< June 26	June 28 >

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? 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black magic (programming)[edit]

Various reasons here. Biggest one I see is that this entry pretty much constitutes a dictionary definition. We can likely go on a copyvio as this is an almost exact duplicate of the term's entry on the Jargon File, but I'd rather someone else make that call. Finally, there's a lack of citations for this rather sparse entry to Wikipedia's repertoire. As such, I move for deletion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Jargon File is public domain (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/online-preface.html). However, this is only a dictionary definition. I am a programmer and can't think of anything more interesting about this topic than is already written in the article. I think it's as good as it's going to get. Sancho 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. More of a general observation than slang, even. We're not the Jargon File and don't need to duplicate its content except when necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:58, 29 June 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 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Way Entertainment[edit]

The article lacks proper references to back up its claims. Outside of My Way’s self-published websites, there are not any other legitimate sources that verify the article’s content., see WP:Attribution and WP:Reliable sources. Further the group it self is hardly notable; Outside of “The Juggernaut Bitch!”, the group itself, or its other videos, fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability — They fail to meet all three fields of Wikipedia:Notability (web), take note the Angry Nintendo Nerd's WP page was also deleted under very similar terms. ►ShadowJester07 13:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VERY Weak Keep Just a bit notable. ~Crowstar~ 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was mainly nominated because it fails WP:A, not because of the notability issue. --►ShadowJester07 16:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom.--Edtropolis 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slightly notable; due to the group's expanding popularity. fhb3 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Kurykh 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are tons of humorous redubbing groups on YouTube. What makes this one notable? With no reliable sources, there is nothing given to show that they are notable at all. Reads like fancruft. -- Kesh 05:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having one notable product does not make you notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social aggression[edit]

Original speculative essay. `'Miikka 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay (and a pretty badly written one at that), not at all encyclopedic. Calgary 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR - reads as grade school writing assignment. Bigdaddy1981 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, redirect and rewrite. This seem more related to political science then sociology (we alraedy have a decent article on Relational aggression, where social aggression should redirect to. The current article should be renamed to political aggression and singicantly improved, but the subject seems notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Calgary. Seems like trying to push forward some political agenda, though I didn't quite follow which. Dan Gluck 14:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR essay. Debivort 06:06, 2 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 and cleanup. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an acrimonious debate, with an article that has had deletion and reversion, people who feel very strongly for and against the subject, and where the AFD debate has had to be tagged due to concerns over meatpuppetry and solicitation. In this context it's important to note that AFD debates are based upon policy-based points and evidence presented, both in the article and by contributors in this discussion (deletion policy refers). Arguments quickly covered by policy include:

It is geographically limited (user:Shot_info)
Geographic inadequacies (and other deficiencies common to new stubby articles) are best remedied by expansion, not by deleting the article (WP:DP refers). In general, deletion is not the appropriate treatment for a concern over lack of balance. (If it inherently cannot be written for some reason, due to scope or balance reasons, then deletion may apply, but there is no evidence at all presented in this AFD suggesting that a neutral and geographically appropriate article on the D.C. qualification, based upon verifiable reliable sources, could physically not be written if desired.)
"This should be about the discussion of the article and not vote counting" (user:QuackGuru)
I concur, per WP:DP, WP:DPR, WP:AFD, etc, (see above). Canvassing and canvassing issues can be ignored, policy-related issues and other evidence regarding the article's AFD debate are what counts here. (Editors referenced also have significant editing history.)
Personal views of "promotion" and "trash" (user:QuackGuru)
These are not policy related matters. Per WP:AFD deletion is decided based upon policy based issues, and evidence, not personal opinion.
Delete to give a "clean start" or remove histories (suggestion by user:QuackGuru)
Wikipedia does not delete pages merely to give them a "clean start" or remove their reference history. Either the subject "Doctor of Chiropractic" is suitable for Wikipedia, in which case new versions overwrite old ones (which are kept for historical reference purposes only) or it is not (in which case it is deleted or changed to a redirect).

Having covered policy, the points made during the discussion are fairly straightforward.

The degree/qualification, is not the same as the profession, or the practice (user:Scottalter, supported by others) I concur. This doesn't mean that "D.C." is automatically notable; it just means that there is a legitimate case to address whether it is notable.

Nobody has come forward with a case that D.C. is not notable in degree terms. (ie that some degrees are notable and others are not). There is no notability guide on degrees, but I think it would be a hard case to make, that a "doctor of..." degree which many people could get, or do have, and have worked for, and the details of what is involved, are not of fairly wide interest.

There is broad consensus that the article is (or was: it's been worked on) deficient - either it contains too much overlap material, or contains material that duplicates others. Significant progress has been made in removing material that was not about the D.C. degree (before AFD current version). Also see nominator's comment before AFD: "Almost completely unsourced repetition of most of the information in Chiropractic ... very little if any information [of note]" (user:Viridae) However editors are encouraged to improve articles during AFD, and this one is now has a significant and sizeable paragraph on the degree, and much of the off-topic text has been deleted. There's plenty of valid information that could be added - what courses involve, reputable schools, aptitudes needed (if verifiable!), different parties' views on the degree as a qualification, are obvious ones. The article does have paragraphs on post-degree training, and background on the profession which may or may not be relevant to this article, but that's for future editorial discussion. Either way the question here is simply whether the article on D.C. presently meets (or could relatively easily meet) Wikipedia standards for article inclusion. I don't see any evidence suggesting it couldn't, and in its present state it evidences that an article on the degree is viable, even if only in stub form.

"The keep voters have mainly conceded it is trash, a promo ad, and somewhat problematic. They say keep but everything else they said means delete" (user:QuackGuru) I don't agree that this is a good representation of the views of keep voters. A more common viewpoint is that the article, if trimmed back and started from a stub, could work. User:Antelan, user:Shot_info, user:DGG, user:Scottalter, user:Justanother, and others have expressed this view one way or another. User:Levine2112] makes the suggestion that the article on D.M.might be a good guide. Even user:QuackGuru states "Let the current article be deleted and start a new article" (no obvious need for waiting a "month or two")

The first paragraph as it stands tends to show that an article or encyclopedic stub on the degree is possible. Deletion policy strongly encourages improvement of poor articles rather than deletion where practical and there is reasonable potential for an encyclopedic article.

There is potential duplication with Chiropractic education. Views divide whether this should be a separate article, or the latter article fully covers this one too (which should be merged into it). The point is well made that there is a distinction between "Chiropractic education" (the education required of people in order to become a chiropractor) and "Doctor of Chiropractic" (the title/degree and the attributes of those who possess it). Scottalder This also covers the question of POV forking (does it cover material which is properly the subject of another article). See below on this one.

On the basis of the above points, it seems there is evidence or consensus that 1/ the qualification per se is encyclopedic in its own right as a degree, 2/ the article (when originally AFD'ed) was badly deficient and may well have been off topic and slanted or even a POV fork, but this has greatly been improved now. 3/ There is a good case that an encyclopedic article or stub on the D.C. degree is achievable, and a good paragraph on that degree (if not more) as a starting point. 4/ Editorial consensus seems to have formed that the article can be made more to the point by trimming back and writing specifically about the degree. 5/ Limitations related to geography and the like are not policy related deletion grounds if they can be rectified and an encyclopedic article or stub is reasonably practical to achieve (which it clearly is).

The only remaining question is whether this article is bound to be a rehash of Chiropractic education, or whether two articles should exist (for the degree, and for the professional training). There are good grounds to think it might not be a rehash, and a number of editors have stated an intent or wish to recast this as an article about the degree, separate from the professional training. Given effort to date, I'm not prepared to conclude right now, that it's doomed to be a rehash. It is more in line with policy's encouragement of improvement to support the cleaning up of this one, and set this concern aside until we actually see whether or not it is a duplicate and rehash. (Future relisting or merge discussion would be reasonable responses if so, or dispute resolution if roadblocked by dispute.) For now, this discussion has not provided sufficient evidence for deletion, and it's premature to prejudge that outcome.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Doctor of Chiropractic[edit]

This article is an almost completely unsourced repetition of most of the information in Chiropractic. I tried just redirecting it a couple of weeks ago, but that was objected to so it comes here. There is very little if any information that can be merged as far as I can see, so I see no harm in deleting this article and replacing it with a redirect. Viridae ^Talk 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Keep and stubbify - While I agree that the current Doctor of Chiropractic is not a great article, there needs to be an article on the D.C. degree separate from the field of Chiropractic. Consider any other field in which one can earn a degree. There are usually 3 articles - one about the degree required, one about the field itself, and one about the occupation. Compare this to Doctor of Medicine/Medicine/Physician(/Surgeon), Registered nurse/Nursing/Nurse, Juris Doctor/Law/Lawyer, Master of Business Administration/Business/Businessperson, etc. All fields that require degrees to practice are in this format. Doctor of Chiropractic needs to be heavily edited and referenced, but not deleted. Chiropractic is a very long article. Possibly, the sections of "Chiropractic’s approach to healthcare" and "Education, licensing, and regulation" could be moved into "Doctor of Chiropractic" to help the article. Also, if there is enough content, some parts could be moved to a new article, Chiropractor, to go along with the schema above. --Scott Alter 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Scott Alter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levine2112 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Viridae, and not only is it just recycled (POVFORK?) it appears to concentrate just on the DC in the US to the exclusion to the rest of the world, something other articles at least have attempted to address (in varying degrees of success). Shot info 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=141078473 Levine2112 made this comment to canvas for votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=next&oldid=141078473 Here is the reply by Scott Alter.

This should be about the discussion of the article and not vote counting. Thanks. QuackGuru 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now really, this behaviour is aytpical of Levine. Shot info 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not my opinion was canvased, you should consider my argument instead of outright dismissing it. Just because the article is bad doesn't mean it should be deleted. It needs to be expanded in content and it needs a world-wide view. Also, polling is not a substitute for discussion. No one has brought up the points I mentioned yet, and they should be addressed before the article would be deleted or merged. Also, not that it should matter, but I wrote my comments here before reading http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=141078473.. It took me more that 4 minutes to look up the references and write my opinion above. --Scott Alter 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scott Alter. We plan on revamping the medically related articles systematically, and Scott has laid this plan out nicely in Talk:Osteopathic medicine. I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen for chiropractic. The degree and the field are distinct; both can have informative articles. Ante lan ^talk 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Doesn't matter - It's going to get rewritten entirely either way. An article by this title should exist, but this isn't it. Antelan ^talk 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands the article is not about the degree at all, so that point is moot. If you wanted to create a degree article over the top of this one if this closes as delete then noone is going to stop you, but this article is pretty damn bad and not worth keeping at the moment. Viridae^Talk 04:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that it's not really about the DC degree, but that doesn't mean that an article about the degree by this title shouldn't exist. Also, this article isn't totally without merit (though almost overwhelmingly, I admit), so I believe some of the material could be salvaged to script a better article. Ante lan ^talk 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but as it stands the article is worthy of deletion (or rather a merging and redirection). However if the advocates for a keep acutally improve the article, then there is hope for it. Until then the reasoning for a keep is at odds with policy. Shot info 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There already is an article covering degrees in chiro.[1] We don't keep trash in mainspace. Wikipedia is not a trash dumpster. QuackGuru 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scott Alter, but rewrite.--Hughgr 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the present article; Certainly keep an article on the DC degree, but the present article is not on the degree. It's a general article on chiro., of distinctly lower quality than the main WP one. And I do not see a single word in it about chiro. education. I see nothing here that would be of help beyond what we have on the original article. I was in some doubt whether I should not have instead said Keep: stubbify to the first sentence, and start afreshDGG 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Keep: stubbify to the first sentence, and start afresh? I think we are all in agreement that:

Most of this article is irrelevant to the D.C. degree
Most of this article is duplicated elsewhere
There should be an article about the D.C. degree

Since those for deletion have suggested that those against deletion should try to salvage it, would anyone mind if I gut the article? I would delete most of it, only leaving the relevant parts, and call it a stub for now. I have a feeling that if the article is simply redirected to Chiropractic, then no one will ever get around to writing the article on D.C. Also, for those who think Chiropractic education can take the place of Doctor of Chiropractic, my analogy to other professions can extend to this too. See Doctor of Medicine/Medical education/Medical school, Registered Nurse/Nurse education/Nursing school, Juris Doctor/Legal education/Law school, Master of Business Administration/Business education/Business school. If there are no objections by the end of the day, I'll start on this. --Scott Alter 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Do you get a free 'doctor of voodoo' bundled in with this free? How about a BSc in Fairy Spotting while we're at it? Nick mallory 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott, there already is a Doctor of Chiro type article. The Chiropractic education article covers the Doctor of Chiro article. Do you understand my point? That means all the keep votes are essentially nullified. Frankly, I can't see any valid reason to have this article. I have no idea what do you want to turn this article into. Moreover, we don't have article titled, Chiropractic 2. Two articles covering the same topic is very weird. As it stands, the keep votes are completely irrelevant. I recommend you reconsider your vote or come up with something that actually makes a little sense. I do not know what is the point in salvaging nothing worth salvaging. Everything is already covered elsewhere. What do you suggest the new stub article be called and what would it be about. Please explain. Anyhow, this article seems more like a promotional ad than a real article. Wikipedia is not a promotional machine. Agreed? QuackGuru 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - QuackGuru, I see your point, but I do not think you see mine (otherwise you wouldn't have questioned the relevancy of "votes" in favor of keeping the article). Here is a breakdown of the points raised:

You say "Wikipedia is not a promotional machine".
I agree.
You think the Doctor of Chiropractic article is "trash" and "a promotional ad".
I agree with you that it is. We all seem to be in agreement about this.
I think there should be an article solely about the D.C. degree.
Your counter point is that an article mentioning the degree exists as Chiropractic education, so an article about the D.C. degree is redundant.
My counter counter point is that almost every other degree has its own article, in addition to an article about the education. See Academic degree#Examples of degrees and my examples from above. I am a big proponent of consistency and standardization. Even a few paragraphs about the degree could be sufficient. It doesn't need to duplicate information elsewhere. Surely there is more information about the D.C. degree than what is written at Chiropractic education. If content in "Chiropractic education" sufficiently describes the degree (which I'm not sure it does), maybe it is in the wrong place. "Chiropractic education" should describe the education required of people in order to become a chiropractor. "Doctor of Chiropractic" should be about the title/degree and the attributes of those who possess it. There is a difference between the two topics. Almost all the other professions and degrees on Wikipedia use this distinction to have separate articles about the education and degree(s) needed to perform the profession.
You want the article deleted because the content is "trash" and "a promotional ad".
I want to revise the article to describe the D.C. degree, keeping the name Doctor of Chiropractic.
You still want the article deleted because the degree is mentioned in Chiropractic education.
I still want to revise the article so it describes the D.C. degree. I would rather use the existing content as a starting point than starting again from scratch - even if it is just a sentence or two. For those who want to delete the article and then recreate an article of the same article but with a different topic, what's the point? If the article is just going to be recreated as soon as this one is deleted, why bother with deleting it at all? Shouldn't the content just be changed to reflect the title and desired focus of the article?

I think this should address all of the points raised so far. Do I correctly understand your point of view? Is everything now clear, in terms of my point of view? As an aside, I also think there should be an article about the MChiro degree. What makes this UK degree different from the US D.C. degree? I don't know. There are no articles on either degree. --Scott Alter 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some DC's persue specialties in Neurology and Orthopedics, which should be mentioned.--Hughgr 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term Doctor of Chiro seems to be an American term. The article Chiro of education article covers the "degrees" - internationally. The current article (Doctor of Chiro) is not specifically about the degree. Its a general (promotional) article on chiros. Note. > The criticism section was deleted. You can start with the Chiro of education article which is about degrees. There is no reason to have a forked article of Doctor of Chiro when the education article is the place to start. Do you want to change the content and start over? You have not pointed out anything worth keeping. If you remove all information that is not pertaining to degrees, you will have successfully deleted the article. I recommend you be bold. Delete eveything that is not relevant to the title. You will have nothing left. Maybe just a sentence or two that may need some rewording. That is essentially deleting the article. We should not keep the page history. Someone could revert back to the promotional nonsense again. That is why we have AFDs. Do you agree? Who knows what could happen five years from now with one simple revert. The best move is to delete now. Write whatever you want and start fresh. Though, it may be wiser to start at the Chiro of education article. If and when the Doctor of chiro content gets too long and is notable it can have its own page. Now then, do you understand?* QuackGuru 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the chiro edu article should be merged with this one then.--Hughgr 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Wrong idea. This article (Doctor of Chiro) is poorly written and is not about degrees. Question. Is there anything in the current article worth merging into the education article or worth keeping as a stub. Any thoughts. Without a valid answer to the many questions* we have outlined, this entire article will be met with a red link. QuackGuru 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro contains a useful link, and the wording is only somewhat problematic (wow, that should never be a compliment). I don't care anymore - either this will get redlinked and totally rewritten, or it will just get totally rewritten. I know you've raised a "no history is good" point, but I don't really think it matters either way. Ante lan ^talk 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? It does matter. The keep voters have mainly conceded it is trash, a promo ad, and somewhat problematic. They say keep but everything else they said means delete. Its nonsense and is not about degrees. This is easy to understand. Am I wrong? QuackGuru 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I changed my vote. You convinced me (which is probably rare on Wikipedia) so relish in this. Ante lan ^talk 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. The current Doctor of Chiropractic article be tagged with the appropriate label that the article reads poorly (essay, et cetera) and those with an active interest in it takes steps to rewrite it in a fashion similar to other doctor degrees. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree that the article is poorly written. None of us like the content. QuackGuru, I see that this is why you want the article deleted. The opposite side is saying that the text of the current article needs to be deleted, but there should be an article about the D.C. degree. People are becoming indifferent because that are tired of arguing with you. Despite the outcome of this AfD, there will ultimately be an article created, entitled "Doctor of Chiropractic", which will be about the degree. So the question becomes, if an article's content is inappropriate for the title, do you delete the entire article and then recreate a new one with the exact same name, or do you essentially blank the inappropriate article and just start with a new one? I would vote to just blank the current one and create new content - rather than deleting the article completely. For this reason, I just added ((Cleanup-rewrite)) and ((Incomplete)) to the article. Levine2112, if you can think of other tags appropriate to be added, then please add them. Once that aspect of the article has been fixed, we can remove the tag. Once all of the tags are gone, the article should be good. The reason QuackGuru currently gives to delete the article is solely to prevent someone in the future from reverting to the current (bad) version. Wikipedia does not work this way. The history is there for a reason. When any article is massively restructured (as this one will be), the prior history is not deleted. I will begin to edit the article to focus on the degree in the near future. --Scott Alter 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is a declaration the current article is nonsensical. Am I wrong? There is no reason to have a forked article. As I said before, the chiro education article covers the doctor of chiro. There is no purpose to keeping this article. You have admitted the current version is poor. In fact, it is very poor. Lets delete it now. If the education article on doctor of chiro grows too big then another article is appropriate. You have not demonstratd any reason to keep the current article or explained why you need a forked article. Its already covered elsewhere. Nothing is worth keeping. If the article was kept, it would still be an unnecessary fork. Once all the tags would be removed in the future, you still would have two articles covering the same subject. Currently, if you deleted everything not related to the doctor of chiro, you may have next to nothing left. Please delete evey last word not related to the title of the article. What is doctor of chiro? Is it about the degrees? So, delete everything else. I mean. What are you waiting for? Be very bold. The article is tagged for clean up. Go for it. Lets see what we have to work with. Nothing but garbage. (One poorly written sentence or two?) Agreed? QuackGuru 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, chillout... Shot info 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've made a start back to the lede paragraph. Feel free to revert if people think consensus has not been achieved or if it's the incorrect (too early?) approach. Ta Shot info 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all of the lead has nothing whatsoever to do with the Doctor of chiro. QuackGuru 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but there's always tomorrow :-) Shot info 02:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you deleted everything not related to the Doctor of chiro, you would have blanked the page. This is silly. Can anyone out there tell us what if anything is worth keeping. Be specific. Which sentence is about the title? The answer is, nothing. We have nothing to work with. QuackGuru 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, but we are here to edit an encyclopedia, so lets edit ;-) Shot info

Maybe we should all look at Doctor of Medicine and try to make the Doctor of Chiropractic article mimic its content in terms of format and what it covers. Sound like a plan? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Now its time for the editors who voted keep (and delete) to start a new article. I still want the page history to be deleted to start fresh. Let the current article be deleted and start a new article in a month or two. Create a subuserpage for editors to contribute to. Will this idea work? QuackGuru 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any sort of degree type article format is suitable (IMHO). I am of the thinking that perhaps a paragraph should be started within Chiropractic_education (even if it is called Doctor of Chiropractic) and when it hits more than two paragraphs, then breaking it out into an article of its own (ie/ the normal Wikipedia proceedure). In the mean time DC can redirect to Chiro Ed. The only reason I suggest this at this point is that I have had a closer read thru Chiro Ed, and my mind sees it as a "better fit", especially the first three paragraphs, which really duplicate in my mind what this DC article should be (obviously this is my opinion, so feel free to flame away :-) Shot info 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as an apparent POV fork. There is pretty much nothing to be said about this degree that is not redundant to doctorate and chiropractic, other than attempts to bolster the perceived of qualifications in a controversial discipline. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Keep per logic of Scott Alter. --Justanother 17:07, 2 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, an obvious POV fork by a user currently blocked due to his inability to rein in his strong opinions. The path from here to an article compliant with fundamental policies is not clear, and it is close to impossible to sort any valid material from the mess of uncited opinion. Presence of this content degrades the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red army crimes in Lithuania[edit]

POV pushing arbitrary half-cooked chaotic collection of events involving Red Army. If any, the crimes are that of the Soviet Union. Army was but its instrument. We don't write articles "crimes committed by Maxim Gun". `'Miikka 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONTRA against Mikalaj from Belorussia - (not Mikka from Finland).

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every soldier had a chance (little) not to shoot at lithuanians in 1918 - (lots of lithuanians escaped from russian army and returned to homeland) or leave the army. But for someone there was better to make bandit activities against civil. Not Maxim-gun was guilty, but those who supported Trocky, Stalin, Lenin - all the marasmatic company. Don't be demagogic.

Ttturbo 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Occupation of Baltic states - the topic might be notable but the article itself is completly useless Alex Bakharev 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONTRA against Petersburg student A Bakcharev. For U studying physics this article gives no any profit, but for history students looking at the Baltic problem of their 'Grand neighbour" it is valuable source.Ttturbo 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the map I see no common border between Lithuania and any country that can be viewed upon as "great". But thanks for the compliment anyway ;)--Kuban Cossack 17:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and rewrite. It's obviously a direct translation from a Latvian article, by someone who doesn't know colloquial English. I'd like to give it a fix-up before it's deleted, including finding citations. A lot of Soviet history went unreported prior to the end of the Cold War. I agree the title should be fixed to something else... suggestions? Mandsford 00:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'v seen recently that the total of nazi victims was 20 million but of comunism -100 mln. It shocked me and I've started research. I think this is only aproximately figures and possibly the real ratio is 30:80. Where is this described correctly? Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Before you dive headlong into rewriting I suggest you to ponder over the idea that the whole Soviet state was kind of criminal. How will you separate crimes of Red Army per se from its ingamous activities resulting from esecution of state orders? the current article is a mess and nothing to keep. If you know where to start, please start a new one, and with correct title, too: Red Army crimes in Lithuania. You may also want to read Red Army atrocities. And since you seem cannot tell Latvia from Lithuania, you better stay away from the topic. A cooperation of a hater and an ignoramus is a dangerous mixture. `'Miikka 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State orders are governmental orders. If they are criminals - they are according to constitution and international law. Every Army chief has the possibility not to agree to prime minister or president (history knows such facts) like every soldier has a chance not to fight. This chance makes them guilty at a humanistic pacifistic moral field and in the case of crimes against civil - makes them guilty according to the law system.Ttturbo 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... we won't cooperate on anything for the time being; I admit I am kind of hateful. I disagree with your assertion that the whole Soviet state was criminal... there were atrocities, and a great deal of secrecy until recently. In wasn't until 1988 that Moscow acknowledged the Katyn Forest massacre. However, you're right... I said Latvian instead of Lithuanian. I almost said "Latveria" which was the fictional kingdom ruled by Dr. Viktor Von Doom in the Fantastic Four comics. My lame excuse is... that I thought that the article (about Lithuania, of course) was written in Latvian. Dang thing is that I accused the writer of not knowing colloquial English, and turns out that I don't know the Lithuanian language. Mandsford 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO PROBLEM - Latvia and Lithuania are brother Baltic countries and even russian occupants often maDde such mistakes. Thank You for support.Ttturbo 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must intervene here: Miikka never accused you of being hateful. "Cooperation of a hater and an ignoramus" meant "Cooperation of User:Ttturbo and you". I suppose you mixed up the words cooperation and combination. Note by the way that if this is a literal translation (via some translation site on the internet) as you suggested it is arguably a copy violation, and qualifies for speedy deletion. --Pan Gerwazy 10:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who allowed to pan Gerwaz to remove my debate from here? according to wiki rules the debate is not only the voting! You hide the traces of crimes and support red bandits. Ttturbo 04:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic states occupation is the darkest period in all the history of Baltic states, who lost huge amount of their best citisens. So let us to express our point of wiev not worrying about some kb memory on disk. 20 thousand killed by Red army young Lithuanian partisans fighting for freedom in 1944-1952 can't support me, working for their memory.Ttturbo 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to intervene here. Mansford looks like a smart guy: he cleverly turned the table to say that it is me who is ignoramus :-) `'Miikka 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging with Red Army atrocities or Red Army atrocities (WWII) ( and I must be forgetting some) which is where this belongs. Note that the author of this article, first tried to insert this "info" (I am using a neutral term here) in Red Army, was told that there were other places to do that, but did not seem to like that advice. --Pan Gerwazy 00:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was computer problem -sometimes U use comp and U are kicked out from Your user name to anonymous. Don't be so paranoyed. I had no idea about 3RR.Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Red Army atrocities (WWII) . Bigdaddy1981 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the period after I WW - the first Red army attack against independent Lithuania? For Lithuania second world war finished in 1952!!!Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopelessly biased. MaxSem 05:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but stick anything which can be sourced (the fact that there are sources means that a Lithuanian-speaking editor might be able to find something in them) in any of the articles mentioned above, assuming they're not there at the moment. I don't see a good reason to have a bunch of articles about the Red Army doing nasty things in Country X, Country Y and Country Z. If the list were unusually long, there might be a point, but this doesn't seem to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Collection of loosely related events assembled here (or on Lithuanian Wiki) in a way fitting someone's ideological predispositions. Some events (mandatory service in Soviet Army is not crime unless the term is extended to cover almost everything). Last but not least - during wars massacres and other actions labeled as war crimes are rather norm than an exception. Wikipedia should cover this by overview articles, not by endless lists. Pavel Vozenilek 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Russians they are. For Baltic states -no. It depends.

One russian told me for example, that Khatyn massacre in 1939 was commited having the memory how polish troops shooted russians in 1919. So I don't agree that mentioning of crimes in 1919 and in 1940 are loosely related events assembled here. The study of aggression reasons must involve historical memory too Mr Pavel! When I've met Vaclav Havel - I told him THANKS. Do U understand WHY?Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps some of this information could be put in relevant sections of the relevant articles, but with this set of information, it does not warrant its own article. Bassgoonist 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United forces made some reconstruction! Ttturbo 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, nothing but a Propaganda piece. No mention of the fact that the Lithuanians actively supported the German invasion of Russia. Tovojolo 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lithuanian Activist front started the rebbel against soviets who deported 10 thousand of Lithuanian intelectuals, politicians and farmers (kids, women, grand people) to Siberia - cold death the week before, on the 22th of June. Real battle started, LAF deceived russians, phoning, that in Kaunas threre is German desant ant using the radio proclaimed othe independent Lithuania again and formed the government. german troops entered capital the next day and found it free, but after 43 days they stopped all the activities of Lithuania government. If You want, You can try to right the article how lithuanians supported naci invasion -and U'll be deleted by historical facts immediately. EU started the new investigation about the crimes of comunism. About the nazzi crimes we have got much more than propaganda, but about the comunists there is no enough information.Ttturbo 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV pushing arbitrary half-cooked chaotic collection of events - yep. --Fredrick day 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The crimes everytime appear more orrless chaotic - this is the style of hell!Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that Ttturbo has also just created Category:Red Army crimes and several unsourced stub articles within that category. Should they be considered in this AfD, or tagged seperately? If nothing else, a warning about WP:POINT seems to be in order. -- Kesh 01:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some have some sources. What is your point of wiev about military crimes of any army?Ttturbo 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!The attackers of Red army crimes... article and fans of Red army do not made any real comments in the disccusion page of article, so I am forced to dispute HERE! This is antidemocratic to start deleting attack urgently. Some part of turbo comment was moved by kesh somwhere - who allowed u to edit my comment?Ttturbo 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mv to Talk page - most of this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and is a repost of material already moved to Talk, so off-topic to the AfD -- Kesh

Do the newcomer understand your mv. This is not teenagers' chat! It's your opinion not waiting any answer of opponents. This is not polite! And don't edit my comments insurting yours in the middle of mine!Ttturbo 05:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to the talk page for this AfD. In case you hadn't noticed, your previous discussion had already been moved there. It is commonly accepted that discussions that are not directly related to the deletion of the article are to be moved to the talk page. None of your comments actually addressed any Wikipedia policy reasons for keeping the article. In fact, they all sound like a desire to have a memorial enshrined in the encyclopedia. -- Kesh 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh's concept is not true - my answers were directly related to opponents sometimes even absurd ideas. U are false! Your activitie looks like construction of assylum for military crimes comittments. I speak in my article about THE CRIMES not about the the HEROES or suffered civils! Your common practice is not the rule. I accuse you Kesh in disruption - this is persecuted in wiki -u r dictator. In your editing 02:57, 29 June 2007 Kesh (Talk | contribs) (6,804 bytes) (mv off-topic portion to Talk page you simply deleted my text from this page giving no understanding about my possition and only after my protest you left some trace o this. I don't ask to do this. So you comitted the crime colaborating with criminal military elements -look for the lawyer and study geneva convention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 04:16, June 29, 2007

First, please respond directly below the post you are replying to. You keep inserting new comments into other places which makes it difficult to follow. And please remember to sign your new comments with four ~ signs.

Second, I suggest you calm down. I left quite explicit information of where the information went for anyone to read.

Third, remain civil. Accusing me of a crime is absurd, and recommending I get a lawyer is over-the-top. The Geneva Conventions don't apply to conversations on a notice board. If you want to complain about my actions, you may. However, legal threats are not welcome here and you can be blocked for making them.

Your position can be read on this AfD's Talk page, which I clearly indicated when moving your comments. Again, your comments do not address Wikipedia's policies, which are what we use to decide if an article should be kept or not. If you wish to make an argument, please see the relevant policies: WP:V WP:N and WP:NPOV. -- Kesh 04:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some red bandits murdered my grandmother and the others in 1945 and I must be calm when u are hiding those crimes?!. For the first time You deleted my answers with no trace of this and only after my protest made changes. If I go to the street or to sleep...You comitted real crime - consult the layer about the crimes using computers so u must be responsible for your action. The Geneva convention gives the understanding about international military crimes - u hAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THEM I SEE.Ttturbo 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you've made your POV quite clear. For the record, I did not "delete (your) answers with no trace," and anyone who looks in the history can see this. -- Kesh 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time U left no link giving some remark about not understandable talk(which?) and Afd(will everyone understand this abreviation) ? This is not teenagers' chat! Ttturbo 05:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge, but latter option is only applicable to bits that can be both sourced properly, and phrased as not to violate WP:NPOV in blatant manner, as the article now does. The name of the article per se strongly pushes the same POV; there is absolutely no mentioning of any events that might explain the "crimes", or even give context. There is also no mention of any opposing POVs, or any events fitting the latter (such as per Tovojolo). IgorSF 03:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How u could stay neutral when speaking about military crimes?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttturbo (talk • contribs) 04:28, June 29, 2007

Our policy on neutral point of view requires us to stay neutral on all topics. -- Kesh 04:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was your attempt to hide my answers neutral? U ewen not appologised. Ttturbo 04:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was no attempt to "hide" your answers, as I believe I have adequately shown. If other editors feel I was incorrect, they may undo my changes and I will not object. My only intention here was to keep the AfD flowing smoothly. If you will note, I have not registered a keep/delete opinion here and have no intention of doing so. My only contribution to this AfD was a desire to keep it on-topic and formatted for clarity. -- Kesh 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was MY position clear after yours mysterious changes? Ttturbo 04:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear as crystal. -- Kesh 04:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. For newcomers your "language - mv Adf .." is not understandable.From wiki rules - These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. Who allowed u to make my position not direct reachable? I would like to know about rules but not common general practice?! Why u don't try to transport posts of the other users? Why do You attcked the whole category? Why U made false conclusion in help desk giving comment to my asking?Ttturbo 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's prevent this from getting even more ridiculous than it already is. All User:Kesh has done was moving extraneous comments on the talk page. I, for one, agree with this move. The rules you quoted mean that every vote on a deletion page like this should be cast with a reason stated, rather than simply "yes" or "no". They do not mean, however, that every user, or any user, should reply to every vote with his own rebuttal, especially when such rebuttal consists of essentially the same arguments repeated over and over. This is why User:Kesh didn't "transport" posts of other users - they put a single vote, with at most a single paragraph of argumentation behind it. IgorSF 06:22, 29 June 2007

(UTC)

The main problem was how it was made for the first time and he placed his text in the middle of my comment! It was done not understandably for me and some others using teenagers chating and abbreviating style. Well, I could start to split his comments and to remove them from here saying -those are about shrines, not about victims and murders. I suppose - every one has right to make comment on any remark in democratic structure.Ttturbo 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after edit conflict, and re-indenting): Agree in principle with IgorSF, but I have to state that [[User:Kesh] did not move the threaded comment to the tlk page, I did. I also deleted my own comment here on my vote [the one stating that User:Ttturbo was edit-warring on Red Army ], so he is wrong to say here (and on my talk page) that there was some kind of bias because I did not transport other people's comments. I kept the interchange between Miikka and Mandsford because that was about possible collaboration to keep the article alive. In hindsight, I should perhaps not have done that. I repeat that the way User:Ttturbo is commenting on every single vote and comment - even Kesh's, which was completely neutral, is disruptive and makes this AfD impossible to follow. I would advise anyone who votes here to come back later and, if appropriate, to move Ttturbo's comment on their vote to the talk page. --Pan Gerwazy 07:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belorussian fighter Mikalaj Miikka attacks all the articles from category Red army crimes. I would like to research how there appeared 100 000 000 victims of comunism (less then nazzi) and what was the role of Red army giving sequencies of facts and knolidge according to wiki definition. But Mikalaj giving no comments started deleting procedures on my articles, so he wants to hide horrible crimes (including my grandma murdering). To delete knowledge from wiki is equal to vandalism. The crimes must be presented, discussed, understood and persecuted finally - for never repeating!

Your comment pan Gerwaz is not equal to the answers of the author, so better not to try repeat your DISRUPTIVE act of "mess" gathering by other hands. Is position to hide the crimes attacking all the category- 100 million murderings neutral? You voted to delete crimes and now cleaned your vote.

Well, it is possible to create single article about total Red Army crimes but how this will be used in the history of every country? If pan Gervaz wants to see the clear sequence of delete delete delete removing my answers and debate (debate is not only voting - wiki rules), this does not mean that the administrator who wil read after five days has the same opinion.Ttturbo 08:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you got it wrong: I did not just vote "delete" on this article. I agree that it is very difficult to note that because someone here is continually putting comments all over the place making it impossible to follow this vote. And I did not delete my vote. I did move (not delete!) my threaded comment on my vote, which was perfectly proper because I did that to all the threaded comment. I gave a reason for my vote, and that should still be visible, but with extreme difficulty because "someone put comments all over the place making it impossible to follow this vote". I have indeed voted "speedy delete" on the other (attack) pages you have just created. WP:POINT and WP:Beans.--Pan Gerwazy 08:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is real reason at court of history. Why U don't answer -what about the crimes of Red army in 1918-1921? 15 million of victims in Russian civil war and what about victims in Poland?. What about 20 thousand Lithuanian partisans murdered by reds 1944-1952? And U propose to merge ewerything to WWII history deleting the other periods crimes?. I think your knowledge about recent war history shown in this debate is awfull.

I would like that users better vote here not looking at the other opinions staying neutral, but if they want -they can study positions of both sides. There is some responsiblility for politicians too and sometimes they trie to accuse troops, sometimes generals accuses. They must SHARE responsibilities (for Mikalaj Miikka)Ttturbo 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment articles deals with crimes committed by Soviet Army at multiple points in history and both during and after the period that it was known as the Red Army - any merging or redirecting should take this into account. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The subject is notable but does not justify an article of its own, and it's far better to develop one article (at least until its size justifies splitting). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update I hope this article can survive deletion. I've done some fixup to make it sound "more American" for those of you who have made fun of the author. I'd say his English is better than your Lithuanian. The article has citations and refers to notable events. It can continue to be improved. I say, keep it around for awhile longer, give the author an opportunity to learn the Wikipedia style. Mandsford 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this; however, whether this article is deleted or kept depends mostly not on its style or level of English, but content and (alleged) violation of WP:NPOV, as evidenced by the arguments presented thus far on this page. I also don't think keeping an article that otherwise should be deleted merely to give its author an opportunity to learn is a good suggestion; first, Wikipedia articles have no authors; second, and perhaps more importantly, the relationship between editors and articles is - in my opinion at least - exactly the opposite: the editors serve articles, rather than articles serving editors. An article that should not be here, should not be here even for the sake for editors contributed to it. IgorSF 03:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this faeces per WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack 00:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete, but add more information and sources and modify the text. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!!!Ttturbo 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is faeces as it is. How is the fact that Lithunians took part in the Afganistan constitute a crime of the Red Army? Is having ethnic Native American Indians serve as part of the US occupation force in Iraq also make this a crime against the Native American population? Also fyi since 1946 the Red Army was not Red anymore as the name was changed to Soviet Army... Lack of knowledge supported by nationalist paranoia is a tumour that must be amputated from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 10:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kuban Cossack raises a good point - the Soviet Army was no longer known as the Red Army after 1946. As I suggested earlier, any merging or redirecting that admins decide upon should take this fact into account. Bigdaddy1981 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've stressed, that this circimstamce is discussed in the beginning af the articele Red Army. Becouse of wide spreading of the original name in lots of countries, it is understandable as the same noun. In the beginning of every article of this category I've once more time streesd this circumstance. This could be only formal reason to make chaos in the difficult theme.Ttturbo 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Geneva convention the crime is to recruit citizens of occupated country and use them in military campaings. Secondly, it is explained in the beginning od Red Army article that "From 1946, the Red Army was officially renamed the Soviet Army, though people in the West commonly used the term Red Army to refer also to the Soviet military after that date." Don't be so suspicious propagandist! Tell better about crimes against Cossack. Every army commits crimes, so why red one must be the great exeption?Ttturbo 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Lithuanian SSR was an integral Soviet Republic so don't see a crime in recruiting its own people, finally the lead says about the 1919 and 1920 assaults on Vilnius by the USSR, well fyi the USSR was not formed until 1922. WRT crimes against Cossacks, sure they took place, but alas not by the Red Army, but the internal police, namely the NKVD. Actually the Red Army's record for one is quite clear of any crimes, but then you did say that every army commits crimes, so why don't you write one about the Lithuanian one? --Kuban Cossack 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania was occupated country and according to Geneva convention recruiting is a crime. I havn't seen any literature about Lithuania Army crimes, only know some stories about participating of some officers in conspiracy and revolt. Thank you for remebering of 1922. Do you know the town were during Chrushchev regime there was shooting at the workers demonstration? And what about red Army crimes against Kozak during civil war? Ttturbo 08:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relocate appropriate material and then Delete. It appears some of this information is notable (although more reliable sources in English are needed) and should be moved to appropriate articles, such as Red Army and Soviet war crimes. There are suitable places in those articles, but the information should be sourced before moving it.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is poorly sourced and has POV issues. I wouldn't mind seeing a legitimate article on this topic, though, so no prejudice to recreation in another form. —Psychonaut 11:35, 2 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? 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Weinberger[edit]

Non notable actor Bigdaddy1981 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - fails WP:BIO. Rklawton 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- in a Wikipedia where no movie or TV-show goes unnoticed, poor Ben doesn't even have a blue-link to his credit. There's still law...Mandsford 00:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, right on the speedy line for me, but no real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, too minor an actor. His roles seem to be from 2000-2001, so he doesn't seem to have momentum working for him at this time. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can the article name what roles he has had? Was he in starring roles or supporting, or even bit parts? Articles about actors and musicians must assert notability -- e.g., "Smith played Hamlet in the Shakespeare Company's 2002 production" or "Jones headlined at the Stratford Music Centre".... I have no way of knowing if this Ben Weinberger is notable or not. See WP:HOLE. Bearian 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. this is his CV. Kripto 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also think Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive, but not ad absurdum this is just the CV of a non-notable actor - lose it.Elmo 21:16, 30 June 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. Repeated input from IP addresses hailing from the same general region were discounted, so there is a clear consensus that this article doesn't meet community standards. — Scientizzle 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid entropy[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

((subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]))

Incoherent ramblings Ϙ 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to mention something in particular? Then I can try to explain. You can also provide us some sources to valid your opinion. I mentioned my sources and bibliography, where is yours?! --LidiaFourdraine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Q - I would suggest you to improve the article. Your remarks are too general ("ramblings") so they do not really help me to verify the article.

Please notice also: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations 0with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD". --LidiaFourdraine 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. Gets a ton of hits on Google Scholar, seems to be a valid term. It is kinda rambling however, and may need to be tagged with ((expert)). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per User:Mandsford. I have no doubt of the term's notability now. Ten Pound Hammer • :::^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be joking. Those google hits are referring to the entropy of a fluid, not the pseudoscience on the fluid entropy page. "solid entropy" and "gas entropy" return similar numbers of hits. Ϙ 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: User Q has made 19 editions since 28 June 2006, 7 of them consider "Fluid entropy". --LidiaFourdraine 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just because neither I nor the nominator understand this, doesn't make it incoherent. It's cited, TenPound has verified that it's notable, and there is some attempt to put it into plain English. I get the idea that it's about loss of energy efficiency in a liquid. The author cites to an article called "Entropy issues in aviation," but misses the obvious next step... which is to give us an example of why we should care about "fluid entropy". How about it, Lidia F.? Mandsford 00:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid entropy or maybe even better "the entropy of fluids" describes the behaviour of fluids using the concepts of entropy, chaos, dissipation and quantum mechanics. The behaviour of fluids is fascinating and still unknown - laboratories are working to solve the mysteries - see page: [2]. The macroscopic effects (one can see with his eyes) are well known (bubbles, cavitation, damage) and the sources mention websites where one can see it: [3] and [4]. The microscopic effects (one can not see with his eyes) are connected with quantum mechanics and the mystery of bubbles (see Nature vol.409, nr.6822, the article "Quantum physics: count them all" and "Cavitation science: Is there a simple theory of sonoluminescence?" The articles are available on the website: [5] paragraph Research Highlights) - both are still an open book, the last word is not said yet ... If we put energy to fluids (by heating, filtration, pumping) we increase their entropy (state of chaos), the temperature rises, bubbles are formed and even nucleate boiling can take place. Just think about cooking some water. It is important to take the increase of entropy in a fluid into consideration, because it can have unpredictable(?) effects like described in article "Entropy issue in aviation". To reduce the risks US Transportation Board (FAA Federal Aviation Administration is the right name)ordered to fill the space above fuel in fuel tanks with nitrogen after a few unexplained fuel tanks raptures. I think this case illustrates why we should care about "fluid entropy". --LidiaFourdraine 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are random. They don't actually have anything to do with the content of the page. Ϙ 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read "Entropy and the Second Law, Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer Simulation", Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, vol. 17, no.3, July-September 2003, authors: G.F. Naterer - University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada and J.A. Camberos - U.S.Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. It refers to fluid entropy (entropy of fuel).

Merge with Entropy (order and disorder) --- in all honesty, I am sceptical how much of this article's text is usable; however. I am no longer sceptical of how much of the text is usable, upon reviewing it more closely and reading the creator's essentially random remarks (and outrageous suspected sockpuppetry) here, I am quite sure none of it is. Strongest Possible Delete and SALT, there are a number of wiki articles dealing with entropy and this adds nothing but weird post-modern pseudo-science. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier to understand for everybody (with and without knowledge of advanced physics) we can change the title to "Entropy of Fluids" because it describes entropy issue in fluids. Entropy issue in fluids is still not well-known among the public but it can be interesting for everyone interested in entropy, exergy and efficient energy production to save the environment and that is something important for all of us! Let me cite the two authors mentioned above (G.F.Naterer and J.A.Camberos) : "Entropy serves as a key parameter in achieving the theoretical limits of performance and quality in many engineering applications. Together with exergy, it can shed new light on various processes: from optimized flow configurations in an aircraft engine ...

Minimizing entropy production is equivalent to minimizing exergy destruction...." End of citation.

Now it is up to you to decide about the future of the article. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As a physicist and a co-author of some of the articles regarding entropy, I must say it's terrible incoherent nonsense. Even if it were not nonsense, it should have been deleted, becuase there is nothing particular in fluid entropy, at least not in this article. Why not having articles about "toothbrush entropy", "car entropy", "toilet paper entropy" and so on? Dan Gluck 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of entropy is interdisciplinary and touches almost every aspect of our daily lives (transportation, biology, energy, environment, industry) and is strongly connected with open thermodynamic systems, toilet paper is not an open thermodynamic system, a moving car yes. But the arrow of time has impact on everything even on your toilet paper. After years it will turn into dust. --LidiaFourdraine 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, you wouldn't make an article about "entropy in toilet papers!", would you? by the way, toilet paper is an open thermodynamic system, as is almost everything in our world. Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example for incoherence: the section Fluid_entropy#The_development_of_fluid_entropy. 1) How and why should a fluid of bosons be turned over in time to a fluid of fermions?? 2) stating that a "low entropy state" becomes a "high entropy state" as the entropy grows is a triviality. Dan Gluck 11:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because both states are possible and probable according to quantum mechanics. See link: [6]

Thank you for teaching me physics, but you may notice that I am finishing my PhD in physics. Unfortunately this is obviously not your field of expertise. Bosons cannot be turned into fermions, except for some bizarre solitonic phenomena which I don't want to get into right now.Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The distinction between bosons and fermions is basic. There are two possible kinds of things in the universe. The two types are known as "bosons" and "fermions," and the dialectic between them describes all physical form. The whole scheme of quantum field theory, for example, is that fermions interact by exchanging bosons. "The electons belong to the class of elementary particles called leptons. The leptons and quarks together constitute the class called fermions. According to the Standard Model all mass consists of fermions. Whether the fermions combine to form a table, a star, a human body, a flower or do not combine at all depend on the elementary forces - the electromagnetic, the gravitational, the weak and the strong forces. According to the Standard Model all force is mediated by exchange of (gauge) bosons. The electromagnetic force is mediated by exchange of photons, the strong force by exchange of gluons while the weak force is mediated by exchange of W and Z bosons.""written by Steen Ingemann-physic [7] --LidiaFourdraine 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is not a triviality. It is in an agreement to the second law of thermodynamics.

--LidiaFourdraine 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. What the table states is in fact pure logic: if we start with a state of low X, and X gets higher, then we end up with a state of high X. X can be anything. It is true that the second law of thermodynamics states that if X is entropy then the above sentence correctly describes reality.Dan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as I would like to take a crack at fixing the language and adding sources. The author seems to be stating a lot of what's in the c. 1980 pop science text, Order From Chaos, which I have at home (not here at work). For starters, I'd excise the first dependent clause of the first sentence, which would clarify much grammatical nonsense. I've had some great articles rejected by the finest physicists for peer reviewed journals, which is why I now teach business law and legal writing. :-) Bearian 12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You didn't give a reason for keeping the articleDan Gluck 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the language is the problem here. The article lacks useful content and deals with subject matter about which other (coherant) articles exist. 65.241.15.131 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability: the following get more hits in google than "fluid entropy": "paper entopy", "Michael entropy", "google entropy", "car entropy" and many more... (unfortunately "toilet paper entropy" don't get so much...) so that's not a sign of notability.Dan Gluck 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't seem to be much more than vague ramblings about fluids and thermodynamics. There are clearly many interesting things to say in this regard but they do not appear in this article. Also, I'm very worried about the correctness of numerous sdtatements, particularly the "bosons go to fermions" line that other editors have mentioned. Joshua Davis 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I found on your personal page Joshua: "Article needing your attention Hi, can you please look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluid entropy and vote? I think more physicists should participate in that particular vote. Thanks. Dan Gluck 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)" --LidiaFourdraine 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong about asking more physicists to vote on a physics-related debate. I did not ask anyone to vote according to my opinion. Unlike sockpuppetry, this is a legitimate action. Dan Gluck 17:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia, I'm not sure if you are trying to impugn myself, Dan Gluck, or both of us. In any case, it does not matter, since there is nothing wrong with asking others to chime in on a debate. You'll notice that Dan did not even ask me to vote in any particular way but just suggested my expertise would be of use. I came over to take a look at the article and I happen to agree with him and most of the non-anonymous editors who have commented. Joshua Davis 05:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First of all, when "fluid entropy" is typed into Google, this article appears at the top of the heap. Which this is not too unusual for Wikipedia articles, it normally does not happen with new Wikipedia articles unless little else exists on the topic. So immediately we have evidence on non-notability in the Google search. Furthermore, examination of the other Google hits found shows that the term "fluid entropy" is used in the context "the entropy of a fluid", which makes this term quite trival. To make matters worse, the article offers no mathematical definition of this "fluid entropy", which is not in accord with the other existing entropy articles. Overall, this is a rambling article which does not add anything useful to this encyclopedia. As a description this term is trivial and non-notable. As a field of study it is a neologism and therefore inadmissible under WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Any author attempting to break the taboo on entropy paid a drastic price for her impertinence. --83.5.131.170 18:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.5.131.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note in interest of transparency anon. ip address 83.5.131.170 has made one edit to wikipedia, the above cyptic comment. I suspect sockpupperty is afoot. Bigdaddy1981 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the possibility of sockpuppetry(which doesn't seem small, by the way), this comment doesn't really add to the discussion. What is the "entropy taboo"? There are dozens of wiki articles on entropy. The problem here is that this article doesn't seem to add anything to those and has troubling issues of its own: it is not encyclopedic, it seems inaccurate and might violate WP:NOR. Joshua Davis 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just about the entire article is either false or too vague to be comprehensible. An embarrassment to the wikipedia.PhysPhD 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editors familiar with the amusing random postmodern essay generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo) might be forgiven for mistaking this article as its product. If the author did not seem so earnest in her comments here, I would suspect this whole thing to be a hoax. Bigdaddy1981 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The entropy concept has rarefy been studied in biology and powerengineering, althought entropy is as significant as energy, because entropy is the only concept in the physical sciences having directionality with lifetime. Application of the entropy concept to biology would lead to a deeper understanding of living systems. There are still conceptual and methodological difficulties in the measurement and estimation of the entropy content of living systems. --83.5.131.170 07:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This participant has already voted and is suspected as a sockpuppet (see above) Dan Gluck 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reasons given may be relevant for articles discussing entropy in biological systems, not fluid entropy. Dan Gluck 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The consideration of entropy transfer of self-organizing systems will require careful experimental and further theoretical studies, which ask questions different from those which were asked before. This may be an opportunity to LEARN MORE about extraordinary efficiency of biological energy conversion systems which are basically of entropic nature. --83.5.153.45 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.5.153.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .Bigdaddy1981 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect widespread sockpuppetry is afoot - a number of anonymous IPs are making similar-sounding pseudi-scientific arguments in favour of keeping this article. Bigdaddy1981 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bigdaddy1981 - Article not found. No comment.--83.5.153.45 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this suspected sockpuppet's comment means Bigdaddy1981 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: again this suspected sockpuppet is making an almost identical claim to the previous one, which has no relation to the article itself, since it the article is unrelated to biology.Dan Gluck 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here a link confirming the high temperature and pressure in a collapsing bubble:

"Cavitation and bubble dynamics" by Ch.E.Brennen, Oxford University Press 1995

[8] see Online Books

And here two links about the bosons and fermions: 1."When bosons behave like fermions" and :::2."Metallic phase for bosons implies a new state of matter". See News and then Physics on page:

[9] I hope the texts give an answer to your questions. I do not want sockpuppets!!! --LidiaFourdraine 20:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is exactly what I warned you about, Lidia. Reading an article or two doesn't mean that you understand the subject. As I have already wrote, there are some bizarre situations where bosons behave like fermions and vice versa, and your link is simply one example of such a bizarre situation - bosons in one dimension under certain circumstances. But this has nothing to do with entropy or fluid entropy. Dan Gluck 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. "All particles in nature are either bosons or fermions" . See here [10] and also here: [11]. Are they all wrong at the Chicago University and the Manchester University??? Some other Wikipedians have pointed this controversy and other ones to you on talk page about bosons and fermions. --LidiaFourdraine 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really tired by your irrelevant remarks. All fundamental particles in nature are indeed either bosons or fermions, but one cannot become another (except for in exteremely odd circumstances where a system of bosons is better interpreted as a system of fermions or vice versa, but these cases are irrelevant here). There is no debate regarding this issue in the talk pages you have linked to. I was hoping you were really willing to accept the opinions of the other Wikipedians, more educated on the subject than you, as you have promised, instead of making poor attempts to revive the discussion. Dan Gluck 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why bosons and fermions have nothing to do with (fluid) entropy according to you, Dan? And what about this: from Wikipedia: "Entropy in quantum mechanics (von Neumann entropy) In quantum statistical mechanics, the concept of entropy was developed by John von Neumann and is generally referred to as "von Neumann entropy". Von Neumann established the correct mathematical framework for quantum mechanics with his work Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. He provided in this work a theory of measurement, where the usual notion of wave collapse is described as an irreversible process (the so called von Neumann or projective measurement). Using this concept, in conjunction with the density matrix he extended the classical concept of entropy into the quantum domain". Sorry, but I stop discussing the subject and "to be or not to be" of the fluid entropy article. I leave the decision to others. Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this has nothing to do with your article. Bigdaddy1981 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: To prevent fuel tank explosions in aviation we have to change our relation to the entropy issue. But the consensus of hier expressed opinion is still against any solution of the entropy problem in aviation and space. Thus currently in the aviation sectors prevailing the non-sustainable trends, for example entropy – terrorism. Mankind versus Mother Nature. --83.5.153.45 07:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This alleged sockpuppet has already vote - See above. Moreover, the argument is uninteligible. Dan Gluck 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong keep: To this day, NTSB investigators cannot explain the source of ignition that caused the presumably accidental explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. 11 years after the TWA 800 broke up into pieces off the Long Island coast, the consensus is that the airplane's fuel tank exploded after the fuel ignited from an unknown (i.e. taboo) source (i.e. entropy). The source of ignition of the explosion is belived to be within the fuel, however no conclusive ignition source has been found by accident investigators (i.e. entropy remain taboo). That the world is becoming unethical is evidenced by the few of people who are continuously increasing their and others' entropy by playing the Game of Pleasure in Destruction. --83.5.133.222 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.5.133.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AFD is turning into a sock and or meatpuppet fiasco with numerous Amsterdam-based anonymous URLs (all single purpose accounts designed to disrupt this AFD and add links to the fluid entropy article in other articles) making bizaarre rambling arguments. Bigdaddy1981 19:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject appears to be worth a separate article. Dan Gluck's Google counts for "fluid entropy", "paper entopy" [sic], "Michael entropy", "google entropy" and "car entropy" are entirely bogus ("fluid entropy" actually wins, he should have used Google Scholar to begin with, and reading the contexts of each hit is important). Also, anyone can ask Google Scholar and find many legit references to fluid entropy as a separate concept. – However, I share Dan's doubts about the quality of the text. We need an expert or we're likely to be embarrassed by the article, sooner or later. Rl 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reported the suspected sockpuppets and the user whom I suspect to be their puppeteer. Bigdaddy1981 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The origin of the transformer explosion in Germany (June 28, near Hamburg) is internal rather than external. Entropy is imperceptible, therefore it is impossible to determine what caused the transformer explosions. But a survey of current literature shows that a consistent and accepted methodology of research of issue of fluid entropy has well yet to be developed. Transformers do not have an indeterminate life (arrow of time). Transformer design engineers tell us that a transformer can be expected to last 30 to 40 years under "ideal conditions." But, that is clearly not the case. In the 1975 study, it was found that the average age at the time of failure was 9.4 years. In 1985 study, the average age was 11.4 years. In 2003 study, the average age at failure was 14.9 years. Several transformer explosions have happened in recent years, some of them giving extremely strong explosion development. --83.5.133.222 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This participant has already voted and is suspected as a sockpuppet Dan Gluck 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of such explosion is almost certainly due to hotspots within the insulation, possibly caused by latent manufacturing defects. Such type faults on transformer models are common. The extremely energetic explosions arise from the fact that there is a lot of energy in transit through a large distribution transformer. There is no link to the subject matter here. — BillC ^talk 10:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the subject matter here (entropy as a rootcause of a transformer-explosion). "Transformer explosion versus Arrow of Time" http://www.firedirect.net/_pdfs/_technical/tech_2405_0001.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.136.130 (talk • contribs)

The link is totally unrelated to this debate Dan Gluck 09:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolt! --83.5.136.130 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in response to that uncivil outburst, and speaking as one who for years worked as a scientist at a major research laboratory investigating failure mechanisms of, and lifetime strategies for, high-voltage transformers in the 600MVA+ range, I will say that that linked article is unrelenting nonsense. — BillC ^talk 20:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-scientific nonsense is the stock in trade of the article's creator and her sock/meatpuppets. I have reported them all. Bigdaddy1981 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know that credentials don't count for much, but I am a recently graduated chemistry major, so I know a little about entropy and thermodynamics. This article makes no sense to me. Entropy, fundamentally, has nothing to do with bosons and fermions, but rather with the work losses of the Carnot engine and the equilibrating pattern of the Boltzmann distribution. At best, this article is original research; at worst, it's just wrong. I'm completely on board with Dan Gluck's opinion, and I'm unimpressed by the author's desperate attempt to rescue this article using sock puppets. Shalom ^Hello 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On aircraft entropy. Strict attention should be focused on ensuring that fuel entropy in a tank is minimal at the initiation of takeoff. The detection of entropy in fuel, sufficient to cause engine thrust power problems, is difficult and may not be possible. Strange as it may seem, entropy will have a tremendous effect on reducing the performance of a airplane. Despite the accident and research evidence indicating that small imperceptible amounts of entropy can cause the same penalties as ice accumulations. Recent accidents indicate that the pilot community still may not appreciate the potential consequences of small amounts entropy of the fuel.--83.5.159.69 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 83.5.159.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Dan Gluck 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this as another sockpuppet. Moreover, this user is refering to a non-existing article about aircraft entropy, so its vote is irrelevant. Dan Gluck 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not make sense. Some attempts have been made to bolster its credibility and/or notability through edits to unrelated topics. — BillC ^talk 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mumbo-Jumbo. Some facts may be true but irrelevant, most are just wrong. Ofer (A Physics PhD Student) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.68.141 (talk) date

Delete — EMS summed up my reasons pretty well. Anville 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody ask you to vote? Because this is what I found on your personal page: "This user is on indefinite Wiki-sabbatical". --LidiaFourdraine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Looks impressive at the first glance, but woe betide anyone that actually tries to read it. My physics isn't that good but I'm dubious from reading it. "The arrow of time"? Nothing there worth keeping, as it is, and I don't see any improvement coming over the actual article on entropy. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL REMARK: why do the opponents doubt so much about the scientific value of my main source T. Sitek "Entropy issue in aviation"? His articles are being published in the USA and the EC. --LidiaFourdraine 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The problem is not with the source (at least not only with the source), but rather with your lack of understanding of it. You have quoted sentences out of context thus making them false (such as the "bosons" turning into "fermions") or stated very specific processes as very general ones, while in fact these processes are specific to the systems analyzed by the source. Besides that, the author itself states his findings as a "new thermodynamical theory" and thus these cannnot be widely accepted (yet?), but in any case are very specific and do not refer to fluid dynamics in general. Finally, there is no point in making a seperate article for fluid entropy, just as there is no point in making a seperate article for solid entropy. Dan Gluck 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dan! Although I don`t agree with everything you said, this is a quite reasonable statement. Quarrelling is not my nature. I am also tired of it. I propose to delete the article immediately and get back to normal life. There are worse things happening in life than that. "Gaudeamus igitur, iuvenes dum sumus ...". Greetings. --LidiaFourdraine 07:47, 4 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? 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roche[edit]

Unsourced, uninformative bio of a supposed 27-year-old multi-millionaire, which just happens not mention any of the companies he gets his millions from, nothing looks promising in a Google search. Hoax? Corvus cornix 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, likely hoax. If he is real, there is nothing in this crude stub to suggest notability. Bigdaddy1981 23:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly common name for Ghits, but nothing coming up about this particular guy. Will reconsider if anyone can find some references. --Breno ^talk 12:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to be part of '1/2 billion club' [12]

, but zero Ghits. [13]. Clearly a hoax. Edward321 03:58, 30 June 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. Article can be created if the player becomes notable. Sr 13 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Leise[edit]

Collegiate baseball player. Apparently hasn't even been drafted by the pros? Or, if he has, it hasn't been indicated here. We don't even usually keep minor league players, let alone college players. Corvus cornix 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now indicates that he was drafted, but he has still yet to play in professional baseball, and certainly not in the Majors. One of hundreds of college players, barely rising above average. He wasn't even first team Big 12, and "academic all american" just means he's a good student who's a decent athlete.Corvus cornix 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article should be written when the subject attains notability. He appears NN at this point. (There are multi thousands of sports bios at this level that could be written. They are really vanity pieces at this point). --Stormbay 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per precedent, baseball players are not notable until they have played in the majors. Caknuck 02:08, 1 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 06:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary and federal systems of government[edit]

This article is unreferenced original research on a topic that is better handled by the seperate articles on unitary states and federations (and confederations for that matter). There is nothing sourced to merge to either article and it is an unlikely search string on its own. Eluchil404 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. See, THIS is why we need to get rid of articles about Stunky the Pokemon Card (June 26 AfD debate)! Everyone wants to defend idiotic pieces about Smallville episodes and Go-Bots and Dragonball Z cards; but when someone tries to write an intelligent article about governmental systems, you get a nomination for deletion because it's imperfect. I agree that there should be citations to authority, and that it should link to the articles cited by E-1404. It's a good supplement to both articles, since it attempts to make comparisons and contrasts (I agree, we need more than original research). It's one of those things like comparing parliamentary governments to American-style republics. Add some cites, keep this in. Mandsford 01:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've seen an example of a literal argumentum ad Pokemon. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material already covered in the respective articles for each system. The comparison is a paper topic rather than an encyclopedia article, even if it were not complete original research. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, material is already well covered in separate articles and is best covered that way rather than this POV-risky comparison. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced, Keep if referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both systems (and confederate) are explained well and dandy in their own articles. There article is esesntially restating information from the others Corpx 06:18, 1 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? 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional web applications[edit]

Recently prodded by another editor, prod notice removed so I'm taking this as contested. Reasons for deletion: neologism; notability (no non-WP ghits other than the only reference, which is a blog), and therefore OR. Even the single reference describes the idea as "rambling". No encyclopedic value. andy 22:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious neologism, possibly made up one day too. I wish neologisms were speedy-able... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As neo. Can't find anything for it either. --Breno ^talk 12:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, It may be a neologism, but wasn't "podcast" one too when it first came up? Duartegrilo

No, it wasn't - see here. It was already a well-referenced term in fairly wide use. andy 07:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:06, 29 June 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. Walton^talk 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posh and Becks[edit]

Delete - do we really need articles on every celebrity nickname when there are already articles on each of the people that cover all the same territory? Otto4711 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I don't really see too much of a reason to keep this, seeing as I'm a fan of neither Beckham nor the Spice Girls. However, it is a common nickname for the couple, and is somewhat referenced, so I don't see any reason to delete it either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add info to the articles on the two individuals in question as well as to Cockney Rhyming Slang. Bigdaddy1981 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep Although the couple is notable, the term is a neologism. The sources use the term, but are not about the term--they are about the couple. Information about their relationship should be in their own articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001 [14] so I believe that this term is no longer a neologism. I have added this information and reference to the article, which I believe negates this argument. — Jonathan Bowen 13:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information about the inclusion in the dictionary makes a big difference. Thanks for including it. I'm still not sure this needs its own article, but it looks possible to source it properly. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, or weak redirect to either one of those chumps. Lugnuts 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strangely, the best place I can think of for a redirect (if we want one) to point to is Cockney rhyming slang, assuming there's a source for the appropriation of their name. Since there isn't at present, a deletion is a better course of action. The other information should be merged into the respective biographies, assuming it's not well and truly there already. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep though if suggesting redirects I'd lean more towards Supercouple#Celebrity. Not making an otherstuffexists argument, I did come across Bennifer. The only other couples artice found was Brangelina, which now redirects to List of entertainers by nickname. --Breno ^talk 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- TomKat is formatted as a disambiguation page. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I knew I forgot one :) Don't know why it's a disambig, as it doesn't actually disambig the term. Probably a fork from the Tomcat disambig. Sorry for sidetracking, but perhaps this AfD outcome will set notability precedence for other "supercouples". --Breno ^talk 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the new Collins reference and going through more news sources NEO is debatable. I'd say keep for now. This is a broader issuse on how supercouples in general should be handled, as there seems to be no standard. Possibly merge info down to both articles, for example some of this is already covered in David Beckham#Personal life, but not so sure how well this would go. --Breno ^talk 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the categories for this entry are completely orthogonal to those of the two people upon which the term is based and would be lost otherwise. The term is independently notable in its own right and it would be inappropriate to redirect it to just one of the people involved since it originated from both. Choosing one or other could be deemed to be sexist. Nicknames for single celebrities do not have this problem of course, so redirection is less of an issue. This is an exceptionally notable nickname (in the UK) in any case. — Jonathan Bowen 13:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect could go to List of entertainers by nickname as Brangelina does. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But how would this cover the slang usage and dictionary inclusion? — Jonathan Bowen 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that info (as it is deemed relevant) could easily be included in sections in V's and D's individual articles. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes but which one and how do you choose? If both, isn't a separate article more sensible to avoid duplication? In any case, this is an encyclopedic rather than dictionary entry (on the couple and the development of an associated term rather than either as an individual) as it currently stands. — Jonathan Bowen 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly agree that in general celebrity couple names should not have distinct articles. This may be an exception: there is information here that is not included at either David Beckham or Posh Spice. The term seems to have taken on a life of its own, somewhat distinct from the biograhies of the couple and this article has content beyond a dictionary definition. But merging this information into the article on Beckham or Posh (or brief mentions in both) is certainly a reasonable solution as well. This page, if deleted, should certainly redirect to one of their articles. --JayHenry 18:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- If this were any regular celebrity couple, then I could see deleting this article, but Posh and Becks are truly a notable celebrity couple. In fact, they are a supercouple, as witnessed in the Supercouple article. Not all celebrity couples are crowned supercouples, and this couple has garnered twice as much interest as even some celebrity couples who are supercouples. Posh and Becks, as well as Bennifer, are definitely two notable celebrity supercouples who should have their own articles on Wikipedia, as they have definitely gone down in history as highly notable celebrity couples. And this article is well-sourced. The only other celebrity supercouple of this day and age's media that I feel should have their own article is Brangelina. Flyer22 11:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Merge -- Posh and Becks is certainly a very common term for the couple, common enough to possibly merit its own article. But I think it would be alright if we Merge this article with the articles of Victoria and David, or simplay place more emphasis on the term on each of the articles.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:07, 29 June 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? 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy (comic book)[edit]

prod contested because who is the author of the comic. But article, while stating who the author is, doesn't indicate anything notable about this particular comic book. In fact, the only thing it states is who the author is. Not everything by a notable author is wiki worthy (that is, worthy of their own article) and since this article doesn't even begin to tell us why it should stay, and it has had sufficient time for someone to tell us why it should, then it should go. In fact, the person who contested the prod didnt' even add to the article. Postcard Cathy 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS If the editors who worked on Pulido's article didn't even bother to include it in his list of work, I wonder how notable it could be???? MMMM NOT VERY NOTABLE!!!!!!!!!!! STRONG DELETE Postcard Cathy 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish significance. Jay32183 20:03, 30 June 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, default to Keep. Walton^talk 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of passengers and crew onboard RMS Titanic[edit]

Listcruft diluted only marginally by some images. Titanic people who have Wikipedia articles are already listed in the RMS Titanic article, or they could be in a category. -- RHaworth 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft filled with non-notable people. I agree with the nom. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You only want to remember the first-class snobby gits then? Brent Ward 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia isn't a memorial tombstone. Though I wouldn't mind knowing the name of the guy who drowned because Jack and Rose couldn't save him. Bulldog123 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Corvus cornix 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not with the fact the list contains nn people, but rather this reads more like a memorial. Only a web link to a list like that in the parent article should be enoughJForget 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I also hate listings that are "Lastname, First"; it's just too hard to read, even if it makes alphabetization easier. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a number of reasons. #1: No damn excuse for not citing to anything. I remember a list of the victims -- all 1,517 of them -- in the appendix of A Night to Remember, the first great book about the disaster. #2: This is a list of the PASSENGERS and CREW, with no distinction between who survived and who perished. #3: There were more than 2,200 people on board, and about 1,517 died... all scanned in, but is there any insight as to who any of these poor souls were? It's as offensive as when James Cameron said "I'm the King of the World", then asked everyone to bow their heads at the Academy Awards in memory of the victims... Finally, #4: What's next, a list of everyone who was at the office on 9/11? Mandsford 01:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm its new, i was gonna include that later! Give it longer than three days--Brent Ward 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Mandsford has argued. The division by point of embarkation simply makes it clear this is indiscriminate. I am inclusionist with lists that at least have a rationale; this does not. (Encyclopedic would list survivors and victims, for example. I note that Casualties of the RMS Titanic sinking was successfully prodded. I might have argued against that at AFD, but I'm not inclined to DRV either.)--Dhartung | Talk 06:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate listcruft --Breno ^talk 12:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the primary author of the page seems not to understand Wikipedia sourcing, however the information on the list is notable and useful. The complete list is a more important list than the list only of passengers with Wikipedia articles. --Pleasantville 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It took me ages to do that! --Brent Ward 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how about people help this fellow source this list rather than dumping on him for not following all the WP acronyms. It's not like this material is defamatoy. (I would myself, except I have this reservation at a beach motel . . . )

This would be more in the spirit of WP:BITE than the above discussion. --Pleasantville 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but im not biting im just saying stop slagging it off; its only just been made; im gonna do it all professional like with tables and pictures, where i can find em. --Brent Ward 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pleasantville meant that the AfD regulars should go easy on you, not the other way around. --Breno ^talk 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does someone have a principled response to the question: how is this different from List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, which has survived Afd? While a certain essay says other crap exists is not a good argument to keep, but another essay WP:RECENT argues that if we keep the recent we should be especially keen to keep the documented past. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My response might not be principled but I'll just say it, despite any flaming I might get for it: It's not different. That AFD clearly survived because people mistakenly believe wikipedia is a memorial service of some kind. Plus, they don't want to be politically incorrect. Give it 6 months for emotions to cool down, and everyone who registered for the sake of promoting their friend's postmortem "fame" to leave, and that list will go too. A list of victims of every tragedy that took place is just plain inconceivable. Bulldog123 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I see your point on the VT list, I have to point out the lists are a little different to each other. VT have the name, age, location, and discription of injury for each victim, along with 90-odd newspaper references for the article. Titanic does not have anything more than the person's name, and besides the passengers and crew who already have their own article, it is very unlikely that this list will ever be made more detailed and sourced. Not for 2,200 of them. --Breno ^talk 06:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, im working on that; I'm doing lots of work on building articles about Titanic passengers Brent Ward 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Put references and other stuff. I have seen many other lists of people in Wikipedia. I understand that they are many not-notable people in there but many other lists are worse. It's an interesting list after all. -- Magioladitis 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't know that this article exsisted, and I am currently working on a List of passengers on my talk page. I'd like to know whether or not I should just stop working on mine. I have a primary source (Encyclopedia Titanica) and I've been trying to include important information like names and links to passengers who are listed in the category box, and whatnot. I'm going to keep working until I have some sort of consensus. In addition, the passenger list on that page is one from Col. Archibald Gracie's book, and unfortunately full of errors (mixing up families and listing adults as children and vice versa, including people who were not passengers, duplicating people who are known by two names and some other errors) Morhange 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh Morhange, please keep going with you're list; its far superior to mines, which is just a name Brent Ward 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, Morhange, you agree that the article must stay, don't you? A list with the passengers must be in Wikipedia. After that the quality and the accuracy of the article depends on the editors. -- Magioladitis 08:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I agree it should stay, provided it has more information, ie listing who survived and who did not, etc. This is what I am attempting with mine. Morhange 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The sinking of the Titanic is a major, world-famous historical event, and there is no reason not to recognise and acknowledge those who were involved, as those of any other major historical event would be. Instead, improvements should be made to the current article, providing more detailed and accurate information, Morhange is on the right track with the article she is currently working on.Nips 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listcruft is not policy, and this list doesn't even appear to meet the criteria set out by Listcruft. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is a discussion, not everything that is mentioned has to be policy. I'm guessing that whoever did put "listcruft" is just citing it because it sums up their beliefs on such lists, rather than using it to point out some type of policy violation. But for the record, keeping this list really does open up a can of worms, because now List of MIT graduates is VERY well supported for creation. A huge amount of MIT graduates are famous enough to have a wikipedia article, so according to everyone, I guess it's ok that 80% are non-notables. Bulldog123 13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not article seems fine, if anything reformat. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks useful (to Titanic enthusiasts), would be even more so if it was class="wikitable sortable" so that people could analyse by each of the fields of the table. PamD 09:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested by this ideology that everything potentially useful merits an article. Bulldog123 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Take a look to that list List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 that has never nominated for deletion. for the four lists mentioned until now (victims of a massacre, MIT graduates, casualties, passengers of titanic) i find the latter the most interesting and worthy to be in Wikipedia. Maybe we can put some statistics instead (e.g. how many passengers in each class, men-women, etc) but i still find the full list quite interesting. I would vote delete if a ever a list with MIT graduates appears and i think the list with the victims must be deleted. Magioladitis 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important historical fact.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:17, 6 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary of Eureka Seven[edit]

The article is just a plot summary. By design, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, goes beyond the point of helpfulness into trivial minutia. --tjstrf talk 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. My God, is this ever indiscriminate. This page probably got ravaged by a whole bunch of otaku who obsess over every detail (not that I have anything against otaku, mind you)... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just like to point out that's not what the "indiscriminate" in "indiscriminate information" means. It's referring to Wikipedia reserving the right to discriminate against classes of information. --tjstrf talk 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of articles deleted as indiscriminate collections of information indicate that the prohibition against indiscriminate collections of information applies at the article level. Otto4711 01:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why don't the editors just nominate a bunch of "Plot of..." articles together, instead of indivual nominations? Or is that against the rules? There's still Plot of Fairy Tail, Plot of Highschool of the Dead, Plot of Naruto: Shippūden and Plot of Rurouni Kenshin to consider. Maybe even the Dragon Ball sagas.--Nohansen 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply and Agree with delete - I was considering doing this, but was not sure if it would be ethical to clump them all together, so did not go through with it.--十八 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Do it! Nuke as many plot summaries as you can find! I think the dragonball sagas might be a little more controversial since they contain more than a plot summary, but everything else just nuke from orbit. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT. My only concern with any sort of mass nomination is that it'll get people calling for a keep because of the fact of its being a mass nom. Otto4711 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the very reason indicated by Otto, i.e. mass nominations of these plot points. Perhaps instead a separate policy discussion should occur or instead of deletions, these sorts of things should result in merges or redirects, as I'd really hate to see factual work done by multiple editors just tossed like a bad salad! --164.107.222.23 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter that people put in a lot of work, WP:EFFORT. Merging isn't reasonable since the articles are forks to allow more plot to be included. As for redirecting, "Plot Summary of Eureka Seven" is an unlikely search term. People unfamiliar with Wikipedia wouldn't search for something so complicated, and those familiar with Wikipedia know these types of pages aren't supposed to exist. Jay32183 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy discussion has already taken place and consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eureka Seven and transwiki somewhere (WikiBooks?) 70.55.86.129 04:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NAT#PAPER doesn't override anything else in WP:NOT. Summary style doesn't solve the problem that this article is only plot. Jay32183 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary duplicate of List of Eureka Seven episodes and a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Some of the other details can be merged elsewhere, or a separate (manga) article can be split off from the main article to cover the differences between the anime and the manga. However, I think most of these sections already fall afoul of WP:NOR. --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 2 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. Walton^talk 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death yell[edit]

Original essay about a yell on an occasion of someone's death. Also, google gives nothing meaningful for the term itself `'Miikka 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely original research essay of an evident neologism. I must also laugh at how the "references" are cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It should be re-named Death Knell, the more common term. Move? Bearian 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE!!! - totally OR. Clarityfiend 05:46, 6 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, Pascal.Tesson 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an article about an expression of grief, within the context of movies/tv/fiction. It's unencyclopedic, original research, unreferenced. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have always wondered why movie characters always seem to do this when someone is tragically slain, but while this article is entertaining it is not encyclopedic, referenced or even particularly informative. Euryalus 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Euryalus that the article is very entertaining but it is simply not encyclopedic. Naufana : talk 06:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Naufana. Irk_{Come in for a drink!} 06:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actual concept of a death yell as a mourning ritual may have been studied by anthropologists. However, this article is, practically speaking, "Death yells in popular culture", and we have sufficient precedent for deleting that type of article. cab 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:41, 6 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? 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbeam Studios Entertainment[edit]

Not notable, appears to be fan/hobby project. Xsmasher 21:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and related articles about their software Orb, Thorn and Midnight (see links in article). When they have reliable sources saying they exist and are newsworthy, then they can create articles, until then it has no point to be here. DreamGuy 21:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and DreamGuy --Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:02, 27 June 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? 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Academic Developer Group at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology[edit]

Apparently NN student organisation. I can't see that taking part in some Microsoft-sponsored student competitions makes it notable, but sources are tricky to find given the unwieldy name and the language barrier. There may also be the possibility of merging to Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless they came up with the coolest .NET web-app ever, they can't really be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Pavel Vozenilek 15:16, 28 June 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 Area codes in Mexico by code (600-699). Anas ^talk? 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Area Code 656[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination --Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. John Vandenberg 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't speedy, as violations of WP:NOT are not speedyable. However, all it does is give instructions on how to dial a number in Juarez from the US - and we're not an instruction manual for using your telephone, either. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - covered in Area codes in Mexico by code (600-699). The 656 article doesn't give any more meaningful information than the 600-699 list gives. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Ciudad Juarez, geez we don't need separate articles for area codes.JForget 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the location served by this area code, or to the list article mentioned by Elkman above. -- saberwyn 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Area codes in Mexico by code (600-699) 70.55.86.129 04:45, 30 June 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) —Xezbeth 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Felton[edit]

Reason: Clear vanity page. No evidence or IMDB entry.Espn232 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find evidence of this person on IMDB nor most anywhere else on internet. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:03, 27 June 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, article nuked by User:Xezbeth. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amerika's next top model[edit]

Need more sources Blah 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the above is generally not a good reason to nominate for deletion, THIS IS: non-notable, no reliable sources(only ones I could find are for the similarly named Dutch version of the Tyra Banks show), I can't even find a source for Hannah Lockhart. Smells hoaxy, but I'll reserve judgement on that.--Ispy1981 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, and we don't even need a redirect to America's Next Top Model.--Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the page says it's fictional. Wikipedia isn't a place for fiction. Nyttend 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. No sources, OR. Corvus cornix 20:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a hoax. Not a real thing. I have tagged the article with ((hoax)) as well. Astrale01^talk_contribs 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoaxes count as disruption. DreamGuy 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. Acalamari 21:25, 27 June 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? 20:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamically Distributed Democracy[edit]

Delete. Repost of a deleted article. Yellowbeard 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ((db-repost)), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting a proded article is equivalent to contesting the proposed deletion, so ((db-repost)) does not apply. Keep the AfD on the article's merits, ignore the prior deletion. Prodego ^talk 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't know it was nuked as the result of a prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fairly obvious gibberish, Google turns up nothing helpful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not seem relevant in my option enough to warrant a full Wikipedia article. If there is something worth noting in the paper it can be referenced in the appropriate article. Electiontechnology 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be nothing but self promotion. No citations besides the minor conference papers listed. --Beaker342 06:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; nothing of relevance or value, just self promotion Elmo 21:12, 30 June 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 —Xezbeth 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert midgley[edit]

I felt uncomfortable about speedying this, so I'll put it here. Hopefully someone will recognise it for a CSD A7 candidate and zap it. —Xezbeth 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Tagged it as a7. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy It asserts notability, unlikely as it is. If it's a hoax, it cant be a speedy. I removed the tag. DGG 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not notable. Nyttend 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO - no reliable secondary sources establishing notability. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised that User:DGG removed the Speedy Deletion tag? I wonder why... Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - should have been a speedy delete.--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me. I'll delete this as a WP:SNOW, no point wasting any more time on this. —Xezbeth 21:22, 27 June 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 boldly redirected by myself to Gunter's measurement. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunther chain[edit]

This is a redundant page. Compare with Gunter's chain. It also contains a substantial uncredited quote from http://www.eng.hawaii.edu/~hals/hals_009.htm , the complete second paragraph Zhochaka 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gunter's measurement. Zagalejo 19:53, 27 June 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 wasmerged each of the articles had a summary section which gave an overview of the periods and included information beyond just a plot summary. I have moved each of these sections into the article History of General Hospital and redirected the period articles to it. Gnan garra 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of General Hospital[edit]

Delete all - Wikipedia is not for soap opera plot summaries. Otto4711 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all- Why alienate editors/readers who are interested in this stuff so long as it is verfiable and concerns a major television show? --164.107.222.23 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Because Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it may be useful to fans, but Wikipedia is not a General Hospital fansite. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like detailed plot summary articles, but this is enormously better than the articles on individual episodes. I think this much discussion of the plot is altogether appropriate on Wikipedia, because it is part of what i suppose we have to call the cultural heritage. The alternative is to put the whole thing into one immense article on the show as a whole, or to rely on the articles for the individual characters. relying on the characters means telling the plot twenty times over. DGG 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could just delete these for being flagrant policy violations and, should someone god forbid start writing plot summaries for every episode of a soap opera delete those too. Otto4711 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG - Ranma9617 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After looking at one of the articles, I think NOTPLOT is being misapplied. That policy cites articles that are "solely a summary of that work's plot." In this case, I saw analysis, ratings figures, and other context. Yes, there was a lot of plot, but consider that most shows only have around 22 episodes a year; daytime soaps run five days a week (without reruns?), and these articles are summing up a decade's worth of shows at a time. --Groggy Dice T | C 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't you look at all the articles and not just one before saying you want them all kept? Otto4711 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I figured that the other ones would be much the same, but I take your point. So I just looked at the 1990-1999 article, and it can't be accused of being a plot summary at all. I've gone on to look at the rest. 1963-69 is framed by an overview section, and the size of the plot section seems reasonable for six or seven years worth of storylines. 1970-1979 and 1980-1989 have analysis and context, and admittedly huge plot synopses, but as I've said, ten years of plot is being summed up. If you think it's too much, a radical editing cut would be better than total deletion. 2000-2007 seems much like the 1963-1969 article. But I agree that it would be a good idea for everyone in this discussion to see the articles for themselves before commenting. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a summary along the lines of Star Trek would be more appropriate. Corpx 04:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 22:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After all the times you've offered this and all the times you've been shot down over it, you really ought to know by now that PAPER is not a free pass for articles. Whatever the storage medium, articles must still meet relevant policies and guidelines to be retained. Otto4711 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plot summary here, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - while not 100% dispositive, a similar series of articles for All My Children was just deleted. Otto4711 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of All My Children, Wikipedia is NOT the place for plot summaries. Whether its episode-by-episode or season by season, I dont think an encyclopedia is the place for them. WP:FICT states that "Plot summaries are kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply to summarize them." I think this article is in gross violation of that line. It also goes along to say "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article rather than standing alone as an article.", which this article also violates. Corpx 04:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a General Hospital Wiki where this can all be moved too? --Hemlock Martinis 04:21, 6 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. Walton^talk 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shields (ophthalmologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carol Shields (ophthalmologist)

non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alun009 (talk • contribs)

Delete, non-notable ophthalmologist, possible vanispamicruftiwhatchamacallit. Also, don't forget to sign your posts, especially in deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is Professor of Ophthalmology at Thomas Jefferson University, and a position like this is almost certain to be notable.- I cannot tell from the site whether she is actually the head of its oncology service, which would add further notability The details of the many books which are mentioned should be added to the article, complete with some book reviews to indicate their significance. (And, to establish the importance of the work in general, some articles talking about it. With the claimed career, it should easily be possible.) It would be good to establish this before writing /rewriting an article on Jerry Shields, or trying to do a combined article. CS has a very brief web page at the hospital, JS does not.DGG 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Very Weak Delete - nothing claimed that shows she is notable per WP:PROF; if evidence to the contrary is produced I'll gladly change my mind. Just because the subject has tenure doesn't mean she's notable. And I'll do just that - keep, 54 co-authored oncology papers and what (appears) to be a notable text (Atlas of Orbital Tumors) does it for me - the article needs a good bit of work; however and its not my field so I'll leave it to others. Bigdaddy1981 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not tenure--agreed, associate professors are not necessarily notable--full professors at major universities are in the top ranks of their profession, are more notable than the average professor, and have invariably published multiple notable works. I will improve the article though to show it if nobody gets there first; it does need improvement to show it more fully. DGG 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its becoming extremely annoying. Bigdaddy1981 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:59, 4 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. Anas ^talk? 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Line (boy band)[edit]

Delete. Flop pop band. Small claim to fame as one of the members is contending on Big Brother (UK). Unsourced. Merge with Big Brother 2007 (UK)#Ziggy? Dalejenkins 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They charted on the UK charts three times, easily passing criterion #2 of WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources, but scoring three hits in the UK is by far a claim to notability. Should be moved to Northern Line (band). Chubbles 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although they didn't have huge success at the time, there's a possibility that they may have greater success after Big Brother has finished. So, the deletion should at least be postponed until a suitable period after this series of Big Brother has finished.--90.198.233.65 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BAND — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:33, 1 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 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing credits of Another World[edit]

Delete - while Another World is certainly a notable show, that does not mean that every aspect of the show, such as its closing credits, is notable. Otto4711 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory of information. Eddie 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Come on now. Really? Surely anything notable here can be handled in the parent article. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. DreamGuy 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, because at a minimum this material is encyclopedic enough to be in the main article. --164.107.222.23 03:43, 28 June 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? 21:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wave a dead chicken[edit]

A computer jargon definition with no possibility of expansion. Violates WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Clarityfiend 18:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. A google search only reveals references in various online dictionaries (often devoted to computer or tech slang). I did not see references in reliable, secondary sources. A google news search for the phrase resulted in zero hits. If secondary sources establishing that this is a notable neologism are added in the next few days maybe we could keep it, otherwise it should be deleted.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per here. Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really, really want to say keep - the rationale here is that the Jargon File is (ostensibly) not populated by neologisms. Problem, though, is that while this isn't really a neologism, it's still a dicdef. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not dictionary, not neologism, unless it can be a full article, see above. Bearian 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various criteria inc WP:NOT#DICT and WP:ATT EyeSerene^TALK 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Wikitionary this is a purely dictionary post.Dan Gluck 14:52, 1 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? 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to Apocalypse Now[edit]

This article is essentially a directory of loosely associated topics that are not made significant as a result of having Apocalypse Now mentioned. This is essentially a list of trivia that has been put together by the editors themselves. Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I love the smell of deletion in the morning... Carlossuarez46 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, please don't quote the film, people will use it as an excuse to keep the article. Delete per nom, WP:TRIV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, the rest of the usual alphabet soup. Otto4711 19:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what's funny, I was going to say the same thing, Otto. Of course, I think it's accepted in AfDs to make joke commentaries on the challenged article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment was itself a joke. Maybe it should be added to the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help myself. If you want to add it, better hurry, cause it looks like it's going bye-bye. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR, unsourced, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, loose collection of trivia. As with these lists in general, much of this goes far afield. Example: "The X-Files episode "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man" contains a sequence that is modeled after Captain Willard's briefing near the beginning of the film." Huh, it does? There's no source for this and unless there are production notes verifying this is true, mere similarity does not mean that one scene was "modeled" after the other. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all.--JayJasper 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total trivia. Dannycali 04:01, 1 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? 21:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avari Press[edit]

Company not notable. Page appears to be half vanity, half advert. Sapph42 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to establish notability. VERY small press with two, maybe three books in its stable and two authors.--Ispy1981 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author has been spamming new articles related to this publisher for the last hour or so without yet providing any reliable sources for verification or asserting notability. Suspect it's an SPA. DarkSaber2k 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- creator is almost certainly an SPA for Avari Press. Fails WP:CORP. -- Merope 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this publisher has (according to their website) only produced two books, from two authors. John Vandenberg 03:46, 30 June 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 previous two AfDs are both suspect. Stubification has also softened the POV concerns. Pascal.Tesson 05:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magee (journalist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a recreation of a deleted article. I originally nominated it for deletion with the following reasons: "This is a biography of a living person, yet there are no reliable third party sources cited whatsoever. I don't believe such sources exist, so this article will always be in violation of WP:BLP." The sourcing for the new attempt is no better than it was before. Many biographical details have no supporting sources whatsoever. The article should be redeleted and salted to prevent re-creation. GlassFET 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you can see I've deleted the vast majority of the article as it existed when GlassFET nominated it (including basically all of the biographical details) which were, as GlassFET pointed out, completely unsourced. I think this actually makes it easier to decide whether we ought to delete this or not as we can focus solely on the notability of the subject and not all of the occult stuff added in without sources. Clearly there are now no WP:BLP violations so that is no longer a valid reason for deletion. If someone can provide sources for the stuff I deleted obviously it could be added back in, though I think we should see if it survives AfD first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. No sources, violates WP:BLP, already deleted through AfD once. Heavy on the salt, please. Realkyhick 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Maybe I'm missing something, but as the creator of two tech web sites about which we have articles it would be seem this guy is worthy of a short article. I only support a keep if essentially all of the article is deleted except the lead. He also was named one of the 100 most influential people in England in terms of e-commerce (or something) in the list here (which is cited in the article) though I don't know if being recognized by e-consultancy.com means much (it seems that a lot of people weighed in on the list of 100 people though). Anyhow, Magee seems to pass notability so I think it's worth deleting most of the content here and then keeping it, though I could be persuaded otherwise. I don't think salting makes much sense since he is clearly on the cusp of notability at the very least.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm changing my vote, I think Magee is notable enough for a stub at the least. Any new material added in needs obviously to be sourced though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- Eddie 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Bigtimepeace. Not meaning to stoop to the Pokemon defense, but if articles on material he has created exist, I think it's reasonable to keep his entry. --Milton 20:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am as puzzled as Bigtimepeace. The details are obviously way excessive, but the career as described is notable--the two publications certainly are. Being editor of a significant publication is a major factor in notability. There are even RSs, though I'm not sure how much of the article they in fact support. The section on the Occult certainly can't stand without sources. DGG 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Notability is not inheritable, so other articles about things he created already exist and so no reason for this article. It was already deleted once, it should not be recreated in defiance of our policies. If people feel strongly about it, they should go to the deletion review section and not encourage such defiance. DreamGuy 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were only 2 votes for the previous deletion which I contend cannot really demonstrate a consensus - especially after a previous keep consensus. Subject is notable. The previous deletion of this article managed to get into the top stories of a Google News search (admittedly because the subject wrote an article about it but I think that just proves the notability...). Citizensmith 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also in the first AfD, when many participated as opposed to three people in the second one, the result was overwhelmingly keep. The main reason cited for delete in the last one was lack of reliable sources. As I read them, the Wikipedia guidelines for deletion allow a new version of an old article to be re-created if the problem with the old one was lack of content or bad content. I don't think the stub version that I (drastically) pared this article down to has the same problem the long version does--i.e. it is adequately sourced since it makes very limited claims about the subject. In sum I don't think this article as it now stands defies the previous AfD and thus should not be deleted out of hand, but rather only if we decide the subject does not pass WP:BIO.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted "weak delete" last time because although I thought he had a claim to notability, we were pretty close to 100% primary sources and I was unable to find any additional significant secondary sources. I'm amenable to a stub based on the notability of founding two major publications, but I see the sourcing issue as an ongoing problem with this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable work with The Reg and The INQ. —Ashley Y 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Bigtimepeace. Kreca 09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable journalist, probably one of top ten IT-journalists worldwide. Article needs expanding and better sourcing, though. DLX 17:07, 5 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 speedily deleted and moved to User:Shalom/Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Silanian in my personal BJAODN. If anyone seriously objects to this action, please let me know. I did my due diligence checking the references. The book by Paul Newman is well-known, but the other two do not exist. I did a Google search for the authors of those books, and it came up empty, and a book cannot be written if there is no author. Shalom ^Hello 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silanian[edit]

Description of a dubious language.I smell hoax. Not a single trace in google for anything specific and seachable. `'Miikka 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plies (rapper)[edit]

Artist not yet notable per WP:MUSIC, no references or sources. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Videmus Omnia 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No albums have been released yet. Shalom ^Hello 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply by exception 1; the album has a release date. What's more, his first single, "Shawty", is already out. --Stlemur 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom and also fails WP:BAND Upon reviewing additional material added I change my opinion to keep. It does appear the gentleman is notable. Bigdaddy1981 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a large portion of this article had been removed by vandals. He wrote a hit song that went to #17 on the Billboard chart and was arrested for a multiple shooting. I re-added that section, I think that asserts his notability. --AW 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Plus his other single has charted on three American charts. --AW 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, he satisfies criterion #2 of WP:MUS#Criteria for musicians and ensembles (as he's charted on not one, but three major U.S. music charts), and criterion #1 of WP:MUS#Criteria for composers and lyricists (as he's written a song for another notable act). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per TPH. Satisfies two of the criteria for WP:MUSIC and, if nothing else, satisfies notability for the nontrivial coverage of the multiple shooting incident.--Ispy1981 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak-Keep but only as he created songs for Akon feat.Snoop Doggy-Dogg, but certainly not as musician.JForget 23:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability clearly established by hit single. Chubbles 03:55, 28 June 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 `'Miikka 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vocational high schools[edit]

Very short article which is redundant to Vocational school vlad§inger ^tlk 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should just be redirected to Vocational school. johnpseudo 16:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cote[edit]

Non-notable politician. Article reads like a campaign news release for a candidate who has yet to win his party's nomination. May become notable if he wins, but that time is not now. Wikipedia is not a place to post campaign material. Nothing else to indicate notability. Realkyhick 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. All mentions of him in the press are peripheral, as part of a list of all candidates in the race. johnpseudo 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,per all of the above, without prejudice to recreating the article if he wins.--Ispy1981 15:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, let me hasten to add that this article should be restored (though it needs a bit of a rewrite) if he wins his primary. Realkyhick 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. However, no objection to its recreation if he wins. In that case, it will need a rewrite. ffm ✎talk 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPhe is notable even if he loses.. He is now part of the history of his state. and should be kept.Callelinea 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the lede mistakenly calls him the Democratic candidate, but he won't be that till he wins the nomination (there's a field of 5 or 6). If he gets that far, I am prepared to argue that a losing major party candidate for Congress is N, though that may not be the consensus. I doubt he's notable otherwise, in the absence of sources--would would be needed in any case. DGG 20:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable - if he wins then recreate. Bigdaddy1981 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Bigdaddy1981. Rklawton 21:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rklawton. Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the nomination mistake. I also added links, most importantly a local news story about the Mosul bombing. Adam is the only candidate in the race without a page and I'm sure several people have checked wikipedia for one. Adam is notable for the fact that only one current member of congress has served in Iraq. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sickel2 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, being elected to high national office is often notable, wanting to get elected is not, wanting to get into an election even less so. Weregerbil 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG. If he gets poll numbers or the nomination, next year, he's notable. Now he's an also-wanna-run. Been there, done that, doesn't make me notable. Bearian 16:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three other candidates for this congressional seat (Ethan Strimling, Michael Brennan, and Chellie Pingree) already have pages. If the criteria for notability requires people to have already won minor political office, this greatly disadvantages non-politicians running for office. Once a candidate has newspaper articles consistently written about him or her in state-wide papers, I think it's fair to say that person is just as notable as any state legislator, especially those notable only for losing elections to higher office. Adam Cote has raised 100,000 for this congressional primary race. This is a substantial amount for a congressional primary race in Maine and is a signal that he is a strong contender despite the fact that he has never held minor political office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickel2 (talk • contribs) Please take into account the amount of traffic this article is currently getting in deciding whether or not to delete it. Also please accept my apology for not signing my comments. I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by sickel2 (talk • contribs)

Comment: The three others listed already have pages because they achieved notability before their candidacy; namely, they held other notable political offices or similar positions (like Common Cause). Foremost, Wikipedia is not a place to wage a campaign. Traffic for this AfD nomination is largely a measure of how obvious the case to delete or keep is — borderline cases tend to get few votes because people can't make up their mind. Realkyhick 21:43, 30 June 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 by means of unanimous vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dromedary (band)[edit]

Notability not referenced or sourced per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple hits under the group's ACTUAL name, Dromedary Quartet, suggest this is a notable jazz group. If kept, I suggest renaming the article to reflect the name "Dromedary Quartet"--Ispy1981 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: as mentioned in the article there is both a duo and a quartet. -MrFizyx 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I posted the article sometime ago and haven't gotten around to sourcing it yet. They have been extensively covered in reliable sources (e.g. see All About Jazz, The Washington post, Sing Out!, The Harvard Independent, etc. etc. They have toured in Europe and the U.S. I will try to add a few references--possibly as a "further reading" section until I can get back to this. It would have been more kind of you and more efficient of you to slap on ((unreferenced)) rather than bringing this to an AfD. -MrFizyx 15:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Detailed "further reading" section added. Includes reviews from All Music Guide, Washington Post. Profiles of the band, etc. -MrFizyx 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some "stuff" that maybe saved the article was added. Astrale01^talk_contribs 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources have been added. Chubbles 19:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Looks appropriate now. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:22, 27 June 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? 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dabanand[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, Google returns nothing ChrisLamb 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barest assertion of notability in the article. I've thought 18 to 20 seconds on this one... and it's delete as non-notable and per nom. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought about 18 to 20 milliseconds. This should've been speedied. Realkyhick 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searching turns up nothing. John Vandenberg 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but not speedy--there are two possible claims of notability, as a businessman & as a spiritual leader--the claim of spending 18 to 20 hour per day in thinking only is not a bona fide claim of notability.DGG 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, It is a joke or hoax played by someone. Perhaps that person confused Wikipedia for Uncyclopedia

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? 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday hat[edit]

I've never heard of such a thing. I suspect this phrase is rarely used if at all. No sources provided and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a WP:NEO violation Chesdovi 14:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Even if this is a common term (which I doubt), then this info should be in yarmulke, not in its own page. nadav (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As made up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. MartinDK 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't believe this has been around for so long.--DLand ^TALK 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely ethnic slur if anything, but definitely a neolgism. Realkyhick 15:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You've got to be kidding. Shalom ^Hello 16:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like it came from urban dictionary, and made it into wikt [15]. John Vandenberg 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it looks like this article has been around since 2005, way before that wikt edit. Eventualism sure seems to be slow at times... nadav (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending more sources or merge into Kippah. I have heard this phrase before. --Eliyak T·C 05:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think I've heard this or read it online but more about the fedora worn by some Hasidic (all week lnog, I guess, in actuality). But I find no convincing sources that would even allow a merge. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense --Yeshivish 03:58, 1 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 05:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel S. Martinez[edit]

Nom - fails WP:BIO regional interest at best. Rklawton 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRegionally notable. Additionally, As I have stated in previous AfD I believe that wikipedia should be very inclusive and not exclusive especially regarding to bios. Callelinea 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the interests of disclosure, I note that Callelinea is the author of this article. Bigdaddy1981 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable. I'm willing to change my mind if more reliable sources can be found. All I see here are two genealogical books, 1 link showing she exists, 1 link to the minutes of a school board meeting, and a Miami Herald article from 7 years ago, and I lost my copy of that.--Ispy1981 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Ispy1981 stole my thunder. Realkyhick 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm evil like that. =D.--Ispy1981 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person Bigdaddy1981 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of WP:BIO notability.--Dali-Llama 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT OTHER ARTICLES ARE JUST AS WEAK AND BASED ON THE STRICT INTERPEDTATIONS OF WIKIPEDIA SHOULD ALSO BE REMOVED SUCH AS John F. Collins HE HAS A ONE LINE ENTRY AND IS OBVIOUSLY A REGIONAL NOTABLE PERSON. MY ARTICLE WAS PICKED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN VANDALISED OVER 10 TIMES. IF IT WAS NEVER VANDALISED IT WOULD NEVER OF BEEN BROUGHT UP FOR DELEATION. Also It was reviewed by User:Warlordjohncarter when he reviewed it for Wikiproject Cuba and Wikiproject Biography and he at that moment did not feel it merited to be deleated. This process was only started after the numerious times it was vandalizedCallelinea 18:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Collins was the mayor of Boston for eight years. That's pretty notable. The article is a stub and should be expanded, but his notability is obvious. If you've got others you would like to list, please do so. I promise to review them, and if you are correct about them, I'll nominate them for deletion, too. Rklawton 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:Bio"Politicians:Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." based on what is in the article now John F. Collins should be deleated. Mrs Martinez article was also named a stub by an editor and is now being requested that it be deleated because it is a stub. Callelinea 18:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, after 8 years as mayor of Boston, there is little doubt that someone might have thought to write and publish at least one article about him. The article needs a lot of work, but it's obvious he's notable. I was rather hoping you might add to the list of non-notable biographies. Any luck with that? Second, I did not nominate this article for deletion because it was a stub. I told you repeatedly that it needed to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO (stubbiness has nothing to do with it), and you promised to add such information to the article. And you did add to the article, and you have five more days to add to the article. However, what you've added so far fails to address our biography guidelines. And that's why your article has been nominated for deletion. Rklawton 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note A number of family members also have biographies on Wikipedia; some look mildly notable, e.g. Alonso del Portillo-Marcano, but others do not, such as Alonso J. del Portillo-Tamargo. If others agree that some others should land on Afd, I suggest they be listed after this Afd is finished so that Callelinea (talk · contribs) can work on improving them on one at a time. John Vandenberg 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - that is a very good suggestion. Rklawton 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as Callelinea says, some of these have been vandalised for some reason (for instance the Raul L. Martinez article has a strange - I assume vandal created - preface that purports him to be a sponge diver) . Bigdaddy1981 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the better of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 19:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Callelinea, honestly, slightly more than half of me wishes there was no notability guidelines. I enjoy writing well sourced articles about obscure topics that some people consider not worthy of recording. That said, the project is a group effort and the consensus is that notability is required. Notability is useful in keeping a lot of trash out of Wikipedia. This means I have had to endure a number of Afd's for articles that I have written; each time I have had to improve the articles content in order to demonstrate to others that the article is valuable to the encyclopedia.(I think I have lost one or two) More importantly, WP:BLP has gained traction, and it requires that BIO's must be sourced extremely well (using inline citations helps), and personal details that have not been published in secondary sources must be removed. You are free to continue to expand this bio in order to demonstrate notability; ultimately, the admin makes the final decision. John Vandenberg 19:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish others would view Wikipedia like I do.. I remember when I was young and I would be doing research on many topics or persons that I would hear about or read about in a book or a paper and try to find something on them in an encyclopedia and not find anything, because they were not "notable" enough to be placed there. I was hoping wikipedia could of been that place, but alas I am afraid it is not. Callelinea 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, it is the biggest encyclopedia ever written, so we working towards your goal. And in 10 years time, when we have written about all the notable things that people can think of, maybe consensus will change and we can start writing about less notable stuff. John Vandenberg 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not start now. and vote to keep the article.. I have been going threw all the bios for deletion and and after reading them, if I feel they might have the minimum of notability I vote to keep them.. It has to start with someone saying yes.Callelinea 20:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the article Ben Weinberger all it shows is external links but no articles written on this person. If he is so notable why is there nothing written on him? I only mention him because RKlawton was involved in the article.. So I would like to know what makes this "actor" notable, while this attorney for various municipalities and for one of the largest school boards not notable? Callelinea 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - some individuals join this project with their own ideas about how it should go. However, this isn't their project. It's Jimbo Wales' project. You follow the path he set down, or you go your own way. He'll even give you the wiki software to use for free. Best wishes, and no hard feelings! Oh, and you're right on that other point. I've only just lately been reading up on our standards for actors (you'll have noticed that if you've reviewed my last week's edit history). We should add the Weinberger article to the deletion list. I have no objection. Rklawton 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will include it as an AFD today if no-one else does. Bigdaddy1981 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you guys just do not get at what I am trying to say. Be inclusive. Callelinea 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point - I just don't agree with it. Bigdaddy1981 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm as inclusive as they let me be but this really has no claims to notability in an encyclopedic sense. A partner in a local law firm (the firm conceivably might be notable, but there's no article). "one of the youngest ...to represent the Miami school board" in my mind is not a claim to any credible form of notability. (even if she were the youngest)--that would lead to an article for the oldest also, or the first or only [ ] to represent an individual client. She's not even the principal attorney for the board, just one of seven. DGG 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the sources seem indiscriminate or trivial, and would be usable for the bio details, but not for notability. DGG 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ridiculously unnotable. Accomplishment in life is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One could argue that some of your bios that you created don't pass the test. Such as the VP son-in-law, that you claim because he is related to the VP and in government he should be in Wikipedia. Mrs. Martinez is the daughter-in-law of the former mayor of Hialeah (24 years mayors) and now has various governments contracts. I think that would merit inclusion based on what you wrote about the VP son-in-law.Callelinea 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that I will probably lose this fight to keep this article included in Wikipedia and I am probably making enemies by pointing out double standards to the people who are voting against my article. But I still feel that if this article was not vandalised as often as it has been it would not be up for a vote. Plus I feel that more articles are good for Wikipedia. Where if you read a paper and some insignifcate thing is mentioned you can look it up in Wikipedia and find more info on that subject. I don't think anyone will ever get me to change my mind about that. Callelinea 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article presents interesting facts, which I'm not doubting, but I don't see what's notable about her. And comment: The creator's comments are detrimental to his cause; Wikipedia isn't the white pages. Nyttend 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable per WP:BIO -- few sources listed are of the trivial type that do not establish actual notability (some self-published book, mentioned in Neighbors section of paper, etc. = Half the country could meet that criteria). DreamGuy 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Get your info correct DreamGuy. The article in the Neighbor Section, was not a self promotion article. It was about the work that she was doing on a particular issue. If you cannot back up your comments with truths don't comment.. But of course you can vote.Callelinea 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more regionally notable than any other attorney in Dade County. Want articles on all of them? Corvus cornix 22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Callelinea: Deletion debates, ideally, are based on policy, not what we think policy should be. That said, Callelinea might be interested in Wikipedia:Inclusionism. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO PROBLEM.. You guys win.. I give up.. go ahead and do what you guys think is best.. I went through this before with Henry Pollack I won that one.. This is all too draining on me..Obviously I lost this one. I disagree with most of you, but thats how the votes go.Callelinea 03:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Maxa megalon 2000 05:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discssion above as non-notable attorney, in a non-notable firm. Bearian 16:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential proportional approval voting[edit]

Delete. Original research. Possibly a hoax. This article claims that this method has been proposed in the early 1900's; but the article doesn't give any references. It seems that this method has never been published nor been used anywhere. In any case, it is clear that the term "sequential proportional approval voting" cannot be the original name of this method, since the term "approval voting" hadn't been used before the 1970's. Yellowbeard 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its an offshute of Proportional approval voting, delete the article and just add Sequential under examples. Warrush
Merge with Proportional approval voting iff it can be sourced. Otherwise, delete as WP:OR. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the proportional approval voting article already has a section on sequential proportional approval voting. Yellowbeard 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no notability is shown with citations and mentions, but if sourced, merge to Thorvald N. Thiele or Proportional approval voting. Otherwise, delete.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge is not needed per Yellowbeard. Bigdaddy1981 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per this mailing list it's real and was even used in Sweden for a short time (only for party lists, though). Suggests it's possible to properly source, but perhaps not using online and/or English sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We really need an expert in the area to take a look at this. The creator's other contributions look legitimate, so I doubt very much that it's anything other than real. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 27 June 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. Wizardman 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kantebura killas[edit]

Quite possible hoax; prod was removed by anonymous editor. Example of why we think it's a hoax: it claims that this band made a CD that sold nearly 144 million copies! Nyttend 13:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball speedy delete! Quite possibly complete bollocks! This is why we really need a speedy criteria for hoaxes though you could probably have gotten away with speedying this one as blatant nonsense. MartinDK 13:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We tried speedy-deleting it a couple of days ago, but someone thought a prod was preferable. Nyttend 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a hoax. Googling comes up with nothing.Warrush
Speedy Delete CSD A7 anyone? Wildthing61476 14:12, 27 June 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 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella Liao[edit]

It does not meet the notability requirement for a wikipedia article and the article does not have reliable un-biased sources to back up the information in the article. Nrswanson 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to failing to establish notability (See Talk), this article reads like self-promotion (or promotion by an agent). It provides no independent, verifiable published references, only the artist's own claims on her promotional web page (pasted verbatim into the article) and one interview she gave in Hawaii to promote her concert.Voceditenore 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their not notable, therefor shouldn't have their own article. Warrush

Delete Non-notability, zero non-trivial third party sources, and I think there's enough there directly from her website to make a case for copyvio.--Ispy1981 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Subject of article in major local newspaper. Alas, not much else. Open to changing my vote if more sources can be cited, though the article does need other work. Realkyhick 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one brief mention in Taipei Times[16] suggests that subject's notability is limited even in Taiwan. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Weak delete (See comment below) I have been waiting to vote to see if any further evidence would be offered once the article was nominated for deletion this morning. Since then, the creator (and virtually sole editor) has removed the majority of hyperbole and unsupported assertions of "critical acclaim" and "rising star" status. But I'm afraid this does not address the issues of notability. What is left is an opening paragraph, wherein Miss Liao is defined as a "contemporary coloratura soprano in Taiwan" (no date of birth is given) who "sings opera and Broadway." and has done some modelling for "famous brands" in Taiwan.
1. There is no evidence that she has sung a principal role in any noted opera house. In fact, she is entirely unknown in the opera world. Nor is there any evidence that she has sung in any major Broadway production, even in a minor role. The article goes on to say that she was "invited to be the prima donna in both Rossini's L'occasione fa il ladro and Puccini's La Bohème". However, the article offers no evidence that she actually performed these roles and where.
2. She is not a noted concert artist. She has not yet sung with a major orchestra or ensemble. All her listed appearances have been with youth or university orchestras. And so far she lists only 6 such appearances. Although not listed in the article, I found on her web site, the listing of two appearances with the Dallas Li Sheng Ladies' Choir in churches in Austria and Germany wherein she sang three solos.
3. She has not won any major (or even minor) music competitons
4. The one recording listed (of Taiwanese folk songs) is not yet on sale and is not with a major record company. The Evergreen Orchestra in Taiwan, routinely records all their performances and sells the CDs in Taiwan to raise money for music scholarships. A link is provided to the Evergreen site.
5. The only references offered, are the artist's own web site, her own words in an interview given to promote a concert in Hawaii, and the record listing on the Evergreen Orchestra site. The only other mention that we have been able to find was in the Taiwanese press and it was a simple announcement of a concert, amongst a list of many other events taking place that month.
6. The article does not fulfill even one of the criteria for notability for musicians and ensembles
7. In short, this is a possibly promising music student (one of literally thousands), who may or may not one day achieve a signicant career in music but has not done so yet. Voceditenore 21:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been greatly improved by CaliforniaAliBaba and the creator and principle editor, Blo. POV removed as well as unsourced claims to opera performance and more references have been added. But I'm still doubtful that the press coverage cited confers notability on its own. Voceditenore 06:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Voceditenore. Additional comment is that the creator of this article, Blo, is a single use account - suggests possible vanity. Bigdaddy1981 01:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources can be found by searching on the Chinese name 廖英君: [17][18][19][20] (also [21] from Apple Daily, scroll down and click the article titlewith her name in it, subscription-only). Obvious WP:COI (thanks for the picture, hope you actually understood the GFDL before you agreed to licence it as such!), but should be cleaned up rather than deleted. cab 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for finding the press coverage in Chinese. I ran them through the Google translator, apart from the Apple Daily, which was subscription only. I'm afraid that one appeared to be a press release and the rest were interviews/articles promoting the singer's concert appearance in Taiwan (very similar in vein to the one in the Honolulu Advertiser promoting her appearance there), two of them were virtually identical interviews with her mother, unlikely to be an unbiased source. Voceditenore 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Trying to judge whether an article is a press release or not based on a machine translation is a rather perilous exercise. For amusement and illustration, here's your comment run through a round trip of Babelfish. Because found in news report I hurriedly penetrate Gu Ge translator, except ' apple daily paper ', this is only subscribes Perhaps this is each is a news release as if, other interview/the article to promote singer's concert to make an appearance Taiwan (extremely similarly, publicizes in her appearance in vein for in Honolulu ' advertisement ') two people nearly entirely alike to interview her the mother, is impossible is a fair origin.

Anyway, the news article from Yam.com (the most recent one) is not promoting her concert appearance, but was several years after that, as part of a series of articles on high-achieving women (again, machine translation will make this unclear by confounding the tenses, which Chinese does not really have). So again, regardless of WP:MUSIC, she looks to me to meet the primary biographic notability criterion; she is notable by virtue of having been noted. Cheers, cab 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one that appears to be a press release is the one from hinet.com. I based it on the standard format of listing email and phone addresses for the press to contact at the end. It appeared to be for another appearance of Miss Liao - singing selections from Phantom of the Opera during the opening of a painting exhibition (her mother's?) in Taiwan on May 18, 2007. The piece from Yam.com is dated a week before that, which is why I said it was similar in vein (and purpose) to the one in the Honolulu Advertiser. But yes, it's true, she has been 'noted', albeit in rather restricted contexts, i.e. pre-concert interviews where the journalist takes her at her word concerning what she has achieved. Best, Voceditenore 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Voceditenore. -- Kleinzach 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. cab 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore. Nrswanson 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good effort on finding the articles in chinese, but I still do not think Miss. Liao meets the notability requirement. If we include her article then we would be opening the door to thousands upon thousands of other articles on 'bright young things' who show great promise but really have not done anything noteworthy yet with their carears. I myself am an aspiring opera singer and have actually performed roles with a number of professional companies. However, I would not consider myself noteworthy enough to have an article on wikipedia because I haven't done enough yet to truly distinguish myself in the field. Miss. Liao has not won any awards, performed with major opera companies or orchestras, or really done anything of note yet in the world of classical music. She is simply a young artist with lots of potential who may or may not make it in the opera world. There's 1,000s of us out there in the same position. In other words, she's nothing special... yet.Nrswanson 21:08, 2 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 03:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEYI National Cadet Corps (LAND)[edit]

This page looks like the homepage of this unit of this [added per Huaiwei's comment] corps; Wikipedia is not a free webhost. No sign that this ~~corps~~ unit is notable. Independent sources have been requested for months, none has been provided, and I can find none online. Deprodded without comment. Pan Dan 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like their trying to advertise. Delete Deyi Secondary School too. Warrush
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion of non-notable organization. Realkyhick 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and heavy rewrite. Wikipedia should be inclusive. Prevention of editors from violatin WP:COI mandated. --Milton 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. totally non-notable organization. Wikipedia is not Myspace. Bigdaddy1981 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to give some local context, this article is about a unit of the National Cadet Corps (Singapore) at Deyi Secondary School. I dont think this can be called the homepage of the entire corps. The only way it can claim notability is if it is a significant entity in the NCC fraternity, which is not apparant from the article's content unless someone is willing to demonstrate otherwise. Even if it should be kept, the article title obviously needs to be changed to remove the full caps.--Huaiwei 12:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with Huaiwei that the article is yet to demonstrate that it is a significant unit. The article for NCC indicates that schools may have as many as three units (land, air, sea) and we certainly dont want all units to have their own article. Notice that throughout Category:Military youth groups, there articles are all mostly about the corps rather than units. However there are exceptions; in Category:Australian Air Force Cadets, there is 315 (City Of Canberra) Squadron, which is probably also not notable. Bulldog Battalion also needs work or deletion. John Vandenberg 13:35, 28 June 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. Walton^talk 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empornium[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

Not notable does not meet WP:WEB ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
- Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5]
- Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

No References to "ANY" works reliable or unreliable...!

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

No References to any awards 3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for:

Trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

Content is probably OK ...

^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never mind the content, the site simply doesn't pass notability because of lack of reliable independent sources. Realkyhick 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is one of the most heavily traffic Torrent sites on the web, but without reliable sources as stated above, it does not pass notability. I also added the tag at the top of the page since the previous AfDs became rather heavy with SPAs and sockpuppets. Wildthing61476 17:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really heavy traffic ?
  - Alexa Rankings

1. 1. Mininova - 143
  2. TorrentSpy - 211
  3. The Pirate Bay - 292
  4. isoHunt - 306
  5. Demonoid - 397
  6. Empornium - 1536 ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Note that the current alexa ratings are not indicative of its peek popularity, and even then that is only within the userbase of Alexa, which is often not geeks or friends of geeks. i.e. Alexa is not a good sample of the people who do the majority of the torrenting around the world. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Popularity is not a criteria, Notability backed up with independent references is, however popularity is a good indication of if it is worth searching for references or not? and you claimed "..This is one of the most heavily traffic Torrent sites on the web.." it does not appear that that is the case from a quick check, if however you have a reference to back this up.... ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - FTR, I didnt say that; I am merely commenting on the caveats of using current Alexa data to refute Wildthing61476's opinion. John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I still don't think the article needs to be kept. It appears I was mistaken with the site's popularity though. Wildthing61476 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, news and scholar results indicate it has been noted by more conservative sources. Then there are 100,000 hits and other coverage [22][23][24][25] Cheggit is a spin off of Empornium. John Vandenberg 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheggit has an alexa Ranking of 4632 far down the list behind the well known BitTorrent Sites? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the quick research I did on the two yesterday, it appears that the schism had a significant negative effect on this userbase, but it has rebounded (and has the better Alexa ranking to show for it). IMO, Cheggit is the less notable of the two, and should probably be merged into this article. It was also created by a WP:SPA, Grubby91 (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Only one of the links above is to anything more than a blog or a forum, the scholar link, and it only mentions the topic in passing. Not seeing any real quality sources. MrZaius^talk 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, this is the text of the scholar result (google scholar shows two results but they are almost the same paper). John Vandenberg 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual refrence is "..some BitTorrent communities, including easytree, empornium.us, and pwtorrents.net,periodically enforce that the sharing ratios of participating members are above a minimum value..." and that's it in an 18 page article. They do not seem to have picked particularly popular or well known sites (EasyTree appears to have died)? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The academic paper doesnt need to mention the website's name continually for it to be relevant. If you read that page in full, you will see is actually categorising different torrent communities, and that mention you refer to puts this website into one category. The paper then discusses the broader topics in more detail. The point is that even an academic has considered it worthy of note and analysis. This site is no longer run the same way that it was at the time of the study, but notability isnt suddenly lost as a result. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The paper takes as examples 6 sites bt.etree.org, piratebay.org, torrentportal.com, easytree.org, btefnet.net and alluvion.org and compares and contrasts them - note these were not picked because they were notable or popular, just because they were a typical cross section (Three of these site are listed in the article as having less than 600 torrents, so they seem to have been picked as small closed community sites as opposed to the larger open sites like ThePirateBay), Empornium was mentioned once, in passing, as an example of a site that does Sharing-ratio enforcement, again not because it is notable or popular but just as a random example. ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These clearly do not count per WP:WEB guidelines. DreamGuy 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am not trying to make those sources "count" per a guideline; I did some fact finding here so others could click the links and read those articles to quickly get an idea of the impact and controversy around this website. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These references all refer to TargetPoint and make it notable, the controversy all seems to be over the takeover by Targetpoint and does not refer to the impact of Empornium? Is there something that makes Empornium notable besides this? ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 65.241.15.131 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to establish any sort of notability. DreamGuy 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Jtrainor 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any more advertising than Slashdot? Just a thought. --Jmax- 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot at least has references (although not relable ones?) has won awards (Webby) and has on it's page links to articles about it by CNN and C/NET, and has spawned the Slashdot effect, The Empornium page appears to be an advert and nothing else? mainly ecause it does not cite sources does not show itself to notable in any way ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jmax- was indicating that bringing "advert" into this discussion is a bit rich. An article on Wikipedia is always an advert. As there has been over 200 edits to the article, and two Afds, it is hard to swallow that all those people have all been in the advertising game. I agree with you that the notability of this website isnt being demonstrated on the article, and it may even be weak at best simply because it reliable sources generally jump at the chance to talk about the sucesses of porn torrent sites; it doesnt sell newspapers and its a touchy subject that can potentially cause circulation numbers to drop. John Vandenberg 14:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Advert' reference is irrelevant but notability is not, It survived the previous Afds because most of the discussion was about the content of the site (and Alexa rankings were used to support it being notable?) I don't have a problem with the content WP:CENSORED just if it is notable by WP:WEB ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the previous Afd comments were along the line of "'Keep', no wikipedia policy being violated." That hasnt changed. OTOH, guidelines have come and gone over the two year history of this article. John Vandenberg 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Policy of WP:VERIFY has not changed in the last two years as far as I know? There were a few comments on the non-notability of the site but these were drowned out on the first afds by the "keep it's popular" and "don't delete it because it's porn" advocates, there were a few keeps that it did not break any Wikipedia policy but the most cited was WP:NN which states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ... but there is still no references on the article showing it is notable or even popular? Get some evidence it is notable and I'll be happy to change my mind. I know quoting policy is a no-no but ... From WP:VERIFY "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." and WP:WEB "...should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 00:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete* - Sources seem inadequate, especially as demonstration of note. MrZaius^talk 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* At first I was thinking delete, but if it's been nominated this many times and such a large number of people know about it, then it's just a matter of time before you get a lot of people who want to find out a little more about the site. --Nyxxxx 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: nominated before see above, it didn't pass because it was notable... ,Where are the large number of people there are 7 people (and one IP address) in this Afd (so far) and all but two are saying delete. ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 07:52, 5 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 wasDelete Gnan garra 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7[edit]

I'm nominating Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7, Results of Robot Wars Tournaments and Robot Wars Merchandise for deletion. These articles have been around for a few months now and are quite frankly embarassing - they look like the sort of thing that cluttered Wikipedia in 2004, not 2007. Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, these lists have no place in Wikipedia. They're terribly formatted and cite nothing, and are shockingly amateurish. WP:V and WP:NOR may be issues as well. Instead of having these, any useful content in these could appear in a summary style in the main Robot Wars article if anyone wants to do that (such as listing the winners of each series and giving details of the merchandise without going into excessive detail like this does). Once again, strong delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the merchandise article into the main Robot Wars article. That article is not overly long and can absorb this information. Tag it for sourcing and if it's not sourced, delete it from there per normal editing. Weak keep Results of Robot Wars tournaments and merge the series 7 article to it. Results tables are akin to episode lists, which are acceptable under WP:SUMMARY. That they are messy is an argument for cleanup, not deletion. Otto4711 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already merged some of it. What remains is unencyclopedic as Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository of all information.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I thought encyclopedias were repositories of human knowledge? --164.107.222.23 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go: Delete Results of Robot Wars UK Series 7. The information is already in Results of Robot Wars tournaments. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, Delete Robot Wars Merchandise as trivia, or merge anything relevant back into Robot Wars. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* and finally... **declaration of interest** About six months ago, various articles on Robot Wars kept cropping up in AfDs. After a slew of these, despite not being interested in the subject, I merged hundreds (it seems like) of unencyclopedic articles together to create Results of Robot Wars tournaments and List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) in order to keep the information in a vaguely encyclopedic form. (Thanks for the "shockingly amateurish" comment by the way nom, still I was new on Wiki then). The information could be merged back into the main article (messy) or deleted (not that I care, but you watch it being recreated by the fanboys). So a Keep for that one, for the sake of all our sanities. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Upon reflection, yeah, with the winners in the main article, Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, essentially to delete the merchandise article and then merge the others together. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the merch (not notable), merge the rest as the separate article are not notable standing alone. Realkyhick 17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've already put the winners of each series in the main Robot Wars article; the detailed results are trivial information not necessary for an encyclopedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:21, 27 June 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 Gnan garra 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Army of One (Kuwaiti Band)[edit]

Non-notable hip-hop band. Text is biased and the article is promotional. Does not meet the criteria in WP:BAND. I found no sources in which the band was the subject. I am also nominating the following related pages: Anas ^talk? 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If Alien Records is notable (which I don't think it is), then weak keep - they've released two albums, but is the record label notable? If not, they don't pass that criterion of WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put an AfD template on the co-nominated article to avoid out of process deletion. MartinDK 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, thank you. I must've forgotten to do so. —Anas ^talk? 14:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads as advert, non-notable as Alien Records has just two signed acts - one of which consists of the characters in question (http://www.alien-records.com/sec_artists.php). Bigdaddy1981 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been a not-insignificant amount of contribution to this article. I had never heard of this band but perhaps it is well known in other regions. AGREED, it does read like a promotion. Perhaps a revert to and older revision (merging important changes) would work. From WP:BAND "...failure to meet any of these criteria [notability] does not mean an article must be deleted". I don't think we're qualified to judge notability of a band based in Kuwait. Any comment from the article's original author, Yafei? Tvh2k 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND (noting comment by Tvh2k above) and the entire first section is a copyright violation from [[26]]. Euryalus 05:51, 6 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 author. Maybe I'll get back to this someday, but maybe not; businesspeople are kind of boring. Visviva 04:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean businesspeople[edit]

Redundant list. We already have Category:South Korean businesspeople, this list offers no additional information, and has seen no activity since its creation over a year ago. PC78 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant list with little context. No apparent limit to who could be included. Nice catch PC78 MartinDK 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, basicly what pc78 said. Warrush
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplicates the category. Realkyhick 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican American writers. Punkmorten 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as author. Meant to do expand this using various biographical resources, but haven't done so; I suppose if I ever get around to doing it over, re-creation won't be a problem. -- Visviva 04:12, 28 June 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 wasDelete Gnan garra 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Schumann (adventurer)[edit]

unverifiable Feyandstrange 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand: I can find no confirmation of this person's existence, let alone their claimed exploits. He's not in the Guinness book or any other listing of notable explorers, and searching on his name turns up nothing but the disambiguated composer and stuff which is possibly backtrailed to this article, or of equally dubious source. Unless someone has source on this, it seems pretty spurious, and for all I know is a vanity-vandal case. I'm nominating this for deletion. Feyandstrange 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This rather unofficial looking page had details at the bottom - and yes, he did get off a plane near the poles and cycle there. However I'd like to see a better source. There is a panel in the centre of the CBBC page here but no indication where they got their material either. Even assuming he did what he did, I'm not sure it actually counts as much of an achievement (although a hell of a thing for the 'what I did on my holidays' essay when he got back to school...) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge into Polar exploration per HisSpaceResearch adding the Guinness citation to the article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 12:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, worth perhaps a mention in the pole articles, but not worth a biography. Another mention among numerous other polar records themselves not necessarily worthy of biographies. --Dhartung | Talk 12:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hold on, I think I have an old Guinness Book of Records somewhere which I could cite as a source possibly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's in this book that I have. I'll cite that as a source. Weak keep.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Not really notable, just add it to the articles North Pole and South Pole if anything. Warrush
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it is now verifiable as a reference has been added, although it does have a limited amount of information it is suitable content for an enyclopedia. The Sunshine Man 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Sunshine Man. Still, if multiple sources could be found, that would help matters. --Paul Erik 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For records of this kind there is a book already in existance, The Guiness Book of World Records. As the young guy arrived nearby the south pole by plane and only did the last meters on a bike he is not exactly an explorer or an adventurer. The fact itself is trivia and the subject not notable. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't delete outright; merge somewhere appropriate instead.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 I notice with interest that canvassing took place(whether misguided or not) on the ja.wiki. Given this I spent a great deal of time looking for any associations between keep opinions and the canvassing, I found very little direct response(one probable) though others not directly contacted may have responded. Those with a keep opinion indicated that both the term and its use are recent inflammatory neologism.

This article has a very close appearance to that of an attack page, most of the listed article dont even discuss any dispute on naming origins interestingly Akita Inu actually says the bread originated from dogs that were introduced to mainland Japan after the First Sino-Japanese War. which took place on the Korean penninsula. Given this and the canvassing by User:Michael Friedrich I discounted keep opinions which offered nothing to address the issue of WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:OR Gnan garra 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uriginal[edit]

This is basically an exercise in quote-hunting: find a place where some Korean (any Korean or Korean-related group, not necessarily a notable one) made some laughable claim that X is of Korean origin, and add it to the list. The sources are mostly random websites; even the ones which are from reliable sources like newspapers turn out to be opinion pieces or quotes, not newspapers themselves claiming these things as facts. In short, a list of indiscriminate information bordering on WP:OR. Also, the title itself is a neologism with only a few hundred GHits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). But even moving it to a real title like "List of things which Koreans claim to have invented" wouldn't save it. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin please note: the page creator User:Michael Friedrich appears to be violating WP:CANVAS over on jawiki with a large number of messages which specifically solicit keep votes and refer to this AfD as a "crisis" (危機). [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] cab 06:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know that was against the rules. I used the word "crisis" imitating [Chosun Ilbo article] on Liancourt Rocks ("위기(危機)", meaning "crisis"), which promped the readers to vote.--Michael Friedrich 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. cab 08:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inflammatory neologism, original research, lacks: clearly defined scope, reliable sources, criteria for inclusion. If these claims were being made by other than random netizens, or if there were some cohesion other than "things Koreans have claimed," I could see a case being made for keeping it. -- Visviva 08:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and OR. The intro section even states "This term is rarely used outside Wikipedia". Pax:Vobiscum 08:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While Google shows almost no hits for "우리지널"/"우리지날," "ウリジナル" gets 30,300, many of which do seem to pertain to this concept. So I guess we know where this comes from. -- Visviva 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... heh. Maybe the list could be repurposed as "things some Korean people have said that made some Japanese people angry." But it would still fail WP:NOT by a mile.-- Visviva 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, unflattering neologisms coined by nationalities to refer to themselves are comparatively rare; these days, most are coined by internet users in neighbouring countries. So there's no real surprise here that 2ch makes up more than 10% of all GHits for this term. [43] cab 08:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - >Google shows almost no hits for "우리지널"/"우리지날," "우리지날" gets 94 hits[44]. Not "almost no hits". But I don't think it matters that how often the word is used. It is true that the term "Uriginal" existes. If the term Uriginal is not suitable, why don't we just rename the article? I temporary used the term when I created the article because I couldn't find any other English name for the issue, but if there is a good name for it, there will be no problem.--Michael Friedrich 14:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless OR/NEO. Surely everyone recognizes that all these things were inwented by the Russians anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or rename it.There are really some koreans who claims such finding,but mostly not an academic background.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~nonsense, really.~~ As it was felt that my original vote reasoning was incorrect, I'll expound a bit: basically, we have a set of claims where one side says it's Japanese, and the other says it's Korean. Wikipedia is NOT a place for debate. MSJapan 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename This article does not contain original research or unverified claims. Every example has its own source and all of them are from some official websites or Korean newspapers, the official website of "United States Yudo Association", the official website of "Iowa University Kumdo Club", the official website of "Chosun Ilbo" etc. They are all reliable sources. They are no "minor or little significant website." Do you call "Chosun ilbo" minor?

The uriginal phenomenon is well-known especially in Japan. Even All Japan Kendo Federation([45]) and Kodokan [46] officially refer to it. It is true that the name "Uriginal" is not common outside Japan but it is not something made by either minority ultra-nationalist groups or a very specific group. If they were, AJKF and Kodokan would have ignored them. But this is one of Japanese-Korean disputes, which is so big a phenomenon that they couldn't ignore. (Actually, uriginal is also known as "Korean-Original theory", which is the most common name in Japan[47].

You can find a lot of books which refers to this issue. The most famous one is Manga Kenkanryu. Others include Korea vs Japan: World of fictional history (published by Shogakukan), Korean's Fictional History (also published by Shogakukan), Medicine for the Koreans (published by Oakla Publisher), etc... If you look closer, you can understand that this article doesn't contain any original resource.

If the title "Uriginal" is not suitable, why don't we move it to "List of things which Koreans claim to have invented"? I cannot find any problems.

The article only has reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, is not neologism (Google shows 29,500 hits for "ウリジナル" [48]) and does not contain original research or unverified claims. In short, there's no reason to delete this article.--Michael Friedrich 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly call the Japanese' version of Chosun Ilbo, which is what's cited in the article, minor. More to the point, none of these sources validate the central claim of the article, which is that "many" Koreans believe these things. The official site of the Podunk Yudo Association may be an excellent source on the views of the Podunk Yudo Association, but it has no status to tell us about anything beyond that; and the viewpoints of obscure civic organizations are not generally of encyclopedic merit. Now, if there had been a systematic poll of the Korean population (South, North, overseas) which showed that a substantial percentage believed these things -- now that would be interesting. But I don't see any evidence of this in the article; it is illuminating that so many of the sources are actually from Japan or China. -- Visviva 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that "so many of the sources are actually from Japan or China." 8 out of the 12 sources of Uriginal are from Korea or the United States. English-->[49][50][51], Korean-->[52][53][54][55][56], Japanese-->[57][58], Chinese-->[59]--Michael Friedrich 10:05, 28 June 2007

Sorry for my ignorance,I didn't read japanese,so after check several english links,I found no serious english websites,news agency or academic journals.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Friedrich asked that I reconsider my !vote. I looked carefully at the article. Unfortunately, my vote is unchanged. Sources are shown to say that somewhere, some Korean has made a claim. Sources are not always shown that the claim is false; if they are, they are not presented as competing claims. Thus the article fails WP:NPOV in that regard. But more important, it fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight because we have nothing to tell us how notable these claims are, except the introduction to the article suggesting that Japanese commonly consider Koreans to make these claims.

In essence, this is not an article about false or mistaken Korean claims, because there is nothing to indicate that they are representative vs. cherry-picked. There is no expert telling us how common these claims are, how authoritative the claimants are, how well accepted they are by Koreans, or even whether there are any Koreans who dispute the claims at all. (Certainly there must be some!) What this is is an article about a Japanese prejudice against Koreans, but it is not presented as such.

Still, even there it simply presents nothing about Japanese attitudes, authority of those attitudes, or acceptance or dispute of them. It merely tries to present "evidence" of false Korean claims. Thus the article is synthesis of one group of facts (potentially random or irrelevant Korean claims) as evidence in favor of something else (justification of Japanese prejudice).

Summary: the article fails WP:OR and WP:NPOV standards. My !vote remains delete. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>Sources are not always shown that the claim is false

Is that so? Do you even need sources that is against such claims as "Korea is the suzerain of all the languages in the world" and "Koreans are the ancestors of English people"? If you do, just delete those uriginals from the list. That will solve the problem. You don't need to delete the whole article.

>There is no expert telling us how common these claims are, how authoritative the claimants are, how well accepted they are by Koreans, or even whether there are any Koreans who dispute the claims at all.

This article is only half-finished. If you can wait several months, I think I can find some books that give an answer to your claim.

>even there it simply presents nothing about Japanese attitudes, authority of those attitudes, or acceptance or dispute of them.

I showed you that even All Japan Kendo Federation had to refer to the issue. I also introduced some books on the issue. I'm busy right now but if you can wait, I can show you what those book say.

>It merely tries to present "evidence" of false Korean claims.

Isn't that enough? What do you need more?--Michael Friedrich 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the source is shown for all items, the reason to delete this article as a reason in WP:OR is not found at all.--Panpulha 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the sentence in the first paragraph of WP:NOR: "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." That the material has been (sort of) published is not in dispute; the validity of this synthesis is. -- Visviva 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the article concerned, no analysis is performed. Examples are listed simply.--Panpulha 11:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A "list of stupid things some Korean person said somewhere" is not encyclopedic. A claim that this is a general phenomenon -- that, in short, "Uriginal" is a meaningful term -- is original research... Either way, this article does not belong here. Visviva 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - >"that, in short, "Uriginal" is a meaningful term -- is original research" I showed you that several books on the issue are published. The term "Uriginal" may not be a good one but I couldn't find other suitable names for the issue. The English name of this phenomenon is not decided yet. That's all. Even if the word "Uriginal" is not suitable for English wikipedia, it is not original reserch that the issue is a serious one. If you can wait, I will be able to quote some of those books and show that this is not original reserch, although I am being too busy to do so. You need to wait a few month. Is it too late?--Michael Friedrich 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Japanese name of this page "韓国起源説" ("Korean origin theory", which you allege is such a widespread and notable concept in Japanese, only gets 202 Ghits [60]. When you subtract out "Wikipedia" "blog" "2ch", that drops to 77 GHits: [61] cab 01:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. "韓国起源説" gets 951[62]. When you subtract out "Wikipedia" "blog" "2ch", that gets 1240 GHits[63].--Michael Friedrich 10:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is true, which is proved by the links I gave. Try clicking through to the last page to see how many results there really are (with duplicates filtered out). cab 11:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's NOT true. There is a space after "韓国起源説" in your search[64]. If you delete the space, you can get 651 Ghits. And in your search, Google SafeSearch is on. You can get 951 Ghits when you turn it off.--Michael Friedrich 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The contents exemplified in this article are serious OR and NPOV, yes, they are. But that is not the reason for claiming a deletion of the article itself. Don't you make some kind of misunderstanding?--Panpulha 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, massive and irrecoverable violations of NOR and NPOV are grounds for deletion. -- Visviva 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I admire the desperate effort of the people who want to hide a shameful thing with stupidity, but the thing which does not satisfy a deleted matter is not deleted.--Panpulha 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Heavily POV, largely pointless. Realkyhick 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whose POV? Korean POV or Japanese POV? I can't find any POV but simple truth in the article.--Michael Friedrich 13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter whose POV, every entry on the table in that article has some sort of POV, usually against the use of that particular word or phrase. And please stop leaving messages all over Wikipedia to campaign about this debate! Realkyhick 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep then rename. For all items sources are shown, while the word ウリジナル seems to be a sort of pun. --Hatukanezumi 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the source is shown for all items, the reason to delete this article as a reason in WP:OR is not found at all.--Sanchaman 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 99% of the 30k GHits for ウリジナル ("uriginal" in Japanese) disappear when you modify the search slightly ("-blog -2ch -掲示板") and click through to the last page [65]. cab 01:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to something less derogatory. --Saintjust 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So your position is that Japanocentrism, which is a concept actually discussed in real scholarly books and papers [66], is not worth an encyclpedia article, but this "Uriginal" joke which gets thrown about on 2channel and people's blogs, is somehow encyclopedic. Nope, no contradiction or double standard here ... cab 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease refer to the next link.

There is an item called "ウリジナル" in Japanese various encyclopedias. The former is a link of a simple encyclopedia for Japanese general families, and the latter is a link of the items of basic education for engineers. It is wide, and, in Japan and Southeastern Asia and Far East Asia (China / Taiwan / Japan), the forgery is known in this way in the Korean origin, and it is it with an object of the criticism. --Sanchaman 05:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User-editable dictionaries a la Urban Dictionary (notice the very prominent "新規キーワード作成" link) are not reliable sources. You will not find this term "ウリジナル" in any reliable sources or real published Japanese dictionaries, only from internet users and comic books with an obvious axe to grind. cab 05:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please do not make personal attacks on other users as you did with this edit [67] on your talk page at jawiki accusing Korean-descent users of banding together to distort Wikipedia. Incidentally, as far as I know none of the people suggesting deletion of this article are of Korean descent, so not only are you racist, you're hilariously off base. cab 09:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename. The term ウリジナル (Uriginal in Japanese language) seems to have been coined recently. I also think it is just a kind of pun. But the facts and phenomena described in the article really exist. And internet sites cited are reliable sources in this case. No WP:OR, neither meeting with WP:NOT. Therefore, keep.--Maris stella 16:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As already explained above, a webpage by John Doe from Podunk is a reliable source about what John Doe from Podunk thinks. It is not a reliable source about widespread beliefs among the Korean population or the history of the invention of typography/kendo/dog breeding in East Asia. Why should readers of an encyclopedia care what a non-notable college martial arts club in Iowa have to say? "It really exists" is not a reason for writing an encyclopedia article. We require notability and reliable sources (meaning unbiased scholarly or journalistic analysis of the alleged phenomenon of Koreans claiming to have invented things, which this article does not demonstrate exists). cab 01:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wrote /the facts and phenomena ..... really exist. And internet sites cited are reliable sources in this case./ And Notablity is proven by the facts that there are so many pages which mention on this theme. Notabilty means that many people recoginise about the topic mentioned in the article (/objective evidence/). In addiiton, I have read the National text books on history used in the Korean junior high/high schools through translation, and the books have given very biased information, including that Korea is the teacher who have taught many cultural matters to Japan without historical basis or proof, which are the another aspect/proof of "Korean origin theory". (Though indirect, however these are /verifiable, secondary sources/). This is not my prejudice. Both Korea and Japan learned many things from China through history, but Korea has'n been the master teacher of Japan. (In the article of jawp, this point is distinguished carefully from the article theme in order to observe the NPOV guideline, so is in enwp too.) This is the answer for you. You have already written your opinion and judgement. Now, let the other people judge this RfD. --Maris stella 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability means what the Wikipedia guideline says it means, not "lots of internet users are talking about it" and "you can find a few websites which seem to be examples of it". cab 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What are these "books" mentioned above? Why aren't they cited in the article? -- Visviva 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's Manga Kenkanryu. Comic book which originated as a webcomic, not a scholarly work. Another one 韓国人につけるクスリ ―韓国・自覚症状なしのウリナライズムの病理 (Medicine for Koreans: The pathology of "urinara-ism") [68] is apparently a blog which got turned into a book, with chapter titles like "Why are Korean dramas all repetitive?" and "School marks dependent on bribery". The blurb says the author is a Japanese language teacher in Seoul. cab 06:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - >Why aren't they cited in the article? It is because I was too busy to cite them when I created the article. I simply translated the Japanese version.--Michael Friedrich 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have had years to work on the Japanese version of the article, but none of those books are cited there. In fact the only book that is cited is 「国定韓国小学校社会科教科書」[69], a primary school textbook. cab09:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Years?! My first edit on this article was done [70] on 04/NOV/2006. It is only half a year ago. You may have a misunderstanding but it is not me who started the article. It was really a miserable one when I first saw the article, full of prejudice, misunderstandings, only with original researches[71]. I tried to make it better, searched the internet for its sourse of information[72]. I came to know recently that there exist books on the issue. Even if I take the trouble to read and quote them spending a lot of time, money and efforts, what's in it for me? I am so busy a man that I didn't go out of the way to cite them. That's why. --Michael Friedrich 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#DICT etc. The suitability of a niche slang word for a global encyclopedia is very doubtful, and in any case the article fails WP:NOT#DICT outright EyeSerene^TALK 09:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the Japanese version fails WP:NOT#DICT. The English version is only half-finished. It can meet WP:NOT#DICT if you can wait. --Michael Friedrich 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Per hatukanezumi. It is based on sources.--Watermint 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename When it explains a complex relation between Japan and Korea, this article is useful.　--Azukimonaka 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename The article is almost truthful, but the term ウリジナル(Uriginal) is not so current even in Japan. The word 韓国起源説(←I don't know the best translation) is commonly used.--Umin 15:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC) — Umin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete all reasons have been stated as before, notice that most who want to keep the article are Japanese Jegal 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- >notice that most who want to keep the article are Japanese That is not a good reason to delete the article. We're defending it not because we want to accuse the Koreans but to introduce simple fact. If there were an article such as "Japan-Origin theory" or something like that, we would not oppose its existence as long as what it says is true and has enough sources of information. And I don't want to say this but I don't think it's good for you to mention it as a reason to delete since you are Korean.--Michael Friedrich 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just note Canvassing from japanese-wiki. watch Michael Friedrich's log, http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:Contributions/Michael_Friedrich He said "I'm sorry" Michael Friedrich 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) but shortly afterward continues it!--220.150.152.202 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean this one"? I didn't ask Miwa.SS to poll a "Keep" vote. I only told him if he had something to say, he could leave a comment. Is it also against the rule? If so, I'm sorry. I didn't consider it so.--Michael Friedrich 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a Japanese ultranationalist term used to mock Koreans. Its usage in both English and Korean seem almost non-existent. Most of the hits on Uriginal in Google search seems to be a German word, and you get no relevant results from search on reliable sources[73][74]. Contents dealt in this article is more appropriate for Korean nationalism, though it needs to be presented in a much more refined, NPOV manner. Cydevil38 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons are already stated above.--Robert Houdini 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another OR, I think. -- Fnorder 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maris stella. If necessary, the article name should be changed.--Gettystein 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per cab. Good friend100 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:NEO: "Uriginal" is a neologism. Alternate suggestion: Note that there are (or were) plenty of parallel articles within Wikipedia, describing similar things from the Japanese and Korean perspectives: Hapkido / Aikido (合氣道/合気道), Magatama / Gogok (勾玉/曲玉), Kumdo / Kendo (劍道/剣道), Kayokyoku / Gayo (music) (歌謡曲), etc., and there are a plenty more which don't have articles. It's a matter of fact that such parallelisms exist between the 2 cultures, and it would be informative to start an article based on that line of thinking instead (without claiming where these things originated).--Endroit 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely opinion-based. Even though the author (User:Michael_Friedrich) claims it has a dozen of reliable sources, those sources are mostly article explaining someone's or some group's nonsensical opinion. It is also clear that the creator (and main-editor) of this article is trying to insult Korea and Korean. Other than this article, he had several issues with the article Dokdo and was blocked for vandalism. eDenE 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not Dokdo but Liancourt Rocks! And this article has nothing to do with the rocks. I don't believe what I did on Liancourt Rocks article[75] was vandalism either. We're not trying to insult Korea or people from Korea. We are just introducing the phenomena. --Michael Friedrich 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Well you did! (not that anybody here cares), and I'm going to find some of you guys sympathetic to Japanese users after I storm through some of these articles. Good friend100 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just note about actual condition of japanese URIGINAL.[76] "Origin of URIGINAL" is just an original research. "List of URIGINAL" are made of web source(korean news) and Manga Kenkanryu(anti-Korean comic) sorce and so on. include "When a Korean man (civilian) appeared in japanese TV, he said xxx is our culture" "Grounds for URIGINAL" is Manga Kenkanryu's opinion and web source(korean news). frankly, "Editor of URIGINAL in japanese" has no bookish, no brain, no academic, no...--220.150.173.138 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some example of the list could be bad ones, I must admit. But that does not mean the whole article must be deleted. And we're talking about the English version of it. What the Japanese version is like does not matter now. And most of the examples on the list are based on reliable sources such as Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo or other famous groups like Korea Kumdo Association and United States Yudo Association. And I cannot believe how rude you are to say editors of uriginal in Japanese have no brain. --Michael Friedrich 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Probation What about renaming this article and putting it on 6 months' probation? This article is only half-finished as I mentioned above. If it is still considered to be POV or an original research then, I won't oppose a deletion.--Michael Friedrich 07:21, 6 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 consensus indicates (apparently correctly) that original research concerns are incorrect. Cheers, Wily D 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia series[edit]

The article itself acknowledges it: these games do not officially form a series. Consequently, the article is just a collection of original research, assumptions, and personal extrapolation. A discussion has taken place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Soul Blazer series but it didn't help fix the article, as no reliable sources has ever been found to establish the notability and veracity of this article. Kariteh 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also vote on the deletion page of the corresponding template. Kariteh 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources for this being considered a series by fans include the following three professional reviews: [77] [78] [79]. As such, it is not original research to state that fans consider them to be a series. JulesH 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes the article admits it's not an offical series, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. So while it may not be a true series, it IS verifiable through numerous reliable sources that fans and gaming professionals alike refer to these games as a series. If there were no reliable sources, I'd be quite happy to say delete, but there are, so I won't. DarkSaber2k 10:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the first review is truly "professional". The other two sites are fan sites, which might be good quality, but which could still be unreliable on a few stuff. Besides, are you sure you want to totally keep the article as such? The term "Gaia series" is mentioned nowhere on the three sites posted. Kariteh 11:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Terranigma is also the thrid installment of the Soul Blazer series. Taken from the second source which I chose at random from the 3. That review looks neither a fan page, nor unreliable. The first source quite clearly refers to the games as a series, and the third also appears to be a reliable source and refers to the 'series'. DarkSaber2k 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why are you quoting this sentence for? I repeat myself: the term "Gaia series" is not used. Also, the second site also states that Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma were called "Soul Blazer 2" and "Soul Blazer 3" in Japan, something which is utterly wrong. Since only one website (the first link) seems to mention the existence of this series in a reliable way, it remains the point of view of that website and not a common, widespread verifiable fact. Moreover, the third site doesn't actually name what games are part of that series, while the second site does not mention Granstream Saga. All this is really shoddy. Kariteh 11:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only the first review is truly "professional". The other two sites are fan sites, which might be good quality, but which could still be unreliable on a few stuff. On what are you basing this assertion? I determined by examing production details for all three sites that they were produced comercially and had independent editorial and writing teams. the second site also states that Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma were called "Soul Blazer 2" and "Soul Blazer 3" in Japan, something which is utterly wrong It doesn't state these: it says they were retitled. This may have occurred during production, prior to release, and unless you happen to be an employee of either of the companies involved in their production, it is unlikely you would know whether or not that is true. Or the site may be wrong. Reliable sources do sometimes make mistakes, and it doesn't mean we must reject everything they publish: this article does not rely on this specific fact, so it is neither here nor there. the term "Gaia series" is not used True enough. So rename the article "Soul Blazer series" instead of deleting it. the second site does not mention Granstream Saga I'm not sure I see the relevance. JulesH 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first site is professional in that it's a subdivision of GameSpy and written by recognized people who usually write for "big" sites like IGN (Kurt Kulata, etc.). The second site is a fan site in that it's a volunteer site. It's written in their "Join Staff" page; everybody can join, and the difference between their type of sites and professional sites or magazines is openly acknowledged. As for the third site, could you give the link to where these production details are described? I couldn't find any link to a Staff or About page.
    - As for the retitling thing, I think you are looking into it too much. The sentence clearly implies that Enix changed the name from "Soul Blazer 2" to "Illusion of Gaia" and "Soul Blazer 3" to "Terranigma" when they were released in the United States. This is what immediately comes to mind when reading the sentence, and this is further supported by the comparison that they make with Final Fantasy II and III on the SNES (called "Final Fantasy IV" and "VI" in Japan). To imagine that they wanted to say something else is kind of difficult with the context and that example. The first sentence of the review even seems to imply that Terranigma was released in America, even though it wasn't (it was only released in Japan and Europe/Australia). Either that, or they make some random, unrelated comment about it having been released in Japan and Europe before Enix of America closed down... Either way, all things considered in addition to the quite noticeable amount of typos in that review, show that this site is not very pertinent in establishing the verifiability of this Gaia/Soul Blazer series.
    - The relevance of Granstream Saga is in the definition of that Gaia/Soul Blazer series. If sites don't have a common definition of what games are part of that series, it shows that the "series" isn't particularly verifiable, and that it's in the end assumptions and personal extrapolations. Kariteh 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - During Beta, Illusion of Gaia was referred to as Soul Blazer: Illusion of Gaia, and Terranigma was referred to as Illusion of Gaia 2 inside the game. If Illusion of Gaia is the indirect sequel to Soul Blazer, and Terranigma is the "sequel" to Illusion of Gaia, that's enough connection, isn't it? The article's name should probably be the Soul Blazer series, though. SouperAwesome 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have reliable sources to establish that this is really how they were referred to? And what do you do about Granstream Saga? Kariteh 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added The Granstream Saga in the template as "Related", since it's not "officially" connected to the others, despite all the similarities. I tried to take a photo of my TV showing the screen where Terranigma is called "Illusion of Gaia 2" but it didn't turn out, but I'll try again later if you'd like. SouperAwesome 10:05, 2 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. We're not wasting time with neologisms created today. Chaser - T 07:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concrats[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Jeff Biggs 07:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to publish something you came up with.--†Sir James Paul† 07:23, 27 June 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 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Februus (band)[edit]

Contested speedy. Non notable band with one record made. No sources given in article. Googling Februus plus Perchard (name of vocalist) gives 28 distinct Google hits[80], Februus plus Fading memory (title of record) gives 26 distinct Google hits[81]. Not really evidence of the large online following claimed in the article. Fails WP:MUSIC. Fram 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted because it is a violation of WP:Music. This band is not subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable, has not had a charted hit on any national music chart, has not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country, has not gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, has not released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, does not have at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable, has not won any major awards, has not won or placed in a major music competition, and has not performed music for a work of media that is notable. For these reasons, I think this should be deleted.--†Sir James Paul† 07:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What about creating an article for the Scottish alternative music scene and merging the Februus article (obiously abridged) into it? I don't think it would be entirely fair to totally delete the article as they do have some note, especially on Myspace [82] and YouTube [83] - and the Scottish alternative music scene is very strong and has supported the rise of famous acts like KT Tunstall, Travis, Idlewild, Teenage Fanclub, Texas and Franz Ferdinand to name a few! I know quite a lot about the Edinburgh scene in particular so I could make a good start on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thejerseybean (talk • contribs).
- Note on MySpace and YouTube? Ha. Ha. Punkmorten 12:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and do not merge anywhere. This band is not notable at this point in time. They do not pass WP:MUSIC. That's not to say that they'll never be notable, but they certainly aren't right now and should not have a Wikipedia article especially due to the lack of sources of any reliability, for which MySpace and YouTube certainly do not count.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICs guidelines. Warrush
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Dreadwest Records doesn't appear to be a notable indie label. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:49, 27 June 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. I don't mind recreation if this article can be expanded. Sr 13 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Price Waterfall[edit]

challenged prod; possible neologism; (in retrospect also suspcious about hoax -- "Waterfall" vs "Waterhouse" Simon Cursitor 07:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term does not meet the wikipedia notability guidlines.--†Sir James Paul† 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't a hoax, but it isn't very important either. Without a fuller discussion of business pricing strategies and accounting thereof this would pretty much remain an orphan. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unsourced dicdef, possible neologism, negligible google hits. If anyone could expand it and source it I'd be more likely to sway towards keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From a usefullness standpoint, I would much prefer that Wikipedia get a good article on pricing first. This alone is like having addition without an article on mathematics. In general real academic business-school content is lacking on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 27 June 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 03:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Cheung[edit]

Delisted WP:PROD, original reason was "Looks like WP:HOAX: no google hits for combinations of this person's name and book-titles; creator's name suggests it's some personal-relationship game" by User:DMacks Naconkantari 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original nom. Naconkantari 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I agree, it looks like a fancy attempt at a vanity autobio/Elena loves Dayton page. No real notability, although there is that claim which probably negates A7. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 06:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax/not verifiable. Certainly there are claims to notability there, but since they can't be verified, delete.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything on her. Must be a hoax. Warrush
Delete As unsourced, unverifiable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity or hoax. JJL 15:47, 27 June 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 speedily deleted as CSD:A7. --MCB 07:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesper[edit]

Page seems to be nonsense. No other pages link here. Notmyrealname 06:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a DBBIO. -WarthogDemon 06:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7 no assertion of notability, and so tagged. [84] Flyguy649^talk_contribs 07:00, 27 June 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 03:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Kappa Pi[edit]

Non notable fraternity. Over the two years that this article has existed, it hasn't been expanded or all or sourced —arf! 05:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. External link is to a parked website. Google does find a live site here but its news and events sections hve not been updated for 2 years. Very few other GHits and none to good secondary sources. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 06:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local fraternity - doesn't appear to be notable. PCock 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete As per nom. Warrush
Delete per nom. JJL 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alpha Kappa Pi redirects to Alpha Sigma Phi. 132.205.44.5 23:40, 27 June 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. Peacent 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of standardized tests in the United States[edit]

Original introduction: This is an indiscriminate list of information that is better in smaller forms, i.e. List of standardized tests in the United States and List of admissions tests in the United States. – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated introduction: This list is not only about K-12 school tests. In the US attention is paid to school-oriented standardized tests. This list is an indiscriminate compilation of grade school, college admissions, language proficiency and psychological tests - all together. This confuses the issue for the reader who is interested in school tests. This information would be more valuable broken into its component parts as sub-categories and lists on appropriate pages, i.e. High school graduation examination and even Standardized test; however, clumping all of these together creates a pile-o-tests that defeats WP policy regarding accessibility. We have to keep lists simple; this kind of complexity ruins their usefulness. – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freechild, please don't confuse the discussion process by making major changes to your nomination after extensive discussion has occurred. Prior to your recent edit, the above paragraph read as follows:

This is an indiscriminate list of information that is better in smaller forms, i.e. List of admissions tests in the United States. Having one page that randomly compiles grade school, college admissions, language proficiency and psychological tests together is unusable at best - at worst, it confuses the issue. This information would be more valuable broken into its component parts as sub-categories and lists on appropriate pages, i.e. High school graduation examination and even Standardized test; however, clumping all of these together creates a pile-o-tests that defeats WP policy regarding accessibility. We have to keep lists simple; this kind of complexity ruins their usefulness. – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--orlady 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I find from the page history that the version of the AfD nomination that I pasted above was created by Freechild at 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC). All comments prior to that time were in response to a much shorter nomination. --orlady 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Freechild is intentionally attempting to confuse readers, especially when the user posted the entire list of the state tests on the No Child Left Behind page to make it look as if it came from there first, when it did not. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:Civil, and make comments about the article, not the editor. – Freechild (BoomCha) 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to participate productively in this discussion, when major revisions have made it so difficult to determine who said what when, or even what the reasoning behind this AfD is.--orlady 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article is not a encylopedic article, it is a list. I am strongly against having articles that are just lists on wikipedia. For that reason, I am going to vote to delete this.--†Sir James Paul† 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Standardized tests are a major part of U.S. education, and presenting the tests which exist in the form of a list is a valid way to do it, and easy for the reader. Per WP:LIST, I think this passes all three purposes; it is informative, it helps readers navigate, and the redlinks aid in further development of this area. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list is not limited to No Child Left Behind; rather, it is an indiscriminate collection of tests that includes, but is not limited to NCLB-required tests. Those tests are listed at the NCLB article. – Freechild (BoomCha) 06:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a well-done list on a notable topic. There are many lists on wikipedia. See WP:LIST and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. This is not an indiscriminate list of info. Looks specific to me. Spinout lists are fine too. One can create other more specific lists of tests, and then remove them from this list, and just leave the link to the spinout list. --Timeshifter 07:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than just a list. It has a nice break-down of tests into different categories. I also think the number of red-links in this list make it more appropriate than a category. Sancho 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subjects, clear criteria for inclusion, a wealth of independent commentary: what's not to like about this list? It just goes to show you that the "indiscriminate" label is too subjective to be meaningful, and needs to be dropped.
FWIW, and not as a specific or personal criticism of any participant here, it does seem that argumentative rebuttals to "keep" opinions are getting out of hand again. Put your best case in your nomination or your opinion, but don't quarrel if others disagree. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I firmly believe that until this list becomes too big, the listing of standardized tests, in general, is appropriate. If, however, this list becomes too big in one category or more, I would split it off into another list. As it stands, there is not enough content for more specific lists. Furthermore, I believe that if the definition of standardized test had been examined carefully, this nomination for deletion would not have been started. Standardized tests are not just "any random test", and are definitely NOT just NCLB tests. I see that the author of this nomination has posted all of the tests on the No Child Left Behind Act page, which does not appear to the most appropriate place for such a list, especially since it is redundant to the list of state tests found here. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list seems to be compiled rather arbitrarily, covering a broad scope of standardized tests (admissions tests, psychological examinations etc.), yet at the same time only lists a select few exams. Either way, if we were to keep the information we'd have to split it up into smaller, more specific lists ("List of standardized tests in the United States, as specific as it may sound, is still incredibly broad, and the different catecories have little in common), and even then I'd have to say that the information noteworthy enough to have it's own article would be the NCLB exams, which are already listed (in a much more organized fashion), in the NCLB article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary (talk • contribs)

Comment. The NCLB listing came much long after this list was created. The items on this list are not "selected", it's just that things are added to the list as someone becomes aware of them. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I might have said this was better served by a category, but the categorization within the list I think makes it a bit more valuable. Perhaps it could stand a little reformatting, and maybe some stricter criteria to make sure that the list doesn't get out of hand, but currently it seems to be in order. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How would you reformat it? Should a more specific definition of standardized test appear on the page? Please discuss on the page's talk page. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a step above just a simple list. vlad§inger ^tlk 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that in this process there are two things that we should consider: 1) How close is this list to being complete? Clearly this is an incomplete list, and it probably could never be complete, but considering all of the areas it covers does it constitute a significant portion of the standardized tests in the United States, or does it only cover a small fraction? 2) Is this list useful? Does the information in this list when compiled together and presented as a whole would be helpful, informative or otherwise useful to those who view it? Also take note that as far as state achievement tests are concerned, the NCLB article appears to be more comprehensive than this article, and is better formatted than this article (by state rather than name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgary (talk • contribs)

Response. These are some good suggestions. I think the state list can be revised. The list does have a limit, and it is defined by the definition of standardized test. Standardized tests are not just any test, and that does need to be more clear on the page. I believe the list is useful if someone is looking for tests of a particular type (e.g., standardized psychological tests) or can't remember a standardized test name. I believe no list such as this one could truly ever be complete, especially with the addition of new standardized tests every year; so that point is somewhat insignificant. On a side note, Calgary, please sign your comments, and provide your feedback about the page on the talk page. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement (it is incomplete, and there are some fundamental issues with the way it is organized), but the subject of standardized educational testing in the United States is a complex and interesting one that almost demands a list-type article. --orlady 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my above comment: Contrary to what Freechild says, the list is not "random," but is organized into sensible categories. The state-specific sublist is woefully incomplete (not only are many state rows not populated, but many states have multiple test series for different purposes, and a complete also should include discontinued tests such as Texas Assessment of Academic Skills), but neither that sublist nor the article as a whole can be correctly called "random."--orlady 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If the state-specific sublist is to be as comprehensive as you suggest, it should have its own list. This grouping of standardized tests required by NCLB and standardized tests required by the American Psychiatric Association is completely random; connecting these tests only by the fact that they are standardized, not by any other binding factor is an example of how inaccessible WP can be. – Freechild (BoomCha) 22:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freechild, we heard you, many many times. Please stop badgering nearly every person who posts a comment here.

Orlady, I know the list is incomplete. It will take a bit of time to find all of the tests, and I would like to recruit help from people who actually live in those states to fill it in. I added a section below the table for "other tests," but we could just as easily have two rows in a cell for multiple tests. For example, in Louisiana, they actually administer three tests: the iLEAP, LEAP, and GEE. All three should go in one cell with three rows. Discontinued tests can go below the table in the "other" list. As for the other tests, those will take some time to find too, and we really need help from others to accomplish that as well. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find Alabama's and Alaska's state tests, and it took about an hour to find anything on their webpages. It appears that some of the states only have listings for the high school graduation exam, which does not fit the demands of the NCLB Act. Thus, there must be other tests in those states as well. This example demonstrates how difficult it will be to populate this list, unless the contributor is from the state and may know the test without needing to find it. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris53516, please be civil, and please, no personal attacks.– Freechild (BoomCha) 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standardized tests are very important in the US, and are certainly notable. It is a good idea to have a list for comparison purposes. Also, the list is definitely too long to be merged into a parent article.--Kylohk 12:21, 29 June 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 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhymesayers South[edit]

Article about non-existent record label. According to the article this was a hoax but I can't find any mention of it anywhere and the article does not assert notability or provide any way of verifying this at all. Denied speedy (A7), User:DGG asked me to take this to AfD instead. MartinDK 05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my oppinion, this is not even close to notable enough to be on wikipedia.--†Sir James Paul† 05:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources or GHits to substantiate that this hoax ever existed. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 07:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and trivial. How could this ever be expanded anyway? -- Reaper X 07:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not 100% certain that this is a hoax. The article has been subject for months to vandalistic edits that convert it from an article about a record company to one that claims it's a hoax. The AFD caught it in the vandalized state. I say vandalized because, even if it is a hoax, the way that the edits have been rewriting the article is improper. In the end though, is it a real record company, or a hoax? I have no idea, and the article was unsourced even when not vandalized, so there's no evidence provided one way or the other. So, in the absence of any sourcing that this is a real record company, I say get rid of it. - TexasAndroid 11:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - "It does not exist". Non-notable hoax, or hoax about a hoax (that's gotta be a first...). Negligible ghits, all Wikipedia mirrors as far as I can see. Whatever the case, it sure as hell isn't notable or verifiable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment no opinion--I could not decipher from the page history what was the actual nature of the article, so I suggested going here to see what others could figure out. DGG 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You did exactly what you are supposed to do in this situation. If anyone can clarify the situation, possibly someone who happens to know anything about this, I will of course withdraw my nomination. The key issue here is the lack of reliable sources to establish notability. MartinDK 14:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the initial version uses a book by "LeDarrius" as a source, but I cant find that name in worldcat, google books, amazon or Barnes and Noble. John Vandenberg 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I believe record labels are still under the guidelines of WP:MUSIC, and they fail under these guidelines. Warrush
Strong Delete This record label does not exist. Rhymesayers Entertainment website doesn't even mention their supposed partner/branch. An interesting hoax that has lasted a little too long. ~ P.Haney 03:42, 28 June 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 wasDelete there was also substancial group opinion for a merge into Death Note, this article already has a plot section, character details, and section called Death Note all of which combine to provide more detail than that of this article. Gnan garra 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plotline of Death Note[edit]

Delete - The article is in violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. 十八 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 04:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge trimmed content into the main Death Note article. This article goes into incredible detail. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most of it to the episode list, which is currently about one sentence of summary per episode, the section on the pilot might be useful to the main article as well. --tjstrf talk 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel as if this is a violation of WP:NOT because WP:NOT states that Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries.--†Sir James Paul† 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per †Sir James Paul†'s comment above. Likewise, a simple summary, as provided on the Death Note article, is enough. Drumpler 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per tjstrf. JJL 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You mean redirect and merge, I hope. Deleting and merging has GFDL compliance problems. --tjstrf talk 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a need for this particular term to be redirected; I'd suggest copying anything useful on this page to the Talk page of Death note, then deleting this page. JJL 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't merge information then delete the page. An accurate page history needs to be kept for the GFDL stuff. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect and Speedy Merge as per User:tjstrf. Greg Jones II 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:NOT#IINFO. Either one works for me, we don't need more bloated plot summaries. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I personally have no problems with it, I'm wondering if "episode guides" would fall within the bounds of WP:NOT#INFO? Drumpler 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, though TV schedules (timetables) do. In fact, lists of episodes are one of our more common types of featured list. --tjstrf talk 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry to interject here, I just had to know. :) Drumpler 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SS is there so that reading artilces becomes easier and organization becomes better, but that in no way supports doing something like inane plot summaries.--十八 14:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An ecyclopedia is not a story book. Wikipedia is not Death Note. The sourced analysis parts (themes/meanings) can be merged, but most is just re-telling of the plot. --maclean 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would we be permitted to write a more detailed re-telling of the plot under GFDL than the company who holds the copyright is willing to tell in their plot summaries? --maclean 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with the first post on here and that is, Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. I just think the simple description on the Death Note article itself is sufficient. Drumpler 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWhile a longish summary is needed, this one is far too long, and crap.

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 03:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus (wrestler)[edit]

Contested prod. Article was previously prod in December for being about a non notable wrestler and little has changed (both with the article and wrestler in question). The most notable thing she has done is work Ohio Valley Wrestling, WWE’s developmental territory (though article does not state if she was under a WWE contract or not), with only two appearances being mentioned, one of them a dark match. Also, the only two sources for the article are her official web page and her official My Space. Nenog 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:N, working for OVW is not on it's own enough to give someone "notability" MPJ-DK 11:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Warrush
Delete per nom. If they ever get called up to the main roster then recreate. Darrenhusted 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed. Non notable until called up to the main roster (which may or may not even happen). Nikki311 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established (MySpace & personal sites are not suitable reference sources per WP:V#SELF) EyeSerene^TALK 08:49, 29 June 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 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of Hayate The Combat Butler[edit]

Delete - The article is in violation of Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. 十八 04:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly violates WP:NOT. We're getting a plot summary deletion trend. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --Haemo 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge pruned detail into main article Hayate The Combat Butler. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a violation of WP:NOT. WP:NOT says: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot."--†Sir James Paul† 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Plot of..." articles - clear violations of WP:NOT. Otto4711 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but don't just annihilate. --164.107.222.23 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. We don't need more bloated plot summaries. Bring on the next plot page! --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SS. Matthew 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SS is there so that reading artilces becomes easier and organization becomes better, but that in no way supports doing something like inane plot summaries.--十八 14:02, 1 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greece dialing code 26710[edit]

Violates WP:NOT#DIR and fails to address notability. ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." --†Sir James Paul† 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Wikipedia is not the Greek telephone directory; only the phone numbers of the ancient Greeks are notable enough to include here. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - if this is deleted then the remainder of the Greek dialing codes need to be nominated for deletion, as well as the entire batch of "Area code XXX" articles to avoid a systemic bias. For what it is worth, I agree that the only dialing codes which warrant articles are the ones that have some kind of "special notability", such as a readily documentable cultural impact. As has been stated above, WP:NOT#DIR applies here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Also, I agree with Arkyan above that we need to go through, find all of these "Area/Dialing code XXX" articles and delete all of them that don't have real notability (which I suspect is not exactly a lot of them). --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a directory article. This article talks about the history of the codes, and this is beyond a list or directory does. DGG 21:04, 27 June 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 03:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Kempster[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. Vanity article. -- Merope 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably couldve been speedied. Alcemáe T • C 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note: this is the user's only edit, with a username identical to the article name. It's an autobiography, and not a very good one either. Shalom ^Hello 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shalom. --Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC) 03:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There's just barely an assertion of notability, but there's no sources to back it up. I really was tempted to speedily delete it, but I'll give it time in case sources emerge. RIght now, it fails the verifiability hurdle badly. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be deleted because it is about someone who is not notable and also because it was probably written by the subject of the article. Writting an article about yourself is not a good idea.--†Sir James Paul† 05:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not salvagable even if there is some notability somewhere in there. John Vandenberg 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not for copy and pasting your curriculum vitae onto.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Does not meet WP:NN --Fredrick day 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Unsourced, no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per above. Bearian 19:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Maxa megalon 2000 05:28, 28 June 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 03:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk Boiz[edit]

Non-notable band. Only reference is the band's myspace. They are "busy doing gigs in coffee shops and other places of the like." —METS501 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete treading the line for a speedy, but wholly unremarkable band. Resolute 03:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a high school band, and one that's in no way notable Corpx 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete This band does not appear to be notable and the article is poorly sourced. --†Sir James Paul† 05:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is myspace, and also it doesn't meet the standards under WP:N. Warrush
they are on youtube also...http://youtube.com/watch?v=geIsWq5xOSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.38.14 (talk • contribs)
Delete, no assertions of notability and to be honest, no references. The sections appear to be misnamed ("Triva" → "Discography" and "References" → "External links") - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:43, 28 June 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. Anas ^talk? 11:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Area of Ptyxur[edit]

This article about a micronation is completely unverifiable. Google turns up self-published websites that contradict each other ([85], [86]). I could not find any reliable sources. Ginkgo100^talk 02:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A1. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think speedy delete gets overused. It's only for unambiguous cases because there's no way to stop it, as with prod, or discuss it, as with AfD. (I say that as an admin who does a lot of speedy deletions.) It's a short article, true, but there's just enough context to figure out what it's talking about. --Ginkgo100^talk 02:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "country" has a page on zoomshare.com and one can attain citizenship by emailing somebody. I also think this should be speedy deleted based on that it fails WP:N Corpx 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, does not claim notability. There are no external sources cited. This is an A7, but comes close to an A1 deletion.-gadfium 09:11, 27 June 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 (copyvio). Anas ^talk? 11:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemisms for vagina[edit]

Delete, do not transwiki. Wikipedia not a dictionary of slang. No transwiki, because original unverified collection. `'Miikka 02:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if this were notable, the best thing to do would be to use redirects and I don't think that's needed. -WarthogDemon 02:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not a dictionary Corpx
Delete just slang. JJL 02:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete Simply does not belong here. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Anyone else notice that many of the euphemisms are really for the vulva? Guess some guys don't know the difference? --Charlene 04:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it for every possible reason. --Haemo 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -MrFizyx 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page exists already at this page Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a violation of our policy WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is a encyclopedia.--†Sir James Paul† 06:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It bears something of a resemblance to this page as well [87] Nick mallory 06:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as per above and copyvio point by Nick. I have tagged the article as a copyvio and reported it. -- Reaper X 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from the 'Muffy's World of Vagina Euphemisms' website above, clearly marked with a (c) symbol. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation. WODUP 10:16, 27 June 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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Duttons[edit]

This article is of a group appearing on the current season of America's Got Talent. This is apparently their only notability, with the exception of a show that they produce themselves. Normally, appearing on America's Got Talent would be somewhat notable, except for the fact that so far, they've only made it to the first round, which many people do. Making it to the first round of a show doesn't make a group notable. You can also tell by the fact that this article wasn't created until after America's Got Talent aired. Lastly, the only external links/sources are their own website and a vacation site listing their small family show as an attraction. I made an attempt to contact the creator of the article, but he had little else to add to the page. I also tagged the page as possibly not satisfying the notability guideline for biographies.--(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the precedents that gameshow contestants are not notable unless they did something notable outside the show. This family fails that Corpx 03:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if they win the show or more information comes out, or Merge into shows second season article, if they don't win. Too early to delete otherwise as things are just getting started. --164.107.222.23 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, they havent done anything to establish any notability. Every game show contestant on every show isnt notable Corpx 03:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now they are not notable enough to be on wikipedia. If they win the show, then I think it is fine to have a article on them.--†Sir James Paul† 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have a show on national television dedicated to them, They meet WP:N. Atleast keep until America's Got Talent is over, and If nothing else comes out and noone expands the article, delete it. Warrush

The show is not dedicated to them. According to the show page, "is a talent show that features amateur singers, dancers, magicians, comedians and other performers of all ages competing for the advertised top prize". They're just contestants on a talent show that happens to be on TV Corpx 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not talking about America's Got Talent, im talking about them having a show dedicated to them on PBS. Look here under World Renown Performers. Warrush
I cant find any independant sources to collaborate that through a google search. Even if they had a "Christmas Special" (1 show) on PBS, I still dont think they're notable enough Corpx 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Duttons have 2 specials that are currently being distributed to Public Television Stations by NETA. Look here and here. Also see this page for additional information about the airing of the specials on PBS as posted by the Director of the specials. Both Specials have also been aired nationally on RFD-TV. I couldn't find any programming schedule archive on RFD-TV's website, but mention is made of it on this forum.

Comment - echo Corpx, without an independent source, their own webpage counts as self-publication and does not meet WP:RS. Even a PBS special means their claim to notability is dubious if it's a single special. Having a single special would seem more like an 'episode' than a 'show'.WLU 17:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contestants on Survivor are not notable for being on the show unless they make it to the finals or have done something else. The Duttons have only made it to the second round, along with 70 others. If they make it further, the article can be recreated. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources is cited in the article. That's needed in order to satisfy notability requirements. Nick Graves 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard of the Duttons because they tour nationally and I heard about their act before their TV appearance. I agree they aren't well established, but word of mouth does give them celebrity. I wouldn't be surprised if this article is deleted that it would have to come back because they got their own CMT show. BT14 00:14, 2 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 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs)[edit]

Totally non-notable book. I see no way that it meets the guidelines under Wikipedia:Notability (books) Dipics 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely non notable book. Nick mallory 02:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All of the creator's edits are spam - to promote this book. Delte per WP:SPAM Corpx 03:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book should be deleted for 2 reasons. First of all, the book is not notable enough. We do not need a article for every book out there. Secondly, because the creator of the article is probably try to advertise this book since he has a record of spamming.--†Sir James Paul† 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any reviews that are independent of the books authors or publishers. JulesH 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WorldCat search on ISBN returns "Sorry, no libraries with the specified item were found.", which is a quite dramatic failure of WP:BK criteria that all books need to "be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library" as a bare minimum. DreamGuy 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also recommend deletion of the author created redirect to it. [88]. Edward321 04:23, 30 June 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. In order to allow quick perusal of songs by this criteria, JForget's suggestion of creating Category:Songs with personal names as substitute of these lists is noted. Phaedriel - 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with personal names: A[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages on the same criteria:

(View AfD) Very broad list that would be unmaintainable, per WP:Listcruft, especially considering all the languages there are. Also, the list fails WP:TRIVIA this is a list of isolated topics (song names) group together based on loose categorization My suggestion is to WP:USERFY the content to a willing contributors' pages so that they can create a webpage with this information and then Delete Corpx 01:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; Violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. The only thing these songs have in common is that they happen to include the name of a person in the title. That's any name, out of thousands of possible names, from tens of thousands of possible song titles. Masaruemoto 02:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - indiscriminate list - and also userfy per nom if anyone wants it. Shalom ^Hello 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be noted that there have been previous AfDs (October 2005 and May 2007) and a DRV discussion exactly ~~two~~ one month ago. -MrFizyx 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list. --Haemo 04:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know the WP:ILIKEITs are coming, but it's indiscriminate and probably unmaintainable. Per above. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and all of the above.--JayJasper 05:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR--Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 05:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. I really don't get why people do this kind of thing... it is obviously indiscriminate information. This really shouldn't have survived the previous AfD... WP:NOT is policy no matter how many WP:ILIKEIT !votes there are. MartinDK 06:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Recently there have already been 2 deletion nominations, and have been closed under "no consensus" status.
After this, on may 27th 2007, there has been a Deletion Review the article (and it's subpages), and closure was endorsed.
Come on guys, we can't be nominating every single month, this is complete compulsion! Lately wiki has gone on a Witch-hunt concerning lists... :( --Patrick1982 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". That's not witch-hunt, it's policy. --B. Wolterding 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, indiscriminate information. --Fredrick day 11:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all - Wikipedia articles are not indiscriminate collections of information and Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely-associated topics. These lists draw together songs from across every style, genre and theme of music that have absolutely nothing in common beyond happening to have a person's name, or in some cases a word that can be used as a person's name but in the song title is not, in the title. The lists tell us absolutely nothing about the songs, the names, or music in general. We have deleted any number of similar lists of songs by title recently and these are no better than those and worse than a lot of them. No argument has been advanced in support of these lists beyond "names are different" and "people like stuff with their names in it" and these are not valid arguments. No consensus closures of previous AFDs are not an automatic bar to re-nomination, especially in light of the clear and strong consensus against these sorts of inane lists that has emerged recently. Otto4711 13:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all, because easily verfiable, enough songs to be relevant, excessive deletion nominations, etc. --164.107.222.23 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, just like most of these "interesting" lists of things without any real connection. Could someone please create either a Wikilist or a Wikitrivia where we can dump all these kind of things (a Wikisummary might be a good idea as well). I can understand that people like these things, but what do they have to do on an encyclopedia? Are there many newspaper or magazine articles or scholarly studies about "songs with personal names"? No? Then it isn't a topic for Wikipedia, and we shouldn't have a list combining them either. Rule of thumb: if "X" is not an encyclopedic topic (per Wikipedia rules), then "List of X" isn't fit for Wikipedia either. Fram 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all In spite of the initial !votes here, I do not think there is consensus on the broader community about these lists in general, and I think we probably need a more general community discussion. Many of the lists previously deleted were of poor quality, and the quality of this is relatively OK. No consensus is not "keep", but I think that one month later is absurd--no -one should have to keep attacking or defending a relatively inoffensive long-standing article that frequently. DGG 14:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featured in Vanilla Sky and many other lists of songs used in TV shows or films, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ronald Reagan, especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sampled songs and all of its sub-lists, the bulk of lists from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, the entire contents of Category:Lists of cover songs and the category itself being deleted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs referencing drinking, and again especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the same name as song artists (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes geographical names (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that are also the name of a TV show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes dates and times, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing overt references to real musicians, not to mention the many other similar lists that have been deleted recently, have established a pretty clear consensus against this sort of list in the absence of something extraordinary about them. If a list of songs with the names of specific sorts of people like musicians is too loose of an association to stand as a list, a more general list of any name that happens to begin with a particular letter certainly is. Otto4711 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As I think you know, the list of songs with overt references to other musicians originally had a sourcing issue which complicated the matter. But at least in that discussion there were specific issues raised about the list itself, which could be remedied. You seem to be in favor of wholesale deletions - I think that removing them without specific reason is damaging the encyclopedia. This is why I agree with DGG that a wider community discussion about this is overdue. The fact that a small number of editors have agreed to delete a bunch of lists hardly speaks to the need for broad community consensus. And, as I said - there is no emergency, so why not have broader discussion before damaging the years of work?Tvoz |talk 16:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor has the opportunity to comment on any AFD, so the idea that the precedent established by all of these deletions is the trivial acts of "a small number of editors" is disingenuous at best. Specific reasons have been offered for the deletion of these lists, that they violate specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They can be reviewed for compliance with those policies and no wider community discussion of the list concept is required. Otto4711 16:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT (official policy) says Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely assosiated topics such as .. personas (real or fictional). I would consider this worse than than having a list of names that start with A,B...Z. My resasoning follows that if it cant have a collection of names, then it definately shouldnt have a collection of songs with names. I think this topic is definately interesting, however I think the trivial content is much more suited for a personal website, or a something like a Lyrics Wiki Corpx 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with your logic - lists of names that start with a letter per se likely have no application other than a baby-name book could provide. Lists like we are discussing, however, have value to scholars of popular culture - a widely recognized academic field - in the comparison of names that appear in songs across eras, for example, as indicators of the popularity and longevity of first names. These lists are a valuable resource that shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Tvoz |talk 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars would rely on these lists - a random selection of songs, being far from complete, but without any sound statistical base? They would use this to compare the occurence of names in songs across eras? Good heavens! Where has science gone these days? --B. Wolterding 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think just because people might look up this info, that it should be kept. There are lots of Trivial info that would get hits, but are not here for various reasons. I also fail to see how this would be a reference point since the list would never be complete. (Also, there are no years mentioned for the titles) Corpx 15:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -as per DGG and Patrick1982. A larger community discussion, as suggested by DGG, seems like a much more productive way to go rather than this rapid renomination for deletion. There is no emergency here, and deletion of articles that represent a great deal of work, and have long-standing tenure,and obvioudly do have support from some in the community should not be done lightly or by brute force. Wikipedia is not being hurt by allowing these lists to stand while a reasoned, broader discussion takes place. Tvoz |talk 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With due respect, but in spite of a number of people voting "keep" or even "strong keep", I have not seen a single valid argument here for keeping the articles. The only arguments used (discounting WP:ILIKEIT and similar) are procedural, questioning the validity of the nomination. If you name the arguments which make you support these articles, that will greatly facilitate the discussion. --B. Wolterding 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: listcruft, useless collection of indiscriminate information. --Hetar 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all I fail to see how such a list could be useful to anyone using Wikipedia, other than for people who wish to find songs in which their own name is mentioned. There is no sense in keeping a series of lists that are of little or no use to anyone. Calgary 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Delete Ever!!! This is the epitome of pointless listcruft and an indiscriminate collection of information. Useight 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Whilst I have contributed to these lists during bored moments in the past, I understand that they are not encyclopedic as such and may be out of place on Wikipedia. I would suggest setting up a 'Wikilist' or other such side-project like Wikionary and WikiSpecies. These music lists can be interesting to compile and occasionally useful (eg for a DJ wanting a suggestion for requests for records for people, or for people making mix-tapes) but maybe in another environment.Tony Corsini 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lists are just a collection of unrelated songs unified by having a personal name in the title. Not particularly more encyclopedic than List of songs without the word "the" in the title of some such carving of the universe of song titles. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per above, maybe a category would be more appropriate--JForget 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per DGG and Patrick1982 and Tvoz. Patrick's right, this is a witch-hunt, that keeps going on and on. I disagree with the comment that the fact that a lot of lists have been deleted has "established a pretty clear consensus against this sort of list in the absence of something extraordinary about them". Bullshit! All it establishes is that people who hate lists to begin with keep coming back to play at the AfD park, justifying their personal distaste for such things with the usual (ironically, drawn from a list) of "indiscriminate topics, original research, POV" blah blah blah.
There DOES need to be a community discussion about lists overall. Most people LIKE lists. We find it to be a convenient way to organize information. Almanacs are filled with lists. Encyclopedia articles often have lists. A card catalog in a library is, in effect, a collection of lists. Appendices in the back of a book are lists. Anything that facilitates research is welcome. Very few people think lists are inherently stupid. On the other hand, very few people hang around the Articles for Deletion board. If they happen to access a list during the week it's tagged for deletion, they might join in. Other than that, the only people who are aware that a list is targetted for destruction are those who visit this hellhole every day. Lists are not inherently evil. Some lists, like some articles, need to be deleted. But somewhere along the way, a notion has developed that information organized in a certain order is an insult to your intelligence, or blasphemy in the Wikipediapalian orthodoxy. Wikipedia really needs to put a new commandment into its bible so that we can judge lists by the content of their character, not by the color of their title. Mandsford 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if most people like lists. Some of them violate Wikipedia official policy and hence, should be removed. You can call out the editors who monitor this "hell hole", but deleting articles that violate policy is what keeps this encyclopedic. If you think there needs to be a discussion, feel free to make a proposal to modify the official policy. However, as it stands now, lists like this are clearly in violation of official policy. Corpx 04:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"those who visit this hellhole every day"... says Mandsford, who for the last few weeks has done little else on Wikipedia apart from "visit this hellhole every day". Ever since Mandsford's own stupid article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's get out of here in film lore he has been unable to leave here, and judging by the nasty personal insults he attacked other editors with at that afd he seems to have been deeply offended by the deletion of his crap, and is now on a mission to save other people's crap. Good luck on your mission, and I'm sure I speak for most regulars here by encouraging you to move on from this "hellhole" as soon as possible. And quit the rambling, anecdotal comments in afds, they are irrelevant to the discussion and just plain boring. 172.200.6.248 04:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I'd say something poignant about civility and leave... but you wished me good luck. Thanks 172, you've given me a reason to go on living. It's less of a hellhole now. I'm wondering who you are when you're logged on? (It's nottoo hard to figure out..:) Whoever you are, I like all the regulars on this board, including you. Well, gotta take of my cape, put on my glasses, and go to my regular mundane job. Best wishes. Mandsford 11:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that many people who are in favor of keeping this group of articles are losing sight of why we have lists in the first place. Yes, a list compiles information that can be grouped under a single heading and presents it in a way that is organized and informative. But I fail to see how there is any sense in keeping a list that does not provide concievably relevant information. These lists are not the same as most other song lists. Most other song lists compile information that relates to a specific person or place. At least there you have an argument (people who are intersted in the particular subject may wish to find songs relating to it, which makes it debatable). Lists of song titles that incluse a personal name are not the same, as they do not reference a specific person. If it does not refer to a specific person, a given name is nothing more than a word. As a result, you have 15 songs with the word "Lucy" in the title, all of which are about entirely different people. How is this of any use to anyone? We have lists to make things easier for people, and allow people to easily access the information they are looking for. As such, we make sure that lists are well organized. Yet the articles in this list are only related to one another in that their titles share a specific type of word, and therefore are of little to no use to a reader of Wikipedia. If that's not grounds for deletion of a list, I don't know what is. Calgary 04:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete simply ridiculous. Bulldog123 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia is not paper. Lists allow users to connect information in a myriad of ways. An alphabetical listing (like a category, or list of songs) does not have this information. Let's be real about why these pages exist: They exist because many of us are intrigued to find a list of songs that have our name in it, or perhaps someone wants to make a mix tape for their significant other or child's birthday party, etc... What is the harm? It is no more harmful or unencyclopedic than List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes (one of 14 such lists about Star Trek). Deleting lists like this is a waste of time, and makes Wikipedia a less enjoyable place to visit or participate in. Encyclopedic does not mean "Encyclopedia Brittanica", it means "A comprehensive reference work". We should be broadening the meaning of comprehensive, instead of limiting it. People love Wikipedia because they find information they are looking for. They find information they are looking for because of community effort. To delete the efforts of hundreds of people who contributed to these harmless lists is harmful to the community. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Start Trek episodes has a fixed number of entries and the criteria for inclusion is extremely strict. It is not a list of loosely assosiated topics, which wikipedia is not per WP:NOT (now matter how much more enjoyable that would make the site to users). Corpx 09:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the number of entries matters. Criteria on these pages is clear. I think "loosely" associated would apply to List of songs that begin and end with a vowel. This list is just a way for people to search for songs because there is no other easy method to find them. If there were a single List of songs or category that was complete, you could just search the text for names. But such a list does not exist. "loosely" should be interpreted as "something few people would be looking for". That is not the case with these lists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are "loosely associated" because they do not relate to any concept that is significant for an encyclopedia. They are songs which, by coincidence, share the property that they refer to people's first names. In the context of categories, one would call this a "trivial intersection"; maybe that wording makes it more clear. --B. Wolterding 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a different definition of "loosely associated" than I do. I think it should mean, "information that is not likely to be very useful to others". Encyclopedic has two meanings. We should be emphasizing the meaning which is "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge". A key part of having information is having many ways to access that information. That is one of the main reasons to create lists. These list allow people to access information in a way that is useful to them. That is all that it does, and for that reason I think it is harmless and worth keeping. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There could be no stronger case for WP:NOT. As a general rule, I consider whether an article could be written about the things they're listing. Could any article ever be written called Songs whose title includes personal names? Of course not. The songs are totally unrelated. The list is unmaintainable to boot--how many proper names are there, and how many songs? (Sidenote: I agree that WikiList and WikiTrivia are sorely needed dumping grounds for these sort of things.) Calliopejen1 09:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - characterizing the AFDs of various lists as a "witch hunt" is a monumental failure to assume good faith on the part of those throwing out the accusation. And incidentally it does not address the actual issues raised by the nomination. Otto4711 14:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *Comment - the "witch hunt" statement was not against AFDs in general. It was because a deletion review had already been held for this verry article, and an admin decided to close under "no consensus". And then merely 1 month later, again the "list-haters" start their campain and now suddenly another admin decides to delete. It only proves more the devidedness of the Wiki community... Without a better policy regarding lists, Wiki will loose quite some of it's charm. Lots of eople like lists, it's fact. It bothers me more that there was no will, or intent of good faith, to await the outcome of a debate regarding the lists... Why not use the power of internet? If you have the ability to include, you should not exclude; Wiki is not paper! --Patrick1982 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it does not matter if people like it. If we're going to not exclude everything, we might as well shut down AFD because there wont be any need to delete (exclude) articles. Fortunately, there is official policy on this that dictates against lists of loosely assosiated topics, as this is the posterchild for. Corpx 01:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a matter of fair disclosure, I was the nominator of the previous AFD. The supporters of this list have claimed any number of benefits to its presence. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by policy or the current content. The idea that this list could, for example, demonstrate the "value ... in the comparison of names that appear in songs across eras, for example, as indicators of the popularity and longevity of first names" is implausible with the current state of the list, which has no dates, no context, no information at all except for a long enumeration of songs and their authors, sorted into a novel order. During the previous debate, I forwarded a 6-month timeframe before I would renominate this content for deletion as indescriminate and without context. But as this has been independently nominated, I see no real reason to wait; even were this list reformatted or re-envisioned to allow cross-cultural comparison, or an alternative organizational structure to access information about people, or any of the other ideas raised during this or previous AFDs, it would be a novel synthesis of information. Wikipedia is (within its limits) meant to be comprehensive ... but it is meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. No appropriate sources have been forwarded to show that anyone other than a few editors here has considered this information in this way, and even though some comments here show a distate for the policies involved, "original research" is the opposite of "encyclopedia". Serpent's Choice 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another list of trivia. There is no encyclopaedic notability associated with a song that contains a personal name. GassyGuy 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already voted Strong Keep. Actually, these lists serve a lot of purposes. Having worked in the radio business, I can say it's amazing how many dedications are made on call-in shows to Annie, Daniel, Sherry, Jim, etc., and not all of the songs begin with the name of the person... hence, Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" is not listed under "A" in a Joel Whitburn book. Second, it's scary how many people owe their names to a song that their parents liked... many a girl named Brandi or Brandy was born after Looking Glass did their song about the "fine girl" of that name. Finally, there are few cultural references that one can identify with more personally than a song with their name in the title. So these particular lists are neither ridiculous, nor irrelevant. Mandsford 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this kind of list is not usefull, except that it just doesnt belong on this site, as WP:NOT clearly defines. Corpx 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done...." That being said, I think that one has to force the facts in order to make arguments that this particular list is "non-encylopedic", or that it's "loosely associated topics" or a "an indiscriminate collection of information". An alternative to this useful (and harmless list) is that you would have individual articles for each name, or each song. People often reach this type of "list article" when they are looking at another article, and they click on to the "see also" portion at the bottom of the page. I wish that Wikipedia had a means of showing how many hits a particular article gets... then we would have a true measure of what other people think should stay here, not just what you or I might think. Mandsford 13:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That any particular article is "useful" or "popular" does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia, else we'd have every random list of trivial info (like this) and every random website that a few people enjoy visiting and every game that random gamers play. Why someone hasn't started a Wiki for lists like this is beyond me (or maybe they have and the parties who claim to be interested in maintaining said lists just don't bother with them?) GassyGuy 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:HARMLESS. --B. Wolterding 13:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to get along? Wikipedia has room for articles about Mortal Kombat, Snoopy's siblings, Forgotten Realms and Ray-Ban Wayfarers and this. The whole concept is that people from around the world contribute to the growth of information. A lot of things that some might find interesting, others find boring. Some things some think are important, some find childish. The "wp:"s that get raised as reasons to stomp another person's sand castle are, shall we say, flexible to accomodate anyone's personal point of view. However, if these principles are applied consistently to all subjects, there wouldn't be many articles left. Nobody benefits from mass nominations for a deletion. More tolerance, less zealotry... life will go on. Mandsford 18:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to be getting along fairly well here. No one is being terribly rancorous or nasty. I do need to point out, however, that your argument here is another of those "wp:"s you don't care for, specifically WP:WAX. Otto4711 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but wikipedia is not about the growth of information. You cannot put your ownOriginal Research onto wikipedia. Corpx 04:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mandsford is commenting about the tone of this discussion, but instead about the desire to delete lists like this. I too, think we should be creating a bigger tent, in a sense a place where we can all get along. These lists simply allow people to access information in a way that they find useful. It is not original research to create a list like this, when every entry's reason for being included is self-evident. Nobody would say that any of the entries are original research because a citation is missing that says "Song 'XXX' has 'XXX' in the name of the title." --☑ SamuelWantman 07:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be true that original research is not a problem with these particualr lists, OR tends to abound in lists of this type, especially "lists of X about Y" and "Z in popular culture" lists, where editors frequently rely on their own observations to conclude that X is really about Y or that pop culture item A contains a reference to Z. The problem with this particular set of lists is that they violate WP:NOT#DIR, since they are a collection of items that have nothing in common with one another beyond a coincidence in titling. While a wider discussion on the topic of lists in general may or may not be in order, the conducting of such discussion or failure to do so has no bearing on these lists or on this AFD. Otto4711 12:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR does not apply to lists like this. The one case where lists are ALWAYS a directory is when they are a directory of Wikipedia articles. A main reason (if not the most important reason) we have lists is that they can organize our articles in ways that a category or a search cannot. I will grant you that there is a gray area between those lists that are purely organizational and those where WP:NOT#DIR does apply. AFD is the place to discuss this because precedents often get solidified into guidelines and policy. I would suggest that we be more liberal about lists that organize information in novel ways. There might be some good reasons to delete some lists, and some are mentioned at WP:NOT#DIR. Perhaps we can better define why some of those lists are problematic. What really bothers me in this debate is that it seems that people want to use WP:NOT as a blanket rationale to delete many lists that are harmless, that help build community, add rich alternative ways of accessing information and are useful to many people. I wish we were taking a different tact, one that said, "we should keep lists like this unless there are clear reasons why they are destructive and problematic." I have yet to see how the lists here are destructive and problematic. What nearly everyone is saying is that they are "against the rules". That approach, to my way of looking at it, is much more harmful than these lists, because the approach goes against the spirit of Wikis and the principle of "Ignore all rules". Ignore all rules exists so that we will look at each situation with fresh eyes and not loose sight of the big picture. In this case it would be to look at the situation and say, "we don't really need to extend WP:NOT to lists like these." The other popular sentiment is to say that these lists are "unencyclopedic". I'd say the opposite. It is lists like this that make Wikipedia BETTER than any other encyclopedia. They make it more comprehensive. They offer information that can't be found in other encyclopedia. They help build community. We are not creating the Encyclopedia Brittanica. We are creating something better. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you completely. I agree with the mission statement of Wikipedia form WP:NOT, which states the purpose of wikipedia is "in building a high-quality encyclopedia". An encyclopedia shouldnt be focused on writing articles so that it increases readership. Lists are intented to organize tightly related items, not something as trivial as this. Many of the articles on AFD are not "destructive or problamatic", but they get deleted anyway. I'd guess that less than 5% of AFD nominations fit "destructive or problematic". Its not about whether this list harms the encyclopedia, it is just that it doesnt belong here. I could create a bio page about myself and it wouldnt be destructie or problematic or harmful, but I sure hope that article gets deleted. If WP:NOT doesnt apply to lists like this, then what does it apply to? Corpx 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that "harmless" is sufficient by itself for keeping. If an article or list does not meet our core policies of being verifiable (such as a bio page about yourself) it should be deleted. These pages are obviously verifiable. I agree with most of what WP:NOT says. I just think we should be a little less gung-ho about applying it. Its application should be based on principles, and if the principles are not clear-cut (such as this example) we should err on the side of inclusion. There are many aspects of Wikipedia that expand the notion of what an encyclopedia is. That is to be expected because an on-line encyclopedia does not have the constraints that a printed one has. We should embrace these possibilities. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan assuming arguendo that you, Sam, are correct about NOT#DIR not applying to lists of Wikipedia articles (which, since Wikipedia articles are not simply collections of either internal or external links, I question) such an exception would not apply in this case because the vast majority of songs on these lists do not have Wikipedia articles. "It's harmless" is not a valid keep argument and there is no evidence that these lists help build community. Otto4711 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some have articles and some do not. So? The ones that don't are not external links, so this is not a list of external links. It IS information that people look for. It IS information that many, many people have contributed to. I see nothing wrong with having lists of cast members of TV shows, articles about Pokemon charectors, and all the rest of the pop-culture stuff we have. All of these get different populations of users excited about Wikipedia. Deleting all of these will not strengthen the encyclopedia. The people who worked on these articles are more likely to be pissed off and leave, than decide to write articles about French history. If there is nopressing need to piss them off, why do it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the sister wiki projects exist is because they didnt want that information here. Why not put word definitions here instead of Wikidictionary? People will certainly look them up and it would make it easier for them to find the definition and articles relating to the word. I've had articles deleted that I had contributed to, but I understand that its because those articles have no place here. AFD would be pointless if we're afraid of losing editors because we're deleting content they've contributed to. Corpx 03:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (not surprisingly) with Administrator Wantman. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not a free lunch; there's no subscription fee, no membership charge, and it runs to a large extent on voluntary donations. It's all well and good to vote to delete an article because you believe that it's contrary to the letter of the law of a particular WP. The trouble is that if you start zapping a contribution almost as soon as it comes on board, or if you can't say that it's inappropriate without making sarcastic remarks (I know, pot calling the kettle black, etc.), I think that it violates the spirit of the law, which is that Wikipedia is created by users from all over the world. Look in the upper lefthand corner at that sphere made out of jigsaw puzzle pieces. I respect everyone's wish to be faithful to the principles, but some take it so seriously that they miss the bigger picture... "useful" and "popular" are not dirty words, folks. All of us continue to hone our writing skills, we are each other's peers, and we should look at building the community that we all enjoy being part of. Mandsford 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the above two comments are that the articles nominated here are harmless, useful, interesting, and that a lot of editors have put effort into them? If editors are exciting only about contributing to Wikipedia in ways that are outside the general guidelines, it is best for them to learn early that they would perhaps enjoy themselves more on other Wikimedia wikis or other wikis or websites or blogs or whatever that are more open to the content with which they wish to work. GassyGuy 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurate description of what has happened. These pages and have a long history and survived two previous AFDs. The policies do not explicitly cover this case, they are being extended, through AFDs like this one to cover more and more lists, lists which have long been an accepted part of this project. I am just saying that there is no pressing need to extend the guidelines further, and doing so may be harmful to the larger community. The first paragraph of Wikipedia:Consensus says "every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page)". These pages have survived for YEARS and have THOURSANDS of contributions from HUNDREDS of editors. Three people have nominated the pages for deletion. Twice they failed. This is not a case where one or two people created something inconsequential. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isnt here to accumulate all the content that people might find useful. Its purpose is to build an encyclopedia. We should be pandering to the content of the articles, and not the popularity of the content. If we were pandering to popularity, then might as well put targetted ads on pages. Corpx 03:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS here to accumulate useful content. It is not pandering to allow pages which are not destructive to the project and abide by our most important policies. Nobody is advocating ads in any shape or form. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the five pillars state anything about accumulating "useful content". Five pillars state that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" and also that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.". WP:NOT also prohibits against content that users might find useful like, Dictionary, directory, manual, guidebook, and textbook. Corpx 05:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what I am getting at. As Wikipedia grows -- and becomes a more comprehensive source of knowledge and information with elements of specialized encyclopedias and almanacs -- we will more often confront what many would call "trivia". The problem with "trivia" is that it is rarely considered "trivia" by everyone. "Trivia" is not a helpful concept. A much more effective way of assessing inclusion is to look for utility and popular interest in information. Whatever the informtion, it still must be verifiable, NPOV, etc... etc... I work on List of largest suspension bridges. Some might see this as trivial information, just as I see lists of Star Trek episodes as trivia. Wikipedia IS a trivia collection, it is just that we cannot agree on which parts are trivial. Why fight about which parts to delete when there is no harm in keeping all of it? --☑ SamuelWantman 06:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a List of suspension bridges that contains a personal name, I would also nominate it for deletion. I think that would be trivial. I dont think we should be expanding the inclusion criteria here when WP:NOT prohibits it. Corpx 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in WP:NOT that directly deals with the suitibility of these lists. What I do see is "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference", which I think is close to being on point for supporting these lists. There is also "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy." -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont think songs that contain a name in their title would be a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" ? Also, would you also vote keep if there was an AFD for List of suspension bridges that contains a personal name ?Corpx 06:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "loosely associated" wording at WP:NOT was probably chosen to rationalize the deletion of articles which would have little or no utility and a very mall number of interested users. This is a valid way to judge the suitibilty of new articles, but for old ones, we just have to look at the history page to assess how much interest there is, and there is an obvious utility to these page. I don't see this as "loosely associated". I see it as an alternate organization of information which cannot be easily found any other way. I would vote to keep List of bridges named after people. I can imagine that someone studying history and culture might use such information to study what sort of people are honored this way. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges named after people are bridges named after specific people. This is a list of songs that contains any personal name. Nobody notable/specific is honored by having their "personal name" in the title of a song. This criteria is so loose because it applies to any name and any language of the song. Corpx 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If there was such an AfD I would actually read the arguments provided by the list's supporters before assuming it had no value to the encyclopedia just because it is a list. I would think about whether some kind of harm was being done to the project by keeping it. I would likely vote to keep it as well, for similar reasons as Samuel. And I wouldn't throw around policy acronyms as carelessly as some have done here. As I and others have said here and in previous discussions, scholars of popular culture (not "scientists" as someone above misstated my argument), writers doing research for their books, disc jockeys, film and television producers in need of appropriate selections and others use compilations such as this in their work. We are providing valuable content that Wikipedia is uniquely situated to do. It is far from "useless" or "ridiculous" as a couple of people here have said. Samuel Wantman is quite correct that the assignment of the "trivia" label is totally subjective and therefore not a useful concept to a global encyclopedia that aims to be more than Britannica. We are indeed not a paper encyclopedia - we should not be applying the archaic gatekeeping rules of those paper endeavors who must pick and choose what goes in and what does not because of space issues. The editors of Britannica after 1954 - the gold standard edition - had to throw out material in order to make room for new space age articles, and it is well-known throughout academia that Britannica suffered as a result - many scholars snap up those old 1954 editions (I have two of them), because the newer ones are missing content. Wikipedia does not have to do that - that is one of the things that makes this project great - and if a series of articles, including lists, are accurate, we are fulfilling the mission of being a repository of information. The endless citing of WP:NOT neglects to carefully read it: "indiscriminate" means "not based on careful distinctions". No one has shown how these lists do not make distinctions - they have clear guidelines for what can be included, they are logically displayed, they are accessible and, yes, they are useful. When did the idea of usefulness become the subject of disdain? Do you really think that because the five pillars don't say that usefulness is a virtue, that it is not? I would hope more articles were useful - I see an awful lot of them which seem to me to have no useful application. But that does not mean that they should be deleted just because I fail to find them useful. Someone happily listed a whole bunch of lists above that have been attacked here - I don't think their expulsion is something to be proud of. And I have yet to read a cogent argument for removal of this list that actually addressed the issues that have been raised in support. Why has the idea been ignored of respecting the previous two AfDs and letting this sit, while a community-wide discussion takes place about the larger issues? What harm is this list causing that prompted the renomination so soon after the previous no-consensus determination? Tvoz |talk 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, than take this as an example: [Category:Lists of stars].

It containts list like List of largest stars, List of most luminous stars, List of most massive stars, List of least massive stars, List of brightest stars, etc.
Would nominator and co. also appy the same rules to these lists? may I quote you:

"Very broad list that would be unmaintainable" --> There are trillions of stars, every day new important stars may be discovered. red alert: neverending lists!
"Violates WP:NOT and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. The only thing these [stars] have in common is that they are [large|small|bright|etc]. That's any [..], out of thousands of possible [..], from tens of thousands of possible [..]" --> So delete then, as per your criteria?
"List of Star Trek episodes has a fixed number of entries" --> okay total of stars is not, shall we delete?
"No appropriate sources have been forwarded to show that anyone other than a few editors here has considered this information in this way, and even though some comments here show a distate for the policies involved, "original research" is the opposite of "encyclopedia" --> this claim against Wikipedia:Verifiability is ridicilous. Lists of stars are no problem as they are scientifically verificable? Well maybe, but then only by a limited number of experts (astronomers, etc.). In contrast, a song's title can be understood by anyone, including a 5 year-old kid! Sourcing a song's name isn't needed, it's straightforward.

So as we can see, the criteria that were used for this AfD can also be applied to other lists that are well accepted on Wikipedia, or at least were biased.
I personally think this will be an endlessly debate. The only solution with an clear outcome will be the re-definitioning the meaning of "trival". Remember: it's not just this article, tomorrow it will be about List_X and the day after tomorrow it's List_∞.
(by the way, the above comment was written with some irony in mind, this was intended, so no need to invoke W:AG ;)) --Patrick1982 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I think you're missing a very important point here. The article Star discusses brightness, mass, etc. of stars (no one would doubt this is reasonable), and so a List of most massive stars is an encyclopedical addition to that topic. However, the article Song does not discuss personal names appearing in songs (and, beyond reasonable doubt, it would be nonsense to do so). Thus a list of songs with personal names is not an encyclopedic addition to that topic. It is a list of trivia. --B. Wolterding 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And just because the term "loosely associated" seems to be controversial: The Star article, as said, makes a very tight association between stars and their mass, luminosity, etc. The topics "song" and "person's name" are, in contrast, completely unrelated, and using their intersection as inclusion criteria for a list makes it a list of loosely associated topics. --B. Wolterding 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, once again, we're heading to No Consensus. I hate to think that we're going to have to go through all this next month too. Maybe we can put a moratorium on this until Labor Day? Everyone seems to have strong feelings about this, which is fine. The difference is that if they stay, nobody HAS to look at these articles. If they get deleted, nobody GETS to look at these articles. Question for the nominator-- what type of articles do you find to be well-done? I've looked at your User page, and don't know what you might have created or made major contributions to. But what do you find to be encylopedic? Examples? Mandsford 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus ? while AFD is not a !vote, 19 arguments for delete to 6 for keep (which are largely WP:ILIKEIT) does not seem to suggest that no consensus exists. --Fredrick day 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it looks like we're heading that way.... of course, I can't count that high. Mandsford 01:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but consensus is not about numbers it is about arguments. There is clearly a difference of opinion here. It boils down to a disagreement about what is "trivia" and when should it be removed. Saying that those of us who are defending these pages are just arguing using "I like it" as a reason is not fair. I could just as easily say that everyone else is advocating deletion with the reason "I don't like it". Even if that is all that we are talking about (some of us like it and some don't), I think it should be kept. By the way. I have never visited these pages before the debate, I have not contributed to them, and I won't personally miss them if they are gone. My "like" of these pages has nothing to do with the reasons I am defending them. --☑ SamuelWantman 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be more like List of stars with a personal name (which I would also vote to delete. Also would like to note that stars named after a person and ones that just contain a personal name are not the same) Also, I dont see why my personal preferences on articles should be mentioned in an AFD discussion Corpx 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've made clear your personal opinion about what you don't like. I was just curious about what you do like, but that's entirely up to you. Mandsford 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I dont like this stuff, but I think these kind of stuff violate WP Policy and doesnt belong here. I'll leave you a message on your talk page about my likings! Corpx 04:22, 4 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. Walton^talk 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lande[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Appears not to meet notability criteria in WP:BIO. All references are either advertisements or trivial mentions. I bring this to AFD because the subject was previously proposed for deletion and contested. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Looks like he's most famous for being somebody's son/grandson, but notability isnt inherited. Other than the book he co-wrote with his father, I dont see anything else worth notableCorpx 03:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Corpx; strange google news archive results. John Vandenberg 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM a bit and WP:GOOGLEHITS to some extent

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writing one book does not satisfy WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAPOLICY Andman8 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — doesn't appear to be very notable, but does turn up a few interesting results; however, not sufficiently so to keep it (and there's an apparent whole conflict of interest thing going on). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I'll go with what Jachin uses as far as deletion goes.

"please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

I wouldn't dare venture into WP:Othercrapexists so I'll just say the clean-up template should stay and the article should stay. I'll try and pull out any pov prose and cite more/new sources. Discussing notability is pov in itself as there is no set definition of what is or isn't notable on wikipedia. That's why there are mountains of text guidelines. WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NOT, etc.

I've found using these guidelines and not my preconceived notions or what is and isn't notable I come back to my original argument.

I'll cite WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (People)

First the broad notability

Significant coverage - Co-written two major books published by Random House and National Geographic Books. As well as the author of Bob Hope: America's Entertainer, an awarding winning A&E television documentary.

Sources - random house, Santa Barbara News Press, Ingram, Library Journal, Etc.

Reliability - Has been Editor of Wine Newsletters, articles, television documentaries, e and books and an international Expert on Food and Wine. Trustee of the Bob Hope Foundation which awards millions of dollars every year to worth individuals and causes.

Independent of the Subject - This goes to WP:SPS

it is relevant to their notability;
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

And also to independent third party sources like the April 2006 article about lande in the nob hill gazette and the may 21 Marilyn McMahon "Lande guides you to Best in the World" article in the Santa Barbara News Press. The cigar connoisseur was also written up in the Library Journal and Ingram all reliable substantial print sources.

Onto the specific Wikipedia:Notability (People), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Notability (books)

The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

(The magazine articles, newspaper articles, and editorial reviews as well as his books)

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

(Published Random House and National Geographic Books, well reviewed and highly ranked books on Amazon.) Andman8 15:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP published author Callelinea 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete unless notability can be further demonstrated from third party sources. It is not enough to write two books, even from major publishers. It is necessary for the books to be recognized as significant as shown by non-trivial reviews in reputable third party sources. (& two books is rather low, unless one is a best seller a or wins an award). The video script also is not documented, nor are reviews of it--the King show is where the subject was a guest from the human interest point of view of knowing anecdotes about his grandfather, but that is not encyclopedic notability. DGG 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the community the article now has notable sources from the Washington post to CNN to the San Diego tribune as well as cleaned up prose that no longer reads like an advertisement. The amount and notability of sources of course partly justifies an inclusion in wikipedia coupled with the fact he is of course an author of two major books, time magazine exec, etc. Seeing there is no definitive line in the sand as to what is notable and afd pages are in fact a discussion not a raw vote I see more than enough evidence for inclusion. Andman8 05:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very minor writer with no significant accomplishments, whatever propping up has been done with minor notes in reliables sources and applying of the unwarranted adjective "major" to his two books. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion but it feels suspiciously like WP:JNN Andman8 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently eight quality individual sources independent from Lande himself ranging from national to metropolitan local.

CNN
Nob Hill Gazette
Columbia News
National Geographic Books
The Washington Post
The San Diego Union-Tribune
St. Petersburg Times
Cigarcyclopedia.

Andman8 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide specific citations from these sources? SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Citations? Like

“

pull out a specific piece of the source text

”

and quote it verbatim? Many of the sources are print publications and not from the internet so then do you want page numbers? Andman8 04:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publication names and page numbers and such so that a reasonable person could go find the source and verify your claims would be helpful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 6 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 both individuals and arguments are sharply divided. Those favoring delete stress the "fifteen minutes of fame" provision in WP:BLP. Those favoring keep cite worldwide coverage, and recurrent coverage during the 12 years this case was under appeal, and particularly the controversy on whether the defense attorney failed to properly represent his client because he believed in the man's guilt. Those are, IMO significant issues -- unfortunately the current article spends very little space on them, fails to cite much international coverage, or coverage unrelated to the "joke contest". If such citations were added, this would be a clear keep. I hope that those wishing this article kept will add such citations promptly, and rewrite the article so it does not focus on the "joke contest" but instead on the larger legal issues said to be exemplified by this case. Might be better if moved to an article about the case, rater than one biographical in form, but that is an editorial decision. DES ^(talk) 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Knight[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

He had his 15 minutes of fame for a contest for a good joke to tell at his execution, but he was executed without telling the joke. He's just another commonplace executed Texas inmate. Not notable enough to merit inclusion per WP:Notability. Talmage 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

Delete - I think 15 minutes of fame is about accurate; it's only covered in news stories because it's one of those "hilarious one-off" events. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia like this, and inclusion shows some serious recentism. --Haemo 01:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, hillarious one off events or not, it illustrated to the world a harsh reality that we more than often forget, that is that in 2007 there are first world countries killing people as punishment. This case is noteworthy on multiple grounds not to mention illustrative of contemporary American society. Definitely a keeper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jachin (talk • contribs).
- Comment: Your comment will be taken into consideration, but please do not let your desire to keep or delete be driven by your admittedly strong POV against the death penalty. Talmage 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regarding the comment above, if you want an article about capital punishment in the USA then such articles exist. The death penalty is not, in of itself, unjust in a democracy under the rule of law and if you want that changed then lobby your congressman or stand for office, don't use wikipedia as a soap box. Nick mallory 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing at all notable about this person. He was even incapable of carrying out his expressed intention prior to his execution. Whilst strongly against state-sanctioned execution, I cannot support this article. WWGB 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's interesting to note that all of the above delete requests are based purely on POV / opinion on execution. The man made multi-national news over the past year and a half, as well as was a prime candidate for Amnesty International for leniency in sentence. Further from a jurisprudence point of view the case is exceptionally interesting to law students such as myself because it illustrated a blatent miscarriage of justice based on the fact no attempt at mitigation was made by the defence attorney on the grounds that he 'believed his client to truly be guilty'. Defence attorneys are meant to play devils advocate, regardless of what monster they're representing, so that we all may know that justice has been carried out. In this instance it failed. See 153/07 of Amnesty International's emergency action files for more information in that regards. Either way, this apparent emotive response to deletion of a credible, tangible and informative article is rather unwikipedian. Jachin 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prove that all of the delete opinions are based on a POV opinion on execution. If you are looking at POV, look in the mirror. You are a major contributor of this article. I would suspect that you are a little attached to it. Resolute 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Okay, except he still isn't notable. Is he really that different from the rest of the Texas inmates on death row? I don't think so. He received some attention for his joke contest, but ultimately he didn't even deliver the joke. Like the death penalty or not, he is simply not notable. Merely becoming a news blurb (no matter how widely circulated) doesn't make someone notable, because ultimately he's still just a blurb, nothing more. Had he received around the clock Paris Hilton or Jessie Davis-style coverage, perhaps, but he didn't. Talmage 04:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please keep personal attacks out of it. My contributions emerged when I saw the deletion (check the time stamps), because I figured rather than arbitrarily erasing something from history because it doesn't sit well with a group of people, that perhaps it could be expanded on and it's quality as an article could be improved. And Talmage, I'm not sure how much coverage he recieved in the United States, or in the south which is where your user page indicates you're from (POV anyone), but in Sydney and Australia as a whole he got a heap of media coverage leading up to his execution. I'd recommend google searching his name, et cetera, to establish notability. Just because you don't see the notability of an article, does not mean it's not notable, look at the requirements for notability in wiki policy for example. This entire arbitrary deletion aspect IMHO is mooted by it. Jachin 04:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You should have looked into the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before even nominating this article, the below excerpt provides you with a solution: -

- before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.
- familiarize yourself with the frequently cited guidelines WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:NOT.
- consider adding a tag such as ((cleanup)), ((disputed)) or ((expert-subject)) instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.
- consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.

investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

103,000 gHits say it's notable. Jachin 05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed yalbik 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply citing big numbers is meaningless. See also WP:GHITS. Morgan Wick 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we're getting way off track here. I'm well aware of deletion guidelines, however even if this article is improved drastically, Patrick Knight still isn't notable enough to merit an article. There's no reason to distinguish him from the thousands of others who have been executed. As far as executed criminals go, he just isn't special. Talmage 06:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, that's your opinion and you're well entitled to your opinion. However you should have followed the Wiki policies on the matter instead of immediately AFD'ing the article. Jachin 07:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,⁶ or:

Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
Put the ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a ((subst:dated|notability)) tag.
If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

If appropriate sources cannot be found:

If possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context
If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
Use the ((prod)) tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.
For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.

Delete WP:BLP, which ArbCom has determined applies to the recently dead as well, specifically states that people who are only notable due to brief short-lived press coverage like this should not be covered in their own article. Add to this that the article is horribly POV (judicial killing??) and the vast majority of what is in the article has nothing to do with why he got his 15 minutes of attention on the internet and you have a text book candidate for deletion. MartinDK 07:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's probably because much of the article was plagiarized from Amnesty International's "urgent call to action". Talmage 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLP

Articles about living people notable only for one event

Further information: WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. 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.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.

MartinDK 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're all focusing too much on the 'last words joke' aspect of this mans life and not the criminal trial aspect. The case itself was of more import and notability, IMHO. Jachin 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is notable for his trial then where are the sources? The only reliable sources you have given concerns the internet joke. The rest are unreliable. I am going to remove the Myspace links since Myspace is not a reliable source. WP:N, WP:RS and WP:BLP are official policy, unless you have anything better to offer than blogs and links to marginally reliable sites then the article should be deleted. MartinDK 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Notable. Info about him was published in many countries. --Paukrus 08:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If executed inmates have enough notability to make it on the Recent Deaths list then a page should be made, if not a personal page for an inmate, then an entry on something like "List of executions in the United States".--Theloniouszen 09:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As WP:BLP asserts, covering his death as part of a wider article on the death penalty in the US would be better. Just because he made it on the Recent Deaths list does not mean that there should be a separate article about him per my above arguments. MartinDK 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentAnyone can add anyone else to the list of recent deaths. That does not equate to notability. Resolute 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentIn fact, most of the time, we remove any entry on Recent Deaths that was deemed not notable enough to have an article via AfD. Canadian Paul 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ephemera, pure and simple. Perhaps the case deserves some mention where the history of U.S. executions is mentioned. The only way I'd alter my view is if the case led to significant legal or political change.
Keep. Many other executed criminals have Wikipedia articles. Zerbey 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't keep articles for that reason . MartinDK 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, if his case had reached the Supreme Court, and had brought around some sweeping decision on capital punishment (either way) it might be different, but it did not even get close to that, the Court denied it certiorari. ChrisLamb 14:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not taking a stand for or against the death penalty, and I could care less about the person in the article itself, but in terms of notability, he absolutely passes WP:N. For the people who are trying to cite WP:NOT#NEWS, please read it carefully...it says does not automatically qualify. That means it does not exclude someone because they were in the news for a short period, but rather does not automatically justify someone being included. Furthermore, there is sufficient sources for him to pass notability requirements, and the article should be kept. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was citing WP:BLP which in turn cites WP:NOT#NEWS. What WP:BLP says is that brief press coverage does not in it self warrant an individual article. WP:UNDUE also applies in that regard. I would support merging parts of it (not the blantantly POV parts) into a more general article on capital punishment in the US. There is an ArbCom case about this at the moment, the majority of the arbitrators are favoring a more strict approach towards these biographies based on internet fame. MartinDK 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, if murder victims are notable because their deaths have been covered by multiple reliable sources, then so is he. Passes WP:N easily. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Routine murder victims are also not newsworthy, and sevveral memorial articles or True Crime Reports about them are deleted every week despite being in news reports. A murderer got convicted and executed. This is not a landmark case, and no evidence shows effects on society or culture or the legal system, or which were noted by commentators, playrights, sociologists, beyond simple news coverage. Newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper or a crime blog, and things that are newsworthy, or "water-cooler stories" like the condemned man asking for a good joke to tell as his last words, are of only transitory interest. Edison 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is also NOT a reason for deletion. It's an essay, not policy --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Essays may be cited in deletion debates. Essays become guidelines by this way, because it eventually may show that the essay reflects consensus and practice. There is no formal procedure for an essay becoming a guideline, such as a vote or ratification by some legislative body. It is also not a valid reason for keeping an ephemeral article, as I said. WP:NOT#NEWS is, however policy "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. Additionally, extant articles should not carry daily reports of things such as game summaries of sporting events or musical performances by a band or group unless the events themselves are noteworthy. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews". 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Edison
Delete. The crime and court case had no significant impact; they raised no significant questions, are not addressed in law journals, and had only minimal coverage at the time. Death row convicts have no inherent claim to notability. Thus, the only "claim" to notability is a death-row grandstanding event that didn't actually happen. Media coverage or not, I'm simply unable to see how WP:N can be stretched to include someone known for not telling a joke. Serpent's Choice 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only is this subject not worthy of an article, the attempt to make his case notable is plagiarized from Amnesty International's "urgent call to action". Talmage 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You say he fails notability. Please explain how he fails the 4 criteria of WP:N? --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We have been over this before today but okay. The only source given that does not concern the internet fame part is a link to Amnesty International. That article is neither impartial nor reliable given the clear agenda of Amnesty International in this case. In addition to that you have not been able to provide any further reliable sources as I discussed above. Furthermore WP:BLP supercedes WP:N in this case so notability is not only a matter of satisfying WP:N but also of satisfying WP:BLP in particular the part of it I pasted above. MartinDK 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News just in: Patrick Knight died two days ago. BLP does not apply to him, as his notability (if it amounts to that) stretches for the sixteen years from sentencing to execution, and sources cover him from many angles. I still agree with you regarding WP:NOTNEWS being an important consideration as Edison explains above, and if this article is kept, it would be appropriate to not included the names of the victims, as that is what BLP is for. John Vandenberg 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As seen here ArbCom is divided on this issue. Based on that it is not wrong to say that WP:BLP could be applied to the recently dead. I do, however, agree after thinking some more about this that since we aren't talking about blanking or speedy deletion the main arguments are to be found outside of WP:BLP even if the part that I pasted above sums it up quite nicely. The important thing is that WP:N is not a sufficient condition to keep biographies, that has become increasingly clear over the last few weeks. There are also relatives of the victims, we should not be a memorial where those relatives can see this convicted murderer be defended and immortalized based on a simple internet stunt even if it got substatial media coverage. The murder case, tragic as it was, was not unusual neither was the trial. MartinDK 06:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the copyvio of the amnesty.org report. John Vandenberg 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn person, got what attention is usual for executed murderers- his "joke" idea got a little more attention than usual but not hugely more, still way less than Karla Faye Tucker. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It just seems to me that any debate on AfD pages should pertain to whether or not the article follows standards established as policy, not whether the policy is what you would like it to be. It seems like those debates should take place on the policy page discussions, but that's just my opinion. The other problem is that in the future, these obscure articles will not be maintained very well and are very susceptible to deterioration, vandalism, or false information. Talmage 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not Michael Knight eventually produced a joke is not the only consideration to be given when deciding worthwhile notability. Such a unique and inventive proposal of a Death Row inmate garners sufficient interest. His good faith efforts in receiving "last word submissions" are well documented and easily verifiable. However, my opinion would differ for any future "copycat" inmates with a substantially similar proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.244.6 (talk • contribs)
Keep Deciding on what counts as ephemera does not really have any guidelines yet, so I guess it's being decided by the idontthinkitsimportant/idothinkitsimportant ratio. I think the above anon gives a possible basis for this one--it seems that this is distinctive enough to remain widely known. DGG 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone was executed in Texas? Say it isn't so! Give it a week and nobody will even remember this guy. DreamGuy 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Which is why if this AfD doesn't pass right now, I suspect it would in a few months. This guy just isn't notable, but perhaps the news blurbs will temporarily stay what I suspect will be his eventual Wikipedia execution. Talmage 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This recent story regarding the joke has been well reported, therefore this is notable. If something was notable once, then it remains notable even if it is less well remembered in the future. Notability does not decrease with time. Freakchild 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I disagree with your premise that the story is notable now. My point was that deletion would likely prevail in the future because many of the people recommending that the article remain do so because of recent media blurbs. However Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOT#NEWS). Once the dust settles I believe the AfD request will be seen more objectively since it will be easier to put the subject's relevance into proper perspective. Talmage 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2[edit]

Comment. He (his antic) has certainly received a burst of news reports. Whether the article stays should hinge on whether someone can find reputable sources providing commentary beyond just reporting. My gut feeling says that such sources will exist, but google isn’t providing them for me. --SmokeyJoe 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - High amount of media coverage specifically about this person. --Oakshade 03:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reliable sources to make this a viable article. Capitalistroadster 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For several different reasons - 1: The 'joke' matter - 2: The biased way of the defense which has prompted AI's involvement - 3: entrance into pop culture as subject of a rap song ... if that isn't enough ... Alpine-helmut 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. (JosephASpadaro 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Above I asked for a keep, but I personally would be OK with deletion if there was a paragraph for him detailing the "joke" thing on something like List of Executions in the United States.--Theloniouszen 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure that could be done. The issue here is that he has a separate article. If this was merged into a more general context many of the problems discussed here would not exist. MartinDK 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I read a short news article on his execution and went to Wikipedia for more information. An article about him was present and of decent quality. While Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminant information repository, the article is valid, and it seems to me like people want his article deleted just because he was a murderer and they don't want him to have any 'fame' - not a good enough reason by far to delete the article. yalbik 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'KEEEP THIS STORY BECAME NATIONAL NEWS. just today i was reading on the death penalty and i rememberd hearing about this guy and I came for wiki for more information. I say Keep. Its News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.123.164 (talk • contribs)
- I say read WP:NOT#NEWS. It's policy. MartinDK 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment I'm confused as to how this doesn't merit notability. According to WP:Notability:
      - Significant Coverage - Check.
      - Sources - Check (plenty of external links, I've checked a few and they check out).
      - Reliable - Check.
      - Independent of the Subject - Check (some fail this, but most are OK).
    - Someone please explain to me how this is WP:Notability violation and not people trying to keep a criminal from getting more than his "allotted" 15 minutes of fame. I don't particularly like the idea of keeping articles like this, but can see no encyclopedic reason not to, other than POV, which is not a good reason. yalbik 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Resolute 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you Resolute, my point exactly. yalbik 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe you should actually read the linked section. Morgan Wick 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I do much of my research on the Death Penalty and yet find it difficult to find much information on the cases outside of Wikipedia and news blurbs. What is sometimes covered only in a paragraph elsewhere is frequently covered in depth here.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)— Brian Waterman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, this story is now up to 500 google news hits, and there are at least three news archive results that covered this before the recent "joke" story erupted. John Vandenberg 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hey, since you are supposedly my sockpuppet, why in the world are you voting to keep this article? --Talmage 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm schizophrenic and so are you! :-) John Vandenberg 12:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Knight has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Not only did every major newspaper and television network in the country pick up Knight’s story, but so did newspapers on at least four other continents, meaning it received attention on a global scale. Performing a quick internet search, I turned up coverage in England, Australia, South Africa, and China, among many, many others. Consider that China is often criticized for censorship of the press, and the fact that a short search for Knight coverage turned up in China makes his story’s reach that much more impressive. Furthermore, the story’s reach extended beyond syndicated articles, translating into columns and pop cultural references (rap songs, satire), suggesting it has hit a real nerve. I personally found Knight’s case very compelling, even though I am neither pro- or anti-death penalty. A couple of weeks ago I came to Wikipedia to learn more about Knight and was disappointed when I found nothing, so I am happy an entry has finally been posted. A Knight entry might definitely prove beneficial for various Wikipedia users in the future, on moral, political, social, legal and cultural grounds, wherever they stand on Knight. The entry definitely should be kept, although the point of view could use some work to make it more neutral. Keep!JimS0601 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 2:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)— JimS0601 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Because it would be gay not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.44.129 (talk • contribs)

Is this AFD even legitimate? I do not believe it to be so, at all.[edit]

Considering this isn't a vote, allow me to illustrate my purposes for my initial strong keep vote in more detail. According to WP:Notability this article's subject had significant coverage, plenty of sources, highly reliable at that, and independant of the subject. Thus it clearly meets the notability guidelines. Further I wish to argue that this AFD is moot and invalid on the grounds that NONE of the actions required per the AFD policies were carried out. The article was immediately and arbitrarily added to AFD with no apparent merit. So prima facie, this AFD is flawed, faulted, and should be removed. It is clear from the original AFD reason that this delete request is POV based, and POV fuelled. The case was highly noteworthy, especially to us law students and people interested in jurisprudence, the death penalty, or miscarriages of justice in relation to the mitigation phase of capital crime cases. The article has a crapload of sources. And the AFD was made for the wrong reasons without following a SINGLE AFD GUIDELINE. Why is this matter still being discussed? Jachin 09:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Futile wikilawyering. Also, you may have noticed that you are the only one still debating this. MartinDK 10:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for the Comment flag if this isn't a populus vote. I appreciate what you're saying, however I believe that following Wikipedia policy is NOT wiki 'lawyering', and I'm sure most editors would agree on that one. I'm not the 'only one still debating this' because it hasn't been addressed. And I do believe this IS an open debate. Or am I not allowed to contribute because I have an issue with the legitimacy of this AFD? Jachin 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy was followed. However, there are very few hard rules of Wikipedia. Many guidelines are offered as suggestions, when appropriate. There is no room for lawyering because there are no binding rules. It is you who seems fueled by POV, plagiarizing Amnesty International propaganda as factual content for the article. If you believe every executed murderer whose case is of no legal significance (as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 7-2 refusal to even consider the case) and whose crimes themselves do not merit notability (as opposed to say Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh) then by all means start creating thousands of new articles. Even more disturbing is your accusation on our talk pages that Jayvdb is my sockpuppet simply because we both objected to your blatant POV plagiarism. I know you enjoy flaunting your status as a law student (perhaps a la Essjay), but enough with the wiki-lawyering. Talmage 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy was followed? You mean you put it up for arbitrary deletion, on the grounds that he'd 'had his 15 minutes of fame', your statement is clear and up the top of the page mate. I don't think there's any room for denial of that one. Cases can have merit on various grounds, in this instance it was the lack of mitigation. For capital punishment to go ahead, there must be proof that the person is too great a risk to society even within the confines of a gaol cell. This is taken with a pinch of salt by international jurisprudent observers on the grounds that ten to fifteen years pass on most capital cases where the prisoner committs no further crimes within gaol, and often shows a complete change of personality being taken out of the familiar criminal element of society in which most dwell. Thus, it's interesting to note that unlike other capital cases where there's no need under the legislation to execute the prisoner on the grounds that mitigation has developed over the ten to fifteen years incarceration they're given, this individual was given no grounds for mitigation at all prima facie.

Okay, look. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about the notability of this case from a legal point of view, but I think I'm pretty much talking to a brick wall. You don't want it here because he's 'had his 15 minutes' and 'isn't notable'. I want it here because his case is very notable , and as obiter he pulled mass publicity from his joke contest. Let's agree to disagree and let the rest of the debate continue from other editors.

From a brief overview of the debate so far, it's broken into two parties. The 'Yes it's notable, <paste of notability criterion with confirmation next to it of how it meets the guidelines>.' followed by 'No it's not notable.' with no backing evidence other than opinion. These are finite keystrokes of my keyboard that could be expended on improving other articles rather than dealing with narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing types who're far too set in their way to take a step back and view something impartially. (And yes, I believe all of the above criterion is what grounds you on your view on this matter and binds you to such a narrow scope of understanding of the matter.) Jachin 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you still insist on considering this deletion debate a political matter (something that we do not do here on Wikipedia) and implying that Talmage AfD'ed the article for political reasons I would suggest that you take this to ArbCom instead. Also, dealing with narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing types who're far too set in their way to take a step back and view something impartially. is once again a clear personal attack. You obviously have learned nothing from your previous blocks and warnings (yes, I know how to find them even when you delete them from your talk page). Enough now. Good luck. MartinDK 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ArbCom will take it, if there haven't been any steps in the dispute resolution process followed. Morgan Wick 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, you had one of the best arguments going right up to the point where you made a personal attack. It would have been great if you left that out. Now, it's pretty much going to be ignored just for the "narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing type" comment. Rcrabtree2002 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, and for the following reasons: 1. He views Wikipedia in legalistic terms, when there are very few binding rules. 2. His argument for notability depends on his claim that the trial was significant. It wasn't and this has been demonstrated repeatedly. 3. Claiming the AfD discussion is inappropriate has been debunked since a significant number of people have voted for deletion. Even if the article is kept, a frivolous nomination would not have very many people supporting its deletion. 4. He views my AfD nomination as part of a political agenda, and has accused someone else of being my sockpuppet for removing POV propaganda that he plagiarized from Amnesty International. I would point out however that it was Jachin who was previously blocked for using sockpuppets to consensus stack. Talmage 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current sources (external links) are: 1. A letter from Death Row, by Patrick Knight. 2. Amnesty International, call for urgent action on Patrick Knights case (153/07) 3. Daily Mail, UK, 'Gallows Humour as Death Row inmate wants a joke to be his final statement. 4. Reuters, 'Man set for execution wants to die laughing.' 5. China Daily coverage 6. FoxNews, 'Inmate set for death plans joke as last words' 7. Follow-up coverage 'Executed inmate delivers sober last joke' in The Australian 8. CNN article 9. Alleged 'copy' of Patrick Bryan Knights criminal file 10. In Cold Blog 11. St. Louis Today Columnist's 'I think I need a vacation — and here's the evidence' My quick assessment these sources:

1. primary & self-published 2. Co-temporary, thorough summary of the facts. Lacks commentary, so is a primary source. 3. Newspaper report (primary), generating only two comments (not significant). 4. Newspaper report without commenary 5. Reports of comments by Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons. Notability is implied by the fact that an official spokesperson has made public comment. 6. A simple cotemporary report including comments by the subject himself. 7. Newspaper report without commentary 8. Essential facts and statements by the subject. 9. Primary document 10. Someone’s Blog. Blogs are not normally considered sufficiently reputable a source to demonstrate notability. 11. A commentary piece, ordinarily undeniably a secondary source, but this one makes only passing comment on the subject among several news stories, and the comment is weak and subtle. The coverage given to the subject by this secondary source is small.

The article is well sourced. There doesn’t seem to be an excess of original research. The crux here seems to be WP:N. The controversy section of the article could be seen as demonstrating notability. Unfortunately, the controversy is not properly referenced. The quotes attributed to (supposedly?) important people (victim's rights advocate Andy Kahan; Randall County Sheriff Joel Richardson), if verified, demonstrate some level of notability. The context of the quotes will be important. Were they muttered that afternoon in the pub, or spoken on live TV?

I guess that the execution of Patrick Knight is notable enough for wikipedia, though barely. I think that better evidence of notability, beyond external links #5 and #11, could be found right now. Therefore, I say keep. --SmokeyJoe 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take into account SmokeyJoe that the main bulk of this article has been deleted post AFD mention and is going to have to be written up by another editor at some time. Especially in relation to the trial, which IMHO is the most notable facet of this matter. Jachin 04:42, 5 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 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe and the bassett[edit]

Non-notable, only got back 5 results on Google. Jimmi Hugh 00:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless someone can demonstrate this book is even remotely notable, in which case it would need an extreme revision for quality. Talmage 01:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written as an advertisement, with the contact email on the page Corpx 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty sure that the author of this (both the book and the article) is a certain 11-year-old who as User:Gasilli has been creating other articles about his nonnotable game-creating endeavors today. Gasilli Gaming Studios has already been speedied, and I'm about to tag Colony 105 for the same treatment. After further review, I think my previous conclusion was incorrect, but my opinion remains to delete, as nonnotable and unsourced. Deor 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Non notableness—arf! 07:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable and probably non-notable. 5 ghits.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per above ChrisLamb 13:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax. I don't believe that a book and game for which "Hushpuppies shoes bought a limited licence to distribute a small number of copies with their children's shoes internationally in July 2005" only gets 5 ghits, 4 of them apparently written by the author, and the other a page that coincidentally puts the words of the title next to each other. JulesH 18:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page author just claimed to be book author on talk page, am going to place on speedy for advertisement. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am tempted to just delete it, but let us follow procedure. Clearly not notable, however, under any parameters.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not a hoax and is clearly notable. Please keep this debate free of personal feelings. In order for a company as huge as Hushpuppies to even consider let alone commission is proof of notability. This is not a marketing strategy and I have demonstrated this fact clearly by editing the page to the most basic information. Any additional information will be added incrementally as to avoid problems and/or violation of any wikipedia terms and conditions. Finally, why shouldn't an author post their own work on to wikipedia? It isn't as if other people can't add to the page. Get it into your heads, you are not gods. Whether you delete Joe and the Bassett or not, it will eventually return to wikipedia with notability that noone could dare deny Builder9 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the problem with the article isn't whether the subject is famous or not, it is whether the information is verifiable and whether the subject meets notability guidelines. At the moment it doesn't seem to meet those conditions—arf! 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Hush Puppies have really licensed it, I'm sure you can provide some evidence of this (e.g. a pointer to a press release from the company that discusses their acquisition). Failing that, I'm afraid the entire article is unverifiable original research and as such must be deleted. JulesH 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the thing is, there is plenty of evidence. It's just not all on the internet, and why should it be? Hushpuppies don't even advertise on television, using the internet for sales only. Any one of you could verify the existence of the book by writing to hushpuppies. It is your duty as employees of the Wikipedia company Builder9 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it has to be on the Internet? But, it has to be published. See WP:V which explains the reasons why. BTW: I don't believe any of us editing this debate are employees of Wikimedia. JulesH 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is published work. In 2005 it was used for Hushpuppies shoes children's shoes promotion. Hushpuppies can verify this and they are a reliable source. Builder9 15:42, 29 June 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 Speedily deleted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FRU-federal rouble[edit]

Original research Alex Bakharev 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Looks like the person whose research it is wrote the article himself. Corpx 03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete OR. Dilawar (t) 04:01, 27 June 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 WP:CSD#A7 speedy deleted by TheCoffee. WODUP 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Graziani[edit]

It seems like this band are not very note worthy as I've tried looking them up on google etc and got no hits at all McNoddy 09:02, 27 June 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 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Monihan[edit]

Request for speedy deletion rejected as notability is asserted but there is very little notability asserted. There are no sources cited so as it stands this is Original Research and the article therefore fails WP:V. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an actual skateboarder...--LtWinters 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Morgan Wick 23:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -unless properly verified and notability is made clear. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of people are actual skateboarders, that doesn't mean they rate an encyclopedia article. Looks to be more promotional than attempting to give any reason why anyone would care. DreamGuy 21:48, 27 June 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 03:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affluentization[edit]

This term is non-notable, and only appears in google in wikipedia mirrors, and nowhere in google scholar or isiknowledge databases. Thus I cannot find reliable sources for this article, which at present is not sourced at all. I checked the british spelling "affluentisation" as well- it only appears in an off-site essay written by the originator of this article. Skinwalker 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems made up, but even if it's not, it's certainly not notable. And in addition to that, if it were a fairly notable term, it would still only merit a merge into Social mobility. Calgary 17:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources can be found for the term, other than Wikipedia. I did a web search, and found few original articles on the "topic." If someone actually used this term in a book or something, then maybe the question would be more about its notability than its existence. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced dicdef. Caknuck 02:49, 1 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 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn (MMO)[edit]

No media coverage, no RS that has covered this game. WP:WEB and WP:N. hbdragon88 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having searched for it on a search engine, I agree that it lacks reliable sources. The closest matches are forums.--Kylohk 12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doen't appear to have attained any notability in my searching and the article lacks credible 3rd party sources. --Stormbay 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been deleted before; recreated; proposed for deletion; some user removed the template without improving; and AfD again this time. No reliable source have been established in this period of time.Rockvee 21:53, 30 June 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embourgeoisement[edit]

Dicdef, content has already been transwikied to wiktionary. Skinwalker 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced dicdef. Caknuck 02:49, 1 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. The option of merging the content to George W. Bush or Public perception of George W. Bush was noted in the discussion, but no consensus for a merge emerged. Any attempt to merge the content should consider the length of the target article and the principles stated in the "Undue weight" section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident[edit]

AfDs for this article: First nomination, closed 2007-03-18

An article on someone choking on a pretzel is not an encyclopedic topic. Yes, it was in the news media. The news media reports every time the President says or does anything. If the only question is notability, then we ought to have articles on 2006 Florida Gator football team visits the White House, George W Bush's trip to High School XYZ, or List of people whose hand George W Bush shook at the 2004 State of the Union address. While all of those may be subject matter for WikiNews, Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This was a single event in President Bush's life - to be honest it's an event I had never even heard about until I saw a report about it on BLPN on my watchlist. This event is a news story. It is not an encyclopedia article.

The previous AFD considered only notability. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way. Yes, there were multiple non-trivial news media mentions of it. That is not in question. Nobody doubts that. But not everything notable or newsworthy belongs in an encyclopedia.

Since the first AFD, WP:NOT has been expanded to clarify that Wikipedia isn't the place for news reporting. A mistake was made in the previous AFD - it's time to correct it. BigDT 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Note to closing admin - we seem to have had some canvassing on this RFA Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional canvassing here here here here here here & here — Athaenara ✉ 09:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to closing admin - this is not canvassing. The user contacted people who made their views known in the last discussion on this topic and asked if their views had changed or not, to comment either way. The user in question did not ask those people specifically to vote against the proposal. Please do not disregard the comments of those people who have been notified. JRG 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As JRG points out, the "canvassing" consisted of notifying people who had voted on the first nomination for deletion - they had already voted on the matter, I was just ensuring their voice was still heard and they were aware that "people" were going with the "keep trying till you manage to get it deleted because nobody's paying attention" approach. Nobody was contacted who hadn't already voted on the issue of this article. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you also notified the people who voted for deletion as well, it is canvassing. - Crockspot 19:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) And I just checked, you only notified the keep voters. That is classic canvassing, and dirty pool on your part. Shame on you. - Crockspot 19:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Is this as notable as Jimmy Carter's rabbit? — RJH (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Crockspot 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC) - After looking at it, I would support delete of that article too. It's poorly sourced, and I thought this was proven to be a hoax long ago... could be wrong there. - Crockspot 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit incident wasn't a hoax, I know that for sure. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay and has not weight in arguments. No one would ask a judge to not be able to use existing case law to decide a legal argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - It may be notable, and may be encyclopedic (I'm not making those judgments at this time), but there is no reason that this information needs its own article. If deemed encyclopedic, it should be in the George W. Bush article. There is also the problem of BLP patrol monitoring, since this is not Bush's biography proper, editors refuse to allow the BLP patrol to properly monitor this article by adding the category that we use to monitor such articles. This allows a fork such as this to go on unmonitored by BLPP, which could lead to serious abuse of WP:BLP. - Crockspot 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No historical significance, Wikipedia is not a news source, and not encyclopedic at any level. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge - Per Crockspot above. --Tom 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How much more difficult can it be when there are now over 1K articles that link to Bush. Anyone of them may contain information that violates BLP. The argument is a red herring.
Keep If its covered by multiple independent sources it is as notable as Dick Cheney shooting his best friend. Wikipedians don't bestow notability subjectively, the media does in what is chooses to cover. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- George W Bush's recent trip to Bulgaria was covered by multiple independent sources (see Google News). Why don't we have George W. Bush's trip to Bulgaria? The reason we don't is that it is NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA TOPIC. It is news. It is interesting news. But not everything that makes the newspaper belongs here. --BigDT 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason is that nobody has written it yet. It would clearly be a worthy topic. Everyking 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. — Athaenara ✉ 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's a lot better than that. Everyking 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~/Delete - The incident seems more of a footnote (interesting at that) than a separate article. As such I would merge it into the main article. It has some merit in wondering how a president can get in such condition without attracting more attention. If the merge is not an option, then I believe its significance bears lightly compared to the mountains of information to archive for future generations. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily Wikipedia is not paper, so we don't have to choose between this and "mountains of other information to archive instead". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, without the photo it is merely trivia compared to the other works of the president. I remove my suggest for merge and think deletion is more appropriate. Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting trivia and newsworthy (like most everything else a sitting US President does). However, it's simply not notable enough to merit its own article: maybe a line in another article on Bush, but the incident lacks the enduring significance we ought to expect from an encyclopedic subject. Biruitorul 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply not worth separate coverage. The health of a President is usually covered exhaustively by the press. This does not mean that an individual article on each daily blemish is warranted.DGG 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, we dont even have an article on Eisenhower's heart attack, and that was truly significant. DGG 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to this argument is always the same: OK, you write it. Wikipedia is fundamentally incomplete; you can't base an argument on what other people have neglected to do so far. Everyking 05:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a significant event in the context of, well, anything. --Haemo 11:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for god's sake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mongo, DGG, etc... above. It's mere trivia and not-encyclopedic. Eusebeus 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When a President passes out, hits his head on a coffee table, and requires medical attention, it is more significant than "Visit to High School X." This potentially serious incident which led to bruising has been been written about many times in the last 5 years. It goes beyond a simple news story and has become a meme. The Carter "rabbit attack" is well documented, even from sources in the Carter administration, and there is even a photo of the incident. No reason not to have articles on each. Substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources satisfies WP:N. Edison 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Delete. As an encyclopedia entry, it's merely malicious mischief. — Athaenara ✉ 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Delete the image as well. — Athaenara ✉ 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether or not the article is deleted, the image needs to go. Use of a non-iconic news media photo is blatant copyright infringement. --BigDT 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's very solid ground. The image was uploaded in mid-March. I don't see a tag on it scheduling it for deletion, though. — Athaenara ✉ 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy I7 and notified the user. I see the same user uploaded the Jimmy Carter Rabbit image, which is up for deletion as well. - Crockspot 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call! Oops, uploader removed tag :\ — Athaenara ✉ 06:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it - it's a flagrant copyright violation. See WP:FAIR#Examples_of_unacceptable_use. --BigΔT 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1: With the image gone, this article looks like exactly what it is: a tiny and trivial item. It should be a single referenced line in the George W. Bush article: "In 2002, Bush was mocked for choking on a pretzel…" — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2: The same applies to the rabbit: delete the images (both in a reference cited there) and remove the image in the Jimmy Carter article where that incident is a single referenced line: "During his campaign, Carter was mocked for an encounter with a rabbit…" — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the rabbit article, two of the images are public domain. The third is a fair use image of a news clipping being used for critical commentary about the clipping itself as opposed to being used simply because it happens to illustrate the subject. That use may be good or bad, but it is not flagrant copyright infringement as the photo in this article was. --BigΔT

Understood. My notes 1 & 2 are about the encyclopedia aspect, not copyright. — Athaenara ✉ 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with GWB as it is a notable event.--JForget 23:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add comment this still exist--JForget 23:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it survived its AFD in March by a 19-2 vote to keep. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete, although interesting, the incident doesn't need its own article. Merge to George W. Bush. Jacek Kendysz 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The problem with voting "merge" instead of "keep", is that obviously the editors of George W. Bush are not going to like the idea of adding a sentence, muchless 3 paragraphs of explanation, detail and context, to his article about this "trivial" event - much better to keep it separate in its own article, rather than merge. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I never understand people who claim these articles "attack" the President...as somebody else pointed out, it's pretty much identical to Jimmy Carter's rabbit - something that people are likely to google, and find there is no definitive source on what happened - just a lot of late-night comedy show hosts making wisecracks about. Wikipedia gathering all sources on an event thus provides clear, NPOV details of what did happen. I also challenge the Good Faith of clearly misrepresenting the first nomination for AfD (which failed by a considerable margin) just to make it easier to dismiss - anyone actually reading it will see it is not what User:BigDT has said it is at all, it dealt with the exact same issues this AfD brings up. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attacking" the President has nothing to do with anything. It's a news story and we aren't WikiNews. If this news story is worthy of an encyclopedia article, why not George W Bush's visit to a Bulgarian hospital? --BigΔT 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it is unlikely people will google for details of Bush's visit to a Bulgarian hospital, unless there was some conspiracy theory or "truly bizarre" twist to the story - this on the other hand, attracted a great deal of attention, is still mentioned by television hosts, etc - and like Jimmy Carter's rabbit is the only online source that actually brings together all the known information about the event and encapsulates it for the reader. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what is all of that known information? The man choked on a pretzel, for crying out loud, something that happens to countless people across the world every day. True, this isn't a political attack, it's something far worse. This is tantamount to celebrity gossip. Essentially something incredibly ordinary, albeit slightly embarassing, happened to a famous public figure, so a bunch of people act like it's meaningful. It doesn't matter if it got news coverage, it doesn't matter if people still google it. It's nothing more that a trivialdetail about something that happened to a famous person, and is neither unique to this person, nor does it have a strong bearing on anything Calgary 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much content. It would be better if something like this was included in a broader article about similar scenarios. Perhaps Exploits of George W. Bush? If that's even an article worth creating. MrMurph101 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or an even broader Media mockery of world leaders. — Athaenara ✉ 00:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'm not sure if a merge is at all possible, as I almost suggested in the previous AfD. I stand by what I said then: We're not a news site and this is basically a minor incident without a lasting impact. It's probably an interesting anecdote that, in a couple of decades, Bush keeps rambling about in the retirement home, but it's not encyclopaedia material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One user (Sherurcij) created both articles (rabbit + pretzel) and uploaded most of the images (swimming + clipping + bruises [deleted]) used in them. — Athaenara ✉ 10:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I honestly don't see any encyclopedic value here, and this should at most be a short sentence as part of the GWB article. Algabal 07:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but not opposed to merge -- The newsworthiness of the incident, the fact that it was potentially life-threatening, the extensive press coverage, the weird jokes Bush made about it, the impact on popular culture, all make it a very notable event. BenB4 14:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Doesn't really matter that it made Dubya look like a jackass. If it was just Bush forgetting how to chew his food it wouldn't be notable, but like Jimmy Carter's rabbit it was made notable by the place the incident gained in pop culture, the media response and the spin revolving around it. Elmo 21:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be in wikinews, because its an isolated event. Corpx 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability will only lessen with time and it is not notable now. I see no reason to keep this. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information.--MONGO 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirty years later, people still talk about Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit. Burr isn't known for anything *except* his duel these days...let's not pass judgment on what history will or won't remember. The President of the United States draws reference to it in his speeches, comedians still bring it up incessantly...face it, people are going to be googling to find out what the hell the "straight dope" is on the story. Wikipedia is where they should expect to be able to find the answer. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are specious arguments on the part of the creator of the two incident articles. Even a quick read of the Aaron Burr article reveals the "isn't known for anything *except*" claim is false. If "people are going to be googling" to find the Straight Dope, it's there. If "Wikipedia is where they should expect to be able to find the answer," single well referenced lines in the JCarter and GWBush bios serve that purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - A single line is a waste of an opportunity, when well-documented facts exist about an event. See the Atta in Prague conspiracy theory or Early life of Pope Benedict XVI - now you can rename to "media debacles of..." if you really have a bunch of other issues, but a single line saying "it happened" does'nt really explain context, what the President's own take on it was, the fact it made it into presidential speeches and jokes, that a convicted serial killer claimed the event was part of his defence for murder, etc. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the defining moments of Bush's pretzeldency. The one thing he almost got right.--Perceive 02:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Carter's rabbit also ended in a "keep" vote, as did Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush's pretzel the first time this was nominated. Despite your mother telling you to "Try, try again", changing the wording of your complaint doesn't actually affect whether or not an article deserves to be deleted. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. Everyking 05:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this guy. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Keep - continuing what I said last time, and what I will continue to say. This article has been nominated and kept before, so for goodness' sake, let's cut out the "let's keep nominating this article until it gets deleted" attitude that so many people have here. What has changed? Nothing. This article was kept last time, it is referenced with sources, and provides something interesting and unusual about Bush. Please read the policy Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and note that we can have unusual and weird events on the encyclopedia - WP is not only for the boring and mundane. That's one thing that is positive about Wikipedia and which separates it from other encyclopedias - the fact that it includes unusual articles that no other encyclopedia would cover. It's time to put this nonsense to rest. Keep it or I'll merge it into the main article on Bush. JRG 06:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it reminds me that we almost had democracy restored early, and I smile when I look at the bruise on his face. The mighty leader, almost defeated by a lowly piece of wheat! It was extremely notable for almost killing a sitting president. -N 09:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the argument that other incidents don't have articles is spurious. This is a well-sourced article on a clearly notable event which went significantly beyond the normal reporting on Presidential business. The idea that we'll 'fill wikipedia up' or somehow not be able to have more 'serious' articles is also absurd. The article meets the standards for encyclopaedic content, it is well sourced, and has been shown to be notable. I don't see where the problem is. Wibbble 10:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be silly to include George Bush visits a Bulgarian Hospital because the visit would only be mentioned briefly in the current news & because Bush visits an unmanageably large number of places. The Pretzel incident, however, is different. It has multiple, non-trivial sources over a substantial span of time (2002 to 2007) and, presumably, Bush isn't nearly choking to death on pretzels every day. (Or, at least, we aren't hearing about it.) Jordansc 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And write George Bush visits a Bulgarian Hospital if there are multiple reliable sources with sufficient text to write an article which will be more than a simple expansion of the article title. Wikipedia is not paper. Public activities of notable public figures are notable. `'Miikka 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons provided above by Elmo, User:Sherurcij, and User:Edison. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Trivia collection. WP:NOT This is along the lines of what Kerry ordered for lunch (one weekend it was caviar, the next weekend he didn't want Cheez Whiz on his cheesesteak) during the Presidential campaign.--Tbeatty 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge I agree that this is notable. I'm not sure that having its own article, though, is necessary. But I can't think of a good place to merge it into. It doesn't belong in the main Bush article because it would be adding too much detail to a page that doesn't need it. Public perception of George W. Bush might be a good place. It certainly helped the public perception that Bush is an idiot. And I'm not a fan of people renominating articles they don't like just to see if consensus has changed, so if consensus is keep, can there please be at least a six month moratorium on nominating it again?. Kolindigo 20:47, 3 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 03:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair power tag rugby[edit]

Fails WP:ATT. Looks like a game someone made up and is trying to popularize. There is no reliable third party coverage. All Google hits link back to one article on a Geocities web page. Nv8200p talk 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NFT, and WP:ATT concerns. Possibly WP:COI. Non-notable. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I agree with the above comments on this one. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The age of this game alone (as noted near the bottom of the page) tells against its notability. Nyttend 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all comments above. --Milton 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NFT Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - notability not established EyeSerene^TALK
Delete as per all above comments but mainly because it fails WP:ATT. Elmo 21:01, 30 June 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.