Hollywood sign (the one that consists of big letters on the side of a mountain) is seen often enough in film and televison that it is a large prop ranking up there with the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc. Thus, in 10.5 and the 1974 film Earthquake, the sign is shaken up; in Battlestar Galactica, cylons shoot at it; in films featuring the sign, it figures into the plot somehow. Mandsford 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be reading a different list than I am because I'm seeing few if any examples from the article in which the sign figures in the plot. I see a lot of examples of the sign's being used as an establishing shot which, unless there isn't a single additional frame of film in the movie that indicates that the movie is set in Hollywood, has nothing to do with the plot. Add to that the items that aren't actually about the sign but are about other signs that look like the sign and we have another big pile of loosely associated junk. Delete. Otto4711 04:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, why does this exist? Yes, it's shown a lot in films and television, but that is something you can mention in one sentence on the Hollywood Sign page. CaveatLector^Talk 02:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I created this page to unclutter the main hollywood sign page, which at the time had a trivia/popular culture list spanning half the entry. I'm ok with delete as long as the stuff on the page is not added back to the main article. -Indolences 03:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list of things with no connection apart from the {trivial} appearance of the sign. Crazysuit 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dannii Minogue. Non-admin close. JulesH 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannii Minogue filmography[edit]

Completly pointless article for a singer who's been in a grand total of two films. One of them was a 15 minute short, and the other doesn't even have an article. Lugnuts 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. --Eyrian 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One and a half films? Oh, please! Realkyhick 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. This could be justified if the person had a lot of films to his/her credit Corpx 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above three comments, and slap Dannii for being crap. Guroadrunner 22:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all of the above, like why a separate article for just two films?.--JForget 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that it contains her acting career which has featured a number of roles on Australian television over the years. If not kept, it should be merged with Dannii Minogue. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalroadster. Yeah the film creds are non-existent but the TV and stage make for a significant enough article that it would bloat the main article.Ga rr ie 05:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No reason to delete (verifiable information), but no reason to have an article either. Zivko85 05:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus has formed that when filmographies become too long, they are hived off into seperate pages. I don't see why this case is any different. Recurring dreams 10:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this too long? Corpx 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring dreams seems to think so. So do I, and I think Capital Roadster.Ga rr ie 21:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dannii Minogue. Yes it's too short article, but the info is good and encyclopedic and should not be deleted. Why set up an AFD for this? RaNdOm26 11:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dannii Minogue. I have just merged the contents of this page into the Dannii Minogue page into a single table. I agree that her filmography does not need a seperate page. User:Peter2012 1:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge it. If she had an extensive film/TV credit list, then I could understand a separate article, but I don't think a merger would make the Dannii Minogue article unreasonably long. Lankiveil 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and knock down the wall. —Moondyne 10:07, 30 July 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 a quantum superposition of keep & delete, which, on measurement, collapsed to keep. Non-admin close. JulesH 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's cat in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Jokes and trivial references. Nothing substantial worthy of an article. --Eyrian 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at least the first "introduction" paragraph into the article in chief Schrödinger's cat. This part at least is properly discursive and self-referenced. Move the remaining list of entries to a subpage of the talk page, for further discussion and reference by the editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of the editors on that talk page moved it off that page. If you want further discussion there the article will just be recreated. Stop ignoring consensus of the people who understand the topic. DreamGuy 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, culturecruft, and kinda sicko at that. Realkyhick 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - Trivia collection = WP:5 Corpx 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Absolutely no in-policy justification for deletion. All the people on a crusade to kill off any and all "in popular culture" articles with the idea that it should be integrated into the main article are causing a huge clusterfuck, where the people on the main articles say it doesn't belong there and move it out, and other people delete and move it back. In popular culture articles were created for a real, encyclopedic, full consensus and standard practice reason. Getting enough dive-by voters to say it should be deleted doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it back onto the main article. The fact of the matter is that articles are only supposed to be deleted if they CANNOT be cleaned up. An article on this topic can be encyclopedic without being merely a list of trivia. Instead of going around deleting things, EDIT for a change. You know, do some actual work to improve the encyclopedia instead of making some kneejerk, misinformed reaction that causes more problems and will eventually just lead to the article being recreated anyway. DreamGuy 21:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline means "You should do this" not "Ignore me!" Will ^(talk) 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and what "guideline" do you think applies in this situation? No guideline is ignored, and it's the people calling for a delete that are ignoring deletion policy. DreamGuy 21:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... WP:TRIVIA? Will ^(talk) 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the thing, what it says, not what you mistakenly think or wish it says. DreamGuy 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum delete some of them are tenuous (like the Doctor Who point, if its there), and it's against WP:TRIVIA anyway. Will ^(talk) 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA says to get rid of lists and to source references, which can be done through rewriting. WP:TRIVIA does not give any sort of support to delete whole articles. DreamGuy 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit, not letter. Hell, TRIVIA is merely a conjuction of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Will ^(talk) 21:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can't be. An article cannot be constructed wholly from primary sources. This article offers little secondary analysis, which is what is required. Further, by being a massive distraction in trivial directions, the article serves only to make efforts to produce a good "culture" section more difficult. --Eyrian 21:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DreamGuy. Clean-up and sourcing required but science fiction use would appear to be a given and readily apparent - for instance Schrödinger's Cat trilogy. Canuckle 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in a box and let it exist in a interminate state of whether it is deleted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if the last two thirds are jettisoned - an actual sourced discussion of the cat and how the cat and/or the concept have been used in fiction is encyclopedic. A willy-nilly "ooh, Doctor Who said it, let me run to my computer and be the first to bung it in the article" list of trivial garbage is not. Keeping the article and the main article clear of this crap will require a commitment on editors' behalf so if you want this strongly kept then you should be prepared to take on some responsibility for patrolling the articles and keeping it out. If editors aren't willing to make that commitment then I say delete. Otto4711 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on its fellows. Golfcam 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this one is tougher to decide since it has much more context to the subject to the contrary of many other. I say keep the lead and intro and remove/delete all the trivia crap below. Another option, can be to merge what it is not trivia crap to the parent article. Although considering the intro is unsourced the last option may be the best--JForget 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question of whether this should be a separate article should be settled first by those working on the material. I do not want to delete without their prior consensus, because this is at heart an editing question. DGG (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As written it has some fixable issues, trivia, etc. (ok, needs lots of work) but it is noteworthy enough to justify an article. Pharmboy 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some work, but perhaps of all X in "X in popular culture", this X is actually notable and worth having an article on it. I also have a concern that editors who decide to hive off this material to a separate article are being opposed by blanket notions of deleting all "X in popular culture" articles. This kind of catch 22 difference of opinion is getting too common. I agree with DGG. --Bduke 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Bduke 01:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first section, but delete the entire "Other assorted examples" since it's a laundry list of trivia. The first bit is what an "IPC" article should be (were it sourced). The rest is the exact opposite. --Haemo 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Schrödinger's cat in literature, source and get rid of all the non-notable ridiculousness crowding it. CaveatLector^Talk 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the first section: it looks good, but it's all OR. I mean, I agree with the analysis there, but if we're opening the gates, I've got some articles I'd like to spruce up with some theories of my own. --Eyrian 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move the first 1/3 to Schrödinger's cat and delete this article. Only the first 1/3 has redeeming value, merge it to the main article; there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main Schrödinger's cat article. There doesn't seem to be very much notable stuff in the article. I concede that some mention of the cat in popular culture needs to be made, but there just doesn't seem to be enough content for it's own article. --clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm [cough] in two minds over this one, as I usually feel that 'xyz in popular culture articles' should be merged back into their source. However, given the length and technical nature of Schrödinger's cat, as well as the abundant use of the idea in science fiction, a separate article seems plausible. The introduction forms an interesting survey, which should definitely not be deleted wherever it ends up, although references would be useful. The remainder is a collection of trivial non-encyclopedic information which should probably be deleted or at least heavily pruned, referenced and assimilated into the introductory prose. I'd agree with the idea of renaming as Schrödinger's cat in literature, Schrödinger's cat in science fiction or similar, which might help to reduce the accumulation of trivia. Espresso Addict 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
${\frac {1}{\sqrt {2))}|KEEP\rangle +{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2))}|DELETE\rangle$ ${\frac {1}{\sqrt {2))}|KEEP\rangle +{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2))}|DELETE\rangle$ --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ? 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the bad joke, couldn't resist! ;-) I agree with others here that we should reduce the wall of lists to a set of items of significant cultural impact, prosify the result, and then merge it back into the parent article as a section; the result should only be a couple of paragraphs long, I would think. As far as I can tell, the (entirely legitimate) stance of the editors that moved out this XIPC article in the first place was that it was too long and overwhelming. Therefore, this approach should be satisfactory. As an example of my "prosification" suggestion, rather than having a list of people (real or otherwise) with cats named "Schrödinger", have a sentence in one of the paragraphs running something like ""Schrödinger" remains a popular name for housecats, both those belonging to real people and in fiction^[1][2]." I don't think anyone questions that the Cat is a well-known cultural icon, even outside academia, but screenfuls of lists of passing references isn't the way to go about writing that up (and moving the list into a list of footnotes^{[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121]} isn't the right way either!). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the more intelligent of IPC articles, probably wouldn't be understood by someone who thinks this is about "cats in popular culture" Mandsford 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful article about popular culture with useful information. It may need a clean up, but that's all.--Tifaret 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tifaret, Mandsford, Everyking, Espresso Addict et al., but seriously trim it down to about half the cat (Hee hee). It is not all listcruft, and can be saved. Bearian 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per DreamGuy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CSK before the next time you feel like commenting in an AFD. Otto4711 04:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last half of your clarification was unneccesary. Canuckle 06:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete. There are no sources for the subject of "Schrödinger's cat in popular culture". I agree that the page isn't pure OR cruft, but still we have to draw the line somewhere, and I just happen to endorse a threshold of published secondary sources. —AldeBaer 10:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I actually found this page very interesting and useful. Aside from ILIKE it, it is a great split from the regular article to cover important social aspects of an important theory. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on another AfD: copying and pasting the same argument 26 times in 12 minutes Special:Contributions/Burntsauce (between 10:43 and 10:55) could lead to questions about whether your points are based on careful consideration. This AfD was just one of 8 you commented on within 60 seconds. Admirable speed-reading skills. Canuckle 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good call. And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill!And that's nothing compared to the speed-writing skill! Man, my fingers are tired. Mandsford 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead... Sorry, had to say it. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead... Sorry, had to say it. HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead... Sorry, had to say it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 PRINT KEEP

20 GOTO 10

REM Pharmboy 02:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is total junk and trivia, has no place here. Biggspowd 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse the probability wave to Alive. The problem with "... in pop culture" articles is not that they are not encyclopedic topics, but that they mostly are dismally written, being just incoherent (pardon the pun) collections of pop culture works where [...] is mentioned. This one is much better and could easily satisfy minimum quality standard with --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ? 's suggestions.--Victor falk 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep: these sections help foster interest in the sciences. Also: those in favor of deletion are not actual Wiki contributors but Wiki deletors V8rik 23:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedia trivia. IPSOS (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is not just a trivia list but actually explores the subject of the title within the article. Number36 06:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user Biggspowd. Uranometria 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I certainly would like to see it cleaned up. Edit out the trivia laundry list, keep the worthwhile parts. This is an idea that has actually had a big affect on popular culture, not simply (as with many "Physics Concept in popular cultures") a list of places where a term has been used as jargon. -- SCZenz 14:28, 30 July 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. Arguments to the contrary are mainly in the vein of WP:USEFUL, and fail to address the policy-based arguments for deletion. Sandstein 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic leaders and politicians[edit]

The page is a collection of internal links in violation of WP:NOT#LINK and is a list persons only loosely associated in violation of WP:NOT#DIR. There is also no assertion of notability of the subject. The list seems like it can be automatically accomplished by the use of an appropriate category. JJLatWiki 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violation of WP:NOT#LINK and, I agree, this should be done via category, because it's kind of an intersection between two unrelated topics. Useight 17:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivial intersection Corpx 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is organized and includes a particular aspect of people that is reasonable important, namely their religious beliefs. In terms of whether or not it should be a category, I could go either way. FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Reasonably important" to whom? Unlike this list, which lists Antonio Villaraegosa even though his bio page does not call him a Catholic (where it is arguably more important to be), categories are self-maintaining. If Antonio is a Roman Catholic, he should have category of "Roman Catholic politicians" like so many others (and many more than are currently in the list we're discussing here). --JJLatWiki 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say that people's religion is reasonably important to well, almost everybody. If you want an example, the paper encyclopedia I have at home lists the religion of all the presidents. I have even have that information in an Almanac. Therefore, I see no reason to not cover this information in some way. BTW, the content of the Antonio Villaraigosa page isn't meaningful, if it doesn't mention him being Catholic, or his relationship with the Church, I'd say that's a gross oversight on that article's part. FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting one's religion in their bio is one thing, but maintaining a list based exclusively on this one fact is entirely different. Such a list and especially being placed on that list implies that the person's religion is one of the most important factors regarding that person. I would be willing to bet that if you asked, most people would say that a politician's religion is less important than their stand on abortion, taxes, the war in Iraq, gun control, the war on terror, the war on drug, illegal immigration, global warming, etc, etc. Such lists would be a policy violation because those are loose associations. The religion of 2 different politicians is no more of a connection than being born west of the Mississippi, south of the Mason-Dixon, or if they prefer Ford trucks over Chevy. It might be more important to them and to you, but it doesn't connect them more. By the way, does your paper encyclopedia or almanac have a section listing all the people in the rest of the book(s) whose religion is Catholic? --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A person's religion is widely considered one of the most important factors regarding a person. You can consider it unimportant to you, but that's only your opinion, and not supported by any kind of substantial research. OTOH, I can easily find things like [21]. As for the almanac, it has less space available to it than Wikipedia, it doesn't list the Presidents of Mexico or the Emperors and Shoguns of Japan. I'd also say being born west of the Mississippi isn't an appropriate list, but I would say being born in say, California versus being born in New York might be. FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether a person's religion is important or even if it's important enough for a list. The question is whether such a list violates 1 or more of the following policies: WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOR, or any others. Is religion a significantly distinctive association to be more than "loose"? With the vast number of Catholics in the United States, I submit that religion, and especially one of the predominant ones, is a loose association. If the title was List of Jewish politicians in Saudi Arabia I can imagine such people would be a pretty tight-knit group. But never an indescrimate List of Jewish politicians. --JJLatWiki 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you'd bring up NOR I don't know, there's no reason to assume that cited references to a politician's religion can't be found, when in fact, that information is widely available. Nor is there intrinsically a conclusion to be drawn from it. Now if there were "Catholics Politicians under the thumb of the Pope" that might be something, but this isn't, so that's not a problem. The other arguments are also unconvincing to me, though I at least see some reason for making them. None of the examples apply, and there's absolutely a connection within an individual religion like Catholicism. Now if it were simply "Christian" I would concur that's overbroad, though I might say the best way to do that would be to use that as a super-list to organized down by religion. FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"there's absolutely a connection within an individual religion like Catholicism". Do you think there is a single person in the world who can name, pick out from a line-up, or have even seen 1% of the 70-or-so-million Catholics in the United States? Aside from the "spiritual" connection which is a POV, can you describe the connection? --JJLatWiki 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tenets of the Catholic faith are to be found in that article. If that's not clear enough for you, I suggest you try calling your local Catholic church. They're likely in the phonebooks. And I can't name, pick out from a line-up nor have I seen 1% of the members of Congress. Well, maybe I'd be able to name more than 1%, but not that much more. That's less than a thousand people. Heck, I couldn't identify most people on many lists on Wikipedia, from various monarchs to whatever else you could name. Such inability means nothing. (Though why you're jumping from Catholic leaders and politicians to Catholic Americans I don't know). FrozenPurpleCube 06:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet you there are many people who can name and identify many, if not all, the US Senators. What's significant about a list of US Senators is that they are all on a list that is notable before being on Wikipedia. That list has been published and written about outside Wikipedia countless times in American history. The list of Catholic politicians contains people who were baptised Catholic, went to Catholic church as a child or a couple times for a photo op during a campaign, converted to Catholicism, or have some other unspecified official or unofficial affiliation with some Catholic church. That is a loose association if there ever was one. A more meaningful association might be, US elected officials who once studied to become a Catholic priest. Now, the reason I jumped from Catholic leaders and politicians to Catholic Americans is because you said absolutely there is a connection with an individual religion like Catholicism. If there is such a strong connection, surely someone could pick out at least 1% of the members from a list of names or in a lineup. --JJLatWiki 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is much better organized than a category could be, and political controversies over the Catholicism of leaders, from James I to JFK, should make its saliency pretty plain. Kestenbaum 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then shouldn't the list title be, "Political leaders with controversies over their Catholicism"? Wouldn't such a title disqualify the vast majority of the entries? Then you would have to be sure that the controversies were over their Catholicism, and not their broader Christian beliefs. In its current form, it's far too inclusive to be meaningful. For example; Jerry Brown, Chicago Mayors Daley, Paul Bremer, and Antonio Villaraigosa. What is their connection other than they all purely by coincidence happen to be Catholic. Are you saying it should be kept because you like it, it's useful, or it's interesting? Because you didn't deny that it violates policy. --JJLatWiki 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deny it violates policy. Look at WP:NOT#LINK 2 which says "and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This list is structured, thus it doesn't violate policy. Religious affiliation is not a loose connection either. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "to assist with the organisation of articles" means what you think it means, otherwise there's essentially no restriction. I could make a List of politicians whose spouse has or had cancer and claim that it's for organizational purposes. People in a similar situation would probably have a more meaningful connection. But it would still be a violation. --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Cancer is a vague term that isn't usually considered an identifying characteristic. Religion is. FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think cancer is a vague term - See Category:Cancer survivors. I'd argue that religion is vague-er than cancer, because its a choice one makes Corpx 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This kind of organization should be done by category, and not as an article. It is a violation of WP:NOT#LINK, and in my opinion tends to push Wikipedia in the direction "clutter" and disorganization. Not to mention the fact that there are over a 1,114,966,000 living Catholics as of 2005, and as a result, a HUGE number of Catholic politicians. Padishah5000 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about as WP:NOT#DIR violating as it gets. The people themselves are probably notable, but the list itself is not. It could be made into a category. i ^{(said) (did)} 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of lists on Wikipedia. Lists like Nixon's Enemies List or FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives which exist to cover lists notable outside Wikipedia, and organizational lists like this one, or List of United States Senate committees which list otherwise reasonable information for organizational purposes. I could understand an argument that the scope is too broad, but then might not something like List of United States Presidential religious affiliations be the way to handle it? FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is made an issue in presidential elections, so I can mildly see where that come from. However, that's not the case when you make such a broad list like this to include every "leader" + politician Corpx 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's concern about Catholic politicans besides the US Presidency. [22]. I can understand a concern over the scope of this list, but the subject itself, namely the religious affiliation of individuals? Quite valid for purposes of organization. FrozenPurpleCube 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be split up into narrower lists if the specific group they warrants coverage. Corpx 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "concern"? Is it all politicians, or just Catholic politicians who support abortion or some other thing that some Catholic church doesn't like? If you have a List of Catholic politicians banned from taking sacrament by the American Catholic Church, that's a different story and one that could be backed up with a list published outside WP first. --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how any list can be more organized than a category can be, given that lists often turn into piles of POV or unsourced material. Honestly, what purpose does this or can this serve that a category cannot? CaveatLector^Talk 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I question the viability of a category as a trivial intersection of religion & profession, there is no justification for having a incomplete list. Carlossuarez46 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is useless trivia. Next we will need to catogorize on if they go to church? Do they partake of the Holy Sacrament? Do they go to confession? Do they support the pontiff; it will all lead to clutter. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identification with a specific religious affiliation is a long distance from whether or not they engage in a particular practice of a religion. The one is common in many biographical templates, the other is something I've never really seen. FrozenPurpleCube 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation is also common on many bio templates, is there a List of leaders and politicians who happen to be Bankers? --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a potentially good idea to me, though I'd suggest sorting the list by connection such as "List of occupations of current US senators" . FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which might be an interesting idea for a table. But as a list, it is probably still a violation. As a table, you could show their name, birthdate, birthplace, state represented, year of election, occupation, religion, marital status, number of children, previous elected offices, etc, etc. Also note that the list we're discussing isn't titled "List of religious affiliations of current US senators". The members of that class have a much closer association. --JJLatWiki 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List, table, same difference to me. If you want to work on it, go ahead. I think it'd be quite useful to have the information represented in that form. FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is of interest in nations where Catholicism is a minority religion. Regarding Storm's argument about whether they are "devout Catholics", might be a better focus for majority Catholic states in Latin America and Europe. We don't "need" to categorize things further than that. Looks like it won't be necessary to mention Vatican City in this one. Mandsford 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of being interesting. Many lists would be interesting. It's also not a matter defining the restrictions until it becomes interesting or manageable. It's still a collection of links based on a loose affiliation. In actuality, it generally violates the WP:NOR policy also. If the list has 500 names on it, you would also need up to 500 references to backup the list to satisify WP:V. --JJLatWiki 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment There is a difference between "of interest" and "interesting". I believe that your comment is "of interest" even if I do not believe that it is "interesting". Mandsford 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be admitted that it might be of value to have such an article about particular countries. Please look at the list, which is so arranged. DGG (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of cell phone numbers of Catholic leaders and politicians arranged by country would be useful too. --JJLatWiki 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unmaintainable. There are big thousands of catholic "leaders and politicians". Wikipedia is not purpose to search people for combination of their features. Otherwise it would have had a database engine. The argument that "it may be useful" is pointless. Someone may find useful to have a list of catholics born on Christmas day. Mukadderat 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this is a useful list for those who need to research notable Catholics. Numerous students who attend Catholic universities, high schools, and primary schools find themselves needing such lists when choosing project topics. --Chicaneo 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL shouldnt be the only reason to keep Corpx 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many lists would be "useful" even to someone in a Catholic school trying to choose a project topic. Does "useful" include a painfully incomplete and unreferenced list of notable people whose only Catholic affiliation may be that they once entered a Catholic church? Don't you think a Catholic University should be tasked with maintaining such a list, not the editors of an encyclopedia. --JJLatWiki 14:41, 30 July 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 Image scanner. Sr 13 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo scanning[edit]

Spammy page on photo scanning, reads like a copyvio. Smacks of WP:NOT#HOWTO as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image scanner This article was created on July 24 by copying and pasting from the older article Image scanner and adding links to photo scanning services. Without those links to commercial scanning services, it seems to be 100 % copy and paste from the other article. Photo scanning can be a section in the more general Image scanner article until the extent of referenced and non-spamlink content is so great that its length requires a splitoff to a separate article. The present article, now that the links to commercial services are deleted is entirely a cut and paste. This article was for a time blanked by "archiving" its content, but I restored it for the AFD. I don't think a copyvio from another Wikipedia article requires blanking during AFD. There is a need for such an article, or such a section in Image scanner, but this isn't it. It just seems like a well intentioned effort to provide useful links for people with a shoebox full of old photos who need them scanned. Edison 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Edison said it as well as anyone could. Realkyhick 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Edison. Nice rationale! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:11, 24 July 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. —Kurykh 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walking like an Egyptian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources that pre-date the Bangles song that identify this posturing as "walking like an Egyptian." The article is largely a collection of instances of people or fictional characters striking the poses making the movements which, decades later following the Bangles song, became known as "walking like an Egyptian." Sources indicate that this was initially known as the "Egyptian sand dance." There are sources using the name "Egyptian sand dance" which I have not reviewed extensively to see if they are reliable. If so then an article can be written about it or the existing article on Wilson, Keppel and Betty (the performers of the sand dance) can be expanded. But as this article stands it does not pass WP:V. Additionally, the "so and so struck a pose" content amounts to an "in popular culture" section which, in addition to being unreferenced, is trivia. Otto4711 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can anyone possibly tell me how this subject is encyclopedic? Anyone? Bueller? Realkyhick 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NEO as lacking "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". Corpx 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as this is more than just a fad or a joke but putting all these things together without secondary sources telling us that they go together falls under synthesis. What this amounts to is something like Egyptian art in popular culture or even Egyptian relief portraiture in popular culture, as presented now. (The "sand dance" is of course quite real and even had a life outside of the Wilson/Keppels.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Educational at least -Inventm 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recast as an article about Egyptian art in popular culture. If not this remedy, then I don't think it is keepable. ike9898 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walk like an Egyptian for Search purposes. It's a WP:NEO as per Corpx. Canuckle 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, WP:NOT Rackabello 00:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Walk like an Egyptian. Iotha 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not sure anything is worth merging into WLaE, but if so go for it. This is trivia at best. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into WLaE, as per Iotha and Storm. As with the Bangles' song, this is silly stuff that doesn't merit a separate article. I think this is the equivalent of a minstrel show when it comes to citizens of Egypt. Mandsford 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problem with merging to the song article is that the only part of the article that post-dates the song's existence is The gag is used in the opening sequence of the Discovery Kids animated series Tutenstein, and in Burger King's on-line viral marketing campaign The Subservient Chicken. Fashion designer John Galliano appropriated the cliché for the premiere of his Spring-Summer 2004 Haute Couture collection, which involved models in corsets and Egyptian-inspired masks walking like Egyptians down the runway.

A modern style of dance, known as "tutting", involves the dancer adopting similar postures in a rapid-fire rhythm accompanying electronic dance music, similar to popping.

and in the absence of reliable sources that any of those instances of the posing were inspired by the song the information doesn't belong there. Otto4711 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it has improved that much from when I put it up for Afd. Borisblue 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of it's relationship to the song, it is a part of (at the least) English-speaking culture. The first time it was nominated for deletion, lots of good reasons for keeping it were listed; they are all still valid. --Vrmlguy 04:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no reliable sources attesting to its notability Corpx 05:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)
Delete. If anything's worth merging, merge it with Walk like an Egyptian. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 18:51, 31 July 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 History of Wikipedia with the possibility of merging left open. JoshuaZ 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Story[edit]

It is a 30-minute one-time show on BBC, nothing notable or worthwhile to be included in the main namespace. We don't and should not have articles about every not-so-special show/coverage on any of the TV stations. Renata 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge I do not think that this would have been made if this article wasn't about Wikipedia although it does contain valuable well sourced information so merge into History of Wikipedia.
Keep Well-sourced article on notable subject, presented by notable presenter, broadcast on major national radio network, interviewing several notable guests, and (as evidenced by sited reference listed on the "pick of the day/week" in several national newspapers' media review sections. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do you mean "cited"? -- Zanimum 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; I agree with the nominator. We don't have articles about all the other one time BBC programs. This is only an article because it's about Wikipedia. SU Linguist 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I still agree with my original comments, but merging with History of Wikipedia would be better. SU Linguist 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - well written and referenced, but lacks noteability - I doubt this would've been included on this website if it wasn't about Wikipedia. Merge it into History of Wikipedia. Lra drama 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at least 99% of those are either series or episodes of series, not one offs. -- Zanimum 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I should've been paying more attention. Sorry about that, I've changed my opinion. Lra drama 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to change my mind again. It would be OK merged in with another article such as History of Wikipedia. I just think it's written well, and only lacks noteability on its own. Lra drama 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If the 'community' insists on deleting TV episodes watched by millions, then this should not have a standalone article. However, is there an appropriate article to which it could be merged? The content is relevant to the History of Wikipedia. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why is this anything special, compared to any other program that the BBC has aired. -- Zanimum 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources". Did any non-BBC sources talk about this? Corpx 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Google News has picked up, and so far as I can tell, not elsewhere. The only thing I can find is "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story", a film documentary in production. -- Zanimum 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Would be better if merged to the History of Wikipedia. Nbala13 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clive Anderson — it is too insignificant to survive for long in the History of Wikipedia page. Ironically, the radio show itself predicts this outcome in its final minute.--75.37.12.168 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive doesn't regularly do one-off programs? -- Zanimum 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not assert notability. And there's not much information in here to merge, unless you just wanted to add the fact that a show was done. I ^{(said) (did)} 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Wikipedia and redirect. This may not pick up enough coverage outside of BBC and here to really be a standalone article, but it sounds like a pretty solid program that should be mentioned somewhere. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Tony Fox, our rationales are virtually identical. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per just about everybody. Delete as very weak second choice. This is not a vote to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an experiment in irony. -Multivitamin 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't ironic. We delete article about Wikipedia all the time. Like clockwork. -- Zanimum 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable or significant enough for it's own article, but the information coulduse a merge to History of Wikipedia]] Calgary 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Maybe Wikinewsfy?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia Story is already referred to in this week's issue of Signpost here.--75.37.12.168 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That, and this isn't newsworthy enough for Wikinews. There was nothing controversial about it, and we apply the same level of notability to our news stories -- would we have covered it, if it weren't about Wikipedia? Wikinews is not a dumping ground. -- Zanimum 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clive Anderson. Tim Vickers 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete No notability of its own whatsoever. Wikipedia does not create notability. Circeus 03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - Wikipedia pops up in the media all the time, and a 1 time BBC show is not notable. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with content already mentioned in the "Television" section of the Clive Anderson article. →Lwalt^♦ talk 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Well sourced article. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - several people commenting on this, including the nominator, have said or implied that this is a TV programme, when it is in fact a radio program. Since this demonstrates that they have not read the article carefully enough, does this mean that their comments should be interpreted with caution? Carcharoth 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regardless of whether it needs to be mentioned in an article, this has already been mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio. Carcharoth 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect In of itself, a radio show episode on a website isn't notable. We wouldn't create an article just because some radio station ran a 30 minute radio show on Microsoft for example, even if they interviewed Bill Gates for it (at least not unless there was a good basis for notability). It might have valuable information for History of Wikipedia though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for Clive Anderson#_ref-0 or History of Wikipedia. Perfect for Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio#2007 (already there), maybe notable enough for Criticism of Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-25t10:29z
Delete, not notable enough. SYSS Mouse 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable BBC program about us. One 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as has been said many times before, what makes "us" of more note than anyone else? It's an encyclopedia named "Wikipedia", not an encyclopedia about Wikipedia. -- Zanimum 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as has also been said many times before, it's relevant because we are Wikipedia. It's of more note on Wikipedia because we are on Wikipedia, not Brittanica or something like that. One 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arent we supposed to be neutral? Corpx 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're supposed to be neutral, then I realize that this is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but let's delete Wikipedia and every article pertaining to it while we're at it, then. One 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia clearly passes the notability guideline. There are plenty of independent sources that give significant coverage to Wikipedia. Corpx 01:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[23] isn't an independent source? One 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like the producer's site. Corpx 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, no brainer given many progs get articles, SqueakBox 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the programs have reliable sources that give them significant coverage Corpx 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly acceptable, notable, researched and sourced article.--Smerus 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there significant coverage from independent sources to establish notability? Corpx 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this article wouldn't be here if it were about a different website. A one or two sentence note in History of Wikipedia would suffice. Zvika 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge without redirect~~ one half hour program maybe deserves mention in the History of Wikipedia article, but nothing more. per WP:ASR. I am sure we don't document every half hour program Mr. Anderson does, so why should we do this one? --rogerd 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wholly unnotable one off radio program, stop this pathetic navel gazing. How is this event more significant or notable than the hulks of shit we delete under "Do no harm" BLP? - hahnchen 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No BLP problems here, SqueakBox 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the point. That it's entirely non notable is. - hahnch e n 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge EAi 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable program that adds nothing to the History of Wikipedia Gavinclarke 10:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, the details of it should be kept, possibly mentioned on the pages of those who took part. Darrenhusted 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - and maybe move into the Wikipedia namespace. Not really sure it could be a redirect, but as a Wikipedia namespace article that may satisfy some people. --SunStar Net ^talk 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A no-brainer: a one-off BBC Radio 4 documentary, like dozens that are broadcast every year, with nothing at all making this stand out other than obvious interest it's generating here. I'm not seeing the slightest sign that it's been noted or had an impact OUTSIDE of Wikipedia -- and no, program listings don't count. "Oh! Oh! They're talking about US!" isn't the slightest justification for an article that's absent any other reason for existence. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inescapably non-notable - a bit of gratuitous navel-gazing. Slac speak up! 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important to people who would be using wikipedia Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a single documentary and has few, if any, secondary sources unrelated to the creator/broadcaster. --- RockMFR 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — important for Wikipedia. Slade (The Joker) 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not supposed to be "about" Wikipedia. It is supposed to be about general knowledge, which this project is a very small part of. See WP:ASR --rogerd 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I listen to loads of these potted histories on Radio 4 every year, I'm guessing this one has an article because it's incased within its subject. Gareth E Kegg 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the History of Wikipedia. --Chris ^g 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 30 minute non-notable radio one-off. The only reason it's on here is because it was about Wikipedia. If it was about Google, the article wouldn't have even been created. At the most, this needs to be merge into the History of Wikipedia. Great # 8 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Wikipedia, I guess. A non-notable one-time program. Maxa megalon 2000 20:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, if it was about a computer, it wouldn't be here. WP:ASR -Flubeca^Talk 02:25, 29 July 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. Peacent 02:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 861[edit]

Article is about an trivial piece of unpassed legislation which as since expired. Furthremore, the name of the article ought to have been H.Res. 861. —Markles 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No notability asserted at all, very little context. House resolutions are not automatically notable. Realkyhick 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see the speedy, but not notable enough on its own. BTW, "H.R. xxxx" is what newspapers call these even if the Congressional Record sticks to "H.Res." --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspapers may call them that, but Congress calls H.R. House Bills and H.Res. House Resolutions, and they are two different things. Compare H.R. 861 with H.Res. 861.—Markles 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable legislation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not even news. Bearian 18:54, 25 July 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 already merge and redirect. Non admin closing by Farix (Talk) 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda Tonks[edit]

I proposed a merge to Minor Harry Potter characters characters, but it was removed, so I figured this discussion is probably best if it's official. Andromeda Tonks is a minor character in one book of the series and has absolutely no real world impact. She barely has any impact in the Harry Potter universe. Natalie 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Propaniac 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, insufficient real-world impact. --Eyrian 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per nom, Lra drama 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, character not notable enough for stand-alone article. Realkyhick 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minor Harry Potter characters or Nymphadora Tonks -Inventm 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, but close this AfD: deletion is neither requested nor necessary here. Sandstein 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agreed. -JNF Tveit 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as per all above. Canuckle 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wish all the AFDs went like this; there a bunch of HP articles that just need to be MERGED! Bella Swan_(Talk!) 02:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Wow, Consensus! I wish all HP AfD went like this...indeed, it would seem best for most of these to become minor character pieces.Ravenmasterq 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a very minor character. Marc Shepherd 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lupin and Tonks family. The article has already been merged into that one. --musicpvm 20:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Titanium Dragon 23:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Lemonflash ^talk 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think there is enough of a consensus to merge this, but where should the redirect go? The Lupin and Tonks family already has more or less the same text there, so I have redirected it there, with a link from from minor HP characters. Ohconfucius 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Will ^(talk) 19:16, 26 July 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. Sr 13 05:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American NFL quarterbacks[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is already listed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African-American quarterbacks (the main article got speedied as copyvio, so maybe that screwed something up, just to add another to the many, many things that have gone wrong with the article and with the AFD nominations). Propaniac 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial intersection of being black + playing QB. I personally don't buy into the Limbaugh/black QB thing Corpx 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable list, given the number of players in the league. List of starting African-American NFL quarterbacks, however--that could go somewhere ... Blueboy 96 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quarterback can accomodate content about breaking the colour barrier.Canuckle 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection of race & profession. Carlossuarez46 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be a fascinating and informative article, given that black NFL quarterbacks were still a rarity going into the 1990s... they tended to be reassigned as receivers and running backs, one of the reasons that Warren Moon went to Canada. However, this is just a list of people who happen to be black and happen to play quarterback. Mandsford 23:34, 25 July 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. Sr 13 05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Four (football)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Big Four (football)

Article doesn't cite any sources. Questionable factual basis and neutrality - for example, why a big 4 and not a big 3 or 5? why base any distinction on turnover - why not gate receipts? why not league/cup success? definition is too broad and infrequently used. Jw2034 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Central Pacific Railroad. Propaniac 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination referred incorrectly to The Big Four. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it does make more sense now. Delete per everyone else, I guess. Propaniac 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a disambiguation article with links to other "big fours." Realkyhick 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See Big Four for a disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary terms like these have passing use. If you take a ten-year time frame from anywhere else in the FA Cup Finals timeline, other dominant clubs emerge. Without any kind of sourcing, the only alternative is to delete. Caknuck 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far too arbitary - for instance, in this article, a 'Big Five' is referred to (in terms of turnover). ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like an example of POV to me Rackabello 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, lots of big # in most sports, varies by location. Carlossuarez46 04:17, 25 July 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. As per Risker's request below, I will userfy it to his/her userspace and delete the resultant redirect. Walton^One 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Trivial references that are uncited or irrelevant. Previous afd was "no consensus", with some support for a merge. The actual cultural impact of the books remains totally uncited, with a bunch of leading OR designed to convince the reader that it doesn't. --Eyrian 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as totally indiscriminate, irrelevant list of OR and trivia. Nothing but trifling Hitchhiker's Guide references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another list of completely pointless trivia. Propaniac 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging by the archives of previous debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture, it seems that most articles were either deleted, merged, or redirected. WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. So delete this along with all the other trivia pages in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are still 120 trivia articles). Also, anyone thought of doing a single mass afd of that category? I don't think it will work because some editors may prefer some articles, but not others. I suppose they have a better chance of being deleted on a case by case basis. Spellcast 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. One by one. --Eyrian 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But a worthy goal!Delete as above. Eusebeus 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...This suggests to me that if the "In Popular Culture" category had been deleted from this article, there would be no nomination. I'm somewhat concerned the article has been miscategorized in the first place (not all of the examples in the article refer to popular culture). But selecting a category to depopulate and then wiping it out discourages the use of specialised categories and will likely result in overpopulation of more generalised ones. Risker 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Pointless fancruft/indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To repeat what I said in the previous nomination: violation of WP:NOT#INFO: indiscriminate information with no cultural importance established by any entry. Therefore, it does not help define the topic and lacks notability. It's a bloated list of trivia with any mention of 42 or "thanks for the fish" as fair game -- any properly referenced item that is able to prove notability of the subject matter's place in popular culture can be integrated into the main article. María (críticame) 19:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA, original research, and difficult to maintain. Useight 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection/WP:5 - Could be transwikied to a movie wiki somewhere Corpx 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of trivia. Deep Thought could (possibly) use a mention in the main article, but other than this, I fail to see the significe of any of the information in the article. Calgary 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Glad to see an honest admission that this is part of a campaign to systematically remove these articles. I think such articles are part of an contemporary encyclopedia -- which does, after all, deal with what is in popular culture, among of course other things. I didn't like these articles when I first came here, and usually !voted against them, but I've been getting more tolerant with experience. Collecting this material in a responsible way is one part of Jimbo's goal--of making the Web not suck. This is one of the ways to do it:s orting through the trivia, & assembling the culturally relevant parts.

As for this particular article, there are some books that really have had an impact of popular culture, and this is one of them. The material in the article shows it. DGG (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Encyclopedias do not deal in random lists of trivia. Good reference works require editors to make judgments as to what should be left out, to show restraint, balance and proportionality. This sort of article treats should concepts with disdain. Abberley2 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a laundry list of trivia loosely connect to the Guide. An article could be written about this topic -- but this one would have to be basically entirely deleted in order to get started. --Haemo
Delete although titled differently, this is little different than the popular culture articles, but at least this has the honesty in title to say what it is: a list of citations (unsourced). Such a list on its own is not encyclopedic, as part of an article about something which has a notable role in popular culture, maybe. However, alas, there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable, like most of these it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as in see look at all these allusions to, quotes about, tributes, etc. so it must be. Well if it really is, find some WP:RSes to show that. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but this is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Carlossuarez46 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. Yes, the books are very popular and many people enjoyed reading them and including in-jokes and references to them. That does not mean that an ever-expanding list of every time someone includes the number 42 or a phrase from the book or any of the rest of it constitutes an encyclopedic examination of the cultural impact of the books. "In such-and-such movie so-and-so said dicky bird" doesn't tell us one thing about such-and-such movie, so-and-so or dicky bird. (By the way, I swiped "dicky bird" from a Star Trek novel; someone better go add that to an article about the cultural impact of Star Trek novels on cranky Wikipedia editors) Otto4711 04:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia is full of such lists from popular culture such as List_of_Farscape_episodes where AfD's are shot down very quickly by fanboys.. This article differs in that it is well researched and is more than just a list of shows or a synopsis of episodes. The article could use some links and references, but there are few books that have had the recognised cultural influence of Hitchhikers in modern day science fiction and the world of computing, so I think this article is both notable and deserving of a wikipedia article. Irishjp 11:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two things: first of all, List of Farscape episodes is not an ...in popular culture article, and is an acceptable list-article. Second, I think your definition of "well researched" is mistaken; there is not one reliable, third party source on this entire article. I am not denying Hitchhiker's influence on other media, because that is obvious. This list is full of trivial, indiscriminate info and does not belong here. María (críticame) 12:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An important work it's true, and there might well be scope for an article about its influence. However, one can't merely compile a list of barely related factoids and claim them as evidence of its influence - that would be original research, specifically a synthesis. An article which began with something like "HHGttG is a very influential series of books (reference)" and then launched into a laundry list of trivia would be scarcely better. Rather, it would be necessary to find sources which discuss the book's influence, and then provide a meaningful discussion of the topic, perhaps with reference to some of the examples cited by the sources. In short this isn't even the beginning of a good article. It can't be salvaged by pruning the worst of the trivia or adding a couple of references. It would have to be rewritten from scratch, and probably renamed as well, to be of any encyclopaedic value. Iain99 08:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Close "Trivial references that are uncited or irrelevant. Previous afd was "no consensus", with some support for a merge." How about, "Previous afd was closed July 22, nomination made again on July 24". What the hell? Why should we assume "good faith"? Mandsford 17:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's Wikipedia policy. And, in this case, quite correct. I stumbled upon this article, read it, and nominated it. Simple as that. --Eyrian 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mandsford has a point. According to deletion policy, "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly." I agree that the article is worthy of being deleted, and the previous AFD did not receive as much attention as this one, which seems to support deletion. I hope the closing admin keeps an open mind; the previous AFD closed "no consensus" and not "keep," and there have been no improvements to the article yet as far as I can see. María (críticame) 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I dont see how this is any different than being "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." Corpx 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it's on two separate pages and an admin had already closed the discussion. If it hadn't closed "no consensus," I would be more concerned; however, I can see why Mandsford and others may cry WP:AGF violation. María (críticame) 18:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Go ahead and delete it. Perhaps the author can post it again two days after the deletion, and then to keep posting until he or she can get enough votes to keep. Sorry, but this looks like a bad faith nomination. No matter what rationalization is made, perhaps we should ask ourselves the question, "What if EVERYBODY did this?" Should we just have a trial every week until we get the jury we want? Call an administrator and ask for a neutral opinion. Mandsford 23:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument would carry more weight if I'd edited the old AfD, but I haven't. It's five days were up a week before I made this nomination. I can assure you,I was quite unaware of its date. --Eyrian 23:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, I notice that you're an administrator. Perhaps you should, privately, run this by a couple of some disinterested fellow administrators to see what they think. Have you considered the possibility that nominating an article so quickly, even in good faith, would be disruptive? I accept that your intentions were good, but since you are now aware that the first discussion closed on July 22, do you not see a problem in pursuing this? Mandsford 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would've depended on the results. Since a much larger number of people have responded (see what's been said above), I think it isn't such a bad thing. --Eyrian 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, are you telling us you made the nomination without having looked at the article's talk age, on which the previous AfD is recorded, in color, right at the top? DGG (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw the previous AfD; how else would I have made the correct page? I simply didn't check the date. --Eyrian 00:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the kind of article at which Wikipedia excels - the gathering of scattered but clearly related information into a unified article. It could certainly use sourcing - and given the length of the article, we'd be talking at least 70-90 hours of dedicated research to source the entire thing. But none of the unsourced material is contentious, there are no violations of WP policies, and a half-hour foray on the net quickly confirmed that at least the entries I checked are verifiable. (Unfortunately, Blackberry research isn't particularly amenable to adding references to articles.) Especially in light of the fact that this article has just been through an AfD and interested editors have had little opportunity to start researching the data to confirm references or to rework the text, I feel this AfD is unnecessary and should be closed. I'm a snails-pace editor myself, but if the decision of this AfD is to delete, then I would ask that it be userfied to my user space for redevelopment. Risker 00:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep since this was closed just 2 days before renomination, gives the appearance of deletion bias. 70.51.8.90 04:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and speedy close - to say this is unreferenced is deceiving - the claims made are solid and some are associated with reliable sources, but there are few "references" per se. I did a quick search on the first claim (Deep Thought) and found a Scientific American article that clearly validates the claim. I will try to formalize some of the other references in the next few days. And, I might add, I'm not claiming bad faith on anyone's part, but renomonating so quickly after the previous one close should make this a candidate for a speedy close. At least give everyone a chance to get the references in there. (And to those who have doubts about the fact that HHGG is culturally significant in the English speaking world, I have a question: Have you've been living in a closet for the last 30 years? :-)) ATren 13:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and speedy close With what ATren says above the article will be improved, and it's obvious that Hitchhikers has had is a part of popular culture. The time elapsed since the previous AfD is not a reasonable span to have allowed this to happen, which is after all the purpose of that part of the deletion policy which states as much.Number36 05:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a case for maybe merging the general Doctor Who references back into the main Hitch-Hiker's article, but the rest of it - Delete as trivia. - fchd 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some genuinely notable examples here, Deep Thought, h2g2, AltaVista Babel Fish, and others. If this article is deleted, the notable examples should be mentioned in HHGTTG article. Magiclite 07:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Whatever the nominator's intentions, it's too soon after the last AfD for any meaningful discussion to emerge. Also, many notable examples in article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely disagree about this being a "speedy close" - the amount of meaningful discussion in the current AfD means there is reason to pursue this to a normal conclusion, even though it is looking like heading for "no consensus". - fchd 12:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close as keep because of inadequate interval between nominations. Or does this mean we can renominate if we didn't see the previous nomination any time now? 132.205.44.5 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. J-stan ^Talk 01:40, 31 July 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 g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

↝[edit]

I suspect a fake. Neither Håkon Paljör nor the mentioned quotes show up in Google, and the character is an arrow, not an umbrella. -- Prince Kassad 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G1 (patent nonsense), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:11, 24 July 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. Sr 13 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runes in popular culture[edit]

Laundry list of loosely associated trivial references. Boils down to "times fiction has featured stick-looking letters". --Eyrian 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I'm going to automatically vote for any article titled "_____ in popular culture." (Sounds like a bad Match Game question.) Realkyhick 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Useight 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia/WP:5 Corpx 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--and unlike some of those above, I've looked at the article enough that I can say something about this particular article they are obviously an important common element in role playing games, as well as other significant cultural artifacts. it's appropriate to an encyclopedia that covers such games that there be an article on the subject of the use of them. DGG (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "unlike some of those above" - mind WP:AGF. Punkmorten 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick. Slartibartfast (19 92) 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to DGG, this article does nothing to discuss the significance of runes in videogames (if any). This style of article encourages the thoughtless accumulation of factoids without context, which undermines any sort of substantive discussion of a topic. Abberley2 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - I agree, DGG, that runes are important and often have cultural significance. However, this is (yet again) a laundry list of trivia surrounding runes. It is not even about Runes in Popular Culture; it's just a list of mentions, uses, or what-have-you. --Haemo 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per this logic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator, with a comment that I disagree almost completely with Le Grand Roi's argument on said page. CaveatLector^Talk 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and for the record, I have looked at this article and all of the others before voicing my opinion. This article in particular is a violation of WP:NOT#INFO, as are most ...in popular culture articles. That "Runes see some use in popular culture" is a relevant statement, but it would be better to expand the importance of their influence and choose a few key examples to list in the main article, and not create a mere laundry list of every video game that happens to use rudimentary rune-ology. It's unencyclopedic and unnecessary. María (críticame) 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the article, I agree that this has little, if anything, to do with actual runes. At one point, there's a reference to "runiform script" which is another way of saying that "it looks like runes". That's not much different from the "Chinese-looking" writing that one often sees at a cheap "Oriental-looking" store. Mandsford 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering DGG and Haemo/Abberley2's points, it strikes me that DGG is right, if someone only wrote a descent lead saying why runes were notable in popular culture. Missing a good lead is no reason to delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Man, you're rune-ing it for everyone. Mandsford 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to have a bullet list of every time runes were used. Punkmorten 20:10, 28 July 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. Peacent 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Zahoor[edit]

Not really a very notable person, and the article gives practically no info which couldn't be got elsewhere on Wikipedia. The article is almost completely unsourced (although I happen to know that some bits of it are true). If I had just posted this information on, say, the Village Pump, I'd have been blocked, there'd have been requests for oversight, etc... he's only a kid, lay off him! Just for the record, I have no conflict of interest despite my knowledge.

A PROD was recently placed on the article and removed with no explanation whatsoever; an admin told me that I can't just replace the PROD tag.--Rambutan (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Rambutan (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - IMDb shows that he was on 8 episodes of EastEnders back in 2003. Nothing prior, nothing since. --Evb-wiki 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Eastenders appearances are insufficient for notability. The accuracy of the single source (which I added) is disputed. TerriersFan 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appearing on EastEnders isn't enough. No other claims to fame, so delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Minor character + lack of sources Corpx 18:58, 24 July 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. Sr 13 06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Templar and popular culture[edit]

Delete - another laundry list trivia dump of a loosely associated items which have nothing in common beyond the presence of or mention of or reference to the KT. This does not inform us about the Knights, the fiction from which the references are drawn, their relationship to each other or the real world. Oppose merging any of this to any other article as it is just as undesirable there as in this article. Otto4711 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and improve with references, pictures, etc. all of these "in popular culture articles" per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I am concerned that a campaign to destroy these lists by a handful of Wikipedians is going to alienate who knows how many editors who contributed to making these fine additions to our project. I will see what I can do with some of these to improve them as well. I also suggest a more general discussion on whether or not these are encyclopedic at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Popular_culture instead of all these nominations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These so-called "dicussions of encyclopediality" will merely culminate in a battle between inclusionists and deletionists, so no. Bulldog123 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks any of the meaningful real-world analysis that Wikipedia requires. --Eyrian 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is it possible that there meaningful, real-world analysis on this topic does exist out there? Canuckle 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But this list of trivia would do nothing to hasten its incorporation. --Eyrian 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the trivia on sight, keep what's notable and sourced. Flag it if it needs sources and mention the trivia policing on the talk page. If the remains are sparse, discuss merger/redirect on the article page. Is this more work for an individual than typing in Delete on an AfD? Yes. Does it foster collaboration? Yes. Does it avoid AfDs? Yes. Canuckle 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that these whole articles are problems. It's not like there's some glowing core of beautiful analysis surrounded by trivia; it's trivia all the way down. --Eyrian 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. I helped pull Medusa and gorgons in popular culture out of the trash heap. It was a huge amount of work to add the not-yet-beautiful analysis and it's still incomplete. But AfDs are crude and don't (always) solve the problem. They often just push it around and cause problem for those editors who have invested their time and commitment already. For instance, this Knights area has a legends article but won't have a article or section that lists or analyses real appearances in fiction? Canuckle 00:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO and unsourced listcruft. María (críticame) 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not an article. All "in popular culture" lists should die. Golfcam 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I addressed this in "Runes in popular culture" above. Realkyhick 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page and keep there. The article in chief about the Knights Templar contains very brief mentions in passing about the significance of the Knights to fairly important fictions such as Ivanhoe, Foucault's Pendulum, and The Da Vinci Code. This could be expanded easily with larger explanations of the role of the Knights in each, if only to note that in Ivanhoe they are villains, while later treatments portray them as sympathetic. Also note the article Knights Templar legends; fictional treatments of the Templar theme that don't fit into the main article might still be profitably added here. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA Bulldog123 19:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic to list and briefly discuss the books and films inspired by this theme; there are a considerable number, of them, some very notable. The bulk of the contents of this particular one is not trivial. There is almost no type of articles about which all would say "all the whatever's should be deleted." WP:ATRIV does not prohibit articles of this sort. Go read it instead of just repeating the name of the link. go read this article, if it comes to that,--and perhaps even follow some of the links. For comparison, I cannot imagine myself ever wanting to look at a an article on Pokemon of any sort, and I have solved the problem of what to do about the myriad articles that abound in WP--I just ignore them. I don't read them, I don't edit them, and I don't try to delete them. I don't make it my mission to save Wikipedia from them. DGG (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to DGG, this sort of random accumulation of context-free factoids undermines any attempt to cover a topic thoughtfully. Also, if no-one made it their business to save Wikipedia from bad content, it would have collapsed in derision years ago. Abberley2 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- but, DGG, it doesn't even do that. It's just a vague collection of things related to the Templars; no context, no clear association, nothing -- i.e. it's trivia. The simple virtue of having something which looks like, or is named as, or is, a Templar does not make it encyclopedic, and it's definitely not a list inclusion criterion -- and that's what this is; a list. Of trivia. --Haemo 02:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand "trivia" somewhat differently from the way it was used in these discussions--being about a common subject is not trivial. It's the most important characteristic of something. If some are trivial, they can be removed. DGG (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might have the makings of a good article IF I could be persuaded that all those knights that we see everywhere really are Knights Templar. There is a distinction between historical knights and the stereotypical guys in shining armor portrayed in film, but do all of these really link back to the Crusades? Maybe, but I think this is just Knights in popular culture, which is either a red link or a blue-link that I've accidentally betrayed to the WikipediaPD. Advice to author-- don't combine "novels and comic books" in the same category. Mandsford 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 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. Sr 13 06:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to psychokinesis and telekinesis[edit]

Laundry list of trivial associations with no analytical depth. Don't be fooled by the footnotes, they don't link to analysis, only plot summary. --Eyrian 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just because they take the time to describe the instances doesn't make it any more encyclopedic than a straight up and down list. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a potentially limitless directory of loosely associated topics. This could stretch to literally tens of thousands of trivial references given the number of characters with telekinesis and the number of times it's used as a plot device. Oppose the inevitable suggestion that this be merged to another article on the topic as it's just as much a trivia dump in another article as it is on its own. Otto4711 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as "_____ in popular culture." Wonder if we can make a bot to nail all of these? Realkyhick 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection/WP:5 Corpx 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Abberley2 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at least it's honest about being a list. However, the only inclusion criterion appears to be "vaguely related to the subject in some way". That's indiscriminate. --Haemo 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete half credit for honesty, unfortunately, not encyclopedic, per my comments on other similar articles. Carlossuarez46 04:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Psychokinesis has a well-established existence... in movies" LOL! Indiscriminate list of trivia, and ".PK is the Internet domain name extension for the country of Pakistan" is one of the most irrelevant things I've ever seen in one of these lists. Iain99 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (surprise) for the most part, it accurately summarizes those characters whose abilities lend themselves to production wherein slim wires cause objects to move. It does kind of bother me that the parting of the Red Sea is described as telekinesis. Since this will be deleted, and since nobody actually has telekinetic powers (I'd prefer invulnerability, but this would tie for invisibility as a close second), maybe it should be merged with an article about telekinesis. Mandsford 00:06, 27 July 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. —Kurykh 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Rules for Boats[edit]

Definitely not notable per WP:MUSIC, any (vague) claims to notability in this article are by association only. Would be next to impossible to find reliable sources for much more than their existence. Orderinchaos 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would two EP's on a notable label be enough to satisfy criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC, or would they have to have two full length albums? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear that this is a notable label - MGM is just a distribution company, not a label (I personally know bands who put out stuff through them). Orderinchaos 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it fails WP:MUSIC what the bloody hell doesnt it fail. Might add this to my personal BJAODN page. If there were an essay called "Musiccruft" this would definately be a reference. Nothing to see here folks. Twenty Years 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "MGM Distribution" thing made me take a second look, then I realized it wasn't that MGM. Realkyhick 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - though I'm kind of torn. The label has several bands that appear to have won or been nominated for regional awards, and has itself been nominated, so I would tend to consider it at least slightly notable - but EPs don't really count for WP:MUSIC. The band's been nominated for regional awards too, but hasn't won (that I can see). They claim touring extensively, but again, I can't find any good proof of that. If they develop the way they look like they are, then maybe after the first album comes out an article would be justified. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ors, as not meeting WP:MUSIC. It does not look like the band has charted nationally or internationally, so I don't think it hits the mark. Thewinchester ^(talk) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain the band is one of the newly emerging bands from Western Australia and have recieved radio airplay on Triple J and other community radio stations accross Australia. Dan arndt 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do JJJ publish a play list that you could cite?Ga rr ie 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia's rules for inclusion clearly state that independent coverage by a reliable source is a necessary precondition for having an article. Releasing an EP is not grounds for having an article about the band per WP:ILIKEIT, especially when no reliable sources appear to be available. All I can find on Factiva are ads in fairly small publications. Zivko85 05:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe if they'd won some WAMI awards I'd be more sympathetic, but I don't see how they pass WP:MUSIC. Incidentally, I don't see airplay on JJJ as being a good indicator of notability - there are plenty of NN Australian bands that get an occasional spin on there. Lankiveil 13:26, 29 July 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. Sr 13 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another "oh look, a troll!" directory of loosely associated items. These things have nothing in common past the presence of or mention of a troll. It tells us nothing about trolls or the fiction from which the references are drawn or their relation to each other or the real world. Oppose merging any of this laundry list of trivia to any other article. Otto4711 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: laundry list of analysis-free, trivial mentions. --Eyrian 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and improve with references, pictures, etc. all of these "in popular culture articles" per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I'm concerned that a campaign to destroy these lists by a handful of Wikipedians is going to alienate who knows how many editors who contributed to making these fine additions to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my reply to this argument at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Popular culture. I think you're wrong. --Eyrian 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. Unsourced, unencyclopedic listcruft. María (críticame) 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these random jottings are legitimate articles. Golfcam 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prefer "Wikipedia deletions in popular culture." Realkyhick 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia - WP:5 Corpx 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Get RID of them all. Bulldog123 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I've said it before, and so has Eyrian, and Fresheneesz and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I call deleting articles in this manner a near approach to vandalism. DGG (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- oh come now. Calling the deletion of articles like this "vandalism" shows a serious lack of good faith here. I mean, this is just a list of trivia related to trolls. It isn't even an article; it's a list -- and the only inclusions criterion is "vaguely related to trolls, or things that look like trolls, or things associated with trolls". I mean:
- "Tony Joe White's album The Train I'm On includes the song "Even Trolls Love Rock and Roll", in which White's band meet a Troll by a bridge."
- "Trolls are an intelligent race in the role playing game Earthdawn."
- "Marvel Comics superhero Thor is often depicted fighting trolls similar to those found in Nordic legends and myth."
- "The Norwegian singer and musician Mortiis dons a prosthetic troll mask when preforming on stage. Reminicient of the troll character, Blix in the movie Legend."
This is not an article; it's a list. And it's a list of trivia. --Haemo 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being about a common subject, or having a common major these is not trivial. What something is about is the most important characteristic of a subject.DGG (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being "about" a subject can most certainly be trivial, when you make the entire article a list, and the only inclusion criterion "vaguely related to trolls in some way". --Haemo 00:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Delete all? Get those eyes checkedked! Might as well merge this with the Wikipedia article about trolls which are, after all, imaginary items whose existence I tend not to lose sleep over. Mandsford 00:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Otto hit the nail on the head. Punkmorten 10:24, 27 July 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. Peacent 02:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpena Mall[edit]

Well, here we go again. Another mall article that, in retrospect, I regret creating. I can't G7 speedy this since other users have edited it, so I have to take it here. There're no online sources to be found for this mall -- even though it truly is the only mall serving northeastern Michigan. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local mall with only 225,000 sq ft of retail area, while a superregional mall has 800,000 and a regional mall has 400,000. Lacks other sources showing it has architectural or historic importance to otherwise demonstrate notability. Fails WP:ORG and clearly fails even the rejected guideline WP:MALL. Edison 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I found another source at one point (now no longer available) that said it was even smaller than that! (I go to this mall all the time, I really doubt that it's 225,000 SF.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 21 stores? Boy, that's a whopper. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage through independent sources - Nothing found through google news. Also, nice of you to leave a AFD notice on your own talk page! Corpx 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like, totally delete as a non-notable mall, fershur. TPH: the fact that you warn yourself about AFDs on articles you created makes me giggle. Well done! Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I did this AfD with Twinkle, which warns the page's creator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I haven't used Twinkle for AFDs yet, so hadn't noticed that feature. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete We should have gotten to this one earlier. many malls are notable, but clearly not this. DGG (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to argue with the author/nominator. Say, is that a snowball gathering momentum? Mandsford 00:14, 27 July 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. Sr 13 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sephirot in popular culture[edit]

Laundry list of bare-mention trivial references, often with little more than the name. --Eyrian 14:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory of loosely associated items with a dose of original research. Oppose merging to any other article, as the information is clearly not wanted in the main article per the opening paragraph of this article. Otto4711 14:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOT#DIR, WP:ATRIV, etc. Totally useless list of "in popular culture" trivial mentions. The Sephirot itself is notable, but "oh yeah, this anime mentioned it one time" isn't exactly notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and improve with references, pictures, etc. all of these "in popular culture articles" per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I am concerned that a campaign to destroy these lists by a handful of Wikipedians is going to alienate who knows how many editors who contributed to making these fine additions to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd be better off without people who think that these lists are what an encyclopedia needs. Golfcam 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Otto4711 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of these random jottings are legitimate articles. Golfcam 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mommy, make the bad "in popular culture" articles go away! Realkyhick 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia collection - WP:5 Corpx 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. Canuckle 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh come now; the article itself says "The following is a list of the appearances of the Sephirot in popular culture. It is separated from the main article to avoid clutter." If the sole rationale for making an article is to prune off all the horrible trivia to its own article then people have so misunderstood WP:TRIVIA that the article is unsalvagable. --Haemo 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and now I have something different to comment on: We'd be better off without people who think that these lists are what an encyclopedia needs. That's a good approach to co-operation. It does solve the problems of having to deal with those who insist on making arguments. First time I've ever heard an editor say that those who dont agree with a particular view at AfD should leave the project. But maybe that's what the sort of policy that would exclude all the articles one doesn't particularly like would come to in the end. WP, OWNed by those of who think alike. I guess it's one step from making identical unreasoning comments at AfD, to not bothering to make any, and ejecting the opponents. DGG (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly agree with your sentiment regarding the "better off" comment, I must note that your !vote here is not supported by any reasoning and that your comment does not refute the substantive deletion arguments that have been raised. Otto4711 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning, in a word, is that the argument for deletion is IDONTLIKEIT. (as explained in more detail in the other discussions on today's large number of deletions of these articles) DGG (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see why this was never part of the original article about Sephirot... in a sense, the use of a sacred symbol in pop culture might be considered offensive and ignorant; if you had "sign of the cross" in popular culture, with someone mentioning "spectacles, testicles", it would step on a lot of toes. For that reason, I don't see a problem with this being deleted. Gotta admit, though, that I cannot understand people who think a "list" is unencyclopedic. I'm sure there are some folks who prefer straight narrative, just as some enjoy black coffee. But encyclopedias, almanacs, and nearly every other reference book all have lists. Why the fingernails-on-the-blackboard reaction? Mandsford 00:37, 27 July 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. Sr 13 07:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chikungunya and dengue in Kerala[edit]

The parts that are not original research are forks of existing articles. -- RHaworth 14:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is copied from this PDF: [24]; I'm not sure if it's a copyright violation since it's an Indian government publication, but it's a total mess. Propaniac 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Propaniac - general WP:NOT concerns. Shalom ^Hello 21:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The English in this article is atrocious. It is clearly a copy of a medical article. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is clearly a copyright violation and a degree of original research. The page creator had previously removed the prod I'd added to the page with zero explanation and no attempt to address either the OR or COPYVIO.--Mendors 10:39, 25 July 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 redirect. Pascal.Tesson 14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Disney Music Awards[edit]

No other information, no cited sources, does not use proper manual of style guidelines. ViperSnake151 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given that the Radio Disney article doesn't mention these awards (except to link to this), and there's virtually no information to merge. Propaniac 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Propaniac. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep from the looks of it the creator of this page was a youngster and perhaps more than likely does not know how to create a properly sourced article. My own young relatives are huge fans of Radio Disney, as are their school friends. This radio station serves as a positive, clean and vulgarity-free influence on youngsters and tweens. This is a rarity in today's world. If kept I promise to work on it, but can not do so for about a week because I'm off for a week long holiday. I propose keeping it for a month and 1 week and if it does not meet satisfaction of this group then renominate it at that time. --Chicaneo 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how the child-appropriate content broadcast by Radio Disney is related to this deletion debate. Extraordinary Machine 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge into Radio Disney. I've tidied the article a little and added a link to the official website — Manual of Style problems don't provide a reason to delete an article. From what I can tell, the awards ceremony is a publicised and somewhat notable aspect of the radio network (see this press release, for example), but perhaps not enough to warrant an independent article. Extraordinary Machine 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Not sure what that means, but still - it has the word delete in it. J-stan ^Talk 01:43, 31 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Personality Disorder[edit]

I prodded this with "Possible WP:COI based on editor name; most google hits seem to be referring to "Multiple Corporate Personality Disorder, not this concept". It has since been edited and prod removed by an IP which has only edited this and Corporate personality (adding edits to that page that discuss this topic, though it seems to be an unrelated concept) but the edits don't make anything clearer; it spends more time on how much research the concept originator has done than on the concept itself, claims both that it "is a human disability" and "a condition of organizational behavior", and has no references. Jamoche 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the article appears to be WP:OR and suffers from WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of sources about this "condition" Corpx 18:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please note that Corporate Personality Disorder is NOT a "human disability" (that was NOT my edit). It is in fact what I stated, "a condition of organizational behavior," and the definition I provided is based on the psychiatric clinical definition used by psychologists and psychiatrists in definining human personality disorders. The one and only definitive and scientifically valid reference for this condition is in fact my non-fiction book of the same name which has over 200 academic references in the bibliography that I am pleased to submit if you wish. Frankly, and with great respect, I am left wondering how a software engineer is making a determination of the merit and originality of a clinical term that draws from a large body of human research study.

...oh...and one more thing. The short article on Multiple Corporate Personality Disorder has NO references, no definition of the condition, and was basically one throw-away line in their article about corporate crime.

Respectfully,

Dr. Eli Sopow

- Feel free to nominate the other article for deletion, then. --Jamoche 04:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe he is referring to the "article by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman (2004)", not a Wikipedia article. --Evb-wiki 11:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speaking as an non-expert, I see no uses of the term in Google Scholar, or in Web of Science, nor any academic publications listed in either by the proponent of the theory, except a MA thesis and a Ph.D thesis. So as a non-expert, I don't see what an expert would even have to evaluate. The book may refer to other work, but no other work refers to the book. That's the definition on non-notable. DGG (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Evb-wiki, DGG and Corpx. Bearian 18:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps this article was meant for this site ->[25] and was place here by accident :-) --Chicaneo 19:29, 29 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minotaur references in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another "spot the reference" directory of loosely associated items. These things have nothing in common beyond a reference of greater or lesser triviality to a minotaur. This list tells us nothing about minotaurs, nothing about the fiction which references them, nothing about any relationship between them and nothing about the world. As always, oppose merging any of this trivia dump to any other article. Otto4711 13:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely associated topics with no analytical depth. --Eyrian 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page and keep. It is blindingly obvious that the article in chief on minotaur needs a section about minotaurs in popular culture. In its current state, it ignores minotaurs in Dungeons & Dragons, minotaurs in films, the Tauren in World of Warcraft, and many other facts that obviously belong. The list format is disliked by many: so be it. If so, though, the information ought to be preserved for the use of later editors. AfD is not cleanup, and forking out lists of cultural references so that they can then be proposed for deletion is no substitute for editing. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even by its title it admits that it is nothing more than a list of references. Not the sort of thing an encyclopedia is for. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and improve with references, pictures, etc. all of these "in popular culture articles" per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I'm concerned that a campaign to destroy these lists by a handful of Wikipedians is going to alienate who knows how many editors who contributed to making these fine additions to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a reference guide. As an indiscriminate list of information that has little to do with the subject matter's impact on popular culture, delete along with all of the others. María (críticame) 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these random jottings are legitimate articles. Golfcam 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who has time to actullay sit around and think of this crap? Realkyhick 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:5 - trivia collection Corpx 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. Copy and pasting arguments for deletion for every pop cult article w/o examining it individually is reckless abandon and not consistent with collaboration. The current Minotaur article describes the myth, then jumps to Picasso. Are we really saying that's it, there's no notable use or interpretation? What steps have been taken to evaluate the merits of the topic? Yes 95% of the bullets are crap. That's why they get shunned into standalone articles. But if 1% are good, you should keep the good. Some demonstration of due diligence by deletionists would go a long way to reassuring the undecided that babies are not getting thrown out with the bathwater Canuckle 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assuming that people aren't reading the articles? I certainly did. The notability of a few of the included points only underscores the need for better analysis, which a list of trivial mentions doesn't do.--Eyrian 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I assume? No evidence that there is a thorough reading. Just copy and paste of comment from previous AfD plus some "Kill them all" , "Who has time to actually sit around and think of this crap" enthusiasm. (I've been guilty of excessive humor too.) If better analysis for some of the notable items is required, we should look for it, not just delete wholesale.Canuckle 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles all tend to read pretty much alike. They're the same arguments because the all have the same problem. --Eyrian 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They many of them do have the same problem, the failure to recognize that this is an encyclopedia of what is notable about the world--and the references that are made from films and books and web sites to major cultural artifacts are part of what is notable about the world. They show the reception of the legend--the incorporation of it into general references and understanding. To deal with some of the arguments above;

they are not loosely associated--they are strongly associated through having have a common theme, and that's the subject of the article
analytical depth is not a requirement of WP--if it were there wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia left.
WP:ATRIV is merely a guideline,part of the manual of style. But let's actually read it, instead of just quoting the reference "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary." And it specifically deals with trivia sections -- the reference to in popular culture articles is just to an essay, and the supposed rule against this material does not exist.
"WP is not a reference guide" -- an encyclopedia is by its very nature a reference guide -- thats the very meaning of the word, the essence of what we're doing. Or at least some of us are.
"who has time to actually sit around and think of this crap?" well, the people interested in it do, and those who do not have time for it can leave it alone. They need not even waste the time of trying to remove it.

It all comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. I'm more tolerant of what I don't like. I don't like 9/10 of the cultural genres that are written about extensively here, and I see no need to ever learn anything about them. If I were organizing my own summary of world culture, I'd ignore them altogether. But they don't bother me here. To work in a project with this many other people of all sorts of interests means accepting all of their interests as reasonable. Nobody forces me to read it or to edit what I don't like. An online encyclopedia can incorporate all of it. DGG (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant to refer to WP:NOT#DIR. I apologize for mistyping. I highly contest the encyclopedic value of these references, however, and disagree with your view on this info not being loosely associated -- it is. A "common theme" does not mean that any Minotaur character in any -verse game or show or movie is somehow culturally important. It's listcruft, pure and simple, and although some people may find it WP:USEFUL, this does not make it encyclopedic. María (críticame) 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment agreed that some of the items on the list are not significant. There isn't a WP article that couldnt be improved by editing. Deletion is a last resort, per WP:Deletion policy. The rule you refer to in NOT DIR, is presumably "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- but none of the examples given there refer to lists like these. So that isnt relevant either. As for "loosely", see below. DGG (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, DGG, but these things are simply not strongly associated just because they refer to or have a minotaur in them. There is no association between, for instance, the minotaur members of the White Witch's army in Narnia and the minotaur that Wonder Woman fought during the Challenge of the Gods, to pick two items off the list more or less at random, and to claim that there is absent a reliable source is synthesis. It's easy enough to dismiss some of the concerns with this article by calling "essay!" and citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which by the way is from an essay) but all this hand-waving about how very tolerant you are does not address the policy concerns raised in the nomination. Otto4711 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment How are things strongly associated? they are associated by having a common creator, or a common basic subject, or a common major theme or character. Let's examine a few systematically from the top and see how many are significant: Borges's short story is about the exact subject, and so is Renault's novel specifically written about the legend the description in this list is inadequate). I don't know the books or stories by Danielewski or Gemmell or Sherrill or Sara Douglass or about 10 others, Some mentions are trivial--CSLewis, Some are using it in an important indirect way, like Hughes' poem. some like Dante are so important that even as a minor character its significant. The theme is Picasso's art is central to much of his work. I can't speak to the music and the games. As an example that the outide world recognizes thiswsort of thing as important, the Library of /congress has the subject headings , Minotaur (Greek mythology) -- Fiction. and Minotaur (Greek mythology) -- Children's Fiction. (according to WorldCat).DGG (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this entire article could be summarized in one line: "The Minotaur of Greek mythology is a common figure in pop culture". It's a classical reference -- there will be literally millions of allusions to this reference in culture. However, an article should not consist simply of a list of these mentions! Looking like, acting like, mentioning off-handedly, using as a metaphor are all loose connections; and virtually all of these peices of trivia fall into that category. Claiming that simply saying "oh, this talks about the Minotaur in some way" consists a non-trivial connection is absurd. --Haemo 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any subject can be trivialized when summarized in one line. . If there are millions of allusions, then surely the subject is important! So we should have an article assembling at least the most significant and best known ones. DGG (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete half credit for honesty in being a reference list, but there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Haemo's comments above. Mleivo 05:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the references on this list appear to be a retelling of the myth of the Minotaur and the labyrinth. If you get rid of the anime' and comic books, and the passing references to a man with a bull's head (I'm NOT talking about anybody here, honest) this would work as "Minotaurs in Literature", which is less of a magnet than "pop culture". I can see why some people freak out over the "in popular culture" label, which does evoke visions of Buffy, Charmed, etc. For some reason, people who hate lists with a passion... have no problem with lists of episodes of Buffy, Charmed, etc. Take it down, clean it up, and make it a great article. Mandsford 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a new name makes little difference in this case, it's still trivia. Articles shouldn't be renamed during an AfD, especially when there's no consensus to rename. And there is no consensus to rename here. Crazysuit 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen some 'in popular culture' sections in articles and not always liked them, but this list is full of blue links and appears sensible. The entries without blue links could probably be dropped with no loss, but the rest seem OK. I'm aware of the arguments about synthesis but don't find them convincing. EdJohnston 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little or no depth, loose, and crufty. J-stan ^Talk 01:46, 31 July 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. Peacent 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular culture references to the Four Symbols[edit]

Delete - another "spot the reference" directory of loosely associated items that have nothing in common past a possible reference to these Symbols. The possible representation of the Symbols in these items tells us nothgin about the Symbols, nothing about the items which include them, nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the real world. Oppose merging any of this trivia into any other article. Otto4711 12:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely associated topics with no analytical depth. --Eyrian 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 14:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these random jottings are legitimate articles. Golfcam 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not another pop culture reference list! (Hey, that would make a good rock song title.) Realkyhick 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivia Collection - WP:5 Corpx 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why can't we just list and delete these 'in popular culture' articles en masse if that's the zeitgeist at the mo?Merkinsmum 20:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work. --Eyrian 20:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's also wrong. Canuckle 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to Talk:Four Symbols (Chinese constellation) due to concerns about lack of clarity. Looks like trivia but main article could stand some mention by an expert of these figures' modern representation.Canuckle 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this point, I should like a massive broken record, but all of these articles are cut from the same pointless cloth; they're a list of trivia all loosely connected to some central topic. In theory, an article could sometimes be written about the subject in popular culture; however, these articles don't even make an attempt. They're not even articles; they're poorly disguised lists, and they are lists of trivia. --Haemo 01:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers. Please improve the article or discuss this issue on the talk page. This article has been tagged since May 2007." "This article may need a complete rewrite. Please discuss this issue on the talk page". Doesn't look like anything's changed. It's too sophisticated for me, I guess. Mandsford 01:45, 27 July 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. Peacent 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus imagery in contemporary films and television[edit]

Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. These isolated items, many of which rely on original research in deciding that the item is a reference to the Icarus myth, have nothing to do with each other past a supposed reference to the myth. They tell us nothing about the myth, nothing about the fiction from which the item is drawn,nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the world. Otto4711 12:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely associated topics with no analytical depth. --Eyrian 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another spot-the-reference list/article. Realkyhick 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note to closing admin: I'm not a member of the Kill Pop Cult Cult. I just don't see any item - not one - that is more than trivial.Canuckle 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to other editors as the "Kill Pop Cult Cult" smacks of incivility. Otto4711 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize. I thought it would be taken as humour and actually worried it might be taken up as a badge of honour. Canuckle 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was funny. No offense here. --Eyrian 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canuckle, the proper term is "very dedicated people". Eyrian has nominated 10 pop culture articles for today July 24, Otto only five. Canuckle, you and DGG and I (and others) have been equally dedicated in looking for diamonds in the rough. I think one of the folks here might have called me "Defender of crap" once (logged off to do it, out of concern that I'd get upset), and I took it as a badge of honor. Hey, I love the nominations. They're more efficient than clicking Random article to find what Wikipedia is all about-- the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Mandsford 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., you're right-- I've read the article and it sucks. Delete Mandsford 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article could have been made one line in the main article "Icarus imagery is common in popular culture". What followed that one line is a list of any possible mention of him in any context, or imagery associated with it. Yes, it's a classical reference -- virtually all of these will have thousands, if not millions, of allusions to them. An encyclopedia is not, however, supposed to make a great big list of the them all and pretend it's an article. --Haemo 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "imagery" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:36, 25 July 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, A7. Sandstein 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charby the vampirate[edit]

Not a notable webcomic. 587 non-wiki ghits. The only thing I could find was a brief mention in a pay-per-view article. MER-C 12:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, possible A7 (non-notable web content). Not exactly a notable webcomic per the GHits. (And this is immaterial, but anything that draws comparisons to *shudder* Johnny the Homicidal Maniac is not something I'd want to read, tendjewberrymud.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:54, 24 July 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. Sandstein 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodigy Game Makers[edit]

Delete: Completely non-notable company. Has not released any products, has no influence whatsoever, does not even have a website. No reason to have an article whatsoever. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Propaniac 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 12:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete CSD A7 applies. Pedro | Chat 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Violates WP:NOT 2.4 ViperSnake151 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree that CSD A7 applies to this. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, violates CSD A7. Realkyhick 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete violating CSD A7. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:18, 24 July 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. Peacent 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade box[edit]

This is a poorly written bio of a non-notable musician with a group/groups that fails WP:BAND. Was tagged for speedy, but apparently asserts notability. I cannot find any WP:RS to support that apparent assertion. Evb-wiki 11:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless sources are provided. The only possible assertion of notability is winning the Rockquest award, but I can't actually find any evidence on the internet that he actually DID win this award. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. --Darksun 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have something to do with this band (which is mentioned in the article), but it's unclear what, and at any rate there are no references or anything indicating this guy exists. My guess it's some kind of pointless hoax. If the article were more comprehensible, there's a slim chance he might meet notability standards, but I doubt it. Propaniac 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unable to verify notability --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:MUSIC badly. Realkyhick 17:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band certainly exists [26] but why is this person in a contest in 2007 if he died years ago? The band may have some notibility but I do not think the members do yet, and the article doesn't seem to match the information I found. Denaar 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm. If this guy exists and is alive, as suggested by that Trident Leeds article re the band Falling Sets Fire, then this article is a serious violation of WP:BLP. Speedy delete. --Evb-wiki 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Box did exist and your evidence is false. He was a close relative of mine, in mediated thoughts i would like to ask you to respect this page. Thank you for your time and comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C giddy (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. The point is not whether he did or did not exist, but that if reliable sources can not be presented to confirm even his existence, let alone any of his achievements, then it is virtually certain that he does not meet the notability standards for inclusiong in Wikipedia. Propaniac 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources about this person can be provided which satisfy WP:MUSIC guidelines. Burntsauce 23:27, 27 July 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 again.

Those advocating deletion refer extensively to WP:BLP1E, a policy, noting that the subject is (although extensively) covered only in relation to the shooting. The replies of those wanting to keep include that the subject is no longer a living person subject to WP:BLP and that the one event rule is of the "should" rather than the "must" variety, allowing for latitude. Since both camps are of roughly equal size and employ defensible policy arguments, this is essentially an editorial decision, on which we have no consensus. May I suggest that AfD no. 5 be deferred until something happens that is very likely to change that outcome? Sandstein 21:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closure Endorsed at Deletion Review.--Chaser - T 02:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There have been three deletion discussions and two reviews. The reason I bring up the debate again is that we've never gotten to a final consensus point, that is, of "keep". I and others assert this article was created out of the emotion of the moment and has been, despite months of time, unable to justify its existence with the present article information. In other words, all information available herein is nothing that couldn't be listed on the VTech victims page.

As mentioned, the only result (beyond the first AfD's result of "delete", which was overturned without (unfortunately) explanation) we've gotten has been "no consensus" -- ~~this is another attempt at achieving just that.~~[[In other words, this is an attempt at achieving consensus.--Pablosecca 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)]] I hope anyone who accuses me or others of abuse of process recognizes that fact. I do not propose to review this endlessly until the result I want is achieved, but instead until we can get to a decision based on consensus, either "delete" or "keep" -- some of us view "no consensus" as something of a non-decision.[reply]

This might be debated more below, and has in the past, but the reasons for not keeping the article, or rather, briefly summarizing what is here in the victims' section, are in a nutshell

(1) that this woman, god rest her, was before the tragedy not notable, and her (involuntary) involvement in the same conferred upon her no special notability. Compare with Prof Granata and one or two others, who were in life notable due to their achievements. Therefore, the coverage Ms Couture-Nowak received was solely by virtue of her participation, and totally incidental to it.

(2) By far the most persistent contention on the part of those who wish to keep this article has been that, since Couture-Nowak has been the subject of multiple independent articles, such proves her notability. I suggests that such a contention follows the letter of the law, and not the spirit. One need only look to the actual content of said articles -- again, they are really just extended coverage of the VTech massacre, in that they attempt to flesh out the incident and the characters in the drama, namely the victims. The only question here is, Was this woman notable in and of herself and her achievements? Remember WP:COMMON -- and forget knee-jerk reactions.

As a final note, let me state that too many administrators view AfDs (and other debates based on consensus) as being little more that vote-gathering sessions, despite policy clearly stating the contrary. Too many people, in assessing these debates, use the quick and dirty method of scanning the boldface words on the left, rather than thinking hard about (1) what is really policy and (2) what is really common sense. Many show up here, make their vote in a sentence or word, then vanish. This kind of technique I believe can really harpoon a debate, and lead to a kind of fake "no consensus". I hope we can get an administrator who has a sufficient mastery of policy such that he may address this issue with articulateness and on well-cited grounds, or at least bother to leave an opinion rather than just a one-word decision.
Thank you for your time, Pablosecca 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; no disrespect intended, but her notability is as a victim of the massacre and there's no need for a lengthy article. Propaniac 12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Propaniac. Pablosecca's case is eloquent and accurate, and frankly, at this rate I'd love to see a WP:BLP1E variant for crime victims all around for whom their only notability comes from fluff wasn't-she-a-swell-fellow? encomiums from the survivors in the ten days immediately following the tragedy, and not thereafter. RGTraynor 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, individually she seams notable, probably the rest could be redirected.Callelinea 14:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre per Propaniac. She does not need her own article, as she was not notable before the shootings. I'd like to point out to the nominator to assume good faith and refrain from stating "too many administrators view AfDs as being little more that vote-gathering sessions". Sounds like you are introducting presumptions upon editors, and your "I don't care what the consensus is, as long as it's either delete or keep isn't exactly true because if that was the case you wouldn't have made the previous statement. Obviously there have been quite a few good discussions for both ways (keep and delete), and more often then not, the longer a discussion gets (usually a lot of both keep and delete recommendations) that it ends up in no consensus because it would not be fair until there is a majority consensus of one way or the other. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to me that there's enough here besides the way she died to keep the article. JulesH 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a bio of her life, nothing notable, save for the Va Tech shootings, hence the feasibility of just redirecting. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person has been the primary subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The topic became notable due to the shootings. Just because some users don't like the reason she became notable doesn't suddenly make her non-notable. "The world" decides if someone is notable, not Wikipedia editors. There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Oakshade 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comments above? Specifically, point number (2)? Pablosecca 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and it's not convincing. And the "letter of the law" comment is non-sensical as Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not "laws." --Oakshade 16:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to not hold to the guidelines when it goes against common sense. A disclaimer from the WP:N page:"[WP:N] is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The acid test: was she notable before the incident took place? The answer is surely no.Pablosecca 18:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was Yuri Gagarin notable before he flew in space? Your argument suggests that it is impossible for a person to be notable because of one single incident, which is clearly not the case. JulesH 19:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, your argument fails WP:NOTINHERITED. —gorgan_almighty 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED applies to articles that are not the primary subject of secondary reliable sources as this topic is. --Oakshade 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is "non-sensical" only if one is inclined to play semantics games, a syndrome all too common on Wikipedia (where someone actually voted Oppose on a RfAr on the sole strength of the candidate using the word "vote" in connection with the process, which is solely determined by a consensus vote of the participants). Plainly the text of Wikipedia policies and guidelines bear much weight, as evidenced by continuous parsing in debates, and the very nature of XfD sways back and forth between the strict and the loose constructionists. The mere fact that WP:IGNORE is a fundamental, official policy of Wikipedia should spell out the concern. That aside, of course Wikipedia editors decide whether a subject is notable or not; to date, Wikipedia editors measure articles under AfD review for notability based on standards written, amended and interpreted by Wikipedia editors, as opposed to outside bodies or groups. RGTraynor 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break[edit]

Redirect to List of Victims. This is a clear-cut example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS (and yes, BLP applies to the recently deceased). Every single source used in this article was written after her death. Period. There is nothing to establish that she was notable before becoming a victim, as harsh as that sounds. Again, this is a clear violation of our policies. If you don't like that, change the policies, but redirect in the meantime. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is WP:BLP primarily about living people (this person tragically died last April), that policy is about verification and NPOV, not about notability. WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO are what applies when discussing notability. --Oakshade 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Read the BDJ arbitration case -- BLP is about the recently deceased as well. WP:NOT and WP:BLP trump WP:N and WP:BIO in this case and in every similar case, and this is a clear violation of both. While BLP is not used in establishing notability, it is used in deletion of BLP-violating articles, of which this is one. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You admit yourself that WP:BLP is not about notability. And to quote from WP:BLP1E "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." This person is in no way "low profile." The articles primarily about this person are about her life and work OUTSIDE of the massacre. To say "Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was the subject of newspaper articles, therefore is in violation of WP:BLP" is just farcical WikiLawyering. --Oakshade 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand the BLP policy or the concept of WikiLawyering. Remember: when a person gains notability for an event, as demanded by BLP, cover the event, not the person. If you took some time to step back and examine the matter, you would see that the subject was not notable before the events that took place. Just look at the ref list. She became semi-notable (also covered by BLP) after her death because of the massacre. That is a clear violation of BLP and has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLawyering. The fact that you're ignoring both the spirit of BLP and Wikipedia and focusing only on what is written in WP:N is much more symptomatic of WikiLawyering and downright worrisome. This is an encyclopedia. This is not WikiNews. If you want the news, write for them. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming she was notable by WP standards before the tragedy. She became notable due to it. And she didn't only become "semi"-notable, but in fact an unfortunate national celebrity. Even Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a speech about her in Parliament [27]. That story is about her, not the event. The CBC story [28] and many others are about her. She became notable because of the event and all of these were written about her because of it, but that doesn't change he fact she became very notable. --Oakshade 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved the point that this article falls under WP:BLP1E and that it should be removed immediately. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. --Oakshade 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please just read the Bdj ArbCom decision -- BLP does not only apply to living people. Furthermore, just read the statement taken directly from BLP: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. That is EXACTLY what this article is. I'm sorry if you fail to understand this, but it's WP policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple reliable sources are EXACTLY primarily about her, not "only in the context of" the massacres but of her life, work, the creation of a prominent Francophone school, etc.. Your WikiLawyering attempt to stretch the meaning of WP:BLP just isn't working. --Oakshade 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were written because of her death and because of the massacre, which makes it absolutely, 100% in the context of the massacre. You can't spin it any other way. This has absolutely nothing to do with WikiLawyering, and your repeated, unsupported accusations just show that you're grasping for straws. This has to do with the spirit of the rules, especially BLP. There is no stretching of any meaning of BLP -- this situation is exactly what BLP1E was created for. I'm arguing spirit, you're arguing literal text. Which is WikiLawyering? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about the "spirit" of the rules, you are totally missunderstanding the purpose of WP:BLP and why it was created - so it doesn't adversely affect peoples lives, not to mention to ensure Wikipedia doesn't get sued. I'll quote the entire "In a Nutshell" section "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." There is nothing that violates the privacy of this person, not only in the letter of it, but in "the spirit" of it. Your WIkiLawyering is painstakingly attempting to apply a cherrypicked subclause of a policy that IN SPIRIT is meant to ensure accuracy and verifiability of an article. You might not have noticed, but WP:BLP1E is in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section. IN SPRIT, it is meant ensure the privacy of someone who's privacy should be respected. That is exactly what WP:BLP1E was written for (read the WP:BLP discussion history if you don't believe me). When the Prime Minister of Canada makes a speech in Parliament specifically about a person and national newpapers and networks write articles primarily about her, privacy concerns are completely moot. This isn't a WP:BLP issue, by the letter or "in spirit." --Oakshade 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you took a look at the slew of recent deletions you might say otherwise. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar's point is very simple, Oakshade. Her biography has no encyclopedia value outside of the context of the event. There is no way to argue against WP:BLP1E.Pablosecca 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E applies specifically to people who are "essentially low profile." This person is in no way "low profile." --Oakshade 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course she is low profile. We wouldn't be having this debate if she weren't. She was in life, and her death does not change such a fact. The articles that arose subsequent to her death were largely biographical data, recycled wire copy -- and the real problem is that the only reason she was chosen by the regional newspapers was because of her background. For instance, in Guatemala, there were news stories about the Guatamalan victims of 9/11 -- that's now regional papers make their butter, by stories with a "regional focus". But it's too willy-nilly to confer notability when the subject is per se not notable. As I said before, this debate is getting a little nationalist -- I think many are defending this entry because it has to do with a French Canadian. Pablosecca 08:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the primary subject of multiple national (not "regional" as you so claimed) secondary sources is not at all low profile. And not covering notable subjects outside United States, whether they be notable in Canada or Guatemala, is exactly the purpose of the WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Oakshade 15:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the problem I'm trying to get across. Oakshade, you fail to get past the face of the guidelines and cling too strongly to the technical meaning without pausing to reflect on the intention behind those guidelines. WP:NN notes that the rule in a nutshell is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." But that's just the nutshell, Oakshade, and we have to think rationally about why this entry exists at all, which is because and only because of the VTech massacre.Pablosecca 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person most certainly passes the "intention" of our guidelines more than hundreds (if not thousands) of article topics as being someone who unfortunately became very notable. --Oakshade 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give an example. Jeffrey Miller is only notable for his death also, but it's a very different case. Pablosecca 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Tippit and Ronald Goldman are examples. BRMo 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the hundreds or thousands of articles that have much less secondary coverage about the topic, not specifically victims of crimes. But BRMo brings up good examples of those. --Oakshade 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not good examples. Both were the only (or one of the two) victims of famous murders, not one of dozens in a sudden spree. For instance, Tippit, his part is noteworthy because he fits within the grand scheme of the topic of the Kennedy assassination. By the way, Oakshade, I believe Stephen Harper mentioned Couture-Nowak in passing, and didn't give a whole speech about her. This is the best I can gather from some light research. Do you know?Pablosecca 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let's not start trying to rank victims' notability by the number of people killed at one time. let's look at each individual person. As to the question about Harper, here's links to what was said on the day...
PM interrupted QP briefly, Dion's statement, moment of silence,
Bloc Quebecois links it to gun registry. Pretty standard condolence stuff, admittedly. I do think that Dion and Harper, spoke more at length in the press about her role in the Francophone community but I think that has now turned into a dead link. Or it may have been in French. Canuckle 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the sheer number of victims confers notability. This may be distasteful, but it's true. The Kent State victim (one of several) is surely notable, not because of anything he did but because of his death and subsequent (involuntary) participation in a very famous photo. That's just how it works; fewer (even involuntary) participants in a major event, more focus they'll receive; more notability. The fact that the victim here in question was picked out from the dozens dead, picked out by regional newspapers because of her background, rather than her accomplishments, does not confer notability. I think this whole debate is getting a little nationalistic, with people defending this entry as if though they're defending French Canadian pride or something. Finally keep in mind, for comparison, that the entry describing the school Ms Couture Nowak founded, that entry was deleted as non-notable.Pablosecca 08:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- by the way, let me state that I think redirect is the most logical of the solutions. I don't think that was clear from my into above. Thanks, Pablosecca 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate that nom is trying to "obtain" consensus on whether to delete or not, but the last AfD noted that AfDs are a poor way of "building" consensus for contested articles. Would be nice to see some progress on the article's Talk page. (There was some efforts made by nom and others). Her fame and notability may only have occurred after her death, but that's not an acceptable argument. You'd knock off Vincent Van Gogh (I think) or Victoria Cross winners recognized post-humously. We may not think much of the 'created a school' claim, but notable people such as the Prime Minister thought it a notable accomplishment and their validation was widely covered in reliable sources. I can see why she's contentious as I think she just clears the bar of notability, but she does clear it. Canuckle 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference that gives an idea how notable Canadian media thought she was: a column by CBC News Editor-in-Chief Tony Burman - A story of victims and issues, not only the killer - that asks whether she, Liviu Librescu, the group of victims or the killer will become the "iconic image that will forever recall the massacre at Virginia Tech". She may not have become the iconic image outside of Nova Scotia, but this is evidence that some distinctions were drawn between her and the group of victims. Canuckle 18:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are just further proving that she was not notable before the fact. I hope you realize that this is an article about her AFTER the massacre. Was anything written about her BEFORE the massacre?? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I described above, that doesn't matter as it's possible for your notable achievements to go unrecognized during your lifetime. In fact, many of the best biographies are written after someone has died and there are many examples of people's accomplishments being re-evaluated and accepted after their death. There has been a good breadth of coverage. You may argue it's not deep but as Wikipedia:Notability (people) it is deeper than "a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form" and she has demonstrable wide name recognition within Canada, particularly with Francophones.Canuckle 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wp:common and notable. if it passes 3 times in short order, wait a year or two before you nominate again. -- Buridan 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I too disagree with the frequency, nom does argue that previous AfDs did not "pass" (consensus to keep) -- rather they failed to obtain consensus. Canuckle 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is the same in my book. If you do not reach consensus to delete, it is a defacto keep, it passed, if you can't do that the first time or the fourth time, you will end up with the same thing this time. this one should be viewed as a continuation of the last no consensus at best.--Buridan 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia is a terrible way to build an encyclopedia. And let's not forget that one of the three completed AfDs ended in "Delete", while none have yet ended in "Keep". Pablosecca 18:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that lone Delete result was overturned.Canuckle 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
without inertia, there would be no wikipedia..... Inclusion of encyclopedic content is the key. Did she do something that could end up in an encyclopedia? yes, did she do something that was notable in her life? yes. --Buridan 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Pablosecca: Inertia is a terrific way to build an encyclopedia. Inertia is: "The tendency of an object at rest to remain at rest, and of an object in motion to remain in motion". WP is definitely in motion. Sometimes, the motion is in endless circles seeking consensus by AfD but usually it's forward. Canuckle 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan: what precisely, pray, did she do that was notable, and could end up in an encyclopedia? Also, pray, what would waiting two years accomplish? Also, see WP:NOTAGAIN. Canuckle: I don't want to get faux-scientific with you; let me just say that to equate no consensus with an endorsement is misguided. If an article, including this one, can stand on its own merits, let it be judged keep. If not, delete. Accepting these "no consensus" decisions is a toxic misadventure, one that stifles debate and discourse. Pablosecca 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a school is notable and could end up in an encyclopedia of the history of education of canada. surely wikipedia will eventually encapsulate that history in its totality, no? isn't that the goal of wikipedia to hold the sum of knowledge? --Buridan 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pablosecca Go as "faux-scientific" with me as much as you want. I did not equate no consensus with endorsement. In fact, I responded to Buridan to support you in saying that no consensus was reached. But we should also be cautious about citing a Delete decision that was overturned on review for lack of consensus Canuckle 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The delete result is not controlling, but I bring it up whenever I detect the attitude that reasons that since there has as yet been no consensus, keep is appropriate. I think it's called WP:NOTAGAIN. People, listen: it's been months; the article still has no information that justifies an existence outside of the main Vtech article or Vtech victims page. That's it!Pablosecca 08:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of victims. Clearly fails WP:PROF and only is in the newspapers as one of many victims in a massacre. We do not have memorial articles. No sources to show she was notable other for being in the wrong place at the wrong time for a few horrible minutes. Cover the event, not the victims. Edison 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOT#NEWS - She was only notable for one incident, with no "historic notability" as WP:NOT requires. Corpx 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS doens't apply. That one event she unfortunately became notable for is extremely "historic" and being the only Canadian in the massacre sadly placed her in Canadian history. --Oakshade 20:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The event is historically notable and should be mentioned, not each individual victim Corpx 01:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Canuckle 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep perfectly verifiable article. - SimonP 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of verifiability is not pertinent to this debate. Pablosecca 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure it is. it is best to not delete well verified articles, as eventually as wikipedia grows, other articles will tie into this one and they will mutually strengthen each other. if this was unverified, i'd have said delete.--Buridan 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is necessary, but not sufficient, for an article's inclusion. There are many verifiable things which don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia (for example, every article in every community newspaper). Mind matrix 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that this article is unverified: that's why its not pertinent to the debate. Pablosecca 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to meet this guy who says everything mentioned in every community newspaper should have an article. Deletionists are always kicking the straw out of him, and I kinda feel bad for him. Everyking 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Aside from being an art instructor and having been one of about three dozen people shot and killed during the VT massacre a few months back, she's really not that notable - but certainly should get a mention in the aforementioned article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have held back on voicing my opinion in previous reviews, but ultimately feel that she was the subject of numerous articles here in Canada and became quite notable. In the end, I feel that it was more than just extended coverage of the massacre. And although I believe that the nominator acted good faith, I firmly believe that this is one nomination too many, and that at a certain point, the lack of consensus should be accepted as a keep because there is clearly no consensus to delete. Skeezix1000 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This biography clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guideline: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites a number of reliable, national news sources. Notability is not a personal "achievement"; it is a recognition that enough information on the subject has been published in reliable secondary sources to support an encyclopedia article. BRMo 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of victims... page. Are we gonna have an article for every victim? of every massacre? GoodDay 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ones that have multiple secondary sources written primarily about them, yes. --Oakshade 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. She is not notable independent of being a victim, and the best place for her obituary is List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Resolute 00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 30 references over the year. Major news services,major newspapers. That is what notability is about. In previous deletion discussions, there was great emphasis on the fact that all the references were right after the event, even though it seemed obvious to most of us that it would continue to be notable. And so it has proven. DGG (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having references is only step one. Read WP:BLP1E.Pablosecca 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, the topic is not "essentially low profile" and WP:BLP1E is about privacy of private citizens, not notability.--Oakshade 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If BLP did apply because it includes "recently deceased" people, then how long is recent? 6 months, 12 months, 2 years plus a day? Name a subjective time period and an editor could recreate this bio after it. Then we would face becoming a recreation of the Pythonesque Dead Parrot sketch -- "She's not dead, she's recently deceased." That doesn't appear to be common sense or a desirable result.Canuckle 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:BLP1E did apply, it does advise against separate bios for most (but not all) cases because of concerns for: (1) undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, (2) redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and (3) cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. There appears room for exceptions, like this bio. NPOV hasn't been raised. The server maintenance of this start-class article is small. There may be redundancy concerns with the description of her activities during the attack. That can be resolved with a main-article link in the appropriate section. Undue weight should be considered, but the content seems very well sourced and does not appear to me to overstate her role in the attack. In fact, her bio is the only place on WP that describes the Canadian and Francophone (and Polish?!) reaction to her death, and the fact that massive, massive media coverage plus validation from notable sources that she made contributions to Francophone society (whether I believe it or not - the claims were made and quite widely). I did consider the 'cover the event argument' while cleaning up the article. I'd like to hear an argument from that POV that Canadian reaction to Virginia Tech massacre be created. If this was done, virtually all the present biographical content would still be on Wikipedia then. Plus even more Canadiana material could be added about the media coverage, the Bloc Quebecois gun registry response, etc.

Keep -- per arguments in the 2nd AfD: many independent sources covered her life with more than trivial coverage. The shooter was also not notable before the event: it's our ability to write a deep, well-documented article that is a primary consideration. The article is not an obituary, it's a biography. Mindmatrix said above the verifiability is "necessary, but not sufficient, for an article's inclusion. There are many verifiable things which don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia (for example, every article in every community newspaper)." Was she only covered in local community newspapers? No. National news sources dedicated pages to her biography. Thus Mind's second criterion is also fulfilled. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:BLP1E.Pablosecca 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, the topic is not "essentially low profile" and WP:BLP1E is about privacy of private citizens, not notability. --Oakshade 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what part of biography of LIVING persons is relevant here? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom rules that BLP1E applies to the recently deceased.Pablosecca 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ruled that WP:BLP (not specifically BLP1E) applied to a very specific case which did not change WP:BLP at all. There have been proposals to change WP:BLP to inculded recenetly deceased and every one has been shot down. WP:BLP does not anywhere in it say it applies to deceased people. --Oakshade 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite what you say?Pablosecca 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know exactly what you're referring to. If you mean does WP:BLP say anywhere that it also applies to recently deseased people, then just read it and you won't find it. The most recent discussions about adding such a clause, and in turn rejected, are here and here.--Oakshade 04:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and block anybody who nominates this again over at least the next year. Everyking 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, one event biography. --Eyrian 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect - I was considering closing this as all keep arguments are essentially the same thing, and are all shut down by WP:BLP1E, but this was nommed a day ago so I'll give it time. Anyway, as stated in WP:BLP1E, there is nothing notable about this person except the Vtech event. 1 event. Ring any bells? I dunno, it reminds me of WP:BLP1E...All the new sources concern the EVENT, not the PERSON, thus this person is only notable as a participant of the EVENT. Therefore, the article should be redirected to the EVENT that asserts their notability, not as an individual, but as someone who took part in an EVENT. Giggy _U^CP 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole affair has been an unfortunate confluence of emotion and legalism. And indeed, the crystal-ballism of previous debates, during which it was argued that "with time" the article would become notable, has been proved wrong. I hope we can find admins who respect consensus, but refuse to take into account essentially incorrect rationales.Pablosecca 00:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with time... means 5-10 years, not an afd each month for those 60-120 months, please keep some perspective, as knowledge and notability change over time.--Buridan 09:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By this reasoning, all 3000+ people who died in the WTC collapse would be notable. While its sad, I just dont agree with it either Corpx 01:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every 9/11 victim that meets the notability requirements should have an article; the same goes for victims of anything, including school shootings. In fact, it goes for everything in the entire universe—if it meets the notability requirements, we keep it. And anybody who tries to apply BLP to dead people should just be ignored. Soon we've have deletionists citing BLP to delete articles on small towns, obscure insects, and far-off moons. It just boggles the mind. We have a policy, and it's pretty simple, yet it has to be continually twisted so that it can be used more extensively, and the encyclopedia can be that much smaller. Everyking 03:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E applies only to "essentially low profile" living persons. This person is in no way "low profile". --Oakshade 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, or delete. In reality, Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GreenJoe 05:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia isn't a memorial clause is for those topics that aren't the subject of multiple secondary sources, ie not somebody's grandpa. --Oakshade 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above per WP:NOT. Keeping this is an obvious circumvention of WP policy and yet another example of news being conflated with notability. Eusebeus 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's so obvious, why isn't it written down anywhere? Everyking 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The previous discussions that this individual would likely be consdidered as notable at least in Canada. She became the subject of an article upon her death, which is a logical time to consider writing an article. Her involvment at Virginia Tech is another sidelight, but if she had been hit by a truck, she still meets the basic criteria for inclusion. I would also agree with the concept of their being a time limit for repeated AFD nominations. cmacd 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is notable for her achievements during her life and also for her death. --musicpvm 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What achievements during her life made her notable? Corpx 04:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Truro school answers that question pretty nicely, funnily enough. Bearcat 05:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to straighten some points out I think we're tending toward legalism again here, and losing sight of what's best for Wikipedia. Arbcom here could not approve a statement affirming that BLP applies only to the living. While WP:BLP1E pithily formulates an opposition to creating entries for people notable for only one event, it does so partly under the rubric of privacy, which is why it's throwing some people off. But BLP1E echoes what is clearly in WP:BIO, which states that "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The argument I'm trying to get across, as are others, is that the coverage Ms Couture Nowak received was essentially trivial and incidental -- totally under the aegis of the events at VTech. There was no reason to single her out except in the rush to get any kind of copy about the story, to think of new angles to cover the story. Emily Jane Hilscher, for instance, one of the first victims, has several articles "about" her -- for instance -- but of course they're really about the VTech story, about fleshing out the characters in the drama as it were. Also, can anyone seriously argue that WP:PROF applies here?--Pablosecca 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO makes is very clear that "trivial coverage" refers to "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." The coverage of this person is extensive and deep and nothing at all resembling WP:BIO's definition of "trivial." --Oakshade 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial, because it only has need in the context of the VTech massacre.Pablosecca 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivial, it was only a matter of time before there was enough documentation to support her notability. That the VT event happened, just made scholarship and reporting act faster than it would have. She was notable to a large community before the event, she was more noted after the event. However, that she is notable for her work in education in a large community is not disputed anywhere above and really, it can't be disputed because there is no counter evidence to 'is notable' as that would just add notability.--Buridan 19:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She got a degree, taught, and founded a school - that's essentially her biography. Not notable! Besides common sense, evidence supports that: for instance the article that had to do with the school she founded was eliminated in an AfD. As for "only matter of time arguments", being not psychic myself, I cannot comprehend such things. Pablosecca 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a school is notable, especially where and when she did it. That the school was deleted is probably part of systematic bias against francophone canada on english wikipedia, I suspect that page will come back sometime in the future. I can't know that, but we'll see. --Buridan 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with the nationalism. Leave that be. As for the school notability, it depends on the school. I've founded a school too, here in NY, for actors -- it's really small, but you don't hear me clamoring for notability because I know that you have to work to become historically important, which is the criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Finally, let me assert that an article, any article, has to demonstrate notability the moment it is created, even if it's a stub-article. If in the future some heretofore hidden revelation that Ms Couture Nowak did something of a historical scale in her biography comes to light, the article will be rightfully recreated. Pablosecca 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, we are going with systematic bias, and we pointed it out. in any case, if you review the comments, there is no consensus to delete, in fact, the consensus seems to be keep or keep as redirect. if there is consensus how do you think it should be interpretted? --Buridan 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you like the Britannica standard of notability. This is Wikipedia. Everyking 05:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. And systemic bias my foot. As for the "consensus" to keep, I don't know what AfD you're looking at. This is not a vote -- opinions with fundamentally wrong rationales, or one-liner comments, should be discounted. Everyking: I don't know what you mean by "Britannica" vs "Wikipedia" standards. Pablosecca 05:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually.... opinions that vociferously argue that they are correct and all other positions are against wikipedia policy in one way oe 18 others should be discounted. one liners are great, they establish consensus. arguers who extensively post against one liners, should be ignored because they are clearly pushing a point of view. that to me seems much more in the spirit of wikipedia than ignoring one liners.--Buridan 10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete or Redirect to List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. On the strengths of the article (and it's references) in their present form, there is nothing to assert notability other than the shooting (which fails WP:BLP1E - "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted"). It's theoretically possible that this person is notable enough for inclusion without being particularly well known (per WP:NPF), but no assertion of that notability is made in either the article or any of it's references.

This person is an academic, therefore the criteria of WP:PROF must be applied to assess notability:

"The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
"The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
"The person has published a significant and well-known academic work..." - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
"The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
"The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.
"The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" - No assertion of this in the article or any of its references.

It any of the 6 points above do apply to this person, and if properly cited assertion of that fact is made in the article, then I would change my view to Keep.

—gorgan_almighty 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the post. It's been discussed that the more general WP:NOT apply, particularly demonstrable name recognition. A notability claim is contributing to Francophone community: as per..."Chris d'Entremont, Minister of Acadian Affairs. "She has made a great contribution to the francophone community, particularly with the development of École acadienne in Truro" from a current reference. This claim, although short, was extremely widespread in her ethnic community, in her province and nationally. There are no end to media references that can be supplied. Canuckle 14:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person is not notable for being an academic alone. WP:BIO and WP:N is what applies and this person easily passes those. Incorrectly applying a guideline like WP:PROF and then arguing against it is a classic red herring argument. --Oakshade 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Oakshade: Indeed, caveat 3 of WP:PROF specifically points out that academics can be notable for other things than being academics. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to sound like a re-hash, their are at least two and probaly Three significant "events" in this persons life. any of which could justify a """KEEP""" (not a vote, I already voted to keep above) Founding an school, for french speaking students where their was none before means that it was creating a class of schools in the province. That one act, which is well documented by independent secondary sources SHOULD be enough to earn this person a place in an encyclopedia. The fact that she was a victum of "yet another" american shooting does not diminish that event. She is not being evaluated on the body of her academic work. that may or may not be significant, but she is firstly known for the efforts in french language education. When you are appling a test, you must look at the peson overall. She is not for example being cited as an Sport figure so the sports related tests are not relavant. Some people have one major defining moment, or achevement others make a lot of small contributions, it seems in this case we are discusing someone who is a poly-contibutor to society.cmacd 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of you are saying that this person is "clearly notable" under the criteria in WP:BIO and WP:N. I'm not looking for a fight here, and I will gladly embrace that argument if it is true, but saying that she is "clearly notable" under those criteria does not automatically make it true. Please could someone explain to me exactly what criteria in WP:BIO and WP:N applies to this person, and for what reason. I'm trying to be very precise here because some of us have two particular concerns about this article. On there own these are not reasons for deletion, but they give us strong reason to suspect the implied notability of this person. My concerns are:

The article, in it's present form, still reads like a memorial.
All of the references provided were written after the subject's death, and are arguably written as memorials to the subject.

It has been suggested that this person is notable for founding the École acadienne de Truro, but not all schools are notable, and nothing in this article asserts the notability of this particular school. If the notability of the school can be asserted (and properly cited) in this article, then that would go a long way towards asserting the notability of this individual. Secondary source references about this person from before here death wouldn't hurt, either.

—gorgan_almighty 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the 'before her death' bit does not follow. facts about a person's life come out when they come out. this person's life had a significant event that caused many people to research and make note of her accomplishments. that it happened after the death does not mean the death caused it, as it is likely that those facts would have come to light over time in any case. people focussing on this as related to the virginia tech massacre and death are precisely missing the point of notability, which is that it does not matter when the facts of notability come to be documented, just that the facts are documented, cited and verified. the conjunction in this case... the facts coming to light upon her death, is not the cause of the facts.--Buridan 17:46, 30 July 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. Yannismarou 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Povl Riis-Knudsen[edit]

Non-notable Danish neo-nazi. The only source given is not from a reliable source and the link doesn't work anymore. So, delete per WP:BIO MartinDK 10:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lack of reliable sources, failure to prove notability. --Folantin 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important figure in international Neo-Nazism as both a theorist and a former leader of the World Union of National Socialists. Keresaspa 11:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is nothing important about his "theoretical" work. None of it is new. As for his leadership of the World Union of National Socialists there is absolutely nothing notable about it. It didn't last long and he accomplished nothing. This explains the complete lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. MartinDK 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lack of sources is not a good enough reason for deletion as these can always be added. I'm too busy to do it now but will be able to next month so the article could easily be tagged as lacking sources rather than deleted. I disagree with your other statements as his theoretical work and leadership had a very divisive impact on international Neo-Nazism, effectively wrecking their attempts at unity along with Matt Koehl. Keresaspa 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually lack of sources happens to be an excellent reason for deletion. WP:V is policy and should be enforced. Since you wrote the article you must know your sources. Remember that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Also, where are the reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage? The article has been here for two years yet not a single reliable source has been added. MartinDK 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - He is covered in The Beast Reawakens and some other works on the far right to which I have access. The lack of sources is something I can fix, just not right now as I have too much work on. Keresaspa 12:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I presume Povl Riis-Knudsen has come to notice because of the deletion discussion on his essay, National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement, which I believe should be deleted since the article basically consists of little more than a copy of the essay itself. However, the article on the man needs to stay for the reasons given by Keresaspa, i.e. he is (was) a significant figure in the international Nazi movement and a leading theorist. OK, so it needs more sources. Let's give Keresaspa some good faith and trust him to add them. Emeraude 12:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With only 62 G-hits [29] and less than a third of that on the Danish Google, almost every single one of those from Wiki mirrors or from hate sites like stormfront.org, the degree to which this fellow is a "significant figure" anywhere is wholly unproven, and every indication is that he's just another fringe crackpot. Keresaspa created this article nearly two years ago and has had ample time to bring it to proper standards of verifiability. There should be no prejudice about the recreation of a properly sourced article on this subject, but we can't keep unsourced articles for years on the premise that reliable sources no one else can find will show up. RGTraynor 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources since 2005 - WP:V, WP:BIO apply. Also, no indication that this guy was ever the "leader" of more than a dozen or so beer-guzzling nutjobs. Sandstein 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard of 'em. GoodDay 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is meant as a joke. DGG (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, until this Afd occured, I've never knew the article existed (or that Knudsen existed). GoodDay 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I meant about using it as a reason for deletion. the purpose of an encyclopedia is to tell people about things they dont know. DGG (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there. It's just that, he seems a 'fringe' character, not overly notable. GoodDay 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now added references from a few sources. I will do this more thoroughly in about a month but at the minute I am writing up my PhD thesis and don't have time to spend on this. I appreciate the lack of references was one of the big problems but hopefully that side of the argument can now be put to bed. The only problem that I can see remaining is notably and I feel that his positions with the WUNS and DNBS, his writing and publishing activities and the controversy he has raised are enough to make him notable. Some may disagree but such is life and it will be the call of whoever closes this debate to judge that one. Keresaspa 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as written, the sources seem quite sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assume that you are aware that forums don't make reliable sources. To establish notability the source must also show non-trivial coverage, something that the remaining sources fail to do. As for WUNS and DNBS those are small and only borderline notable organizations. Why do you think those 62 Google hits are all due to this article? The guy is a local nutcase, nothing more than that. Please, read the sources and then read WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:V / WP:RS. He had 2 years to source this and this is not the only unsourced article he has created. The onus is on the creator to source the article. I'll remove the links that violate WP:EL shortly. MartinDK 07:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure why I'm copping so much flack here but I would ask you to remember WP:CIVIL. My other contributions are not the object of this discussion. As for this one, 'local nutcase' is your opinion and I've already outlined why I disagree with that. Given that Wikipedia doesn't exist just to serve either of us there is little we can do to change each others opinion on that. I also don't see the problems with Lee's book or a European Parliament report as sources, whilst quoting someone's own words to indicate their beliefs also seems fine to me. Keresaspa 12:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The EU report is available here. Please, to establish notability you need multiple reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage. The EU report is trivial coverage (one mention of his name), the forum only contains his essay which is not sufficient at all for establishing notability. In addition to this we shouldn't be linking to forums in the first place per WP:EL. This basically leaves the book by Lee as the only reliable source showing non-trivial coverage. One book is not multiple reliable sources. Please understand that my only concern here is that WP:N is not satisfied. If you can provide multiple reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage then of course we can keep the article. Until then we have policies and guidelines that we need to follow. Once again, please read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Those are all clear on what makes reliable sources and how notability is established. It really shouldn't be that difficult. Add to this that the article had been unsourced for 2 years before I nominated it and you have a text book example of a deletion candidate. And I haven't even mentioned WP:BLP which also applies and demands that you source it properly. MartinDK 08:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though GoodDay never heard of him and MartinDK thinks he's just a local nutcase, the sources do show sufficient notability. And that's what counts.--Carabinieri 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article could work, but it requires extensive improvements. J-stan ^Talk 01:47, 31 July 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 in addition being withdrawn by nominator. ●DanMS • Talk 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary C. Whitman[edit]

~~Fails WP:BIO.~~ No assertion of academic merit given, so not notable as scientist. ~~President of Mount Holyoke College seems to me a local post, so not notable as a politician.~~ Taemyr 10:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that President of Mount Holyoke College is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. So there is not grounds for deletion. Taemyr 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can't see anything wrong with the article other than this subjective notion of importance. Article is sourced, reflects sources, and educates people, as an encyclopedia should. Hiding Talk 11:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I lean toward inherent notability for presidents of more notable colleges (I admit I don't know where I'd draw the line, but Mt. Holyoke falls above it). If there were zero information other than her serving as president, I'd support a redirect, but there is a bit more than that. Unless I'm incorrect about how college presidents are selected (I believe they're appointed by the college board of trustees), it's not analogous to a locally elected politician. Propaniac 12:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- nn. I can't see how merely being the president of an academic institution on its own has sufficient significance to merit a separate entry on a person. Perhaps a short few lines bio on the Mount Holyoke College article would suffice? Uranometria 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that most of the other entries at *List_of_Mount_Holyoke_College_people#Presidents are exactly the same format; any entries that do NOT offer additional information or possible claims to notability should really be grouped in this nomination. Propaniac 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first two reasonings.Callelinea 14:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the school. When she headed the school (1848-1850) it was not a college, just a girls' school. Mt. Holyoke of 1850 was not the Mt. Holyoke of today in academic prestige. It did not become a college intil 1888. She was correctly title the "Principal" of a girls' school, and as such is not inherently notable by any stretch any more than other school principals. I could not find sources which indicate she had any significant or lasting effect on the school or on society, which makes the article a mere directory listing, and likely a permanent stub. If sources were found in the school library to write a great article about her, then an article could always be re-created. The article about her better-known predecessor looks ok, for instance. Edison 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sentences such as "Mt. Holyoke of 1850 was not the Mt. Holyoke of today in academic prestige" and lines like "girls' school" suggest a lack of understanding of the state of women's education in mid-19th-century America. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of many Presidents of Mount Holyoke College who have their own article. Lra drama 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, barely notable, largely because of her position. Realkyhick 17:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Edison. I dont believe notability should be inherited due to the position and it would be hard to find sources that date to those days Corpx 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being president of a well-heeled academic institution is definitely a notable accomplishment. --Nondistinguished 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, silly me, I thought becoming President (or equivalent title) of an institution was evidence of academic merit. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While academics is a criteria, most presidents these days are not chosen solely on academic merit. Corpx 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corpx, read the article and look at the dates. DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the article, nor the bio link makes any mention of her educational qualifications Corpx 14:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the history of women's education outside the UK, but was it even possible for women to obtain a formal degree in 1839? Espresso Addict 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be so, looking at Timeline of women's colleges in the United States Corpx 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhartung, WP:PROFTEST talks about academic works. It's possible that she would qualify by criteria 2, acknowledgment by scientists in same field, but the article does not even mention what her field is. Nowhere in WP:PROFTEST is having a high title within an academic institution mentioned. Taemyr 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Academic merit alone or academic and administrative merit combined, it's notable. And "a local post" --must be judging by "female seminary" without knowing about the school. Its relative status in 1850 was even higher than it is today. The president now will be a major academic figure--and the one then, a pioneer as well. DGG (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pioneer in women's education. Espresso Addict 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Due to apparent consensus that her title is sufficent to pass WP:NOTE. Still feels a redirect would be better unless there are more content that could be added to the page. Also speedy close due to no editors(nominator included) suggesting deletion. Taemyr 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Pioneer in women's education. Perhaps only Antioch College, Russell Sage College, and SUNY New Paltz gave females degrees before the U.S. Civil War. Close this AfD please. Bearian 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. What more can be said about this person other than they were the president of this college? If nothing else, why shouldn't it be merged? Do tell. Burntsauce 23:21, 27 July 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 close, please discuss redirects at WP:RfD, not here. Sr 13 07:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyez On Us (G-Unit Radio Part 5)[edit]

All these pages are redirects to G-Unit discography. These are such useless redirects with no significant articles linking to these pages. A previous afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokin' Day 2 (G-Unit Radio Part 1)) resulted in a merge to the discography page where these mixtapes are already mentioned. Besides, these are mixtapes and can never be expanded beyond a mere track listing and thus fail WP:MUSIC. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: Spellcast 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No-one is typing "The Clean Up Man (G-Unit Radio Part 24)" by chance. Cedars 10:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Evb-wiki 12:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and relist at WP:RFD as these are redirects. Otherwise delete. Otto4711 12:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Otto4711, but also, if these articles are the source of merged content, I believe the redirects HAVE to remain to archive the content's edit history. Propaniac 12:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those articles were deleted in the first afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12)). I just don't see the use in having redirects for non-notable mixtapes that should never have been created in the first place. Spellcast 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was recreated and then merged. This means that the redirect must stay as long as the article it was merged to exists, because that's what the GFDL requires (see WP:COPYRIGHT). JulesH 13:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per above and note that these redirects do have edit history, therefore cannot be deleted unless the article they were merged to is also deleted. Therefore do not list at RFD. JulesH 13:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the result of the first afd I mentioned was officially a "merge". But the content of these articles were never actually merged into the main discography (it's too big). The titles of the mixtapes are simply mentioned in G-Unit discography with no merged content from the above articles whatsoever. Spellcast 13:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I havent checked them all, but for those I checked there seemed to be very little content not brought into them by Spellcast. Then the demand to save the articles history, when that very user asks them deleted, should vanish. . Greswik 13:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started those articles when I was very new to Wikipedia. Looking back, I regret starting them and I wish I never did. I mean, these are mixtapes- they can never be expanded into a good article. At most, the names of these tapes deserve to be mentioned in the artist's discography and that's all. Nobody is going to type in "Back to Business (G-Unit Radio Part 14)". Spellcast 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --- Realest4Life 14:22, 24 July 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. Sr 13 08:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neko-ryu[edit]

Fails WP:N. No independent sources cited for this martial art, and expert review request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts did not turn up any. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as not notable, no externals to even get started on, google gives 12 matches. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[30]try it without the hyphen. I doubt it's enough, but what exactly is the standard for notability of a martial art?Horrorshowj 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial coverage in reliable sources, just as for everything else. Read WP:NOTE, it tells you all you need to know. --Eyrian 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with notability standards. However, a subject can pass by meeting specific without meeting general. Since I've never seen a Martial Art up for Afd, I'm asking if there is a specific standard that applies. Horrorshowj 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. --Eyrian 16:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this sounds distinctively like something that comes from a single episode of Ranma 1/2. A side note, a tiger is not appropriate if you are using the Japanese word neko. But that's semantics. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having met him in person on the mat, I can attest to the fact that the Ernie Cates and his ryu are the real deal, but that doesn't change the fact that there are basically no sources to cite. —Mrand ^T-C 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for the note - I stand corrected then. 'Tis a shame, really, that there are no sources. It coulda been a contendah. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all deletes above. Not notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:58, 25 July 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 Speedied. Article is a copyvio of [31]. Hiding Talk 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Rait[edit]

Non notable assistant film director. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as assistant directors do plenty of work but are not in any sense notable barring unusual circumstances. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article has been the first assistant director for at least 4 Canadian films, as found in Google. ("James Rait" -wikipedia +canada) They include Another Planet, Legendes Urbaines, Squeezebox and Red Velvet Girls. This shows that he's played a significant role in creating major feature films (as he's the first assistant director), and satisfies WP:BIO for creative persons.--Kylohk 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:42, 24 July 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. John254 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury Award[edit]

Not sure what this comes under, but this 'award' is totally not notable, and seems to have been started to use as a link from Air India (the only recipient mentioned). Russavia 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually even Quantas has won it (source google)! If you google IFCA (International Flight Caterers Association) and Mercury Award there is plenty of hits. this also shows verifiability and notability. Pedro | Chat 09:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm as surprised as anyone, but Google News does turn up quite a few articles about the award. Propaniac 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be a notable enough award. Just needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Passes WP:NOTE, barely. Realkyhick 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I agree this is just an industry award, but then so is the Mercury Music Prize. The quality of airline food service isn't that important in a lot of Western countries (since the 1960s or so) but it is elsewhere. --Dhartung | Talk 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, the quality of airline service overall hasn't been that important to the airlines since the 60's! :) Pedro | Chat 08:26, 25 July 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. Redirects are cheap. Sr 13 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doma Castle (Final Fantasy VI)[edit]

Article is a non-notable fictional plot point written in-universe. The point is already covered encyclopedically in Final Fantasy VI, Characters of Final Fantasy VI, and World of Final Fantasy VI. Kariteh 08:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Final Fantasy VI, since it's just a snippet of plot from that game. AFD isn't needed for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—simple solution. — Deckill er 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go so far as to say it should be a Speedy Redirect, if there is such a thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect as above. I see no possibility of enough out-of-universe information on this relatively minor plot point to meet the notability guideline for fiction. Anomie 13:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Yeah, I like that term too. Realkyhick 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect speedily. — Blue 。 18:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to merge and it's a poor redirect besides. Axem Titanium 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poison it. Pointlessly overdetailed summary of a minor plot point in a video game with a OR name. Those "Battle of..." articles are getting ridiculous. ' 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of out-of-universe information, unlikely search term. 17Drew 01:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with Utmost Haste. If anyone is searching for it, they're going to hit FFVI eventually anyway.Ravenmasterq 06:36, 28 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mugs[edit]

I can't find any verification for this. It looks suspiciously like something made up by some bored students one evening. It would probably be better as a redirect to Mug. Leith p 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good example of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I mean c'mon, "Mugs has caused approximately $8.2 billion worth of damage in the U.S. alone." Spellcast 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of verification per nom, and per Spellcast re WP:NFT.Pedro | Chat 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Must've been a slow day at the frat house. Realkyhick 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Very funny! Bearian 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Pretty humorous, though. Chengwes 07:22, 29 July 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, per Carlossuarez46 and Canuckle's points. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish volunteers in the Spanish Civil War[edit]

Basically just a list of volunteers who happened to be Jewish --ROGER ^TALK 07:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA--Victor falk 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. I don't think I could have picked a more incongruous combination than this. Realkyhick 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Neutral per trivial intersection and any special notability for Jew participation Corpx 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. That's not trivia. And I'm not Jewish or Socialist. Nom says "just a list of volunteers who happened to be Jewish". There quite clearly is sourced material in the article that says Jews made up to 10% of the forces and there was consideration of forming a brigade. Army units and recruiting by nationality were quite common in that era and the list of notable soldiers is pretty small. An actual unit would have been notable, and historic discussion of one is as notable as speculation about Indiana Jones 4. Canuckle 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this is not an incongruous combination as mentioned above; the Phalagists were intricately linked with the conservative elements of the Roman Catholic Church and were quite anti-Semitic (Franco was supported by Hitler during the war) while the Republicans were relatively unaligned religiously. That the Spanish Civil War was a proving ground for technology and tactics and a clash of world-views is virtually universally conceded. That socialists, communists, Jews were volunteers on the Republican side is neither surprising nor un-noteworthy, apart from the sources in the article several books and articles on the subject have been written, as have many books about Nazi German assistance to the Phalangists. Both are worthy of articles. Carlossuarez46 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not trivial at all, and a useful list.--Mantanmoreland 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very informative, well constructed. Bottom line, it matters. Auror 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. carlossuarez46 argument makes sense. Though the fact that many volunteered as a way of fighting fascism should be emphasised greatly. Now it feels they might just as well been presbyterians or shoemakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 July 2007
Strong Keep as per Canuckle, Carlossuarez46. Article is more than just 'a list of volunteers who happened to be Jewish'. Edward321 03:36, 28 July 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. —Kurykh 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Ezhavas[edit]

This is a patchily referenced list of caste/family members (cf. AfD/Famous Gouds and AfD/List of Nairs) --ROGER ^TALK 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as others - This is a trivial intersection Corpx 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial intersection. (Sounds like a name for a rock band.) Realkyhick 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There's that subjective "famous" criteria again. Saikokira 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a dump of names. Punkmorten 10:25, 27 July 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. Sr 13 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians[edit]

Topic before the names is discussed in other articles. But the main problem is the list of names. Most of them are unnoteable and do not have WP articles. They just have links to their personal websites and/or books that they are selling. In addition, a lot of the names listed are living persons, hence being listed there violates WP:BLP Yeshivish 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No stated standards for inclusion. Propaniac 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way, way too many redlinks. Seems like a way to get people into WP who otherwise wouldn't qualify as notable. Better served as a category. Realkyhick 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the BLP concerns are very great. Jon513 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure listcruft. Blueboy 96 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about indiscriminate... VanTucky ^(talk) 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pointless propaganda and violation of WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA until such time as clearer criteria and reliable biographies and biographical information is available. IZAK 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and IZAK. --Redaktor 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above - listcruft, WP:SOAP, red links, etc. Oy vey! Bearian 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - there are some great Jewish names in here and just because they don't fit into the framework of either the rabbis or of many Christians that is no reason to delete them!

Keep: I originally compiled the nucleus of this list. I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight for it, but I do believe that we need some consistent rules here. If this list is deleted, similar lists should be. If similar lists are retained, this one should be. I realize that the issue is an emotional one to many people, but most topics have an emotional side to somebody or other. Just because we are naming members of a religious community that many Jews, and some Christians, reject, is not a good enough reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia, after all, is supposed to be neutral. David Cannon 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, personally, have no objection to the list because it includes Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians; I object to it because it has no listed standards for inclusion. This list could be amended with every single member of every single congregation for this faith. If it were a list of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians who were notable within that faith, and included explicit and objective standards for determining whether someone meets that description and could be included, and provided reliable sources that the people on the list met those standards, I would almost certainly vote to keep it. Propaniac 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then what say we amend the list and restrict it to individuals who have biographies in Wikipedia? Persons who are not notable do not have, or at any rate ought not to have, a biographical article on Wikipedia. I'll take the initiative and remove from the list all the red links. Hopefully, the article will then qualify. David Cannon 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Most aren't notable the list is only there to try say there is a lot of messianic jews and christian hebrews i could list every crackpot with a website who believes in holocaust denial to try to make it seem as though there is many who believe that delusion stop spreading lies --Java7837 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought up the Holocaust, I feel that I really should mention that many "Hebrew Christians" were among its victims. (I don't know about "Messianic Jews", I don't think that movement was very popular yet.) Steve Dufour 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In total agreement with David Cannon

Delete Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians are two totally different things. I am speaking from a Christian point of view, BTW. Steve Dufour 00:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my two cents' worth. From my own experience, there are some branches of Christianity that are VERY close to some branches of Messianic Judaism, and some that are almost polar opposites. But either way, I don't see how this matters to this list - it is NOT a discussion of Messianic or Christian theology, but a list of individuals who associate themselves with one of the two movements. David Cannon 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll raise you two more cents. :-) The way I have heard the expression "Hebrew Christian" used would be for a person born and raised Jewish (hence a "Hebrew") who converts to Christianity and joins a main-stream Christian church. Most of the time I have heard the expression come up is because the person in question is advocating that other Jews also convert.

A "Messianic Jew" on the other hand is not a Christian, in the normal sense the word "Christian" is used. They follow the practices of Judaism while believing in Jesus as the Messiah. As Christianity developed it rejected Messianic Judaism, and in fact persecuted it so that the movement passed away and was only restarted in modern times.

So to me it doesn't make much sense to put the two things on the same list. Other people may disagree of course. Steve Dufour 04:27, 29 July 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. Sandstein 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRS Hospital[edit]

Unencyclopedic article; very difficult to read, little context, contains contact details (of people) that do not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - This page has no other purpose than to promote the institution. Unfortunately many indian institutions are now targetting Wikipedia with this kind of pages. Andante1980 06:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD G11 blatant spam, CSD G12 copyright violation[32] and CSD A7 unremarkable content. --Malcolmxl5 07:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - totally wrong structure, unremarkable and confusing content, non-noteable and is basically written to promote the place. Lra drama 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12. Obvious copyvio. Spellcast 10:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedier delete. Blatant copyvio. Why is this not gone already? Realkyhick 18:04, 24 July 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. —Kurykh 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colayer Platform[edit]

Queried speedy delete ((db-a7)). Anthony Appleyard 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete seems to have been presented at a mid-level conference, so has some notability, but probably not enough for the article to exist. Also the present article is a mess, delving too far into technical implementation details when there is no evidence that these are notable (the conference is on the subject of user interface design, not software engineering). The blog doesn't appear to be a reliable source. The third reference isn't even about the software discussed. JulesH 09:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get some hints to rework the article based on your opinion JulesH. Thanks. I have edited the last reference to the exact destination so that the reference makes sense. Also the Colayer presentation at USID conference was about Web 2.0 and how it fits to the USID Dhoom4 04:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources lacking at this point. May become notable later, but not now. Realkyhick 18:05, 24 July 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. Sr 13 09:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture[edit]

Another pop culture list that is very trivial and not very notable. RobJ1981 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- indiscriminate laundry list of trivia. --Haemo 06:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Trivia collection - WP:FIVE Corpx 06:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list, no assertion of notability. --Malcolmxl5 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics. One of the more worthless IPC articles I've ever seen and that's saying something. Otto4711 12:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's utterly pointless and ridiculous to try to make a list of every single mention in TV, film, literature, or music of a well-known college. Propaniac 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all the above. --Eyrian 13:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge this worthy information, but definitely add references. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 14:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these random jottings are legitimate articles. Golfcam 16:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do I even have to give a reason any more? How about "culturecruft"? (I'd better go trademark that word really quick!) Realkyhick 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As listcruft, unsourced and trivia and violation of WP:NOT a directory and triviacollection.JForget 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main college article has a tidy paragraph on its portrayal in popular culture and that seems sufficient If the American Psycho use is notable that could be added there. All the rest appear to be trivial. Canuckle 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hate to violate anyone's pillars, but if you want to delete all the articles nominated on Tuesday, you have to paste that on each individual discussion. As for this one, Delete but print it in the Alumni magazine. Mandsford 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So it was mentioned a couple of times. Why, exactly, should we report on each of those occasions? Punkmorten 10:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Insignificant, trivial references. Saikokira 01:53, 28 July 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. Sr 13 09:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Adam Patrick Byrne[edit]

Hoax. No info on content (Tokyo Project? Principle of Microscopic Consonant Formation?) External links have nothing to do with bio subject; one is spam, another is to an artist of same name, third is to some article about maxims. Basically windowdressing links. SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious hoax per nom. This has "bad performance art" written all over it. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or indeed speedy delete as spam. Looks like a hoax, but fails notability and verifiability anyhow. Pedro | Chat 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, and not notable if true. Realkyhick 18:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, but I had a great laugh after trying to follow the links. :-) Bearian 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator removed Afd notice from page, which I have restored. BTW, Delete Edward321 03:43, 28 July 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. Sr 13 09:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mah (Broadway)[edit]

Unsubstantiated nonsense, original research, and suspect notability. — MusicMaker 5376 05:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is almost impossible to verify the contents of this article. It is also clear that this article is clearly original research. It is also impossible to cite any sources for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Siva1979. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that this article was created by an anonimous contributor,[33] I only moved some unrelated meanings to other pages.[34] —surueña 13:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - no sources talking about the term Corpx 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no sources Broadwaygal 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism with no sources. Realkyhick 18:08, 24 July 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. Sr 13 09:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeney Young[edit]

Contested prod, reason given at that time was "non-notable person, no references, no solid information, not even considered a stub by wiki-class. User is unidentified, and has no other edits. possibly purely promotional and crystal balling." Prod was removed without explanation by an anon IP and the only additions since have been by vandals. --Finngall ^talk 05:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this actor. Moreover, the subject in question fails notability guidelines as well. Finally, according to the article, he has not won any noteworthy awards for his acting. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article is not necessary. Sweeney Young is an actor soon to be appearing in a show that has a high relevance in the culture of Australia. To delete it would be, in my opinion, racist.(the previous was added by User:WmurphPedro | Chat 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above says it all "is an actor soon to be appearing". When the actor appears in a notable show then there may be a case (although not guaranteed). Untill then the articles fails notability guidelines. Pedro | Chat 11:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor who has had a couple of small bit parts in a couple of TV shows, by the looks of it. --Stormie 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put up the tag originally. Non-Notable, etc. Hellswasteland 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actor; when his resume gets bigger and people are talking about him in reliable sources, we'll see about an article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And any nimrod who calls that action racist should be kicked off Wikipedia for not making good faith arguments. DreamGuy 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not notable enough yet. No reliable sources to back up claim to notability. Most certainly doesn't meet requirements at WP:BIO. 'Nuff said. --clpo13_(talk) 06:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who calls someone a nimrod should be kicked off wikipedia because that is a blatant racial slur. The good people of the Nimroddyal Coast will not stand for this. I am shocked and/or appauld at the level of racism rampant in the wikipedia family.

http://tvweek.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=157713

http://www.tv.com/sweeney-young/person/303609/summary.html

http://akas.imdb.com/name/nm2034948/maindetails

Keep him. Lordofthesheep 06:22, 27 July 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. Sr 13 09:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Gozhanskij[edit]

non-noteable, plenty of Rabbis, can't have an article for each one Yeshivish 05:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article from reliable third party sources. Moreover, a google search shows up only a few hits for this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean not noteable? Does show up in search windows, so not sure what you are getting at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagne1024 (talk • contribs)

Weak Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails WP:BIO. IZAK 06:51, 26 July 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. Anas ^talk? 16:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Johnston[edit]

Non-Notable reality television contestant. Request Deletion per WP:BIO Gamer83 04:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This subject is listed in IMDB. Isn't that in itself a secondary source of information? Moreover, a google search shows up almost 20 000 hits for Becky Johnston. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's the Becky Johnston who contributed to the success of Seven Years in Tibet, it is more probable that it's her that Google's picking up, I'd say. And there's probably one or two more Becky Johnstons out there. This one does not seem to be all that notable. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Another reality show contestant who hasn't done much outside the show. Corpx 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appearing on a reality/game show does not automatically confer notability. Realkyhick 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When Miss Buckwild actually gets someplace with her stand-up act, then it should be recreated. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, per CSD A7. --Eyrian 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Roman Empire of Japanada[edit]

Wkipedia is not for things made up in school. Zero google results for "The Holy Roman Empire of Japanada", while "Japanada" returns nothing but irrelevant results. Impossible to source, non-notable. Creator removed prod and prod2 tags with an impassioned plea to keep, but this doesn't belong here. Resolute 04:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, total hoax, returns bupkis on Google. The opening sentence says it all: "The Holy Roman Empire of Japanada was a simple, silly idea created in a classroom game back in 2001, and since then has now become a withstanding tradition at a YMCA Summer Camp, as a home-away-from-home for several counselors." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason that there are no results for "Japanada", or anything as such on google, and that's because I've never written anything about it before. This was my first attempt. And as stated, yes, it may sound silly, but it's not anymore. It's grown into something much stronger than that.

I have people asking me daily to make a wikipedia page about "Japanada", and if oyu want me to get people to e-mail you to prove this i will, just tell me an address they need to send it to and I'll get you a ton of people to e-mail you about it.

If you need citation from others about this story, then i can get those people to e-mail you as well. This stopped being a silly story years ago, now it is something that effects thousands of kids a year, who constantly ask me each and every summer why there isn't anything online back home that they can read about.

This is me trying to get it to them, so I'm asking as nicely as I can, please keep this article. This isn't a joke, or someone messing with you. It is something that tones of people are asking for, children, parents, and friends alike.

Thanks for your time,

Heath Lynch

theLPgoonie@gmail.com

also, just thought of this:

If i got YMCA Camp Lakewood, to cite for this, if I got them to email you in some way, would that count as a credible cited source?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The goonie (talk • contribs).

Honestly, I do not believe it would. You would still be the primary source for the information, and are evidently in a conflict of interest with this article. For something to be notable, it would have to have been written about by an 'independent reliable source. Resolute 04:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, and understandable, I will not deny that I would like to see this page go up just cause it would make me happy, but that's not the reason I am doing this. I'm doing this because today along I've had 3 counselors, and 12 campers ask me why there isn't anything about "Japanada" online. And since I'm the most knowledgeable about it, I figured I should write it.

My only questions now is though, if it's because I wrote it, then, technically, I could just get someone at camp, who works full time at camp, and is not associated with me to write it, and it'd be okay then? Cause that's what it seams like you are saying. Again, I could be wrong, but that just doesn't make sense if all I need is someone more credible to write the article.

I have to go now, cause I have to get sleep to deal with campers all day tomorrow. Please keep replying, I would really like to find a way to make this article possible.

Heath

Delete If you wish to write about this, try geocities, blogger, or any of thousands of other free web hosts. They are the places you're looking for, not Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no, asking someone else to write it would not mean there isn't a conflict of interest, in fact, that sort of thing is very much a conflict, and highly frowned upon in many cases. The key is to have third-party independent sources first. Which from what I can tell, you're not going to have, so you're best off following my suggestion instead. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because someone asks you to write about a subject doesn't mean it's notable. If you want to start an Urban Dictionary page, or a Yahoo! Group, or a MySpace page, or something else about Japanada, go ahead; knock yourself out. We're trying to run an encyclopedia here. Also, if you start a MySpace group about Japanada, there's no risk of people coming into your group and disrupting it with articles about Richardsonian Romanesque architecture, for example. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Wikipedia is not for things...aw, you know the drill. --Haemo 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an imaginary idea that people talk about at a single summer camp, with no sources to establish its notability. If the campers want something to be written about this idea online, there are other websites where that can be done, but Wikipedia is not one of them. --Metropolitan90 06:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strong delete, no notability whatsoever. --Malcolmxl5 07:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There are major problems with this article. Firstly it is unverifiable. Secondly, it has no reliable sources. Thirdly, the article sounds like a hoax. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Write your idea down, have it published, get lucrative film rights, have it known worldwide, then it will be Wiki-worthy. Mjtauthor 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - You don't get much more "things made up in school" than this; it even says it in the first line. It's cute, sure, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The editor needs to go and take a look at WP:NOT. -- Hux 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. As a couple of users have suggested, it would be fun to post on a personal web site at a host such as Geocities. Fg2 11:33, 24 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Three[edit]

Per merge discussion, consensus was that the information did not warrant its own article but should be instead merged with Nancy Pelosi's article.

Additionally, Air Force Three does not appear to be a legitimate Air Force designation. While work has been done to improve the article, it simply does not need to be a seperate article. Mikemill 04:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this subject can be well-enough covered in the article on Nancy Pelosi. I don't see a need for a redirect or merge in this case since there's not that much to copy here. FrozenPurpleCube 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious WP:COATRACK. Even the White House defended Pelosi on this one and the flap-flappers crept back under their rocks. Framing it this way has clear undue weight implications. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. The article has a clear POV. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page completely pov and not necessary. Turtlescrubber 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with little relevant to merge into Pelosi's article. Realkyhick 18:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of an 'Air Force Three'. GoodDay 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nancy Pelosi's article may make mention of it. WP:COATRACK seems to be a not-so-apt description of the article, as it diverges and goes pretty much all over the place. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nancy Pelosi's article.--Gloriamarie 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a coatrack, per above. Bearian 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adam Putnam. 132.205.44.5 21:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Air Force Three" is a neologism (or more properly, a rhetorical flourish) by the SF Chron columnist cited as a source. Acroterion _(talk) 02:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See also that the discussion regarding a merge with Nancy Pelosi turned into a unamimous forum in favor of deletion. Talk:Air Force Three#merge discussion --Cjs56 02:47, 26 July 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 wasKeep Capitalistroadster 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Rainsberger[edit]

Weak delete. Reads like an ad. He wrote a top-selling programming book, but I don't think that makes someone notable. Thought I would put it here for the techier people to decide. Calliopejen1 03:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, with a recommendation for cleanup. The subject matter of the book is also fairly recondite. Sjc 04:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For practitioners of agile development, the subject matter of his book is highly important. For non-agile Java programmers it is often quite important. I certainly wouldn't call it "recondite". BTW: recondite's a great word, being an example of its own meaning, but that doesn't mean I'd ever consider using it in a real situation. Just saying. JulesH 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless verified through attribution to independent sources. The accomplishment of writing the top-selling book on a topic in which there are perhaps a dozen or two competitors is pretty narrow. It did list first on Amazon (search term: "junit java", rank order "bestselling"; first book with JUnit in title) but I found a book or two with very comparable sales ranks (60,000 for those counting). We'd really need a reliable source to show WP:BK passage. --Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a link to a review of the book in an important reliable source. Do you think that helps? JulesH 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vote changed to weak keep on the basis of the award, recognition by peers. Attribution remains of low quality, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Rainsberger is a leading member of the agile development community, as his receipt of the first Gordon Pask Award (the only noteworthy award given for contributions to agile development) shows. His book is the standard work on its subject. JulesH 07:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if the book is notable as a reference work, does that make its author notable? I'm not that familiar with the relevant policies. Also, the IEEE "standard reference" quote is not exactly disinterested, considering he works for them. Calliopejen1 14:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not individually, but along with the award, it is more than enough, IMO. JulesH 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally if we are to choose between a book and an author I will choose the author almost every time. An author is likely to have another book. A book is not likely to have another author. This prevents needless article proliferation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (unless you can provide references to several "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject") and per WP:NOTINHERITED (the fact that the book is notable doesn't guarantee notability for the author). In this case, the book itself doesn't seem to have an article either, so I see no reason why the author should. The book is included in the list of references at at JUnit, so I see no need for further articles about it or it's author. —gorgan_almighty 12:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Joe Rainsberger is well-known in the Agile development community and speaks at conferences around the world. I'm amazed that this article would be considered for deletion when there is so much pop-culture fluff that is not.

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 & redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships. El_C 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Your-Age-Plus-Seven Rule[edit]

Several reasons for deletion: Original research. WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. No reliable sources. Why not "half your age plus six" or "square root of two times your age divided by three"? Deprodded by author without explanation. eaolson 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research and just stupid. So stupid it could go to BJAODN. Crazysuit 03:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually an old and well established maxim, variously attributed to India, France and the Chinese. It's not a bad joke, nor is it something just something made up in school one day. Nick mallory 04:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge. I've heard of this rule, at least as far back as the nineties -- maybe even the eighties. It's sort of the romantic version of the five-second rule (which I have also heard variations on, ranging from five to a high of thirty -- for expensive chocolate, mind). I did a quick Gsearch, there are indeed many variations, ranging from plus-five to plus-ten, altho' seven seems to be the most occurring constant. I did find the equation in a problem on a paper on a university website, but I doubt that it could be used as a reliable source, any more than a math question stating "a train leaves Chicago at 1:00..." as a reliable source rail travel in Illinois. Still, if a reliable cite or two can be found, it may be included in an article about May-December romances (whatever that might be; I don't know if such a beastie exists). In any event, I don't think there's enough info to warrant a stand-alone article. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 05:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's used in a teaching plan for computer programming at U of Florida[35] and economics at Colorado[36]. It's also used by columnists at the student papers at MIT[37], Amherst[38], McMaster[39]. It is used in the book Fabulous After Fifty by Judy Steinberg[40], and the blog WTF, carried by radio stations CJXY[41], CKNG[42], CKDK[43], and CFNY[44]. So it's not a question of OR, but whether one can find any decent cites that would support policy. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 06:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships. While I have heard of it and don't dispute the term's existence, I don't really think it's notable enough for its own article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the article I was talking about. Tks. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 10:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, but loose the valueless (IMHO) Famous relationships that have violated the rule bit. Pedro | Chat 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships--Victor falk 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information that can be cited, but do not just copy-paste this into the target article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete but remove the "Famous Relationship..." Section -Flubeca^Talk 15:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The delete and merge arguments fail to cite guidelines or policies for why a mathematical rule that satisfies WP:N and WP:A as this one does should be merged. The widespread notability of the rule is attested in the article by references now included to a published book, where it says how young of a man a mature woman can date, by the student newspapers at 3 well know universities where it is looked to for guidance on older students dating younger students (no, a 21 year old senior may not date a 16 year old freshman per the rule), in a Honolulu newspaper, and on CNN (showing that the marriage of Anna Nichole Smith violated it), the Manx Radio at the Isle of Man, and BBC Scotland. These are just recent references accessible via Google. It was used in my algebra class in the 1960's. Not OR, not something "made up in school one day." Edison 17:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Realkyhick 18:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above or Delete and add to BJAODN.SpecialAgentUncleTito 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC) See changed vote[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources, and anecdotally I've heard this 'rule' a lot. It may be psudoscience akin to the ~~Three second rule~~Five second rule, but that doesn't mean it's not worthy of inclusion. --Darksun 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article now has multiple references to verify its claims and establish notability for the concept. A widely used rule of thumb commented on by third party sources and notable people and publications. TreeKittens 23:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Vote: Keep. Article has been updated with many reliable, third party sources, that verify its claims along with established notability. SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't have thought so, till I looked at the sources. guess it s notable after all.DGG (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships (changed comment). On close inspection, all of the newly added sources are rather trivial or conversational references to the rule as far as I can verify. They are sources for the various claims, and could usefully be used as references for the section in the proposed merge target, but they do not (imho) constitute the significant coverage in reliable sources required to make the rule notable enough for its own article. If more significant coverage is later found, the article can be separated off again. TreeKittens 04:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above talk. Bearian 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no harm in holding this 'rule' separate from the Age disparity in sexual relationships, although of course mutual linking is to be recommended. It's a very old axiom, and I'd always believed it to be of Chinese origin, so it's rather a pity no one has as yet come up with the original citation. Bill Martin 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cites are to college papers and a book for women of a certain age, and news channels looking at Anna Nichole Smith. I always noted the utility of it: a newborn baby would get a 7 year old "spouse" who could at least babysit and change diapers, while a 100 year old would get a 57 year old "spouse', who could similarly babysit and change diapers. Also seems to work well to null out the "ick" factor of age disparity in dating/mating: nothing wrong with 22 and 18, 40 and 27. Certainly finding the earliest citation would improve the article. Edison 05:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The problem is, that doesn't make it a "rule" in any meaningful sense of the word. It's just a pithy saying. We don't have articles on Wait 30 minutes after eating before swimming, even though that was a rule I heard constantly growing up. Nor do we have Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise. I'm not saying that no one has ever said this, I just don't think it makes for a valuable encyclopedia article. eaolson 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's certainly something I hear about at my Uni in the UK and I personally feel the level of sourcing is sufficient for inclusion Earl CG 11:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ber Crazysuit Will ^(talk) 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The CNN reference is just a brief personal reaction/comment in which a meteorologist acknowledges that Smith and Marshall violated the rule. It's not a serious discussion of the rule. This brief casual mention does not support notability. Besides, when I am 100 years old, I wouldn't date some 57 year old kid. ;-) --User101010 03:29, 28 July 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. Sr 13 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalBeauties World Rankings[edit]

Basically a repost of an internet fan sites take on placements in the various "grand slam" pageants. Take your pick: WP:COPYVIO, WP:OR, WP:NOT all seem appropriate. PageantUpdatertalk • contribs 02:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I couldn't find any news articles or even any pages that talked much about the GBWR, so I figure it probably fails WP:N. MrSec 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll pick WP:N. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and WP:NOT Are my choices. -Flubeca^Talk 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ah, where to begin? WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NN should be enough. Realkyhick 18:20, 24 July 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. Sr 13 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadiah evans[edit]

Non-notable, all advertisement, page created by the subject herself. Special-T 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto. In addition Nadiah evans has spammed links to her userpage and her newly created autobiography in existing articles: once on Medium infantry, five times on 1971.
--JKeene 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly conflict of interest. The editor has written an article about herself. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can the page be kept if all references to outside websites were deleted? This posting was simply copied and pasted to this site. Poster is unfamiliar with site and needs help with what makes a good article. The album credits already contained featured websites, but have been removed. Is it o.k. now?

Article violates policies in WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, WP:COI, Wikipedia:Autobiography - Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, original research, autobiography, or dissemination of information that would constitute a conflict of interest. There are also issues of notability. - Special-T 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it asserts notability, although it needs verification. It clearly has a conflict of interest issue and is probably an autobiography, but I'll assume good faith and will not bite a newbie. Much of the problem is moot, as the userpage has an exact copy of the article, and the history log still exists, so it has been saved just in case. I have a different issue: some unregistered user keeps vandalizing the article. What can be done? I am not yet an administrator. Bearian 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Recording a CD and playing club dates does not qualify as an assertion of notability. The unregistered user editing that page appears to clearly be Ms. Evans herself editing from an IP address. I think we're all assuming good faith here, but this article and its subject are clearly not encyclopedia material. It should have been speedied, but someone opposed that, so we're going through the Afd process instead. - Special-T 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see.... Bearian 19:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. Should have been speedied. Realkyhick 18:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion and failing WP:MUSIC; that calls for two records on an established label, multiple non-trivial references, national or international touring, major awards - I see none of that here. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CD is self released not label released.25 ghits, no gnews hits. No assertion or evidence of a far reaching tour. WP:COI issues. Horrorshowj 20:02, 28 July 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. --Kurykh 02:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of state Democratic Parties in the U.S.[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Same arguments as for the Republicans, below. Corvus cornix 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page and it is a useful tool for people to see the state level parties and access them quickly. I believe that besides the GOP and Dems there are pages for the Green Party and Constitution state parties. 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - a category would be sufficient. Argyriou (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catergorize This would be better as a category. FrozenPurpleCube 02:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. Montco 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category is more than sufficient. Thus this article is redundant, to say the least. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really can't support this article as it stands, as it is presently nothing more than a link farm. That said, there is a value of a list like this. What it needs is something to separate it from a category. Make it a table that includes the current chairperson, when the party was founded, etc. If deleted, I'd suggest no prejudice against recreation if expanded. Resolute 03:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. I think a good list article could be created here, but as it currently stands it should be categorized and deleted. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 10:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. Only way to keep is if this replaced the individual state party articles, which might not be a bad idea anyway. Realkyhick 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Democratic Party (United States) by state already exists. Only other content in list is See also section and URL's. Wikipedia is not a web directory. PrimeHunter 00:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom - thank you Astuishin (talk) 00:37, 30 July 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. --Kurykh 02:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of state Republican Parties in the U.S.[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. I'd just as soon delete all of the individual pages, as well, since there is rarely anything notable about an individual state's party affiliate. Corvus cornix 02:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a category would be sufficient. Though I don't know that I agree with you about the individual party entries. Look at the Minnesota article - there's definitely content and notability. Argyriou (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catergorize This would be far better as a catergory, and I'm going to say right now, I feel it would be highly ill-advised to delete the individual state affiliates. County-level would probably be too much, but state-level? I think it's appropriate, given that a description of the political make-up of individual US states is acceptable. I think deleting these pages would tend to lead to too much federalization. FrozenPurpleCube 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page and it is a useful tool for people to see the state level parties and access them quickly. I believe that besides the GOP and Dems there are pages for the Green Party and Constitution state parties. 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC) and to think this afternoon I was thinking of removing this and Dem page from my watch list.

Delete and categorize. Montco 03:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category for this topic is more than enough. Thus this article is redundant, to say the least. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really can't support this article as it stands, as it is presently nothing more than a link farm. That said, there is a value of a list like this. What it needs is something to separate it from a category. Make it a table that includes the current chairperson, when the party was founded, etc. If deleted, I'd suggest no prejudice against recreation if expanded. Resolute 03:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. I think a good list article could be created here, but as it currently stands it should be categorized and deleted. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 10:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize, same reason as with the Dems (see above). Realkyhick 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Republican Party (United States) by state already exists. Only other content in list is See also section and URL's. Wikipedia is not a web directory. PrimeHunter 00:32, 25 July 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. Sandstein 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpet in the Land[edit]

Page is of two parts: the first consisting of an advertisement for a play (tagged for speedy deletion as an advertisement, but tag removed by another editor) and the second part a copy of part of Tuscarawas County, Ohio, added for unknown reason and definitely not contributing to the worthiness of this page. Nyttend 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://consumer.discoverohio.com/searchdetails.aspx?detail=51357. Corvus cornix 02:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Spam, copyvio and a strange conjunction. Acroterion _(talk) 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is clealy a copyvio from the above mentioned webpage. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and WP:SNOW per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant copyvio (someone should snow this any second now...) Spellcast 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest delete possible. Copyvio, spam, what else do you need? Realkyhick 18:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Spam -Inventm 19:41, 24 July 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. Sr 13 09:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuriai-Ryu Goshin Jitsu[edit]

Non-notable based on ghits. There is a lot more wrong with this article too. The Reference given appears to be a school with serious notability problems of its own (single school formed last year and yes I will submit it to afd debate after I see the response to this one). It is categorized as a traditional Japanese art with no eveidence that it is anything but a made up art and practiced any more widely than the single location. No background on the founder. I suspect it was a buddy of the other schools founder that wanted something Japanesie soundingPeter Rehse 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 02:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It appears that Professorius (talk · contribs) wrote this article with a conflict of interest, but the subject is not notable and very difficult to source. I have added to this nomination the other article by Professorius. Shalom ^Hello 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and non-notable McDojo. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete both as NN, there are less than polite terms for two self appointed 'grandmasters' referencing each other for legitimacy. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:38, 27 July 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, G12. Sandstein 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Underground Songs[edit]

This page lists most of the lyrics of the songs sung in Sonic Underground. It is a lyrics database, something which Wikipedia is not. There is also a chance that the lyrics are protected by copyright. Kylohk 02:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSec (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete as copyvio, Wikipedia is not a directory of lyrics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above. Also, please delete the article on the Sonic template. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, particularly WP:NOT#LYRICS. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio. Realkyhick 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete This is the ninth time this article (in some form or another) has been deleted. I would strongly recommend that notability has been firmly established before it is recreated. — Caknuck 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventyseven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not appear to meet minimum criteria of WP:MUSIC, in particular "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". The matter of being listed on a "national music chart" is up for debate; it has charted on ChristianRock.Net weekly top 30. Article was previously AFD-deleted when it was in substantially shorter form; it was tagged for speedy deletion as a re-post, but I dispute that it was a re-post due to expanded content. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band appears to meet WP:MUSIC, as they have had spin on Christian radio as well as major internet radio stations. —Alex43223^{T | C | E} 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:MUSIC - does not have multiple WP:RS coverage, only has one album, and being listed on ChristianRock.net is not a national music chart (which in the case of the US would be Billboard, or similar). I also don't feel that ChristianRock.net qualifies as a "major radio network." Leuko 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not charted on a major chart (Billboard and Mediabase 24/7 seem to be pretty much the only two "major" US charts these days). No other criterion of WP:MUSIC is met -- at least not yet. Once that second album is released, they would meet the criterion of having multiple albums on a notable label (Flicker Records, a division of Sony BMG), but as of July 2007, these guys still fall short. Shame, too, because they have a cool name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Barely passes notability, and the case seems to be improving by the day. Realkyhick 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so very close. I somewhat agree with TPH above that their lack of the second album keeps them below the bar on WP:MUSIC; I also had problems tracking down reliable sources - but, Christian bands are very difficult to find RS for to start with, for some reason. I also suspect that Christian recordings don't tend to hit Billboard very often, which makes chart info difficult. I think waiting for the next album to drop would be the best course. Delete for now, with no barriers to recreation later. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied an earlier version that contained no assertion of notability; here the assertion does not pass WP:MUSIC. If we just want to let any ole' band have an article, then let's but until we collectively decide to do that, we're left with the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. ChristianRock.net is not a major radio network. Contrary to Tony, I don't think that Christian bands are harder to find RSes for, we have hundreds of bands/musicians categorized at Category:Performers of Christian music and its subcats and hundreds more at Category:Christian musical groups and its subcats, they just tend to not be notable - like Polka bands, barbershop quartets, a cappella groups doing Gregorian Chants that don't chart. WP is not a measure of the quality of the group or its music, it's limited to the notability of the group or its music. Carlossuarez46 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still doesn't pass Will ^(talk) 07:52, 28 July 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 both. Sr 13 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Me This![edit]

No evidence of widespread notability - two brief mentions for such a new podcast. Possible advertising. Regan123 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Also nominating Martin Austwick as connected and also non notable. Regan123 01:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and notability. Giggy _U^CP 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not notable. Realkyhick 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does WP:HOLE also apply to things? Bearian 19:14, 25 July 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. Sr 13 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Smith (politician)[edit]

Delete, non-notable candidate for public office (as US Congressman), fails WP:BIO. So far, he is only a candidate in the primary election; according to precedent, he should not have an article unless and until he wins both his party's nomination and the seat in the United States Congress. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: if the article is deleted, please also remove the entry from the disambiguation page at Joshua Smith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now I know little about U.S. Congress, but I understand that if he makes it in he will be notable, and should therefore be kept. Delete until then. Giggy _U^CP 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability to this person. He hasn't even won his party's primary Corpx 03:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If he beats a well-funded, nine-term incumbent in a party primary with no obvious scandals brewing, then we can take another look. But barring McDermott retiring or dying, I'll put a wager on that he doesn't clear 20% in the primary. Montco 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Corpx and Montco. Has not even made the news in this election cycle. Bearian 19:04, 25 July 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. --Kurykh 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celeryville Christian School[edit]

Previously speedy-tagged under WP:CSD#A7 (non-notable). Speedy deletion disputed on talk page. Deletion of school articles is rarely uncontroversial, which suggests AFD-path should be taken rather than CSD-path. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neutrality^talk 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. CSD contest shows no sign of notability, just WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. Giggy _U^CP 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, reads like a directory entry. Rackabello 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're right Ceyockey, I've been told by several admins that articles on schools are inherently not CSD criteria. I haven't been able to find an actual Wikipedia policy supporting this, but this seems to be the predominant practice. I've attempted to speedy several articles on schools that said little more than ____________ is a school or were blatantly promotional and their CSD's were all declined. Its interesting as I've nominated articles on organizations other than schools with the exact same problems (i.e. ___________ is a club or were clearly promotional) and these were speedily deleted without discussion. Rackabello 01:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:CSD is quite specific on what articles may be deleted using the process, and quite clear that controversial deletions should go to AFD. Schools are not listed under A7 as one of the things subject to speedy, and as the nom has noted they are rarely uncontroversially deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - Not the place to keep schools that have no established notability Corpx 02:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability attributed using independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not normally a fan of any article on elementary and junior high articles on their face, but I believe a 77 year old school will have some notability somewhere, and am glad this was not speedied. In the case of schools, I just think speedying is way too hasty. Good night all. Chris 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment One of the things I am, really, actually, and will update soon, is the extensive and rich history of Celeryville Christian School. A lot can, and has, happened in 77 years to this school. I do realize all these arguments for keeping it an encyclopedia and not a directory, and if you really want to, I have no power to stop you. But does simply having notable alumni or being the scene of a majors news story give it notability? Peace. - Xexeter Talk 01:09 24 July 2007

Question Why does this article have the school's address and phone number on it? --ROGER ^TALK 09:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply, many school articles do, it's even a function of the school infobox. Oddly enough, this seems to be the one instance it's okay with Wikipedia. Chris 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly because other high schools appear to automatically qualify (yeah, it's a K-12 school and I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and 77 years is a pretty long time for this type of Christian school to be around. Most Christian schools are of fairly recent vintage, with the exception of Catholic schools. Longevity might be an argument for notability here. Realkyhick 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a K-8 school :) Corpx 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion or verification of notability in independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless expanded and sourced I agree it is possible that a school this old may be notable, and look forward to seeing the expanded article. DGG (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG, my words exactly. Bearian 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 07:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Another run of the mill school. Eusebeus 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Celeryville, Ohio. The whole "WP:NOT#DIRECTORY" argument is blatantly false. We host directory listings of albums, films, television shows, and even what time television shows have aired. Burntsauce 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Directories are designed to be comprehensive, regardless of the notability of the items being listed. For instance, the telephone directory doesn't exclude people because they are not well known or have not made significant contributions to a field of study. That matter of inclusion criteria is one of the principles behind the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of cases that are borderline or blatent violations of WP:NOT that have survived here for a long time; every article is to be taken on its own merits. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:00, 28 July 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. The initiator of the deletion has voted against it and large majority of the participants have moved to keep. (Non-admin closure). —mako ๛ 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Dotzler[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No valid assertion that would pass WP:N Rackabello 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral as a PR person, he is speaking for the company in the interviews and he's not notable on his own Corpx 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week~~ Weak Keep it's a good article on someone who was behind Spread Firefox which makes him notable. Certainly, not everything the article should be kept but I think the article is worth keeping. —mako ๛ 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) (Update: I'd be fine for keeping the article for more than just one week. ;) —mako ๛ 13:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Keep per Benjamin Mako Hill; his role in Spread Firefox is just enough for WP:N, in my opinion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is pretty inside baseball but could easily be improved. Dotzler is not just a "PR guy", he is one of the founding coders for Phoenix (now called Firefox)[45], and credited with not just the idea but the shepherding of the wildly successful[46] Spread Firefox campaign[47]

. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment mms has explained to me on my talk page that he was simply collapsing categories, and has reconsidered his position on some articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Businessweek article, and notes about him being spokesman for Spread Firefox are enough to clear notability. Also seems to be interviewed a lot in tech pubs/sites due to being somewhat of a celebrity coder.Horrorshowj 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. --mms 08:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and a word of warning to the nominator to check notability before nomination. There are 6 reliable sources linked in this article which are solely about the subject. This passes any reading of WP:BIO. JulesH 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are several people who have been interviewed somewhere and who don't have an article about them in Wikipedia. Rackabello wants a speedy deletion and Corpx has concerns that these interviews aren't sufficient for our notability guidelines. There are other nominations where I was overhasty but I think it is a good thing that we now evaluate the notability of Asa Dotzler. From the present article I just don't get the impression of notability. --mms 10:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is the public face of the Mozilla Foundation and its forerunners (Mozilla.org/NCC), founder of Spread Firefox and a co-founder of Firefox. I'd say he fulfills all the notability criteria except probably #2. (Did the nominator read the article?) —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 18:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Enough press cited to make him barely notable. Realkyhick 18:36, 24 July 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, only keep votes, nominator also voted keep now . - Non admin closure --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hyatt[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Co-creator with Blake Ross of the Firefox browser. Well known now for working on Apple's Safari web browser. Would you mind pointing out exactly how this article doesn't fit the guideline? AlistairMcMillan 01:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see Hyatt surely meets "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." AlistairMcMillan 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." AlistairMcMillan 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep if improved. There are no citations to establish notability, or even to establish the truth of the claims made. If citations are provided, this article should be kept. Argyriou (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is established per above comments, so no need to delete. Corpx 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the others have said, contingent upon the addition of credible sourcing. If this guy is an architect of Safari and one of the co-creators of Firefox, I'd say he's notable enough for an article. It does, however, need some good sourcing to make it credibly notable. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sjc

Please add a rationale to your keep vote -- just a vote with no reasoning is usually frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Co-creator of the Firefox browser is enough to satisfy WP:N, particularly "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as surely co-creation of a major software product is notability. I am unsure about the recent edit history of mms (talk · contribs), who has a) AFD'd a number of individuals, b) PROD'd a number of others, and c) massively decategorized under Category:Computer programmers and Category:Free software programmers, but my good faith assumptions are being tested. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second your good faith concerns about mms, particularly the decategorization of Category:Free software programmers. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment mms has explained to me on my talk page that he was simply collapsing categories, and has reconsidered his position on some articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is Co-creator of firefox I think that he meets WP:N. Oysterguitarist 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reconsidering that he also »created and wrote the first specifications for the XBL and XUL markup languages.« Sorry for wasting your time with this. --mms 08:10, 24 July 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, only keep votes, nominator also voted keep now. - Non admin closure --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pinkerton[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead developer of the Camino web browser. Would you please explain how this article doesn't fulfill the notability guideline. AlistairMcMillan 01:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkerton surely meets "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments Corpx 02:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above comments. Mozilla Camino is important and its lead developer deserves mention in the encyclopedia. —mako ๛
Keep per the above; being a lead developer of a project as large as Camino is definitely notable. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that Mms has been prodding a very large number of articles on free software developers. Not that they all deserve articles, but he should be respectful and prod/nom a few at a time. Furthermore, Mms should specify exactly what part of the notability guideline(s) each individual does not fit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Camino's lead developer is surely notable. I am unsure about the recent edit history of mms (talk · contribs), who has a) AFD'd a number of individuals, b) PROD'd a number of others, and c) massively decategorized under Category:Computer programmers and Category:Free software programmers, but my good faith assumptions are being tested. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment mms has explained to me on my talk page that he was simply collapsing categories, and has reconsidered his position on some articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above comments. --mms 08:06, 24 July 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, non admin closure, and a note about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to the sole delete vote. Giggy _U^CP 08:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Stein[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About 25 published or accepted papers. One textbook "Elementary Number Theory "; one advanced book "A Brief Introduction to Classical and Adelic Algebraic Number Theory', others under contract. Principle author of apparently major software, "Primary author of SAGE: Software for Algebra and Geometry Experimentation: http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage." (& some others) Not all associate professors are notable, not by a long shot, but he seems to be. At 10 afds nominated per hour, I can see why there wasn't time to write a detailed rationale, but it would help to know what aspect is considered insufficient? DGG (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's findings. This person passes WP:PROF Corpx 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: DGG makes a convincing case. —mako ๛ 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per research of DGG. Espresso Addict 03:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's research. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as lead developer of SAGE, which is notability beyond the normal publication rate of an associate professor. I am unsure about the recent edit history of mms (talk · contribs), who has a) AFD'd a number of individuals, b) PROD'd a number of others, and c) massively decategorized under Category:Computer programmers and Category:Free software programmers, but my good faith assumptions are being tested. --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment mms has explained to me on my talk page that he was simply collapsing categories, and has reconsidered his position on some articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the notability guideline for academics is Wikipedia:Notability (academics), not the one linked. Lazy nomination. Charles Matthews 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because I know of many professors who have a comparable amount of papers but haven't theirs own article in Wikipedia. It is the profession of a professor to come up with important seeming title for his work. But still I don't think every professor should be included in Wikipedia. At least not in the foreseeable future. There are existing articles which need desperately improvements. --mms 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be judged on their own merits in relation to the applicable criteria, not your general opinion on the status of Wikipedia as a whole. It's not a matter of other professors or other articles, it's about this one and whether it meets our criteria. If you feel the criteria are inappropriate or incorrect, work to change them; don't force non-existent criteria on articles. Leebo ^T/C 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above keep votes. NHRHS2010^Talk 19:22, 24 July 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. No evidence provided that there exists sufficient third-party coverage to build a significant article. Pascal.Tesson 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ján Varga[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Yes, he does. The reference is pretty weak, and certainly better ones can be found, but this article is better than the Dave Hyatt article. Argyriou (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article can't be kept as is. If someone significantly improves the article, please leave a message on User_talk:Benjamin Mako Hill and I'm happy to reconsider this position. —mako ๛ 03:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless reliable sources are found. Early and key contributor to Mozilla but not necessarily notable. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Reference could be found, but I actually don't have time to do it. --Adamhauner 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable enough and the stub can be improved. Tankred 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO. It is not enough to say "reference could be found" or "he is notable enough" without providing evidence of such references and notability. I trust the closing administrator will take this into consideration given that the article is dealing with a living person. RFerreira 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I think it would make an acceptable article or section. J-stan ^Talk 01:49, 31 July 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, only keep votes, nominator also voted keep now . - Non admin closure --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott James Remnant[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the article says, Scott is one of the most important technical drivers for the very popular Ubuntu operating system (formerly a featured article) and the maintainer and author of several extremely important pieces of free software including the dpkg package manager and the libtool shared library development system. The article could definitely do a better job of citing sources and including more references but the accomplishments listed clearly satisfy WP:BIO IMHO. —mako ๛ 02:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment - I think Mako knows more about this than me Corpx 02:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mako. Just because something is stub-length doesn't mean it should necessarily be deleted or that the person about whom the stub was written is not notable; it just means that more sources and information need to be added. This is an example of someone who fulfills WP:BIO but whose article needs some cleanup and additional sourcing. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, key role in one of the top Linux distros should be notability. I am unsure about the recent edit history of mms (talk · contribs), who has a) AFD'd a number of individuals, b) PROD'd a number of others, and c) massively decategorized under Category:Computer programmers and Category:Free software programmers, but my good faith assumptions are being tested. --Dhartung | Talk 07:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment mms has explained to me on my talk page that he was simply collapsing categories, and has reconsidered his position on some articles. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mako. You convinced me. --mms 07:48, 24 July 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bunk[edit]

The person doesn't fullfill the notability guideline. mms 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea whether the software is notable, but its creator is not. Shalom ^Hello 02:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Oysterguitarist 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, Linux is notable, its kernel manager may not be. There seem to be some non-English sources but I can't determine whether they sufficiently back up his notability. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Maintainer of the current stable series of Linux kernels, a highly important role that puts his name alongside Alan Cox (2.2 series) and Marcelo Tosatti (2.4 series). Reliable sources: [48] [49] JulesH 09:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JulesH. I'm fairly certain that this is a fairly important role within linux and free software. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keep arguments here are highly speculative to the point of violating WP:CRYSTAL, and the entire article reads like a WP:COATRACK. Fails WP:BIO as none of the trivial references are actually about the subject, just the kernel he happens to help develop. RFerreira 01:16, 30 July 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. Sr 13 09:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. J. Lee Choron[edit]

I can't make heads or tails of this one, its barely readable. Rackabello 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding comment to fix mistaken edit of original template:

All,

I am Dr. J. Lee Choron and I was rather impressed when I found the article on myself here quite by accident a month or so ago. I had intentintions of editing out a few minor errors when my computer crashed on me. When I returned the article had been deleted. I can find no reason. As far as I can tell it is reasonably accurate with some very minor errors. I reposted it myself from a saved copy with intent to re-edit once it posted but I did this before reading the "no self posting policy". I would like to know why the original article was deleted. I can't find an explanation of any kind on the site. This isn't terribly important and I'm certainly not annoyed. I'm simply currious as the article was accurate.

JLC

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyandsherry (talk • contribs) — Jimmyandsherry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To answer your question, the previous deletion of this page was done through PROD, and expressed the concern that it was a non-notable autobiographical entry. You can see this by checking the log entry for this page (available both above, and on the history section of the original article. To explain why this article is a problem, you'll probably want to check WP:BIO and WP:AUTO, but the basic point is that it's a bad idea to edit pages about yourself. This applies to everyone, including Jimbo Wales. This isn't to say you can't be concerned about it, but it'd be better to stick with comments on the talk page. As for notability, without third-party references, it's understandable how it may be considered doubtful that you meet the appropriate standards for inclusion. I'll leave the question of that to other people, but I'll certainly say the article as written is not very good. FrozenPurpleCube 00:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible weak keep the major element of notability I can find in the articles is "James Choron participated in the Russian August Revolt of 1991 and the October Revolt of 1993 and is a permanent legal resident of the Russian Federation by presidential decree of Mikhail Gorbachev and received the Order of Hero of the Soviet Union for his services.. He is one of only two Americans in the history of Russia to be to be so honored." If this can be sourced, it's notable. As for most of the rest, I improved the article by removing a good deal of it. DGG (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It smells like a hoax to me. I can't find anything corroborating him receiving that award, equivalent to the Medal of Honor. You'd think that some news service somewhere would find it noteworthy for an American to get it. It's also very suspicious that the article doesn't mention just what he did to earn it. Clarityfiend 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything on any search engines using Cyrillic spellings Джеймс/Джэймс Ли Чорон/Хорон/Корон. Surely seems like a hoax. The foreigners awarded Order of Hero of the Soviet Union were heads of state (Todor Zivkov, Erich Honecker and Gamal Abdel Nasser each had one) or foreign astronauts who went to space on the Soviet spaceships. Dr. Choron doesn't seem like either, does he. Karaboom 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax Rackabello 01:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes cannot be speedied. someone might after all have evidence. The place to discuss it is here, but if it seems obvious to a few more people then it would be reasonable to invoke WP:SNOW. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I smelled hoax, too, but a handful of his writings check out: [50][51][52]. Still the only real thing in the article that would be a claim to notability might be the "participation" in the 1991 revolt (I assume he means the revolt against the coup) and the 1993 action. I'm afraid I really need to see some reliable sources for a claim like that. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to have received the Order of Hero of the Soviet Union triggers the hoax detector. Sandstein 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I call WP:HOAX. One, there is no evidence to corroborate the statements. Two, there is noted an award for a country that no longer exists - which may be merely poor wording, but still. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - hoax Alex Bakharev 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Bearian 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoaxes can't be speedied? WP:IAR then. Burntsauce 23:05, 27 July 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 do a delete. Sr 13 09:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a vince[edit]

Prod removed, bringing to AfD. Neologism used, if it exists at all, only "in and around the Peterborough area in the UK" as the article itself claims. No google hits to support it; they were all using that phrase in the context of "do a Vince (various people named Vince) impression/tribute/song/etc" Jamoche 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not noteable/hoax/nonsense. This is just an homage to the creator's friend Vince.Merkinsmum 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism, and tribute to a Vince. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable neologism and is a tribute to vince. Oysterguitarist 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO - No reliable source talking about this phrase. "Do a vince" should mean lead your team back in the final seconds to win a national championship ;) Corpx 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do a Delete or else I'm going to start putting all of my personal sayings on here. --Bongwarrior 03:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up one day. I, personally, would think that "doing a Vince" would mean having a wonderful tenor voice and singing "Go Rest High on That Mountain"... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or to push, big, talentless wrestlers, prehaps? Lugnuts 07:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources asserted. I thought "Do a vince" meant faking your death Vince McMahon style. Spellcast 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up. I think the article describes the effort used in writing it. Realkyhick 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons. Bearian 18:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, total waste of bandwidth, disk space, and most importantly our time. Burntsauce 22:43, 27 July 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. Sr 13 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wayans[edit]

NN celeb kid, 4 appearances on his father's TV show does not constitute notability. Ckessler 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing minor roles does not make somebody notable. Oysterguitarist 03:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable celebrity relative. KrakatoaKatie 08:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable until he gets pulled over in Beverly Hills for DUI. Realkyhick 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments for his sister below. Caknuck 23:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damon Wayans for the same reason as his sister listed below. Nate 23:25, 24 July 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 Damon Wayans. Sr 13 09:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Mia Wayans[edit]

NN celebrity kid, 2 appearances on her father's show doesn't constitute notability. Ckessler 00:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having 2 apperances does not make somebody notable. Oysterguitarist 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited + she only has had minor roles Corpx 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable celebrity relative. KrakatoaKatie 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as for her brother. Realkyhick 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her IMDb profile also mentions an appearance in a Will Smith video, but none of this asserts adequate notability. You'd think that any Wayans with a desire to act could have scored a role in Little Man or White Chicks. The lack of any recent roles should indicate that she has left the business. Caknuck 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Damon Wayans for now, so if she does achieve notablity the redirect can be changed back to an article. Nate 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not-yet notable person who fails WP:BIO tests. Burntsauce 22:43, 27 July 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 the article has already been speedy deleted by User:Butseriouslyfolks. Metropolitan90 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Adams[edit]

Non-notable; there are probably several people named Sean Adam more notable than him. Neutrality^talk 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7, non-notable. Tiptoety 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Tiptoety, tagged Rackabello 01:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, non-notable and no citation sources, also it looked more like a discussion page right before being tagged. Sawblade05 02:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable. Oysterguitarist 02:45, 24 July 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 all. Sr 13 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rhythm, Brilliant Inc., Dark Horse Management[edit]

Steve Rhythm, his "all-encompassing entertainment/media group" (to launch in 2008) Brilliant Inc. and it's "management division" Dark Horse Management. Tagged for speedy and contested, with the claim on Talk:Dark Horse Management that "the company wants to utilize all aspects of the web to generate buzz about the new artists on its roster, and this includes providing an article to Wikipedia." Seems a clear-cut case of spamming Wikipedia to try to promote a not-yet-notable company. Stormie 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:Rtpasricha:

Steve Rhythm is an accomplished producer and music executive. He has been a notable figure in the music industry, producing for the likes of Pink (as stated here on Wikipedia itself), and will continue to be at the forefront with the launch of his new company, Brilliant Inc.

As I stated above please view these following links to support my case on Steve Rhythm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P!nk

http://charts.org.nz/showperson.asp?name=Steve+Rhythm

Delete, delete, and probably delete. The two companies are nn (one doesn't even exist yet!). I don't think that being a co-producer of a few of Pink's songs is enough to qualify for survival. In the words of Gloria Estefan, Rhythm is gonna get you (deleted). Clarityfiend 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All-encompassing delete. News release at best, spam at worst. Not notable in any event. Realkyhick 18:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:CORP, not to mention WP:SPAM Rackabello 16:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, though I am going to check for copyvio. Until (1 == 2) 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Leading Hotels of the World[edit]

This has not been justified as notable and has been noted as needing such since May 2007. Also, this seems to be entirely a marketing organization. Slavlin 16:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: although this company is probably important in its niche, this is not the same as notable. I couldn't find anything that would satisfy the WP:ORG requirement of reliable, independent secondary sources - I suppose this sort of thing doesn't get written about outside of travel industry promotional material. EyeSerene^TALK 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be any assertion of notability of the subject (CSD A7). Agree with EyeSerene, too. --Deskana (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no connection with the hotel industry but I have heard of this. Many of the member hotels are extremely famous (plenty of them have articles). I would say that this is more notable (and more likely to be looked up), than the articles about many hotel chains that meet WP:CORP. Golfcam 17:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though it needs work. This organization has been around for a while and has global reach. It has been written about in the travel press (that's how I knew about it before I saw this AfD), but a Google search turns up quite a few hits. I'm going against my natural deletionist tendencies here. Realkyhick 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending sources required per ~~WP:CORP~~ WP:ORG. Most of the article reads like a copyvio, probably from http://www.lhw.com/download_s/Company%20History.pdf. Sandstein 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and that notability is not inherited from its member hotels. Bearian 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Golfcam. Sources are not required to prevent deletion if the topic is significant. This page is not for cleanup. Abberley2 01:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abberley, assertions of notability are required to keep it and that assertion would need to be backed up by a source of some kind. If it is challenged, as this is being, then the challenged content needs to be sourced or removed. Slavlin 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added an assertion of notability. You are incorrect to say that being unsourced is in itself an adequate excuse for deletion. Trying to get articles on legitimate topics deleted on technicalities is destructive to the development of Wikipedia. Beorhtric 11:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not saying that a lack of sourcing is excuse for deletion. (I do believe that no article is better than a lousy one, but that is not the issue at hand.) What I was saying is that lack of notability is justification for deletion. As long as this article has been around without assertion of notability and with the general appearance of it as a marketing organization, I would want the sourcing for the notability. According to the sourcing guidelines, it is the responsability of the person adding content (assertion of notability in this case) to provide the source for it or it should be deleted. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a gsearch and got 417,000 hits; that would seem pretty notable. This organization represents some of teh most significant hotels in the world (I have no conflict here, but I have stayed in these hotels when in Europe several times). The article does need work, but it is notable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GHITS a google search is really not an assertion of notability. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can look up sources as easily as anyone else. Beorhtric 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if I don't have thos trade journals that other people are citing as justification to keep it. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most notable organisations in its industry. Have any of the delete voters looked through the leading business journals and academic books on the hospitality industry and on marketing, and failed to find verification of the notability of this organisation there? I doubt it, because I'm sure you would find some. I expect you have just used google, and its going to be hard to find quality sources there because when you do a google search for anything to do with hotels, you just gets sites that want to sell you a room. But that's just a systemic failure of google, not a reflection on the subject at hand. Your (and my) lack of easy access to good quality relevant sources should not be used as an excuse for deleting this article. Beorhtric 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it not be used as an excuse to delete it? If the creator or other editors cannot source the notability of the organization, then it should be deleted till someone is willing to provide those sources. A larger Wikipedia is NOT a better one. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at it per WP:HEY. BTW, I have been awarded the volunteer of the year by a not-for-profit hospitality group (HI-USA) and have stayed at a couple of the members of the "Leading Hotels". Bearian 17:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That shoulds perfectly reasonable to me, though please remember that those hotels being notable would not necessarily make the organization notable. What I would really like to see is some kind of reference to articles about this organization, paper would be fine as long as it meets the criteria for reliable sources. Slavlin 17:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as per Beorhtric, this is an extremely notable group of hotels in the world, and I've stayed personally at at least ten of these myself. Don't let the hyperbolistic name get in the way of recognizing it is an important, notable and legitimate organization. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the member hotels. The hotels may be notable, keep their articles, but if this can't be shown to be an independantly notable organization, then it needs to go. Again, not saying I think it has to go, just that it needs to have some work done to keep it from just being a marketing hit on google. Slavlin 15:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a group of hotels. A group of hotels under common ownership or mangement might very well be notable, and sometimes even a better choice for articles than the individual hotels. But this is "a U.S. based marketing and trade association" the provide PR and advertising. they dont operate the hotels. I do not want to Speedy in the middle of an afd, and I am very reluctant to speedy any improvable article, but if I had encountered the article I would have said speedy delete as G11, commercial advertising -- just read the article--irremediable spam. DGG (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I'm disappointed in your reasoning after having put reasonable comment on the Article Rescue Squadron page. The Leading Hotels of the World is a notable trade group, and while the article is indeed lacking and spam filled, this is not "Articles for Deletion Because of its Current State." If it can be a "Keep, but needs heavy revision," it should stil be a "Keep." You should judge the deletion not just on the contents of the article, but on the article title and merits of the subject. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:29, 26 July 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. Pascal.Tesson 13:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fielzão[edit]

This is about an association of football fans who want to raise money to build a new stadium for Sport Club Corinthians Paulista, which does not seem to be a notable organisation to me. I would suggest delete, but merge with Sport Club Corinthians Paulista would be fine with me too. If the article is kept, I'm happy to do as much as I can of the (much needed) cleanup on this article, but don't want to waste any time if the article is deleted/merged. Schutz 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a translation of pt:Cooperfiel, but notability outside of Brasil is negligible. Fails WP:V. Caknuck 23:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Corinthians is one of the most famous football clubs in the world. Brazil is a big country, and football is the world's leading sport. This club is more notable outside its own country than any NFL club is outside the United States, so Caknuck's reasoning is chronically U.S. centric. If the topic is notable in Brazil, that is all the notability it needs. It does not fail WP:V if sources are available in Portuguese, even if Caknuck cannot read Portuguese. Abberley2 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we are not talking about the club itself, but some group associated with it, so the fact that Corinthians is one of the most famous football clubs in the world may not really be relevant. You ended your paragraph with "If the topic if notable in Brazil", but did not really reply to this question (which I can not answer since I don't speak Portuguese either) — the existence of the article on another Wikipedia is probably not a proof for notability, since they may use different criteria (or the article may be non-notable, but noone has yet bothered to list it for deletion). Schutz 06:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that my reasoning is "U.S. centric" so much as it was a comment on how notability varies from project to project. The importance of Brasilian football clubs and their supporters skews higher on pt: than here because a) an encyclopedia generally caters to the demands of its users and b) and the architects of the encyclopedia (meaning the editors who write articles and those who collaborate to form consensus) will have a built-in regional bias. What may seem in the English-speaking world as a NN fan group (as it is in my opinion) may be sufficiently notable for the Portugese WP. And conversely, an American college football team's booster club which may gain sufficient editor support for inclusion here may not pass muster in pt:. Caknuck 13:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe they are notable. Number 5 7 08:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't think it warrants an article but a paragraph, suitably cleaned up, in Sport Club Corinthians Paulista would be OK to my mind. --Malcolmxl5 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the club's article -- Ban Ray 22:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan clubs are usually not notable at all, and this is one of them. And, of course, wherever they hail from (Brazil, the UK and even Italy). --Angelo 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree with User:Malcolmxl5. --Steve Farrell 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:NOT. Couple that with the poor writing and vandalism, and this should be up for speedy delete. J-stan ^Talk 01:52, 31 July 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 American Gulf War Veterans Association, with history intact, so you can merge relevant sourced info into destination article if you wish. --Kurykh 02:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Riley[edit]

non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 12:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to American Gulf War Veterans Association, which should cover this dispute somehow if possible using reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, no individual coverage apparent, but do not merge anything unsourced. Sandstein 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no merge. Not individually notable. Which article starts off with a sentence stating what the subject is opposed to? JFW | T@lk 18:24, 25 July 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. --Kurykh 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Advocates for Health Freedom[edit]

non-notable organization; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotion. Realkyhick 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. —SlamDiego_←T 19:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While "International Advocates for Health Freedom" does get 17,600 unique google hits, the article as written makes little if any assertion of notability, has no reliable, verifiable sources, on top of the article having a pretty POV slant, reading almost like a propaganda piece for the organization. It may be possible to find proper sources, rewrite it to a more NPOV form and establish proper notability (and if that happens I'll change my vote to Keep), but unless that is done this article is ripe for deletion. --Wingsandsword 19:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verification of notability in independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The IAHF has been around for over a decade and has played a notable role in grass-root internet activism. Unfortunately that is seldom covered in the media. The article is promotional as it stands now but could be rewritten with better sources. I don't know all detials of wiki-policy but I am concerned that a delete decision today will make it impossible to start a new and more balanced article in the future. If it is possible to start the article again in the future I don't have any real objection to a delete now. MaxPont 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per MaxPont. It asserts notability, and is clearly notable, and can be verified, per Wingsandsword, but needs some sourcing. Bearian 17:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete there are exactly zero items in Google News, and i have also not found any in Google that meet WP:RS and talk about it in a substantial way. The many items in google are the typical issue-oriented pr sites the organization runs to increase its own publicity, or those of associated organizations. No third party notability. DGG (talk) 01:26, 26 July 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. --Kurykh 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She Dick[edit]

Claim to fame is what???? Shoessss | Chat 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to marginally pass WP:RS (and thus criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 14:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPAM. She gone. Realkyhick 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep TenPoundHammer is correct. The band barely meets criteria number one of WP:MUSIC. Dallas Observer and Dallas Voice qualify as WP:RS, so two features should meet the significant coverage guideline. Although I'd be a lot happier if they were covered at least once outside of their local area.Horrorshowj 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC, barely, but meets. Carlossuarez46 05:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm terribly naive at times ... but aren't attempts to improve an article suppose to comes before an effort to delete them? I also invite folks to read the good faith effort the new editor has done to assert notability in a heated discussion on the talk pages. We have another case of a newby editor learning how to write a good article - let's avoid hitting them with a virtual rolled-up newspaper for their effort and find ways to support instead. Benjiboi 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only two references (I don't dare call YouTube a source), it fails WP:RS. It also fails WP:BAND because, to my knowledge, I haven't heard about them in media, WP:CRYSTAL and is probably WP:SPAM because the references are from alternative, no-name "news" sites. 69.158.57.45 21:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI added YouTube as that's where the videos are. Dallas Voice and Dallas Observer are hardly "no-name 'news' sites." Also, just because you have heard of them hardly means they are any less notable just that you likely are not in the Dallas area and/or simply didn't see that media coverage. Benjiboi 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see where it fails to be notable, verifiable, or any other requirement. SamBC 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMO, it does, in fact, pass WP:RS. The Dallas Voice and Observer do seem to be notable enough, although TPH is correct in his assertion that it's just barely. I also agree with Horrorshowj that coverage outside of the Dallas area would be great - to be truly notable, it seems that it would need at least a little coverage outside of the area - even from a "parent" group to the Voice and Observer, i.e. Village Voice Media or another paper from the National Gay Newspaper Guild. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete There wasn't any suitable information to merge into the parent article. — Caknuck 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Junior School[edit]

Does not assert notability. Prior to my wiki-bonked episode, I expressed notability concern via ((notability)). That was in March 2007 and it hasn't undergone any major revision to assert notability since then. It would be deleted quickly via CSD criteria, but I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. Luke! 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion or verification of notability in independent sources. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VanTucky. Bearian 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 21:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the notable parent English Schools Foundation. cab 04:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Pity, there aren't any notable alumni or unique architecture when I checked, nor is it significantly mentioned by reliable sources. However, its longevity gives it a little weight.--Kylohk 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Schools Foundation per CaliforniaAliBaba, a reasonable compromise. RFerreira 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. — But|seriously|folks 04:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the oldest english school in hong kong, that has to confer some sort of notability. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:45, 30 July 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. Sr 13 09:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tohea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

nn-website, though it may have a sliver of notability. Will ^(talk) 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People keep removing the truthiness. Best deleted - It doesn't belong here anyway. Pooka21 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability per WP:WEB; no nontrivial references. Shalom ^Hello 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability or suitable references and just seems to be a big magnet for vandals. Liverpool Scouse 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, completely unsourced. Caknuck 22:51, 24 July 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 Withdraw - were it not a village, I'd suggest a merge into the page about the floods. Will ^(talk) 00:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walham[edit]

nn electicity substation, notable only for nearly getting flooded Will ^(talk) 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is a village in Gloucestershire where notable substation is situated Ilvil 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Reasons are as follows:

Serially reported by notable media (BBC) [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]
Notable individual (Chief Constable) considered it notable "The county's Chief Constable Tim Brain said the force's main priority was to keep Walham Switching Station dry."[61]
Other notable individual (Flood Recovery Minister) considered it notable [62]
Operation to prevent flooding involved Army, Navy, Fire Service, Police and National Grid over several days. So they considered it notable.
Serves hundreds of thousands of homes and notable institution (GCHQ) during a notable event (2007 UK floods).
Its flooding would have been notable. And, seeing as the event is still ongoing, may yet be so.

So it's been noted several times by notable media, people and groups during a notable event. Speaking seriously, what else is required for notability? Regards, Anameofmyveryown 21:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The overwhelming precedent is to keep articles about inhabited villages as being inherently notable. The substation is just bonus content. Edison 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, inhabited villages are inherently notable per Edison. The sources found by Anameofmyveryown only assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:08, 24 July 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catch the Sperm[edit]

Orphaned, no assertion of nobility or sources Will ^(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a source to an int'l health journal to confirm that it exists and was held up as an example of innovative health promotion practice. [63] Article could still stand clean-up. Canuckle 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. International AIDS Conference abstracts are only very loosely peer reviewed and aren't normally used as an academic citation. Espresso Addict 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Here's one of the better game reviews [64] though I'm unsure if source counts as reliable. It's mentioned 3 times in this Quebec goverment document VIDEO GAMES AND SEX ROLES: FROM CYBERSPACE TO SEX EDUCATION [65], and in numerous unreliable sources such as download sites, game fan sites and a couple EU seminars Canuckle 00:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if Re-Mission exists, then this one should exist as well. One reference and one external link seem to be enough for me in that case. NCurse _work 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep if this exists then it should be on hereDelighted eyes 04:28, 29 July 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.