< March 8	March 10 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 10:51Z

Psygarden[edit]

Article which appears to be written like and advertisement. The creator contested it, saying that it's not an ad, but it appears to be written very much like an advertisement.Hondasaregood 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does read like a vanity article. I did tag it with {expand} and {unsourced} in the event anyone can come up with legitimate additions that moves it beyond the realm of non-notability. --Ozgod 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable. NawlinWiki 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of meeting WP:WEB and no sources. Nuttah68 19:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this is not a speedy deletion it does read like an advertisment, failing WP:WEB.Aquasplash 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written in first person suggesting advertisement. Frickeg 01:17, 10 March 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 result was Merge to Matthew Sanchez. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 10:55Z

Matt Sanchez[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. It was deleted under WP:SPEEDY and was then reposted. Mkdw ^talk 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I'm actually the one who put up the speedy tag while on new-page patrol, but then I had second thoughts. At first it looked like a typical smear piece, but then I did some Googling and found out the story was legit. By that time, an admin had dleted the artcle, but I simply backpaged through my browser and re-posted the article with slight modifications. Sanchez is getting some press coverage because of his current status as a Marine corporal and his past as a gay porn star. That press coverage makes him somewhat notable for now. Realkyhick 08:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my vote to Merge with Matthew Sanchez. Didn't know that article existed. Realkyhick 16:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should be kept. First of all hes won a rather notable prize (the Jeane Kirkpatrick Award for Academic Freedom at CPAC). Hes also made quite a few appearances in the mainstream media (at least once on Hannity and Colmes, once on The OReilly Factor, the story of his outing was #1 on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, hes been on Alan Colmes Radio Show, hes published articles in the New York Post and Salon.com and thats just off the top of my head) not to mention now with this outing hes been the subject of major news in the blogosphere, including being featured on Eschaton, DailyKos, Gawker, etc. According to his interview with JoeMyGod he also has a major book release coming up. The incident is also tied into Ann Coulter's "Faggot" comment and now hes been the subject of two major statements of support from Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz. So yeah, he seems way more notable to begin with than Jeff Gannon ever was and essentially had the same thing happen to me, so if we keep Gannon it seems more than likely that we should keep Sanchez. Keep in mind this is all related to his political work. He was also one of the world's top gay porn stars for several years, including working for Kristen Bjorn and other directors and he has a considerably porn filmography. So whatever way you look at it, I think hes notable and the article shouldn't be deleted. -ThongWearer 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, by the way, I also think the article should be merged with the Matthew Sanchez one, it is obviously about the same person. -ThongWearer 01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. The Matt Sanchez story has emerged from the blogosphere into the legitimate media. The facts of his television appearances and his award by a major political group qualify him for inclusion on the grounds of notability. The facts of his careers in the sex industry are also thoroughly germane to his biography - particularly because his filmography alone qualifies him on the grounds of notability. However, the article should be merged with Matthew Sanchez. Malangali 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a merge request to both the articles as per your suggestion. Mkdw ^talk 08:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge with the similar article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article Matthew Sanchez or let it be a disambiguation page (who knows what other notable Matt Sanchez is out there). --Ozgod 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The article fails WP:BIO and meets criteria for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Aquasplash 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I dont think it qualifies for WP:CSD#4. It was erroneously speedy deleted because the person who put up the speedy delete tag did so thinking it was vandalism before he could verify the article. Once he verified he was unable to remove it in time. It was all a mistake. -ThongWearer 01:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matthew Sanchez. Phileas 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matthew Sanchez; seems to be about the same person. Frickeg 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matthew Sanchez, but the name should be at Matt Sanchez, since that is the name he is going by. Corvus cornix 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matthew Sanchez and keep the name "Matthew" unless there's credible evidence of name change.

What do you mean by a "name change"? Where is the credible evidence that he has ever been known as Matthew? news.google.com comes up with 76 hits for "Matt Sanchez" and zero for "Matthew Sanchez". Corvus cornix 03:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge. Clearly passes notability. Italiavivi 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Make sure Rod Majors redirects too. Article here It's Jeff Gannon redux! - FaAfA (yap) 09:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge per above. Moncrief 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge, and redirect. I would suggest using "Matt Sanchez" as the main header, as most of the non-Wikipedia sources used this (he doesn't really go by "Matthew") Note his e-mail address and signed blogs all use "Matt Sanchez". Dont' forget to add a redirect from Rod Majors.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of official record charts[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository of links. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per AnemoneProjectors. FireSpike 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Buf7579 01:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if external links are removed and only internal links remain. Can be useful for finding articles about official record charts for a country. YooChung 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for exactly the same reasons as YooChung, Useful repository if organised correctly. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linkfarm. By the way, what is an "official" record chart? Whoever wrote the article doesn't bother to explain, let alone cite any sources. Otto4711 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as it isn't an indiscriminate list of links; it's one website per country. "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart" is a top indicator of notability on these AfD boards (after the central criterion), so it's a valuable resource for editors. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 04:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes an "official" national record chart? i have never heard that any country keeps any sort of "official" chart for music. Otto4711 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, you make a good point. What qualifies as a national music chart in WP:BAND? "Official" isn't an appropriate word for a list of music charts, and apparently a list of charts exists at Music chart#List of World-wide Charts. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. Maybe Speedy Delete per A3 (consists only of links elswhere). TJ Spyke 05:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a list of links. Philippe Beaudette 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a list of links. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no such thing as an "official" music chart. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Mkdw ^talk 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, article is basically a list of external links. - Anas ^Talk? 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:NOT.-- danntm ^T _C 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already pointed out there is no such thing as an 'official' chart therefore a list of them is OR and POV. Nuttah68 20:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the BBC chart is generally a given as the "official" chart in the UK, being based on record sales rather than anything else. Other countries? .... EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cleanup If the external links are not removed and it is made into a proper list and not displayed like a category, then it would meet the criteria but at the minute it fails Wikipedia is not a place for external links. Aquasplash 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frickeg (talk • contribs) 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – Given the overall low quality of most texts and the unreliability of all texts, finding external links is the only sensible way to use Wikipedia. This may be contrary to its own rules and regulations but conforms to the needs of average users. This list turned out to be of great use for me (that's why I stumbled over it) and beats every quarter-truth of any pop-star article here. 217.224.130.146 10:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that you consider the user provided text in Wikipedia to be of 'low quality' and have high 'unreliability' don't you feel slightly strange taking as reliable quality the links provided by the exact same users? Nuttah68 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. One click and I know about the trustworthiness of an external link. Judgement of text takes much longer. 217.80.96.223 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article, as it exists, conforms to the description of a list of links, and should not stay as it currently exists. However, many articles have appropriate external links, and this easily could be expanded into a genuine article with the external links relegated to the appropriate section of that article. There is a distinction between official and unofficial music charts, by the way, which explanation would be an appropriate inclusion in this article. Fcgier 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.129.108 (talk • contribs).
- Why? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete, A7. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Cabin[edit]

Non-notable Internet radio station of purely local interest; fails WP:WEB notability critera. Speedy nomination was declined, prod was contested. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Plainly fails notability, restored CSD A7 and tagged. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable Internet radio station. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:CSD, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Mkdw ^talk 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it was different form the many other stations that could have articles hen it would be a keep - but it just isn't. Wikipedia shouldnt be used as an advertizing site for samll radio broadcasters. User:ANHL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANHL (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. Renaming can be discussed on the various article talk pages. --Core desat 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of flora (LCRV)[edit]

Series of pages that are nothing more than a bloated image gallery. Circeus 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to serve a similar purpose as a field guide. All of the images appear to be from the linked articles, so hopefully copyright has already been resolved. I think it's fine as per Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia.Chunky Rice 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's encyclopedic information that is genuinely useful. However, it's very region-specific. Could we do better than abbreviate the placename to 'LCRV'? - Richardcavell 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Encylopedic and useful. Similar in discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful both as general encyclopedic reference and as a resource for editors. --Selket ^Talk 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Remember that an encyclopedia is not defined entirely as textual. Mkdw ^talk 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something without the LCRV acronym. --Pak21 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems a good guide that has a place in wikipedia. User:ANHL
Delete Relates only to the Lower Colorado River Valley, the LCRV of the title. It would be useful if it was non-geographic (i.e. covered the world, or at least a continent) and I suspect some of the comments made above may have been made on the basis that that is what it is. Otherwise, to be encyclopaedic, we need the same sets of pages for every conceivable regon in the world, including my back garden! So, it's not a similar discussion to Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems, but it would parallel Gallery of Scout and Guide emblems from the Lower Colorado River Valley.Emeraude 14:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, that would be less useful. There's a reason that field guides are generally region specific. A guide for the entire world would simply not be practical to look through.Chunky Rice 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment But this is not a field guide, it's an encyclopaedia entry. Emeraude 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the same logic aplies. If you're trying to visually identify a plant, sorting by region makes sense.Chunky Rice 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certain sorts of information lend themselves to being presented in a gallery. Pictures of plants for recognition are one of them. The fact that we got a collection of plants from the lower Colorado valley first is not grounds to delete it either. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia, not a collection of region specific field guide. The lack of sources also imply a failure on OR and other aspects of WP:ATT. Nuttah68 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful, encyclopedic information. The argument that it is a select area doesn't stand. It just means we haven't gotten around to creating more pages like that. --Infrangible 02:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems extremely useful, though I second Pak21's suggestion to "rename to something without the LCRV acronym" Tt 225 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but do something about the name. I wish we had many more of these articles. Noroton 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by No Guru. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare (movie 2009)[edit]

Non-notable movie, from a first time producer. Philippe Beaudette 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. — ERcheck (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Even if it's real, fails G11 and so tagged. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per EliminatorJr. Autocracy 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball and possible spam. --Canley 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Otto4711. Until a film is actually released, I really don't think it needs an article. There may be exceptions but they are few. --Pig^man_dialogue 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Otto4711. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six private universities in South Korea[edit]

No objective criteria for including universities in page, nor is it written as a list article. Included source does not mention page title and possible made-up topic (WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT). Content is written in biased manner, and may not be salvageable because of possible non-notability of page title. Similar concerns hold for Template:Six private universities in South Korea. YooChung 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no real evidence that these 6 have any meaningful, objective reason to be stuck together into an article. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of private universities in South Korea. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Choosing six universities for a list that is based on a possible changing criterion, or list membership does not make encyclopedic sense. — ERcheck (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by that? --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Danielr. Big top 01:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The basis for selection appears to be the 2006 JoongAng university evaluation, which appears to be similar to the rankings of U.S. universities by U.S. News and World Report magazine or of Canadian universities by Maclean's magazine. In other words, it is not the author's original research. The term "Ivy League" for some of the most prestigious U.S. universities comes from their football league, which is named the ivy League. --Eastmain 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that it's original research but rather that it may be a made-up topic. Why six in particular? Are the six universities often mentioned as a single group? (Not in my experience, though reliable sources showing me wrong would be welcome.) At least "Ivy League" is a widely used term. YooChung 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of this page is not a list of private universities but rather a description of a very limited selection of private universities ranked highly by the creator (based on sources). It was also renamed from a page that actually included a public university. I think it's better to start List of private universities in South Korea from scratch rather than renaming it from this page, which is woefully inadequate as a list article. YooChung 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per YouChung. Autocracy 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the use of this page. Individual pages for the universities, sure - but what's the rationale for gathering a flexible six? Philippe Beaudette 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment South Korean secondary school curriculum is divided into two specialized course. one is Humanities/Social Science course, and the other is Natural Science course. It is widely known that top six universities in terms of each course are Se-Yon-ko-Se-Sung-Han(acronym for Seoul National, Yonsei, Korea, Sogang, Sungkyunkwan, and Hanyang.) for Humanities/Social Science course, and Se-Ka-Po-Yon-ko-Han(acronym for Seoul National, KAIST, POSTECH, Yonsei, Korea, and Hanyang.)for Natural Science course. I would like to suggest people to try a couple of Korean search engine for this notion and you will find it's prevalent among Internet users and secondary school students.User:Arthurhahn 2:22 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The creator or editors of the article should provide sourcing, then, that there is something in particular about these six. For example, in the article there is the unattributed comment, "these six private universities are claimed to be most famous private universities in Korea in terms of academics and reputation..." This needs to be verified by a reliable source. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research on the page with the claim that it is the most famous six, etc. Also has no basis for selection or criteria. Delete per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Every university has, as it ought, an individual article. If they were part of a formal organization or if the were commonly referred to in sources by a particular name, , then there would be reason for an article. If Arthurhahn can find such a name (or names) then it might justify an article under such a name. Is there one in the Korean WP?DGG 05:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a poorly-named disambiguation page that seems to have arbitrarily chosen 6 schools and hard-coded itself to that number via the title. Even if a list of notable private universities in South Korea were made, it would have a very different format from this article as it currently stands. The articles of the individual schools already have the relevant data. No need to merge or rename. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what makes them so unique and what distinguishes them from other private universities is not indicated in the article. Plus, it is a rather arbitrary and made-up name for the group of universities. I doubt that this is what they are commonly referred to by people and the media. - Anas ^Talk? 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like original synthesis of a kind, no objective selection criteria given that won't change frequently. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strangely-entitled article that would do best to be deleted. The subject probably need covering, but the current approach dosn't look like it will form a good article and deletion would force the editors to take a better approach to the subject; as mentioned before, individual pages perhaps a better idea?

User:ANHL

Delete Perfect example of why we need WP:SCHOOL sorting out. EliminatorJR ^Talk 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator, it does fail WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. Aquasplash 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should been in a category and also included in the South Korea article, if it's not already done.--JForget 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information could be included in articles of separate universities. Frickeg 01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has created a new page SPK-YKH Universities with essentially the same information. I did not add that page to this AfD, but I think that it might be useful to discuss whether that page should exist as well. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piner-Olivet Charter School[edit]

This article has become non-encyclopedic. The page has become a site for original research, students making this their school's webpage. Almost all information, save the bicycle safety, is unreferenced. — ERcheck (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Article fails WP:A policy. Specifically, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." (bold emphasis mine) — ERcheck (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the precedent has been to delete articles about middle schools, anyway. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use improving; isn't hopeless. Noroton 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a rather large article about a rather large and popular school. How the hell am i expected to get "references" for my stuff? There is no GOOD reason to delete this. Can i have some fishy crackers? 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could look around the internet, local newspapers, periodicals, etc. Get the drift? Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy crackers, I've left a list of suggestions at the bottom of the article's talk page, together with a few links. Noroton 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be expanded, and it is a large school, i should know. IT IS A NOTABLE SCHOOL. i'm InvaderSora, not fishy crackers o_075.20.203.150 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Popularity" is not a criterion for inclusion. School size is also not a criterion (220 students is not a particularly large school). Does not meet WP:Verify. — ERcheck (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Noroton, and the fact that it does seem to be a popular school. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school. Popularity has nothing to do with notability (and how are we supposed to see how popular it is anyways?). TJ Spyke 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hate school pages, and if it were up to me, we'd get rid of them. But the criteria so far seems to be "are there enough students that it makes a big splash", and this one meets that requirement. Until I can convince enough people to run willy-nilly through the encyclopedia deleting ALL the school pages. (If you've never run willy-nilly, you really should try it). Philippe Beaudette 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable school that contains much original research. Removing the original research would leave very little content. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The criterion is not number of students. Some very small ones have been kept if there was anything much to say. This is an attempt at a real article, much fuller than yusual, and I would encourage such articles. The list of student leaders will have to be changed from year to year; since the information is of little value outside of the school, I would suggest editing this--and similar school articles--to remove such lists. DGG 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because someone has attempted to create a "real" article. This makes no sense at all. --- RockMFR 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no different from any other school, probably created by pupils, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people mentioned on the page would object to having thier names published; no need to put Wikipedia in a position where it could attract controversy
Merge into a higher-level article or delete it, as this school has no notability from a national (or even state-wide) perspective. It does not appear to pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, nor is it a significant aspect of a larger project (such as a travel guide). It should be merged, along with others, into a higher levels article such as Californian middle schools or List of Californian middle schools. –Gunslinger47 17:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I created this account with my old account, even though I switched accounts. I am an alumni of this school, and when the article started, it was a strong school article, but had no sources about events, etc. Now, this article has been used just for student gossip and rumors between students. Like ERcheck stated, almost all information within this article is unsourced, and it looks like the information will stay unsourced because due to its small size, there are not a lot of reliable information to support the claims made by users and editors of this article. I've tired to fix up this article many times, but it has become pointless, due to constant reverting and the lack of reliable information. I think that this article doesn't help the Wikipedia community at all, and it would help if this article was deleted. Chickyfuzz14 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - Efforts have been made to mentor/guide editors of this article to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy. However, the article continues to grow with non-encyclopedic, blog-like details, without references. It seems to be an open playground for current students. If the article is kept, all unreferenced material should be deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I agree very much, but even if the result is keep, and all the unsourced information was deleted, there would 1. be no article, since there is almost no sourced information and 2. be reverting like crazy, unless the page was protected, but I don't think that is the answer. I know I have, including ERcheck (I think) reverted unsourced information at one point, but the unsourced information just gets reverted again, and again. Chickyfuzz14 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in ways a violation of WP:SCHOOL but if the trivia section, enrichment and teachers section were removed and the break bit made into a sub-section it would be fine.Aquasplash 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:SCHOOL: "A school may be best handled in a separate article if it is the principal subject of multiple reliable independent non-trivial published works. If it is not, then it is likely that sufficient information to expand the article does not yet exist, and any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides." Yeah, according to WP:SCHOOL, this should be merged, since there is only one article about bike riding privileges. –Gunslinger47 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No apparent notability - if Wikipedia had articles for every school it would almost double in size! Frickeg 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of notability. If there is, please provide info on it. JackSparrow Ninja 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Could someone explain to me why it's a big deal that students can ride their bike to school, which seems to make this somewhat notable? JackSparrow Ninja 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bike riding isn't necessarily notable. The bike riding issue had been put into the article by a former student. It the only verifiable information in the article, with the exception of the basic existence of the school. There was only the single reference to this incident. — ERcheck (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I mean... why is bike riding an issue at all? Everyone rides their bike to school... JackSparrow Ninja 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I thought most students took a bus to school. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's an American thing then. In Europe (almost) everyone takes the bike. Making a whole deal out of taking the bike to school just seems really really really odd to me. Ah well. Thanks for clearing that up. JackSparrow Ninja 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a legal issue, actually. If the school is across a busy road, the school is required to provide a bus for the student, even if they live a block away. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is was (I was one of the students that got bike riding approved) was that when POCS was first created, bikes couldn't be rode to school due to a high schooler in Santa Rosa who got killed riding his bike to school the same year the school district was trying to get POCS approved to be built, so the city was all like, "We don't want another kid getting hit, so students can only walk." It still doesn't make sense to me, but w/e. And buses only go to a couple streets in the area, so most kids walk. So yeah, hope that clears up this debate....Chickyfuzz14 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge but this is not a keep vote. If the only reference is to being able to ride a bike to school, then it clearly fails WP:N and WP:SCHOOLS. The directory information needs to be removed, and are breaks and minimums encyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:N. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment- LARGE ARTICLE. lots of googlehits. Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Large article doesn't matter. Content is what matters. A large article can be written bad, just because it is written bad, or has bad spelling/grammer.

2. Do any of those Google hits back up the claims made in this article, or satisfiy WP:N or WP:SCHOOLS?

Chickyfuzz14 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This article is slightly childish, but it deserves to stay. SMBarnZy 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability I can see. --- RockMFR 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable, until proven otherwise. --Keesiewonder ^talk 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- 1) There are two faculty members for 220 students? More than two teachers are mentioned in the text ... ??? 2) Please consider providing a better photograph of the school. There's little to be seen in the current one. Keesiewonder ^talk 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Close. Constantly renominating this article is just gaming the system. Furthermore, the article has been renamed, and the main author has proposed rehousing the pertinent info and getting rid of the article. Let's give him a chance to do just that.

Let me also just point out that the fork article History of the Beatles was an abject failure, so let's not go down that road again. kingboyk 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles' miscellanea[edit]

I like the Beatles as much as the next guy, but this article is a collection of trivia. Some facts are semi-notable, but most are exceedingly trivial. Any Beatles-related information that hasn't (or in some cases has) found a place in another article is included here, with no justification except "the Beatles rock, so we have to mention everything we know about them". Lexicon (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See past AfDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia, no consensus, July 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia/2nd, keep, September 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia (3rd nomination), keep, February 2007

Does the fact that the last keep decision was last month warrant a speedy close? –Pomte 01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ah. Past AfDs should be noted on the talk page of the article to prevent this sort of thing. Lexicon (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "What links here" is your friend. Uncle G 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, and apparently it does show the past AfDs, albeit hidden in a "milestones" section that is by default rolled up. It still needs deleting, though. Lexicon (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#Indiscriminate collection of information; just because something is 100% true, does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. anthonycfc ^[talk] 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a thoroughly indiscriminate collection of information. We have recently deleted similar articles for Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Aerosmith and Rush and this is no better. Otto4711 03:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article with "miscellanea" in its title will by that very fact fall afoul of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE semper fictilis 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into relevant sub-articles. (changed from earlier Keep, changed from Weak Delete) I'm typically in favor of listcruft. The world does not really need List of Dragon Ball Z characters born in March or April with Power Levels over 290. But here, it's the Beatles, likely the single most influential band in Western pop music history (and that's coming from an ardent Frank Zappa fan). Perhaps they're not "bigger than Jesus", but I could wager for "nearly as big". That is to say that, like Christianity, a lot of otherwise unnotable or redundant/pedantic fluff that doesn't exactly require its own article is bumped up a notch in importance due to the impact the Beatles had on life. This list is probably more comprehensive than any single fan site out there, and it's "notable" in the sense that there are probably people interested in it - and more people interested in it than in similar listcruft.

Also, just a random thought - since the entire Beatles article is "only" 62KB long (compare to 93KB for the 9/11 attacks - this may sound flakey, but I think the Beatles are easily as important), has the possibility of breaking The Beatles into seperate "main" sections for each period (say, prehistory / quarrymen years /// fab four / everybody wearing the same outfit years /// studio / psychedelic years /// final let it be years /// solo careers from a Beatles perspective, with the main article summarizing each) been broached? It might allow for the inclusion of several of these miscellanies in the sub-articles. I believe the Beatles to be a lot more important than, say, Dragon Ball Z or even The Simpsons, and I do believe that in this case, inclusiveness wins out over any sense of cruft.

That said, the article is poorly organized, possibly by its very nature, and poorly written, and should be dealt with somehow. I'm bouncing around a lot here, and ultimately my vote is to split the Beatles history up into separate subarticles (if it hasn't already been done - I'll admit I didn't fully scan the current article), and put most, if not all, of the information there. --Action Jackson IV 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about List of Dragon Ball Z characters whose Power Level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!? Hbdragon88 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - All this info is important and should be included on Wikipedia, its just not sorted properly. I think the title is a big reason why its unpopular with other editors - it really implies that it is a collection of trivia. There is a substantial amount of info here that should be incorporated elsewhere. Zzz345zzZ 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - super well cited article. This won't fit on another page, and it's navigationally useful to have it in one place (WP:LIST, WP:SIZE). The citations prove this information is not trivial. - Peregrine Fisher 06:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the citations make this more than just a trivia page. I agree with Action Jackson IV, though -- the editors of The Beatles really should explore a subarticle format (probably easy enough to break out History of the Beatles ...) and work as much of this into the article narratives as possible. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is about as indiscriminate as you can get, which Wikipedia is not. We do not need a "splash page" for other pages; wiki-links and navboxes and that sort already adequeately link readers to other articles. Hbdragon88 06:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A massive and completely undifferentiated grab-bag of info: how well or badly sourced it is is irrelevant. If any of its bits will fit or are appropriate elsewhere, go crazy now, but this mess as a whole needs to go. --Calton | Talk 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as per previous AfD. StuartDouglas 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. --Core desat 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You[edit]

English word -- belongs in dictionary, not encyclopedia. Article is purely dictionary content. Autocracy 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The article is written fairly encyclopedicly (if that's a word), and since you is (pretty much the only time you can say you is correctly in a sentence) such a common word, it might be worthy of an article. On the other hand, single words usually aren't included in wikipedia, rather they are put in wiktionary. I'm not completely sure on this one. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is already covered at Wiktionary. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, as written, is fairly encyclopedic. Antman -- chat 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is fairly encyclopedic and it wouldn't really be a good idea to trash an article that people have put years of work in. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this article has only been around since last month :-) --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, are you sure you looked beyond the first page of the history? Because the earliest listing says this article has been around since February 2004 - over three years! --Canley 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... now I feel like an idiot. I could have sworn that there was only one page last time I checked... or maybe I really am an idiot. Whatever. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article is eligible for deletion if it "can never be other then a dictionary definition". The article as written is already an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Wrong. An article is eligible for deletion if it is a dictionary article, of whatever length, or if it is a stub encyclopaedia article that cannot be expanded, renamed, refactored, or merged into a full encyclopaedia article. The two are quite separate reasons for deletion, and should not be conflated. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Stubs with no possibility for expansion. Uncle G 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reason given by Ron Ritzman. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I'm on the fence with this one. Although it is a definition, which would belong in Wiktionary, it has a lot of encyclopedic content that would not find its way into Wiktionary. Give some more reasons and I'll have another think. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a dicdef, since it includes etymology. Natalie 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Etymology is canonical dictionary article content. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which explains what can be found in dictionary articles. Uncle G 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of great info here. The article has progressed well beyond the limits of a dictionary. It would be a shame to delete it. JKeene 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of information presented in an encyclopedic format. Way more than a dictionary definition. Needs references though, and instances of use such as Time magazine awarding Person of the Year to "You". --Canley 04:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems like well beyond a dictdef, and contains encyclopedic context. I see no problem with it in any way. (|-- UlTiMuS 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Ultimus said. Philippe Beaudette 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just a dicdef.--TBCΦtalk? 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously the 2006 Person of the Year is notable. This needs references but is a decent overview, well beyond a dicdef. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely an encyclopedic article when it goes beyond its definition to origin and uses. Mkdw ^talk 08:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that this is not "purely dictionary content"; it reads more like an encyclopedia article than a dictionary entry, which would contain a lot less information than this article. Were the article an unexpandable dictionary definition, then yes, it should go; however, that is not the case with this article. Kyra_~(talk) 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are conflating unexpandable stub encyclopaedia articles and dictionary articles. Please read the policy that you linked to. It explains how the two are not the same. Dictionary articles don't belong here, whatever length they are (and they can be quite long). Conversely, stub encyclopaedia articles are not dictionary articles, and we delete/refactor/rename/merge unexpandable stub encyclopaedia articles because they are unexpandable stubs, not because they are dictionary articles (which they are not). Uncle G 10:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely encyclopedic. This page goes beyond a dictionary definition and contains extended information that put it well beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. - Anas ^Talk? 10:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic. Everyking 11:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative and encyclopedic. The article is more than a dictionary entry. - Microtony 12:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a long dictionary entry with some not really pertinent material to me. In other words, if it was an 'encyclopedic' article, what would it be about? The second person singular and plural pronoun in English, historical aspects of the usage of singular and plural in English, Plural forms in different European languages, the Time person (not pronoun!) of the year 2006? So transwiki, split, merge, but do not keep as it is. Tikiwont 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bulk of this entry is a padded out dictionary entry (i.e. definitions, pronunciation, etymology). The part about 'thou' is another word entirely (i.e. another dicdef) and the example using thy (=yours) is not about you. Finally, the whole section 'Plural forms in other European languages' in not even about 'you'. Emeraude 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is at least as encyclopedic as our articles on A, B, C, and so forth. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nomination ^SyBer_WoLff 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Word has a history beyond what goes into a dictionary, especially in other languages, a factor which is covered in the later sections of the article. For example the social and cultural differences between the French "vous" and "tu" is information which belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely correct, which is why we have the article T-V distinction and do not need this. As I said, the foreign language parts are not about the word 'you', and without this issue we are left with a dicdef. Emeraude 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. Recury 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's obviously a well-developed article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Despite being a fairly well-written and comprehensive article it does not seem to belong in an encyclopedia. I would agree that it would belong in Wiktionary. Frickeg 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established precedent for other pronouns: She, It (pronoun), They, Them. --Infrangible 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That, a demonstrative pronoun, was transwikied to Wiktionary. She has an entire section about controversy, which goes beyond a dictionary definition and etymology. They and Them have the information in their Wikipedia articles present in their Wiktionary articles. It (pronoun) discusses the word's use in literature and as a rhetorical device, also going beyond a standard dictionary definition. - PoliticalJunkie 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ho, Time Persons of the Year are notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although about a word, it goes into the subject much more deeply than a dictionary entry would. Encyclopedic. -R. S. Shaw 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this and the other pronouns mentioned are a critical part of the English language, and this article goes beyond simple usage and etymology info, explaining its complicated singular/plural relationship with "thou" and such. I'd say it's fairly encyclopedic. Krimpet 04:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - potential for being (and right now, is) more than just a dicdef, not "just a word", and you can find Interesting Sourced Stuff about it easily. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete It is written like a dictionary article. Etymology? Pronounciation? Derived terms? See the No article, which is a disambiguation page with a short definition on top of no. That is what the Yes article should be, unless there is something very encyclopedic. But get rid of the dictionary stuff if it stays. Other than that, DELETE IT!!! -Jimbo Wales (just kidding - A•N•N•Afoxlov e r 14:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The. Basically I think the criteria boils down to whether the discussion of ~~etymology and~~ parallel in other languages justifies an encyclopdiea article. ~~Some of the keep requests here seem persuasive in favor of it, but~~ the "The" article's redirect provides some arguments against. ~~I personally am now hovering around "Neutral."~~ What would be great is if somebody could cite precedent from another "published" encyclopedia. Autocracy 19:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other encyclopedias like Encarta and Britannia don't have "you" articles, but they also don't have "they" or "them" articles. - PoliticalJunkie 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The, the person who redirected the article said "long consensus has established ... [if the article fails] to discuss characteristics such as controversy regarding its use, its rise [in] popular culture, ... [or] their ilk", it is a dictionary entry. This article doesn't touch upon any of those and is just an extended dictionary definition. - PoliticalJunkie 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If a part about Time naming the person of the year "you" were added, I think the article deserves inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an interesting and encyclopedically-written article, but it's still fundamentally and entirely an expanded dictionary entry. It discusses the etymology and history of the word, but unless you want to see similar articles on literally thousands of other words, this should go. As for the Time thing, let's use the following measure: if Time had instead awarded "Person of the Year" to "Time Readers" (which is basically what "You" means in that context), would they get an article of their own?Sarcasticidealist 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't prophesize and say that they would, but they should. A single article called Time readers would do no harm, if it worked from the sources- the article itself and the resulting media coverage. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, actually. Not so good that I'm changing my vote, but good enough that I'm going to have to do some more thinking.Sarcasticidealist 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Up to now I have assumed some of the people mentioning the Time person of the year thing were joking. Since it appears they weren't, I just want to emphasize that the Time thing cannot justify keeping an article named "You" on Wikipedia. The Time piece's usage of the word "you" in its title is just that--usage--and it's a dictionary's job, not an encyclopedia's, to document usage of words. If the Time Person-of-the-year-2006 had to be strictly identified, it would be the public or the online public. That the piece is a commentary on the public's use of the Internet is evident from reading it and the commentary it engendered such as this. It has nothing to do with "you," or you, or me, or Time readers as has been suggested (though the piece was addressed to Time readers). We can write material on Time's person of the year 2006 on Wikipedia, but it wouldn't be at You. Pan Dan 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It's not a typical usage. Moreover, coming up with our own title for Time's selection would border on OR- Time used "You." BTW, this is not to say that Time's choice was a good one. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assume for the sake of argument that the article You did contain information about the Time 2006 Person of the Year write-up and reaction to it. Then that would be appropriate Wikipedia content, and the right course of action per WP:WINAD would be to transwiki and remove the rest of the content--about the meaning, usage, and etymology of "you"--and to insert a ((wiktionarypar)) tag. The important point I should have focused on in my previous comment is that the Time 2006 Person of the Year content has nothing to do with the Wiktionary material about "you," just as Time's 2000 Person of the Year (Bush) has nothing to do with the etymology of the name Bush. (BTW, on OR, I wasn't suggesting that we report in Wikipedia article space that "the online public" is Time's 2006 Person of the Year. I agree, that would be OR unless sources outside of Wikipedia have said it.) Pan Dan 22:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say an appropriate title for the person of the year would be something like You (Time's 2006 Person of the Year), analogous to You (Radiohead song) etc. This is disambiguation and not OR. Actually You (disambiguation) has an entry for the person which does not lead to You at all. --Tikiwont 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article through grammatical articles like Grammatical person, looking for information I finally found under Generic you, through this article's links. Could You be beefed up by conflating Generic you and any other similar grammatical articles? Wikipedia's grammar articles are very helpful, and losing this one would likely make chains of inquiry like mine (searched for "Second person" --> "Grammatical Person" --> "You" --> "Generic You") more difficult. LaPrecieuse 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and due rewrite Clearly a notable topic and could be written in a scholarly manner, but this version is bad. It needs more sources and then it could be an encyclopediac article.--Sefringle 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep By all means, clean the page up; but don't delete it. Acalamari 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Stratford[edit]

Nom - obvious hoax from a new user. Hoaxes, however, don't qualify for speedy deletes since truth is often funnier than fiction. This might be a good candidate for WP:SNOW. Rklawton 02:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete some hoaxes do, however, qualify as patent nonsense, like this one and so tagged as A7. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, WP:CSD is a wee bit contradictory on that one. SNOW should qualify under A7. Thanks for pointing that out. Rklawton 02:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Only because this is too funny just to flat-out delete. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Rklawton 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This is too funny though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Autism (incidence). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:00Z

Frequency of autism[edit]

This project page was nominated for deletion on 5 April 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I am nominating this article for deletion mainly due to the fact that the title is misleading, but also due to the fact that the information is readily available in better-labelled articles, namely Autism (incidence), Causes of autism, Controversies in autism, and Vaccine controversy.

The title "Frequency of autism" would imply that the article is about just that, but sadly it reads like a soapbox for the "Autism Epidemic" and vaccination controversy movement (See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox). I have attempted to make good faith edits, and to discuss problems, but certain authors refuse to enter into discussion, and simply revert my every edit - to the point of even removing my npov tags.

So after much thought, and many months of trying, I am nominating the article for deletion on the grounds of:

duplication
mis-representation
being a soapbox

aLii 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be relatively well written, and sourced, article. I think perhaps further discussion may be helpful, rather deleting such a body of information. Cloveoil 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has been tried. For a whole year. There isn't a problem with sources, but with POV editing and everything described above. The information can also be found spread across the articles listed above, where it is in a much more relevent place. aLii 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - very soapboxy, or, at best, misguided. It almost seems as if the article text is written for a phantom article called Autism Epidemic, which would be highly dubious - it's an epidemic in that more cases are being reported, but there's a growing trend in psychiatry to diagnose something - anything, and one man's autistic child is another man's eccentric savant. --Action Jackson IV 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Colin' comment below - as you suspected, apparently this article was in fact created to sidestep the deletion of an article entitled "Autism epidemic". MastCell 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(later interjection) Actually it was a renaming, which Ombudsman refuses even now to accept, rather than a creation. Midgley 23:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you sought to verify your facts. Make sure you get it straight, this AfD is about the the two year old article that was originally Autism epidemic. This original article has an intact edit history. The pov fork Autism (incidence) article has a much shorter history, and it is not the only article to have been hijacked to a far less visible page. Yes, there was a different pov fork version created in an abuse of process by user:Midgley, that was part of the backdrop to the earlier AfD fiasco about this, the original autism epidemic article. Midgley was reprimanded for creating a sock puppet for The Invisible Anon, Essjay was being disruptive in removing a complaint about Midgley, and abusive in blocking the wrong editor. Please see comment below about the Essjay controversy. Essjay actively aided with the creator of the pov fork, after a much deserved complaint was leveled against the creator of the pov fork The article in question here and now was original autism epidemic article, not the pov fork created by user:Midgley, his Autism (incidence) article with the much shorter edit history was indeed created in tandem with the old AfD linked above, during which the article in questin here was also subjected to, simultaneously a) a name change, despite not having a consensus on an alternative title b) the AfD attempt one year ago, which was fraught with gamesmanship, c) a daughter pov fork article created by an editor affiliated with the National Health Service (NHS), which is in the middle of many debates over the mushrooming autism epidemic crisis (the pov fork is now poised, a year later, to subsume the parent article), and d) meddling by user:Essjay that benefitted User:Midgley, an NHS editor who was also engaged in sockpuppetry in the very same time frame. Thanks for making sure that was brought up, because no one could even find this article because the name is wrong, which is the real question at hand). In a gross abuse of process, the article and edit history is preserved in accordance with what Jonathan's Law will soon make law. The article and edit history was shoved to the current page title without reasonable discussion, and the talk page has remained attached to the autism epidemic page. The original article has come under withering attack, due to mistaken notions like the one you have set forth, MastCell. Sadly, it's not surprising that this AfD has gained momentum from a single editor with a gust of shuffled paper (with rich overtones reminiscent of Flowers for Algernon), in the way the Wiki is turning prostrate to the lockstep paper shufflers. The Wiki has already developed a bias atuned much too strictly, almost as if transfixed, to the likes of the JVCI/NHS and the ACIP/CDC) -- in tandem with simultaneous gross misrepresentations . The Framing effect article resulted directly as a result of misrepresentations associated with Midgley, JFDWolff, and the NHS, apparently inserted with the deliberate intent to inflame, e.g., the pov fork author's hijacking of the npov vaccination critics page, which morphed into the pov ridden anti-vaccinationists, a title intended to inflame, rather than contribute to informed consent for the parents, guardians, and children affliected by autism --- another issue, pejorative article titles, that is clearly meant to undermine, by editors apparently bent on sending the page edit history down the old memory hole. Hopefully, the disgrace of this AfD fiasco is not indicative of Wikipedia's possible deliberate non-complance with New York's Jonathan's Law. Ombudsman 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... AfD, like Wikipedia in general, is not a soapbox. If I was sure I understood what you're getting at with Jonathan's Law, I'd suggest you don't make legal threats, either. MastCell 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not respond by trying to confuse distinct issues. If you intend to distract attention away from the facts in the matter, that is what your earlier comment will do, just as Midgley's explanation about different clock settings had nothing to do with the discussion about the impropriety of his creation of a pov fork at the time of the first AfD. Please stick to the facts, rather than speculating about the huge number of new laws going into effect besides Jonathan's Law, such as the Combating Autism Act. Ombudsman 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one issue to be discussed here, and it has nothing to do with Essjay, Jonathan's Law, or the NHS. It's this: does this article meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for inclusion? Right now, as a POV fork/duplication from autism (incidence), created to game the system after the deletion of autism epidemic, it looks like it should be deleted. MastCell 04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to discuss pov forking, then you should acknowledge which article was created during the middle of the last AfD fiasco, by a known puppeteer and associate of the National Health Service. That is dubious enough, in and of itself. During the same time frame, Midgley impersonated The Invisible Anon, who clearly was the subject of a wide ranging assault by a number of editors, including user:Essjay, over articles related to the vaccine controversy and controversies in autism. These systematic divide and conquer activities most certainly are directly related both to the autism epidemic article, and to the author of the pov fork, Midgley. You should show and understanding of who perpetrated the pov fork, and about the circumstances surrounding the assistance that Essjay gave to the pov fork creator. Ombudsman 05:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep' the first part, and rename to prevalence of autism, which is the correct term, and the term used in the article. The second part--about causes--is already discussed in other articles and anything additional here should be merged in. Same for the excellent list of references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Some useful info but very soapboxy and a lot of original research. Merge the useful info and delete the rest. Chevinki 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. The deletion of this article would be greater loss than the repeated nature of some of its information. Mkdw ^talk 08:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Folantin 10:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - an essay masquerading as an encyclopedia article, we are not a soapbox. Largely original research and synthesis, and inadequately referenced anyway. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into Autism (incidence) and Causes of autism if not already done and argue about the content and sources in those two articles. This piece of journalism was originally Autism epidemic, which was nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism epidemic). During that discussion (and without waiting for it to complete), Autism (incidence) was created with some of the content. That was hasty and aggravated things but lets get over it. Can we ignore who created what, when and why? "Frequency" is not the technical term used in epidemiology, so this article's name is inferior IMO. BTW, Autism epidemic is now a redirect being discussed here. Colin°^Talk 12:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Autism Al-Bargit 13:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with autism (incidence) - not because of POV, which is theoretically fixable via dispute resolution, but because it's a content fork; autism incidence means virtually the same thing and already has an article. Relevant content from this article should be merged, and this article should be deleted to prevent duplication/forking. MastCell 17:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge as per Colin. 'Frequency' of autism is the same as incidence of autism while being less scientific language, and the Autism (incidence) article seems to be more factual. This current one seems to be uncomfortable with any evidence against the controversial link with vaccines, and keeps using the discredited Dr. Wakefield as a source. -- Mithent 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep & restore to original autism epidemic page: Although there is a belief among some who remain in denial about the autism epidemic, the reality is that schools and governments and especially families are already dealing with the enormous impact that has materialized already. The Wiki will only invite more derision if this article is deleted, along with the history of abuse and trolling chronicled on the history pages. Until the discussion about the title of this article is resolved in the wake of the out-of-process 'autism (incidence)' pov fork debacle, the propriety of this AfD is absolutely nil. In the wake of the Essjay controversy, it is clear that the edit history of the original autism epidemic article must be retained and available. This is especially true since Essjay provoked and harassed another editor (an anon who called himself The Invisible Anon), who tried to intervene in order to counter the censorship and WikiTurfing (by editors apparently from the National Health Service) that escalated over the vaccine and autism articles a year ago. (bogus revert of good faith Admin noticeboard post[1]; disruptive block[2]; etc., [3]; sweeping the matter under the rug: [4], followed by edits evidencing complete disregard for accepting responsibility) The pharmaceutical industry has been bracing for the fallout at least since the cloaked and secretive 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference. Merging to pov fork page, created by an alleged NHS employee apparently to skirt accepted due process at the time of the first AfD, would only serve to reward such abuse of process. Hundreds of citations confirming the sudden and sharp explosion in cases of autism and pervasive developmental orders can easily be found, while researchers not blinded by pharmaceutical industry talking points, like Mark Geier, David Ayoub and Andrew Wakefield, have slowly but surely chipped away at the sort of fraudulent research[5] that has been cranked out on behalf of the drug industry to buttress the disinformation campaigns and obfuscation exemplified by this AfD. One thing that should be added to the article is an examination of the rapid increase in the amount of media coverage (links to come) and governmental hearings[6] (e.g., Jonathan's Law; more links to come) about the autism epidemic. Ombudsman 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ombudsman, you have been given almost a year to clear up this horrible POV mess of an article, but have failed. The only "advance" has been in the renaming, but in some respects that has simply made the article even worse, as the prose is still about the "autism epidemic", rather than being truely about the new title of the article. As far as I'm concerned I hope that the end result is locking both this and Autism epidemic as redirect pages, so that this farce of the past few years can hopefully be halted. There is a place for your controversal ideas on Wikipedia, but the way you push them is far from ideal. aLii 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe rename to autism conspiracy theories? Seriously, did Essjay trade on his supposed theology degree in the debate? If not, I don't see what the Essjay controversy has to do with it. I'm not a regular editor of autism articles, but it appears from a glance that consensus is currently against you. MastCell 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, MastCell, this is not a vote, an AfD by its very nature is supposed to be a call for a voice of reason, not a call for absent minded forgetfulness about the serial abuse of processes whereby the pov fork article created by an editor whose antics deserved the complaint that user:Essjay removed. Then Essjay blocked the anon that user:Midgley created and abused a sockpupet of. If you look through the conversation strewn about Essjay's parsed talk pages, you will find that Essjay immediately archived his page when confronted about his abusive block on the anon sockpuppeted by Midgley. Ombudsman 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't dispute resolution, so let's not use it to rehash your complaints against Essjay and Midgley. MastCell 04:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this happens to be is a discussion that involves abuse of process, and you seem to be avoiding discussion of the abuse of process that led up to the damage caused to the article by allowing a page name change despite a failed AfD. The original AfD failed, but that decision was in effect ignored, while serious discussion about the page name was undermined because of the bogus name change that violated the propriety of the AfD process. Please don't make any more inappropriate misreprestations about the nature of the discussion here. It is about the abuse of process, exemplified by the fact that the page was shoved into purgatory out of process, despite a complete lack of consensus about if, much less where, the page should be moved. Now you appear to be doing the same misleading thing, distracting attention from the facts of the matter. Ombudsman 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obudsman, why don't you forget about conspiracy theories and start thinking about coming up with a good reason that your article should be saved? I have nothing to do with either of the editors you seem to have issues with, and it was I that nominated your article for deletion. For the record I also have nothing to do with the NHS or medicine in any way, so your theories just don't hold up.

Whichever article out of Frequency of autism and Autism (incidence) was created first is quite irrelevent if they've both been stable for a year or so. The "Frequency" article has huge POV, and doesn't address it's subject properly. The "Incidence" article doesn't mention vaccinations, but has no POV problems unless your personal POV is truely twisted. One of your "vaccination is bad" friends put the npov tag on the "Incidence" article last month, but has failed to come up with a single reason as to why he thought so. I haven't seen one from you either, yet you constantly say it has problems. If you honestly believe that your issues with the article will hold up, why don't you attempt to nominate that article for a deletion debate?

I repeat that you've had almost a year to clean your article up. I suggest that you start working on it now to remove it's soapbox style and "vaccination is bad" POV. I've done it a few times, so you can go through the edit history and revert yourself back to my edit - shouldn't be too hard. aLii 09:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to autism (incidence) , as the salvageable material looks like it was lifted from that article anyway (or maybe the other way around) (duplication per nom), and the rest is just soapboxy nonsense (soapbox and misreprentation per nom). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to autism (incidence), no merge. Just a platform for vaccine junk science. Rhobite 06:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. No merge. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Heavily duplicates better written less-POV material elsewhere. --Limegreen 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to main entry Largely unproven theories (particularly controversial) need to be minimized in wiki-landDroliver 20:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to autism (incidence). Looks like a soapbox and even if not, it's redundant in view of the article dedicated to incidence. Tt 225 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge to autism (incidence) and focus the article, especially by removing detail about vaccinations and other terms which properly belong in an article on causes of autism. The search term autism epidemic also redirects to autism (incidence), which is ostensibly what this article is supposed to be about. Irene Ringworm 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: There is a distinct difference between the issues of what causes autism in specific instances, which is what the article you mention is about, and the causes for the explosion of cases to the tens of million globally. This is not a subtle distinction, though the issue is clouded by half truth statements like yours. Ombudsman 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I sort of agree with CloveOil. Q0 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to CloveOil then (just written). aLii 09:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Block Ombudsman for violating the terms of his probation - disrupting a page on a medical topic by tendentious editing. Don't merge Ombudsman's autism epidemic soapbox with autism (incidence) please, all the facts in the former page (and probably still some non-facts, alas) were demerged or shelled out into autism incidence, then it was restricted (largely, but not completely, yet) to information about incidence, which is distinct from prevalence, both of which are interesting, and neither of which is even clearly known, never mind agreed upon. Frequency is not quite a topic - it isn't clear what it means - whether prevalence, incidence or something else (the latter, I think, in realistic terms for that page). I find it curious that anyone describes the autism frequency page as "well written", it isn't, it isn't encyclopaedic and much of it fails even to be grammatical. Ombudsman introduces, above, a lot of irrelevancies, as he does all over the shop, but the anonymous user who refused to register the username he presented himself as was a real nuisance here and elsewhere, who departed in the middle of an RFC upon him which he blustered greatly about but in that instance proper WP procedure worked well. Ombudsman probably means by "a much deserved complaint (against me)" an AFD on a page I wrote, which ended in a consensus to keep the article, after considerable unpleasantness but very little information and less relevance from ... the usual suspects. Ditch this, its time has passed and nothing will be lost. Midgley 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ombudsman. Retract the lie - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOmbudsman&diff=114947180&oldid=114939235 Midgley 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the nexus of the problems arises here, wherein legitimate content is all too often allowed to be replaced with misrepresentative material. Replacing the vaccine critics page with an article with an anachronistic term that was more apt before the advent of useful vaccines, such as the later versions of the polio vaccine, clearly shows a propensity within the Wiki's medical articles for, pov misrepresentations that are inherently pejorative. Regardless of the process, a legitimate article title was replaced with a pejoratively titled, pov misrepresentation that only serves to replicate as spam the pov of the medical establishment. That is fact. Your mistaken accusation is inflammatory and untrue, so you are the one, Midgley, in need of making a retraction. Don't feel alone, as even Fred Bauder has engaged in such lamentable framing effect misrepresentations.[7] Nice try at distracting attention from the pattern of pov hegemony consolidation in the Wiki's medical articles, but the focus here is on the propriety of merging a venerable article and its edit history into the memory hole, which came to a head after autism epidemic was recently redirected, away from the original article that directly addresses the topic to the pov fork you created. Much as you created an an article to replace the vaccine critics article with a clearly pejorative titled article Ombudsman 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to autism (incidence). WP is not the place for the promotion of fringe science propaganda. Rockpocket 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekspreso[edit]

Interlanguage links notwithstanding, this Interlingua derivative isn't even been given a comprehensive overview somewhere, or even an outline of a grammar, to speak nothing of the claim of notability. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability, nor do searches for "ekspreso" seem to produce much. semper fictilis 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT a dictionary. Seems like WP:OR and possibly WP:NEO. Mkdw ^talk 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notablility and no sources, nor any obvious sources available. Nuttah68 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; lack of indication of number of speakers is telling. Frickeg 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a google search for Ekspreso and found more than 50,000 entries in several diverse languages, including articles in at least five different Wikipedias, [www.cafepress.com/ekspreso/ this site] where clothing and other Ekspreso merchandise is sold, and a translation at the Babel site.

The article is simply a description of the language, I honestly don't know how it could be considered original research (OR). I'm familiar enough with Ekspreso to know that the name is not a neologism (NEO). I've known about Ekspreso for years, and it is a genuine auxiliary language that has been seriously discussed on several newsgroups. Is it well constructed - see for example the Babel text - and is better known than many other auxiliary languages. The number of speakers is unknown and probably small, but that's also true of Latino sine Flexione and Occidental, two important auxiliary languages.

As to notability, Ekspreso is the only language I know of that was designed for people in a hurry. It is also one of the few Interlingua derivatives. This can be clarified in the article. Regarding sources, the third external link is obviously the source of much of the article. It doesn't contain a comprehensive description, but it does briefly describe the language. In any case, Wikipedia policy is that unsourced articles should be sourced, not deleted. Finally, there may very well be comprehensive information available offline or in one of the many websites I found.

A note of caution - right now, the main Interlingua article contains quite a bit of misleading and incorrect information. For example, Interlingua isn't a constructed or designed language, as Alexander Gode's Manifesto de Interlingua makes clear. If you read the article, please be cautious, and back up your reading with more reliable sources. Matt 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be several constructed languages with the name Ekspreso, or some variant of the spelling. I remember seeing one mentioned in Mario Pei's One Language for the World, which I have lying about here somewhere. Since the Pei book appeared in the late 1950s, it is unlikely to refer to a conlang made in 1996. The name is not all that original. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montego DDL Control Panel[edit]

There's no article for the Turtle Beach Montego DDL sound card, but there's an article about its control panel? I'd say merge, but there's nothing to merge with yet, so by itself it's not notable enough (as with almost any other HW control panel application) for a Wikipedia article. --Vossanova ^o< 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. I'd say speedy merge but I'm not sure that's a proper response. --Selket ^Talk 18:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't actually say merge, I said there was nothing to merge with. If someone wants to write a Montego DDL article, go for it and then merge this, but until then.. merge it with what? --Vossanova ^o< 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Montego DDL and rewrite accordingly, although I'm not sure the sound card itself is notable anyway. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the card itself isn't notable enough for it's own article -- it's just another sound card. -- Mikeblas 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this fails WP:SOFTWARE -- Whpq 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mikeblas and Whpq Tt 225 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Mark Middle School[edit]

Delete. There is nothing about this school that indicates notability. I doubt that much more could be added than what is already there. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Deletion nomination was made the same day the article was created. Very bad form. Give the creator time. Noroton 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid speedy keep. --Iamunknown 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the article was created doesn't mean anything, the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save. The school does not assert notability (so possibly speedy delete). TJ Spyke 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that "the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save". If that exists as a rule, guideline or even a suggestion somewhere, please point it out. Noroton 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia has a thing called a stub, yes?AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Noroton and TJ Spyke: In fact, the second paragraph at the criteria for speedy deletion specifically says "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." This isn't a speedy deletion nomination, but it was nominated for deletion pretty speedily . . . . Also, before nominating a recently created article, we are asked to "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." Those are the only policies of which I'm aware that discuss whether "the author is supposed to make sure the article is good enough to keep before they hit save."—Carolfrog 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is whether it is likely that the article can be improved. As there is essentially nothing there, and no references, there is no way we can tell. I think a friendly note such as Noroton send to a school yesterday is the way. (The practical reason for deleting these as they come in is that this is the time when they are noticed, and probably the only time. Probably we would do well to have some more rational but complicated sorting method, but at least for schools, we dont.) DGG 06:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Give me a break. This happened on several articles that I created. Within minutes, there were AFD templates slapped up, no discussion regarding it or whatever. Of course, I would continue to add information, sources, etc. but the original AFD poster would never comment or reverse his shortsighted decision. Now if the article had been up for a considerable amount of time with no improvement, that would be different. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid speedy keep. --Iamunknown 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to strong keep. Still nonsense. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be a speedy delete per A7 as Middle Schools are very rarely voted notable, but we can be fair and give it the five days. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether this school is notable or not, the point is that the article makes no such assertion, and therefore fails WP:NOT. This is a refection on the article, not on the school. As far as the comments by the author and by User:Noroton are concerned, it is expected that an article, once posted, must stand or fall on its merits as they appear at the time. An author can take as long as needed building an article on a sub-page or in the sandbox, but once the "save" button is hit the article is up for judgement. If there are references or sources available, they should be added before saving, not after.--Anthony.bradbury 14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph at the criteria for speedy deletion asks editors to consider "that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." Also, before nominating a recently created article, we are asked to "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." —Carolfrog 20:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article should, from its beginning, contain some idea of why it in Wikipedia. Why do we care about this particular subject? In this case, some people might claim that all schools should have articles, but a review of past AFD discussions shows that this position is not widely supported by the community. So, there should be some reason to care about this particular school... and so far, there is none. Out! --Brianyoumans 23:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there can be some assertation of notability added. You do have as much time as you need to build the article, sure, but when it's created, you need to assert a reason that it belongs. You've got 5 days to change my mind, so if there's something truly notable about the school, add it in.--UsaSatsui 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Frickeg 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. Who would benefit from the deletion of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 Mar 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the above IP user has left the same comment on multiple AfD pages. On a few of these, it is the only keep recomendation. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia strives not for truth — as, arguably, not all that is "true" has been yet discovered, and we do not permit original research — but instead for verifiability. --Iamunknown 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Find sufficient evidence of notability and I'll change my vote. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attacks in popular culture[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory, seeking to capture not just every instance of a "suicide attack," but any instance of an action which in the unconfirmed opinion of an editor might possibly be a suicide attack. The list suffers from POV problems in that individual editors decide on their own whether a charcter intends their action to be a "suicide attack" or not. Otto4711 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely the solution is simply to add in sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloveoil (talk • contribs) 05:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Merge a handful of entries into a sub-section on Suicide Attacks, but there's truly no need for this. --Action Jackson IV 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it highly unlikely that a significant number of these will ever be sourced, hence the article will never be more than original research. Also, the title sounds really, really bad. Feeeshboy 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If no such thing exists: I might be the first to say it... trivia cruft. RobJ1981 08:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- can be sourced and is a useful and interesting article Astrotrain 09:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are not particularly compelling arguments. Otto4711 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what can be sourced to Suicide attack, as it is not that long to have its own article. It also seems kind of trivial to me. - Anas ^Talk? 10:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how this could be properly sourced. Plus, interesting does not equal notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with suicide attack and perhaps both with suicide Al-Bargit 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with suicide attack. Some of the listed items are notable, many are not.-- Carabinieri 16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too trivial and insufficiently sourced.-- danntm ^T _C 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has potential to be a good informative article, and suicide attacks are to be foudn in popular culture. This needs cleanup, not deletion. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beginning of a promising list. Surely suicide attack is already long enough and this should remain a subarticle. Frickeg 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as it stands, it would appropriate to merge, but what's there seems like a good foundation from which to build a solid stand-alone article. Mwelch 09:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." As a list it fills no function I can think of. If someone wrote an article called "Literary depictions of suicide bombings" discussing the way the phenomena is described it would be worth keeping, but just listing occurrences is useless in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum 12:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of basic foods[edit]

Delete - there appear to be no sources which indicate what foods are considered "basic." There is no objective definition as to what constitutes a "basic food." No Basic foods article. Otto4711 04:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - There is no definition of what a "basic" food is. The word "basic" does not even appear in the article. Further, vegetarians will strongly disagree that Poultry constitutes a basic food (yours truly included), and... periwinkle? Really? ◄Zahakiel ► 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the heck is a basic food? bibliomaniac 1 5 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger Delete (and salt-- sorry, sorry :-D). Oy vey, what's next? List of square things? List of Basic Integar Numbers? What makes a food "basic"? Why would such a list be encyclopedic? What's the point? Who would possibly invest their time in such an article? So many questions... --Action Jackson IV 05:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What on earth is a "basic food"? -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is not a list of basic foods, but rather a list of foods, and a rather comprehensive one for most of the categories, but--considering that essentially every one of them has an article-- that is what categories are for. The list here does not add anything DGG 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, pointless list. The definition of "basic food" differentiates from person to person.--TBCΦtalk? 06:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and other's comments. RobJ1981 08:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an erratic and sourceless list with no clear criteria for inclusion. The junk food bit at the end is almost BJAODN.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "what the heck is a basic food?" - Anas ^Talk? 10:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list merely. What do you mean by "basic"? What's the definition? No summary / introduction at all. - Microtony 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV that these foods are "basic". No references given. Were there a consensus by registered dietitians that there was such a thing as a "basic" food, and if there were references given for this, such a list might be considered encyclopedic. This is just a long, useless list. --Charlene 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this appears to be a list of "common foods in the Western world". Someone put a lot of work into this, sourcing and renaming seems most appropriate. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if reworked into a "common foods in the Western world", it will necessarily remain totally subjective, and not really all that notable anyway.Sarcasticidealist 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Basic" is totally subjective, therefore the list becomes totally open to POV. SkierRMH 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might as well be "List of things at the grocery store I shop at." Isn't this why we have categories? Natalie 01:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a category turned into an article. Despite the fact that it's well-written and comprehensive, it certainly isn't encyclopaedic. Frickeg 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary, subjective and potentially endless. If we're going to keep, can I add "toasted ham & cheese sandwiches" please? Love the junk food listing at the end. Tt 225 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus; may require cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! in popular culture[edit]

Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! in popular culture was closed as delete. This was brought to deletion review where there was no consensus to endorse. Original nomination was that "Collection of random trivia about Jeopardy!. The Jeopardy! article has an abbreviated "popular culture" section; this was probably forked out to allow room for all the cruft we now see here. "In popular culture" articles are not a good idea; see also WP:TRIV and WP:TRIVIA. The list is very indiscriminate and unsourced (except for one item)." Discussion at deletion review seemed to lean towards merging. Please read both prior discussions and the article before opining. I have no opinion myself, this is a technical nomination. GRBerry 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of Jeopardy in any medium regardless of the importance of the reference either within the fiction from which it's drawn or the real world. Otto4711 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the nomination. A few examples are appropriate in the main article. This is an unmaintainable and indiscriminate list. Encyclopedias are not concordances. Rossami (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:TRIVIA is an essay, WP:TRIV applies to article sections, and this article is not just a "list of isolated facts", but more like a list of lists of isolated facts, with each list in its own section, which is what articles are. Jeopardy! is a particularly notable show, enough to have picked up a variety of references from other notable shows during its time. This significance in popular culture warrants an article of it in popular culture. It is unsourced for the same reason most plot summaries are unsourced, though you can verify each item by perusing the specific work. Has there been some published study referring to Jeopardy! as an important cultural phenomenon? I don't know, but just look at this list with WP:COMMON SENSE. The grouping of these cultural references is not inherently WP:OR. If you cite WP:NOT#IINFO, please explain why it does not belong on Wikipedia, as that policy says nothing about this particular article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so what is it about this article that makes Wikipedia more of an indiscriminate collection of information such as this? The article itself cannot be 'indiscriminate'; it has a definite scope and a maintainable size. It being 'trivial' only means it is useless to you, which is a purely subjective claim. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune in popular culture. –Pomte 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pomte, since he covered everything and then some. Also, not getting a result that you like doesn't mean nominate until you do. Deletion review has to mean something. - Peregrine Fisher 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In this case deletion review's overturning the first AfD doesn't mean that the article was/is good, only that its original AfD did not come to a consensus and was ended prematurely without sufficient numbers and by a potential misunderstanding of WP:COI on the part of its closing admin (as per his explanation which can now be found in his talk page archives). My keep vote for this article can be found in the first AfD, and I hope that the arguments found there will be addressed in this AfD, and that arguments found here that duplicate those in the original AfD will not be given more weight simply because people have repeated them. Robert K S 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The deletion review had no consensus on what to do. That means the community is not done deciding what to do with the article, hence it is back here to continue the discussion in the normal forum, hopefully with some additional participants. GRBerry 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of factoids that does nothing to actually contribute information to the encyclopedia. As with every "X in popular culture" article that is out there, it should really be an encyclopedic entry on the subject of "x in popular culture" such as the impact that it has had, and not just a list of instances. Arkyan 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of trivial pop culture references. -- Whpq 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most notable parts into the main Jeopardy article, a collection of trivia some of which doesn't even fit in that article. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per WP:SUMMARY. The Jeopardy! article was too large, so it was split off into sections. Yes, the article does need to be pruned; but, in my opinion, if this article gets deleted, WP:SUMMARY needs to be completely revisited. Andy Saund e rs 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY does not mean that the resultant split off article is somehow exempt from the standards that are supposed to be applied to every article. Splitting off a trivia section into its own article and labeling it "in popular culture" doesn't make the information any less garbage in the new article than it is in the old. Too many times editors decide to dump this kind of mess into someone else's lap by forking it off into a pop culture article rather than dealing with it in the article where it came from. But junk is junk whether it's in the main article or in a pop culture article and better here than there is spectacularly uncompelling. If there is no better reason to keep an article than its information might end up cluttering another article, then the clutter article should be deleted. Otto4711 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely missing my point. My point is that with anything more than just cursory popular culture references, the Jeopardy! article is too large. I would say that 75% of the stuff in the article right now should be pruned, but the other 25% is notable, and that the Jeopardy! article does not have room to list that 25%. Yes, we need to do a better job of pruning, but that in itself is not reason to delete the article. Andy Saund e rs 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how often that "keep but prune" gets offered up as a defense for these garbage dump articles. The funnier thing is that once the AFD closes, I rarely if ever see any of the people who are so desperate to keep but prune actually do any pruning. The funniest thing of all is that when I go in and try to prune them, most or all of what I take out gets put right back in again. So you'll forgive me if I put absolutely no credence in the "keep but prune" defense. Otto4711 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let me prune the list without consensus on which items should go. I am bold in many areas, not in this. However, I have assessed what is notable shortly after I posted my comment but I haven't posted that yet. I will post that on the article's talk page shortly and I will delete what I think is not notable, under peer pressure. Tinlinkin 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per rs. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I view the article as a legitimate split of the main article. However, if it is an article in its own right, the mess should be cleaned up. I agree with Ponte's view, that there are significant references to Jeopardy! in pop culture. I would view a notable instance from popular culture as follows (all of the following is my view, not policy or guideline that I know of):
1. The Jeopardy! reference in a TV show's episode constitutes a major part of the episode's plotline
2. Jeopardy! references are regularly and repeatedly presented within a TV series
3. A memorable or regularly occurring parody
What would not be notable is:
1. A passing or brief reference to a Jeopardy! element
2. Appearances by Alex Trebek, Merv Griffin, etc. on behalf of Jeopardy! are not necessarily notable in their own right
3. Individual non-recurring sketches on sketch comedy shows
4. Parodies within a program (not 100% sure about this)
In a TV episode, if Jeopardy! plays on a TV set or someone hums the "Think" music, that's not notable. Without commenting on other subject areas, a well-known thing (tangible item) would not warrant a "in popular culture" article. A media work would justify a "in popular culture" article, provided that the media work has been discussed across many other works. I will create a list of what I think are the notable pop culture references in the article's talk page. Perhaps this would help the article rise above being nondiscriminate. Tinlinkin 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeopardy! has had a pretty profound effect on popular culture, and the article is pretty good (for a list). It can be expanded out from being "just a list", though, and there's a little bit more already starting up. I think it's time to get the hedge clippers out on it, though. --UsaSatsui 00:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Many "In popular culture" articles are unmaintained and thus massively erratic in the quality of the entries. They also often dive into a mere list of occurrences rather than discussing cultural impact and how X is seen in culture. Considering that Wikipedia seems to attract these sections like crazy, I think we should at least give the better-maintained ones a chance. That way we can at least point to a "good" "in popular culture" article and challenge the bad ones to either improve to that standard, or be deleted. That said, while this article looks better than most, I'd say that some pruning could still be done, and more prose to tie things together would be nice as well (even if that involves skirting original research). SnowFire 03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pomte. Kolindigo 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly notable, WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The spirit of WP:NOT#PAPER is harmonious with the concept of sensibly forking overlong articles into families of articles organized with categories and templates, which is how we've been trying to manage Jeopardy! topics on Wikipedia. Robert K S 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an indiscrimiante colletion of information. If it does not belong in an article of its own, it does not belong in another article. The arguments that it is split have no actual bearing on the appropriateness of the article. I could split any part of an article into any number of pieces and then use it as an argument for keeping it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see what was so bad about the first AFD that this has to go through it again. The first AFD was clear-cut, and gave plenty of good reasons to why this should not be kept. Encyclopedias need to be overviews, not a hodgepodge of trivia. The section on the main J! page is fine and give proper/notable pop culture mentions. 69.218.255.54 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Phytochemical. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods high in phytonutrients[edit]

Delete - there is no objective definition as to what constitutes being "high" in phytonutrients, meaning that the article suffers from irreparable OR and POV issues. No objective definition of "superfood." Otto4711 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. it would make sense to have lists of foods high in particular nutrients--these are useful, and there are sources. DGG 06:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phytochemical or whatever is most appropriate. - Peregrine Fisher 12:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant and sourced materials to Phytochemical - it actually looks like it would be more appropriate to list specific foods (there's already a generic description given there). SkierRMH 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOFL (Internet Slang)[edit]

Note: This was recently speedied, debate closed, but then got recreated by another user so I am reopening the debate. —dgies^t_c 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like non-notable slang. Only reference is a discussion group. Wikipedia is not for things made up (online) one day. —dgies^t_c 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Otto4711 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into something, I'm not sure quite what just yet though. Cloveoil 05:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if another source cannot be found. If it can, Merge into LOL (Internet slang), which already includes "ROTFL," and is a well sourced article. ◄Zahakiel ► 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 05:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people were making up infinite variants of ROFL on CompuServe in the 1980s. We don't need to list every single one. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable cruft. --Fred McGarry 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. No reliable sources. Not for things made up in school one day. --Onorem 11:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO apparently invented by one person on and completely confined to a single internet forum. Krimpet 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : per Krimpet. I had originally defended this article due to disagreeing that it was incoherent but I do agree that it is essentially useless to wikipedia.^SyBer_WoLff 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NFT; redirect to ROFL or a page on Internet abbreviations. Alba 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but a forum in-joke --SubSeven 21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above reasons. Phileas 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newgrounds does not get to make up whatever it liks on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it, it's just an LOL for the anal-retentive. On second though, redirect it there. --UsaSatsui 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per everything else that was said, plus I want to point out that the Urban Dictionary entry for FOFL makes it clear that there is no common usage. There are four entries and all of them are just "things somebody made up one day." --Jaysweet 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely non-notable - belongs on Wiktionary if anywhere. Frickeg 01:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of very little importance and use. Uh... besides, wasn't this originally a bash.org quote? Here's a good example of why people attempting to figure out the etymologies of stuff can be bad... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid bonding[edit]

Delete - no sources that indicate this is anything other than a neologism. Otto4711 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Selket ^Talk 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. Not even a neologism but just someones musings - Peripitus (Talk) 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. I'd like to rebut the previous comment while abstaining from a position on the question, the term "fluid bonding" has wide usage inside the polyamory community, as can be seen with a simple Google search, [8] . I have not searched for further evidence of the term in printed work, but would suggest that The Ethical Slut and D. Anapol's book "Love without Limits" would be places to look to verify or rebut the notability of the term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Decker (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I happen to have a copy of The Ethical Slut right here, and (granted, I haven't read it yet, but) after flipping through it, I can't find anything about fluid bonding in it. There's no index, though, so I can't be sure it's not mentioned. —Carolfrog 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Carolfrog: Thank you kindly for looking, I couldn't find my copy. It's quite possibly not there, I was just thinking that if it existed that that would be a likely place to find it crop up in print. While I can't shake my personal sense that the term is notable, if I can't find sources I have to go along with deletion. --Joe Decker 03:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search above, while showing the term is used in the polyamorous community, it is far more used in the polymer plastics industry. Thus the current article needs to go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Fluid bonding (sexual practice) and Redirect current page to Polymer science. The sexual practice of fluid bonding deserves an article, but Dev920 is right about the plastics.—Carolfrog 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- Carolfrog 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've always heard it as "exchange of bodily fluids", as in, "hey, let's exchange bodily fluids": a deliberate sexualization (and reclamation?) of clinical (probably educational) terminology. The phrase is in common enough use, but I'm running short on verification. — coel acan — 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abroholos[edit]

this information is already in the wind page I don't see a reason to duplicate it Chevinki 05:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is a stub, but the subject is notable. It should be possible to turn this into something like Santa Ana wind. --Selket ^Talk 06:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does appear to be a notable wind, with potential for expansion. -- Whpq 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Out of curiosity, why does it appear notable? The Santa Ana wind has a lot of info about it, but I haven't found in-depth info about Abroholos.Chevinki 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if expanded and sourced, otherwise Merge back to the Wind article. It helps neither Wikipedia or the reader to have click through links that give no more information than the article they have come from. Nuttah68 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. VD649 9 2 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep: no valid reason for deletion provided. AFD is not for content disputes. MaxSem 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Germans after World War II[edit]

Explained in the "Proposed deletion of this article" section on the article talk page Ackoz 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Definately notable, but that's not the issue. The main reasoning was "to start the page from scratch." However, deletion and then a restart is not the greatest solution, as you'll have people quabbling over how to start it again. I suggest starting a new page from scratch on a user subpage, then negotiation, and then finally implementation when protection is lifted. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This will lead to a lame edit war. The article has been protected for quite a while now and notability is not the issue here. The reason is to restart both the article and its editors. Ackoz 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  - And what exactly would magically prevent these current editors from latching onto the new article? --Action Jackson IV 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have already started a user subpage a while ago as a sort of sandbox. user:Jadger/draft_expulsions--Jadger 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, and it would be preferential to have placed the reasoning as a brand-new entry on the talk page, rather than requiring a scan of the entire TOC. I don't doubt that this is a problematic article, but I think mediation would probably be a better avenue. --Action Jackson IV 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An edit war doesn't mean the article should be deleted. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I can't find any explanation for this deletion on the talk page. Review Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. --Selket ^Talk 06:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other possibility is to divide the article into expulsions from particular countries, but that might just result in more but better-focused edit wars.DGG 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call for Speedy close as AFD is not for content disputes. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above reasons and agree with Dhartung that a Speedy close is in order. --Richard 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above--Jadger 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above Astrotrain 09:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no deletion reason is offered. AfD is not to sort out content disputes. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep im in agreement with people above on this. Its well written and having read it and learnt somethign from it, its exactly what an encyclopedia is all about. --PrincessBrat 11:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep endless dispution about the content is not reason for deletion. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Metamagician3000 09:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megatokyo (disambiguation)[edit]

This is a dead-end disambiguation page - despite the plethora of links in violation of MoS:DAB, there aren't any links that actually go to other articles on other Megatokyos. It mentions that there's a Megatokyo in Bubblegum Crisis... except that there's no article on that, and not even much chatter on the setting in the BG crisis article. And (I guess) the dicdef that "Typically it refers to a futuristic version of Tokyo." Right.

This was de-prodded on the basis of "reasonable disambig." Anyway, I don't see any evidence that this will be the case any time soon, but suppose somebody did make Megatokyo (Bubblegum Crisis) and it didn't get merged. In that case, the hatnote on the main page can simply refer to it directly rather than forcing two clicks, one to the disambig page and one to the other article. I mean, this is hardly a big deal, but I don't see the point of this page... SnowFire 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. It's a dab page that points only to a single relevant article. --Core desat 06:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Tagged. --Selket ^Talk 06:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deletion 2.0. --Core desat 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television 2.0[edit]

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, contains no sources and practically no content. Almost a category for speedy deletion, but gives a passing claim of notability ◄Zahakiel ► 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crystalballing. TJ Spyke 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deja vu. Potatoswatter 06:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this could be speedy delete, depending on if that was the same content. TJ Spyke 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure speculation. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow I learnt so much from that article, I think I need a coffee to calm down....Not! Total speculation and poor speculation at best! --PrincessBrat 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in school one day. Alba 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 Artw 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everybody. Crystal ball, made up in school one day, non-notable (actually, not sufficiently substantial to even evaluate notability).Sarcasticidealist 22:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy kept as a WP:POINT violation with regards to the article this user placed on DRV.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Talk Like a Pirate Day[edit]

Based upon the arguments used for deletion in Steak and Blowjob Day, this article in question doesn't meet Attribution standards. Specifically, all references to the event itself are self-created, or from "blogs" (questionable sources). Autocracy 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep-I can attest to its reality-we've celebrated this at my last two jobs, Gyarr! Chris 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300+ Google News Archive hits say otherwise, so Keep. Of course, some of these should be added to the article -- at the moment the only independent source "about" it is Dave Barry. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep A Google search for "talk like a pirate day" gave 471,000 hits. If the article needs sources add them. But keep the article so that can be done. Binky The WonderSkull 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned occasionally as off-beat news in many different news outlets. I've seen it on the Dutch state journal here and it still frequently pops up on some of the larger Internet news sites. Article is of terrible quality and doesn't meet some quality standards, but that should not be a reason for deletion if the subject matter is notable. —msikma (user, talk) 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NobleTrading[edit]

Only indication of notability is of dubious importance, and is unreferenced. Article reads like an advertisement and says little that would not apply to any brokerage firm. —dgies^t_c 06:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - cannot find anything that satisfies the notability requirement of non-trivial published works. Fails WP:CORP - Peripitus (Talk) 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sign of reliable sources as required by attribution --Pak21 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero references, no visible notability. MaxSem 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fails all requirements. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

User:Nobletrade appears to be unfamiliar with the AfD process and posted this to their user page. In the spirit of open debate, I present it below. —dgies^t_c 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article on NobleTrading. This article is based on the services offered to customers rather than being promotional.

NobleTrading is the one and only brokerage firm that offers OTCBB traders to place their orders online through their Level 2 direct access trading platform (OTCBB Stock Trading Online). Nobletrade 02:24, 10 March 2007

Keep - I know NobleTrading, they provide some unique services and lot of information through their blogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Praveen Ortec (talk • contribs).
- Comments: 1) This !vote moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/NobleTrading. 2) This is Praveen Ortec's first edit to Wikipedia. --Pak21 14:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge all to Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. But very selectively, please, and try to cut nonessential content - that's already a rather large article. Sandstein 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Goode and the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress[edit]

Oh my. Although these articles do not violate any written policy of Wikipedia per se, common sense tells us that these articles are incredibly unnecessary, unwieldy and overwhelmingly useless; in short, unsalvageable cruft. There is already an article on this topic here, which is also very crufty but is salvageable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar problems with excessive cruft:

Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The subject is covered more than adequately in Ellison's article. We do not need articles on every individual pundit's reaction to the so-called "controversy" that Ellison didn't want to swear on a Bible. I'm tempted to label all of these articles bad faith efforts to slam Ellison. Otto4711 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, upon reading the article, it seems to be pro-Ellison, anti-Goode (who raised the furor). At least according to this article, the controversy seems to stem from Goode's complaint, not so much Ellison's use of the Quaran / Koran) --Action Jackson IV 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Keith Ellison should have an article, the original controversy merits an article, but not all these granddaughter articles from Keith Ellison. There is a line between Wikipedia being comprehensive and an editor not being able to write concisely to the point where it becomes a weakness and hindrance. The line has been crossed too many times here. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Just keep it to the one topic, please. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress, merge the rest into that. Is there seriously no more efficient way of titling this? Crufty, but it would get tricky to fairly explain the full situation (Muslim wants to use the Koran, some hick from Virginia doesn't like that so much, furor, etc) within the confines of a single section - and the Keith Ellison (politician) article is already pretty lengthy to begin with (67KB - bigger than the Beatles!! Hey, maybe I should start List of Wikipedia Articles Larger than that of the Beatles? Backing away, now) --Action Jackson IV 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For the record, I didn't nominate Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed - my eyes got lost in the jungle of text. See below for "new" vote. --Action Jackson IV 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Seems my eyes got lost in the jungle of words in the nomination. Is there seriously no more efficient way of titling this? Anyway - crufty, but provides perspective, and some of it should be merged into the current article (58KB - not yet bigger than the Beatles, but with this merge it'll be a candidate for List of Wikipedia Articles Larger than that of the Beatles soon enough. --Action Jackson IV 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote most of these pages when I was a newbie and thought the goal of Wikipedia would be to contain the greatest depth of information possible. Like a library of all human knowledge, where you could find any details you could possibly want. I had thought that it would just be a matter of time before anyone seeking information would be best served coming to Wikipedia before going anywhere else. I'm over that now.--Wowaconia 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the main article the others are excessive detail. ... DGG 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress is not nominated for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 07:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - I like this AfDs opening line: "these articles do not violate any written policy of Wikipedia." Well referenced article, clearly notable subject. Done. - Peregrine Fisher 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, merge and edit down: we have a flood of excess data here. These pages are waaaaay too long; you can't sort out the information from the flood of quotes. Nonetheless these are well-sourced an on an encyclopedic topic. Find what should go in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress; the rest to Wikiquote or delete. This just needs a huge heaping helping of editing. Alba 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's a lot of good stuff in here. Admittedly too much. But there's definitely more than a few things worth saving and merging into the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress article.Chunky Rice 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever relevant and salvageable to Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress and delete the rest. We want to convey information, not write a million books about minor incidents. That is something for Wiki-history if it exists Alf^Photoman 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One integrated article should adequately cover this topic. Elizmr 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Certainly the whole controversy is notable, it just doesn't need to be split over four articles. Natalie 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ITAQALLAH 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. All four articles and expand. Subject is relevant and important. Wikipedia must be kept from being an encyclopedia of shopping malls.Prester John 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while the "incident" is notable (actually it wouldn't be notable except for people's reactions to it) we don't need lists of ever single person who weighed in on it. The main article is fine and can have select reactions. Koweja 02:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as separate articles; we should always be aiming for complete, comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. This is a very rich level of detail—that's a good thing; we're trying to provide information here, remember. Let's be happy with growth instead of trying to lop off our own body parts. Everyking 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all as separate - Comprehensive, highly sourced, good work. Smee 09:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress ... which itself could do with being edited for conciseness. Tt 225 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and shorten title.--Sefringle 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I see very little of real value in these side articles. Korny O'Near 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you're not looking for information on the subject. Someone who is might feel differently. Everyking 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is, someone would have to wade through a ton of extraneous information just to get some substance. It's not about how much you can write, it's about how concisefully you can write it, and these articles are so overwhelmingly massive that conciseness is impossible, especially when you're dealing with extraneous stuff to begin with. Seriously, do we need individual articles for each of these responses to the incident? No, we don't. --Hemlock Martinis 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Summary style. Summaries and details are fully compatible within Wikipedia. To eliminate the details doesn't help those who want the summaries; it just hurts those who want the details. Everyking 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In theory that's true, but in this case I don't think the details about, to take one example, an extended argument between Ed Koch and Dennis Prager are something anyone wants to read. But that's just my opinion. Korny O'Near 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment, but by all means have a discussion on the main talkpage (which is a better venue for merge discussions than AFD) on whether to merge these articles. My impression is that the articles are well-sourced and on a notable topic and controversy in U.S. politics history, and I am not altogether against detailed coverage of it, but several of the articles nominated bear resemblance to newspaper articles rather than encyclopedia articles. On the other hand, the main article is pretty long already, so some splitting off into side articles may well be appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the nomination: "these articles do not violate any written policy of Wikipedia per se". Although I find the articles unwieldy, I disagree with the nominator that they are unnecessary (especially not incredibly so) or useless (especially not overwhelmingly so). At least some of the people who created these articles surely possessed some common sense. That said, a merge of one or more of these articles to Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress may be appropriate, but that is not a matter for AFD. This is an issue about the appropriate organisation of content and, as such, should be confined to the articles' talk pages. -- Black Falcon 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that the writer lacked common sense, I just don't feel that these articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. That's why I nominated these articles for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that and didn't mean to suggest that your nomination was intended to insult the editors of the articles. However, I don't feel that "common sense" alone (i.e., without discussion on the talk page) can dictate what ought to be done in this case, and the disagreement above seems to support that view. You raise a valid point that these articles may not need to exist separately, but (again) I feel that's an editorial issue suited for a talk page rather than AFD. I am not opposed to content being merged from one into another and subsequently trimmed (or vice versa), but I do not believe simple deletion is an appropriate course of action in this case. I hope this clarifies my position and the argument I'd intended to convey. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge All. The topic is definitely attributable and notable but there needs to be one and only one article on this topic. The set of articles needs to be merged and the significant overlap eliminated. --Shirahadasha 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ellison in the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session[edit]

Do we really need an article entirely about one man's work during one session of a U.S. state legislature? This is close to being a campaign ad for this gentleman. Hemlock Martinis 07:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this amounts to straight-forward political advertising. He already has a rather overlong page at Keith Ellison (politician) which needs some pruning. I have marked it COI.DGG 08:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment this article was made in attempt to give depth of information to a Wikipedia subject. One of the largest criticisms against Wikipedia is its lack of depth. I understand that this is probably a losing arguement, and that active controversial politicians will be lucky to get a single page, while every episode of the Simpsons and South Park and every character within them will have massive amounts of information and multiple sub-pages given to them.

With the above in mind, I vote keep.--Wowaconia 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not about volume of information - I do have a big crush on abundant information about political figures - it's about volume of articles. If the information in this article is notable (and some of it is, if it could be made NPOV) it should go on Ellison's page. Delete.Sarcasticidealist 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does read like a campaign ad - this sort of info is better suited on that persons own website --PrincessBrat 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or Delete I nominated this article for deletion shortly after it was created. The author asked me to give him a chance to develop it more. He convinced me that the article on Keith Ellison's work in the 83rd was too long to be in the Keith Ellison page. Therefore, I did not contest it, and allowed the article to be written. Unfortunately, this article may by definition display undue weight. I suggest that we get someone other than Wowaconia to attempt a rewrite. I would do it myself if I wasn't going out of town on business tonight. I'll be gone longer than this Afd will take. If you vote to rewrite, I'll take a crack at it. If it still shows undue weight then I say we delete. StayinAnon 15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keith Ellison is by definition notable, being an elected official in both a state and federal capacity, but his cumulative actions in one legislative session are not. We don't have a separate article on Franklin D. Roosevelt's term as a state senator for New York. We don't have a separate article on Nelson Rockefeller's term as Governor of New York. That's because although both did notable things as senator and governor respectively, none of those deeds are notable enough to make a separate article on their cumulative deeds necessary. Anything that can be said about Keith Ellison's actions as member of a state legislature can be included either in his own article or in the article on that legislative term (or on the action in question). --Charlene 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. short summary to main Ellison article would be fine Elizmr 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Tt 225 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, but move to Arlon Lindner. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session[edit]

This article is extremely crufty and could better be placed as a subsection in the articles of the two gentlemen involved in the controversy. Hemlock Martinis 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move to Lindner There is no article about Lindner at the moment, and this would make a good start, with of course proper attention to POV. This would also be a less POV title: for the only article about him to have such a title is not good BLP. As a complaint about him it goes there. I'd move it now if it werent up or AfD. DGG 08:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this article is about an event that played a major part in the political life of an active US Representative.--Wowaconia 09:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well sourced if far too detailed article. Not appropriate renamed to Arlon Lindner as I'm sure that this issue would be a line or two in a bio at best. It's good to see US politics in action....from a very long distance- Peripitus (Talk) 09:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Linder per DGG above. Elizmr 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Ernest Gallo. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:02Z

Amelia Franzia Gallo[edit]

article does not assert why she is notable by herself, just as wife of successful businessman. Wikipedia is not an obituary. Chris 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ernest Gallo. Some salvagable (in unsourced) content there, but no evidence she was notable in her own right. —dgies^t_c
Delete - no assertion of notability. -- Whpq 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ernest Gallo, as —dgies. Phileas 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arguably an A7 speedy candidate. --kingboyk 00:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - article was created in the wake of the death of her husband, winemaker Ernest Gallo; merge info to his page unless notability can be shown. Guroadrunner 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ernest Gallo, that is if there is anything worth merging. Peterkingiron 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. IrishGuy ^talk 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas dishes[edit]

Delete - no sources indicate that these foods are exclusive to Christmas or even strongly associated with Christmas. Otto4711 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepish, provided that references are provided. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessarily Christmas dishes, as mentioned above, and even if some magical reliable source was found, it'd still be crufty. List of Bachelor Dinners would be a lot more useful. --Action Jackson IV 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate and unsourced list. If you look hard enough anything is eaten at christmas...including the cold remains of whatever was left over from the huge party the night before - Peripitus (Talk) 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another OR, POV and unsourced list. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not attributed does not mean not attributagle. I added a couple of refs. The reason this page doesn't have refs (which it needs), is that people think it's obvious that turkey, etc. is a christmas dish. Reasons to improve are not reasons to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 12:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or could it possibly be that the reason it doesn't have references is because it's absurd to believe that 98% of the items on the list are in any way specifically associated with Christmas? I mean come on. Look at the list. Australians specifically associate vegetables with Christmas? Beer? Seafood and barbeque? This isn't a list of Christmas foods, it's someone's Christmas dinner menu. We drank milk in my house on Christmas every year, but it wasn't a Christmas food because we also drank milk in my house every other day of the year. Otto4711 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook as a directory there? Alba 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Peregrine Fisher. Instead of putting this on Afd, it would have been better to request more references. Clearly there are many Christmas-specific food customs around the world, and it's important to have information about them. I'll add some references too. --David Edgar 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be sourced and shown to be traditional to Christmas worldwide and the related country specific articles where they have been split out. A discussion of what food is part of a cultural tradition is encyclopaedic, a list of spuds, sprouts, turkey isn't. Nuttah68 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas worldwide is already 70kb. This is a valid split per WP:SUMMARY. - Peregrine Fisher 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so split Christmas worldwide into country specific articles, such as Polish Christmas traditions. It is a cleaner and more encyclopaedic solution than to keep a largely unsourced list of ingedients that provides no context. Nuttah68 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that Christmas worldwide should be split, and the info here added to the resulting articles. I don't have a problem with this list being a source of redundant information, though. - Peregrine Fisher 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, it provides a nice, quick, organized way to figure out "Christmas" dishes by country (which considering the large number of dishes listed in the category, is almost a necessity), even if not everything is sourced yet. I am sick of people who put things up for deletion because "most of it isn't sourced". Sourcing takes time, and something unsourced now could have a cite less than an hour from now on this site. Further, if there are "questionable" dishes listed, what the hell is preventing anyone from a.) removing them from the from the list b.) digging up a cite to prove or disprove it or c.) tagging it with "citation needed"? That's what we HAVE ^{[citation needed]} tags and their brethern for, folks. That's why we can EDIT these things. Having such a list is very, very useful (especially given that most individual Christmas dishes in the category for them are NOT listed by country, but by name). Does it need work? I'd say so. But worth deleting? Hardly. - User:Runa27 not logged in.

But the point is that almost everything on that list is not specifically a "Christmas dish." There is no point in asking for a cite that people eat turkey or cake or drink champagne at Christmas because it's common knowledge that people do in fact eat turkey and cake and drink champagne on Christmas. That something is eaten by some people at Christmas does not mean that it's a "Christmas dish." The list is based on a false premise. And as always, WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. Otto4711 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, this is another case among many (the current AfD discussion on List of fat actors is another) where you have insisted that some outside authority or scientific measurement or the like must already have certified clear boundaries for a list. The absence of that kind of authority does not mean a list is indiscriminate, just that cultural lists have different inclusion criteria from, say the list of periodic elements or some category of flora or fauna. We all know that Christmas foods exist. We all should accept that there might be questions about the inclusion of some items on the list. Proper citation can regulate that well enough for our purposes, and if you don't believe that, you should explain why. Noroton 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the reasons given so far, plus that I haven't seen any arguments to delete that seem convincing and properly policy-based to me. If you add any new reasons, feel free to drop a note on my talk page to see if I'll change my vote. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see, the thing is WP:ATT is policy. But I guess policy arguments don't actually matter. Otto4711 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I haven't seen the people in this AfD debate who are arguing Wikipedia:Attribution to be applying it as deletion criteria in the way that I understand that policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for details, especially reasons not to delete. Remember, an article that has X problem should usually be kept, so long as there is adequate reason to believe that X problem can be fixed to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies. In deletion debates, it is not merely necessary to show that an article has a problem, it is also necessary to show that the problem is likely unfixable. In the case of attributions, the usual solution is either (1) add attributions or (2) tag the uncited material or (3) delete the uncited material. Christmas-oriented cooking is a huge subject, with each nation having its traditions, and dozens of cookbooks coming out each year. There's no particular reason to believe that this article is uncitable, not notable enough to exist, or too poorly defined to exist. All the reasons to delete the article that have been brought up so far are, in my opinion, article quality issues rather than deletion criteria, and could be solved within a few weeks at most if some talk page dialogues are started. Does it ever occur to you to bring up quality issues on the article talk pages before bringing an AfD? It really seems to me as if about three-fourths of your AfD nominations are a result of impatience with article quality, rather than being grounded in a thorough understanding of WP:NOT, WP:ATT, WP:DP and other policies. I know that policies can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but I do think your interpretation tends to be farther from the norm than usual. I really think it would help all of us if you made more use of cleanup tags and talk pages rather than doing what seems to me to be hasty AfDs. AfDs should be a last resort, except on articles that are clearly in risk of violating WP:DP. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've already clearly demonstrated that despite your ability to link to various policies you have no faith in anyone else's ability to read them. Otto4711 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at WP:ATT, and nowhere does it say that simply because an article hasn't had enough sourcing that it therefore must go, and when I go to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and look at "Problem with page ... [Item:] Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations)" I see this under "Solution:" "Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Clearly, going first to AfD with an article problem is discouraged and actually working on an article that you've got quality problems with is encouraged. These quotations can be found under the section called "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I have every faith that you have the ability to read that policy and have read it. The question is, what's your reason for not applying it? Not a rhetorical question, but one that deserves a serious response. Noroton 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvement, perfectly fixable with enough TLC, and per above, also WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Useful, encyclopedic and perfectly capable of being filled out with references. Tt 225 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the idea that this can't be sourced is absolutely ludicrous. For most Christmas-related food and drink you have to choose among too many sources. I get the impression "I don't like the subject" is the real argument here, based on what's been said. Deletion discussions should not be popularity contests. User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea makes several excellent points. Noroton 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real argument is and continues to be that having sources that say people sometmes eat one food or another on a specific holiday doesn't mean that the food itself is exclusively or even strongly associated with that holiday. Eating something on Christmas doesn't make it a "Christmas dish." I would not argue WP:DONTLIKEIT because I know that it is not a valid reason for deleting an article so I would appreciate it if you would address the actual arguments that I do make and not make stuff up. Otto4711 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being unclear: the "I don't like it" comments were addressed to others. I do address your real arguments, twice in fact: I addressed your comment of 23:10, 11 March 2007 immediately below it, and I addressed your replies to Mermaid of the Baltic Sea just under your final reply to her. Noroton 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a useful article. Many lists are not useful, and would be better as categories, but that does not apply here. Peterkingiron 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As always, WP:USEFUL is not a compelling reason to keep an article. Otto4711 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh). And, as always, that is still only a personal opinion as WP:AADD is just an essay. -- Black Falcon 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements made (i.e., adding sources) to the article, which clearly shows that the information can be sourced. -- Black Falcon 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the inclusion of items on the list that are not there, the nature of Wikipedia is such that anyone can edit articles to add nonsense. However, let's also not forget that anyone can edit articles to remove such additions. -- Black Falcon 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per recent improvements and per arguments of Black Falcon and Noroton. There are distinctive nationalal and ethnic customs as to what foods and beverages are served at Christmas. It is a bogus argument to claim that something cannot be a "Christmas dish" if it is eaten at other times. Edison 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of holiday colors[edit]

Delete - no sources that indicate that any holidays have colors associated with them, let alone that the colors noted in the article are associated with any holiday, Otto4711 07:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. All this informationn is already included in the separate articles as well as the fact that this article does not consider the fact that the colours of the days sometimes changes per country. Mkdw ^talk 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - how very ethnocentric! --Action Jackson IV 07:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the list not attributing the sources used to create it, and as a result, being original research. Kyra_~(talk) 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not attributed is not the same as not attributable. I'll add a few refs. - Peregrine Fisher 12:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where to start? Firstly, definition of 'holiday': there isn't one, and many of these are not holidays in any meaningful sense (for example, St David's Day is NOT a holiday in Wales - it's just 1 March). Secondly, much of the information is absolutely wrong (for example, green and red are the 'national colours' of Wales, but St Davod's day is associated with yellow because of daffodils!). Thirdly, some information is downright confusing (e.g. Armistice Day - Nov 11 - is a holiday in some countries, but not in the UK where the poppy is a charity fund-raising symbol associated with the armistice). In addition, hopelessly ethnocentric (read largely USAcentric). Emeraude 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an arbitary list failing WP:NOT. The holidays, to a large extent are not holidays, the colours associated with them are at best ethnocentric and more likely OR. For the few where there is a well documented colour associated with the day this is better dealt with on the holiday article, explaining the association, rather than in a list stating red, green, turquoise, avocado green. Nuttah68 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, undefined ("holiday") and extremely biased - I would have removed a few of the references therein as blatantly incorrect. 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all. An international encyclopedia should have international sources for articles that purport to provide information on an international basis. Even if this were List of colors commonly attributed to holidays by Anglophones in the United States, it should still be attributed, and this isn't. --Charlene 02:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion above. Tt 225 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(blinks hard) Seven votes to keep vs. three to delete, two from first-time users suspected of being sockpuppets, constitutes "no consensus?" Ravenswing 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ravenswing. Consensus was to keep.--Alabamaboy 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schneider (writer)[edit]

Delete This subject is completely non-notable. All he's ever done is run a website that got mentioned one time in the New York Times. He has no publications of his own that are noted here. The subject does not justify an article, much less an article of this extensive length.Good Shoestore 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was listed by User:KyraVixen to complete the incomplete listing by User:Good Shoestore. — Good Shoestore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)).

Delete I've read this article twice now, and for the life of me I can't figure out what it's doing in an encyclopedia. There's an important "Dan Schneider" who's a film producer, and who accounts for the Google hits, but he's not the topic of this article. The Dan Schneider we're talking about here is presented as a writer but has never published a book. Nor has he published much--if anything at all--in the realm of articles or stories. In fact, there's not a single notable thing about him in the banal biography presented here. Even the casual mention of his extremely obscure website in the New York Times is a passing one, hardly qualifying this article as a notable one. Probably it was written by a personal friend of Schneider. I vote to delete it.Professor Ron Hill 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC) — Professor Ron Hill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep Almost 20,000 google hits for "Dan Schneider poet." Obviously notable. Of the three Dan Schneiders listed in Wikipedia, the writer is tops in Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=Dan+Schneider&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

This over a tv star and pro athlete. Wikipedia has articles on many online sites and personalities, and this site is among the most popular online.

- Commentary. Hmm. The only vote in support thus far is from an unsigned and anonymous dial-up. I wonder if that vote is from Dan Schneider himself. What he states is inaccurate--most of the hits are for Dan Schneider the film producer or Dan Schneider the athlete. The unpublished poet is hardly more notable than the other two Dan Schneiders. In fact, the confusion among the three is probably what has allowed this vanity article to exist for so long.Professor Ron Hill 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- On the one hand, this doesn't feel encyclopedic enough... but on the other hand, I hesitate to pull the trigger on a page with multiple independent sources. There are certainly unverifiable biography statements on this page, see WP:BLP. But I'm not ready to delete this altogether. Alba 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This scrapes the bottom of the barrel on WP:BIO, but "The person has created a ... collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries?" I'd say he's met that. (And since the page was created by an admin whose created a number of literature-related pages, calling it a "vanity" page is a bit much of a stretch. That info took me about thirty seconds to discover.) Ravenswing 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong DELETE. Dan Schneider has not "created collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries." All I can find is that he's run a website. Big deal. Anyone can set up a website.207.62.231.2 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Ummm ... "all" you can find is that he runs a website? Then you either didn't read the article or didn't pay attention when you did. The New York Times? NPR? A sister pub of the Village Voice? This article has verifiable sources, and some genuinely significant ones to boot. As far as your screed against Alabamaboy goes, allow me to quote from WP:COI: "In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." There is nothing about this article showing the use (never mind the abuse) of admin powers to create; any editor could have done it. Presuming sockpuppets have been used to update the article (a huge if), there is nothing in policy prohibiting or even discouraging the same. Possibly there is some reason for this smoke screen, but I can't figure it. Ravenswing 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, encyclopedic biography. He certainly has sufficient note for the author to have written a good article, even if doing so wouldn't necessarily be recommended by strict application of WP:N. No purpose is served in deleting verifiable information. Also, the alleged misbehavior of the contributor does not, at least in this case, reflect on the quality of the contribution. --Dystopos 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The sockpuppet which started this AfD, as well as the anonymous editor who posted personal info about me, is related to a case of cyber stalking, as detailed on my talk page at User_talk:Alabamaboy#Cyber_stalking_and_harassment. The accusation of me using sock puppets in this article is wrong. And with regards to this article's subject, Dan Schneider is a well-known writer, poet and critic. All of the bio info in this article came from a front-page City Pages article, which is how I first learned of him. If needed, I can provide additional references for this bio information, but since they come from that article I thought I'd sufficiently provided them. Because there are several Dan Schneider article on Wikipedia (the writer, an actor/producer, and a baseball player), the best way to google his notability is to google "Cosmoetica," which is Schneider's well-known website and is a unique name. It has 54,000 hits. When that is added to the list of credible media sources that mention Schneider, this article's subject is notable. As a side note, I deleted the personal info this cyber stalker placed about me in this AfD. I specifically asked a member of the Arb Committee if this was permitted and the answer was yes. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, well, well. Come to that, the nom's and his only supporter's first edits are on this AfD. Under the circumstances, this has a strong flavor of bad faith nomination to it. Ravenswing 20:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Professor Ron Hill and Good Shoestore were both verified as sockpuppets of this cyber stalker by a member of the arbitration committee. I would like to repeat that this subject is notable, as proven by the major media articles about him. To further prove this point I've added in new references to the article, including another news article from the Star Tribune newspaper and where The Village Voice quoted him.--Alabamaboy 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:N by being the main subject of articles by three reliable sources. --Charlene 02:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to vote on this but looks like someone has really jumped the gun in clearing this dude's info out of articles.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vanity entry in Wikipedia about a writer who has self-published on his own website. He has not received any recognition outside of that at all. He has no importance. 38.2.108.125 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remain civil. You have claimed "this is a vanity entry" without providing any proof, thereby accusing both its creator (User:Alabamaboy) and its subject (Dan Schneider) of vanity. Your statement that "He has not received any recognition outside of that at all" is incorrect (even the nominator admits to the existence of a NYT article). Finally, as we are discussing a living person, you should refrain from offensive comments like he "has no importance". -- Black Falcon 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite contrary to the nominator's assertion, the individual in question has been the subject of multiple published works. Keep per the improvements to the article made by User:Alabamaboy (see diff). -- Black Falcon 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep. The nominator is on a tear through Texas A&M related articles and needs to slow down and discuss such wide spread changes on the Talk pages first. Johntex\^talk 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush School of Government and Public Service[edit]

This is one of a number of articles I found from the cleanup of the series of articles involving Texas A&M University. The series is comprehensive, and in a great amount of detail concerning all aspects of the University, whose article is already overlong, overlinked, and overladen with information of relevance only to alumni. As far as this article is concerned, the "school" has only a small intake, and I do not believe the article adequately asserts why this is notable, nor demonstrates that it is indeed notable. Ohconfucius 06:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Id normally state delete for these sort of articles but this has some good points in that it is linked to a former president and its fairly well written though i think it could do with a little bit of tidying up. --PrincessBrat 11:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is asserted. Raystorm 15:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep. The nominator is on a deletion/merging spree through articles related to Texas A&M University and needs to slow down and discuss these types of actions. Otherwise, it just wastes the time of a lot of editors. Johntex\^talk 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muster (Texas A&M University)[edit]

This is one of a number of articles I found from the cleanup of the series of articles involving Texas A&M University. The series is comprehensive, and in a great amount of detail concerning all aspects of the University, whose article is already overlong, overlinked, and overladen with information of relevance only to alumni. As far as these articles are concerned, the traditions are already described in a sufficient level of detail for an encyclopaedia in Traditions of Texas A&M University, and I believe the minute detail contained in these nominated article sare in breach of WP:NOT#IINFO. Ohconfucius 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have GOT to be kidding. There are plenty of books and history to be shared here. While it is good information for alumni, it is also good for current students, prospective students, faculty, friends, family, and anyone else interested in these topics. There is no reason to wholesale delete a page just because you think "there is already enough information." There is also a lot more information that is NOT included in these pages because it is considered trivial, but if someone wants to know more about the yell leaders or muster or the history of gig 'em, what is the harm in putting it down in writing. BQZip01 07:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep. Nominator is on a tear through Texas A&M related articles and needs to slow down and discuss before embarking on a unilateral deleteion/merging spree that tends to just waste the time of lots of editors. Johntex\^talk 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Arena[edit]

This is one of a number of articles I found from the cleanup of the series of articles involving Texas A&M University. I have doubts about the notability of the collegiate basketball arena. Texans will probably know where it is. One would often read about the team, but there seem to be a shortage of non-trivial mentions about the arena. Ohconfucius 07:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Generally, I'd consider major arenas to be notable, and I'd consider I-A basketball to be major. --Action Jackson IV 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep Nominator is on a tear through articles related to Texas A&M University and needs to slow down and discuss such wide spread changes before going on a deletion/merging spree. Johntex\^talk 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G. Rollie White Coliseum[edit]

This is one of a number of articles I found from the cleanup of the series of articles involving Texas A&M University. I have doubts about the notability of the former collegiate basketball arena. Texans will probably know where it is. One would often read about the team, but there seem to be a shortage of non-trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Faraz Anwar; un-merge if content grows. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:04Z

Abstract Point Of View[edit]

the exact same info (same wording and all) is in the artist's main page, Faraz Anwar. No need for duplicate info. Chevinki 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The duplication problem can easily be solved by removing it from the artist's page instead, so we should discuss whether this album is notable. According to WP:MUSIC the notability of an album depends on the notability of the artist. As to that, I'm not sure. He has few google hits, and you'd also have to consider his band Mizraab. –Pomte 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was going by this under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Music Albums can be notable in and of themselves, but please provide the name of the band, and more info than a mere tracklist; alternatively, list them on the band article. The album is already 'alternatively' listed under the band's main page with the exact same info. Chevinki 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedied Melchoir 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Hillyer's Law[edit]

According to the forum post referenced in the page, this was created less than a hour ago. Zero Google hits. Basically, put lightly, goes grossly against WP:NFT, WP:NEO, and really makes me wish open-and-shut TsMUISOD would be very very clearly speediable =) wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to make it clear; I'm making this to humour the article creator and the fact that I'd need to slightly interpret CSD to get this speedily deleted. I frankly don't think this will last if some crankier admin walks in from around the corner. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow. Is it bad protocol to cite WP:SNOW on the first vote? WP:NEO, WP:NFT, just as you said, and by extenstion NN. --Action Jackson IV 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with extreme prejudice. Why are we even discussing this? MER-C 08:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, again. (That cranky admin would be me.) Melchoir 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free The Hops[edit]

Standard Afd header added only for article nomination by Walter Görlitz below. Tikiwont 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a lobby group looking for publicty. It doesn't matter if their cause is just or not, just that this isn't what Wikipedia is for. See MGMbill.org and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGMbill.org for more discussion on lobby and special interest groups. I would suggest that a brief mention of the group at an article related to beer, or laws on alcohol consumption would be sufficient. --Walter Görlitz 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the page. We definitely aren't "looking for publicity" from Wikipedia, and I can't imagine how this even qualifies as publicity. We are a citizen's group making a significant impact on the state of Alabama. That seemed to be something worth noting in an encyclopedia. It sure matters to the many businesses that will be affected by the outcome, to the tourism industry of AL, and to the many citizens of Alabama who will see hundreds of new beers become available. --Danner Kline

Comment - Please see the discussion about the other lobby group who were trying to make a significant impact on the entire United States. Their topic sure matters to just under half of current population, as well as doctors and religious leaders. The importance of your cause is not the issue. The importance of your group is. Please see that discussion. --Walter Görlitz 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many other non-profit organizations are described in Wikipedia articles. For example, when I want to find out information about the American Cancer Society, I know I can go to Wikipedia to get information. Similarly, NORML, Parent-Teacher Association, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, United We Stand America, National American Suffrage Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Raging Grannies, etc., etc. etc. There are hundreds if not thousands of pages on Wikipedia that provide information about organizations around the world. I guess Walter could say these groups are just looking for publicity also, but I hope reasonable people will know better. There is a big difference between an article that provides factual information about an organization vs. a page that is nothing more than lobbying in an of itself. If the article at issue contains lobbying, that can be edited. But don't delete an informative article about the origin and activities of an organization just because the organization engages in advocacy. Review the discussion archives on Walter's profile page, and you'll see he's been a little too aggressive with his deletion activism in the past. Apparently, he's still at it. --Banjolawyer 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not to mention Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There's a lobby group trying to tighten alcohol laws. We are a group trying to repeal prohibition-era alcohol laws. Activities of a similar but opposite nature. They are national; we are limited to one state. Nevertheless, I fail to see how any argument made for deletion of our entry should not also be applied to MADD's entry. -- Danner Kline 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are differences between these notable NPOs and the one under discussion. Again. Please understand that wikipedia is not an advertising or marketing media, but an encyclopedia. If this group does something notable, then they deserve an article. So far they are just a lobby group. --Walter Görlitz 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Nothing to merge, and nowhere to merge it. --Core desat 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoalhaven Anglican School[edit]

This is an article about a school that does not appear to be particularly notable. Frickeg 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is quite poor, and nothing notable about this school by the looks of it. Lankiveil 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has no assertion of notability, as well as not supplying any reliable, independent sources with which to attribute the information within the article to (the two links in the article are a wiki and an entry about the school that reads like the school itself created it). Kyra_~(talk) 09:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with a lot of these school articles, the notability element is rarely met and also to a reader of this article it provides veyr little in the way of useful information, which could be probably obtained in some way on the State education dept. --PrincessBrat 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. While I really want to keep this school, there are no reliable sources and a Google News Archive search comes up with nothing to base an article on. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this school and quite a lot of others like it are part of the "Anglican Schools Corporation", a non-profit organisation set up by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney to run low-fee and low-cost Anglican schools in the metropolitan areas of New SOuth Wales. While there might not be enough notability to keep this in its own article, merging this to a general article on the Anglican Schools' Corporation and its schools would be worthwhile. JRG 13:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notwithstanding Capitalistroadster's arguments. Private schools outside metropolitan areas are unusual. At the very least redirect and merge to the currently redlinked Anglican Schools Corporation. The trend in the move to private schools in Australia is a very significant change in Australian education. Access to rpivate schools in rural areas is important.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Lynton and Barnstaple Railway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:07Z

Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth[edit]

Odd one this. Mainly used as a transclusion on pages like Taw locomotive where the context is not immediately clear. While interesting, I think the content could probably be merged into Lynton and Barnstaple Railway or even moved entirely to something like Wikisource. Lankiveil 08:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information herein was originally included in the main L&B article, but that got too big, so I was looking at ways to split the article up. This item is (as far as I know) used entirely as a transclusion item to link articles related to the historic railway (locomotives (such as TAW mentioned above), locations (Woody Bay), structures (Chelfham Viaduct), incidents (Braunton Road railway accident) etc.) with the modern heritage/restoration activities. If, as you suggest, this were moved to Wikisource, could it still be transcluded? regards, Lynbarn 10:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, but do you really need this whole page on every article that has anything to do with this railroad? For that matter, do you really need a seperate article for each individual locomotive operated by this railroad? Lankiveil 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that a shorter item may be more suited, perhaps just a few lines would suffice. Do you think such an item would be more appropriately held in the template namespace, rather than the main area? Thanks, Lynbarn 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Different sort of article - its linked up and is an intertesting to read article. --PrincessBrat 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is extremely confusing, and I am still finding it difficult to determine precisely what "Perhance it is not dead but sleepeth" is. The best I can come up with is that it was a quote uttered by an admirer of the railroad after it was shut down? I hardly see how a quote of this nature has any value as an encyclopedia article. Is it the name of a monument or memorial? If so it might be keepable with some more cleanup and sourcing, but even then I think the best bet would be to merge it back in to a parent article. If anyone with better parsing skills than myself cares to clarify what this is talking about, let me know. Arkyan 21:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have grasped the message quite well, the quote is from an admirer, and although not spoken, was written (on the card shown inn the illustration} after the line closed. The heritage railway now being restored and rebuilt is in part a monument and memorial to the vision and hopes Capt. Wolf expressed, and his words became the inspiration for the restoration project. Thanks for your comments, regards, Lynbarn 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the original article, this statement/motto has no notability of its own. As suggested, if the L&B article is getting unwieldy it may be time to include a link a Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Trust official site rather than expecting it all to be hosted in what is meant to be a general encyclopaedia. Nuttah68 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the original article, since this makes no sense out of context whatsoever. I've read it three times and have no idea what it's supposed to be. --UsaSatsui 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:07Z

Family separation research in the UK[edit]

This page is not an encyclopædia article, but rather a collection of links to various sources on, well, family separation research in the UK. While as a collection of links it's pretty good, I believe that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY applies. Lankiveil 08:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a repository of links or a directory of links to sources; articles should give information to the readers, not funnel them to a different website. Kyra_~(talk) 09:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given already, this 'article' is a directory of research. Nuttah68 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, fails WP:ATT. If reliable sources can be found, please recreate with references. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:10Z

Bhopali Bakar[edit]

I read up all the necessary policies and guidelines over notability of such pages maintaining colloquial terms over Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Bakar is necessarily a word that means bull in Hindi. Bihari is with reference to the state of Bihar.
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or WP:NOR
There are no reliable sources available for this article that conform with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability.
The article qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD#A7 criterion, however some people might want to have a shot at producing multiple, reliable and non-trivial coverage over the subejct. ⋆Zamkudi⋆(talk)⋆ 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question:- Why is Cockney English notable but Bhopali not ?I would agree with the term Bakar not being representative, but maybe all it needs is a new title- Bhopali Hindi. Yes the aritcle in it's current form is not well formatted or referenced, but from a dialect perspective it is unique as Cockney is for the Brits. Haphar 11:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as long as you have non-trivial second party sources there is nothing wrong with this article, note that, unless I missed something nobody is saying not-notable, they are just saying NO SOURCES to demonstrate notability Alf^Photoman 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- So the correct way would be to ask for citations not put the article up for deletion. This is a discussion on an afd. Haphar 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article up without a claim/and or proof of notability is not only a reason to delete but to speedy delete Alf^Photoman 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article currently is unsourced, not clear on what the subject is (although from earlier comments I guess a regional dialect). The article includes jokes, quips and comments that smack of OR. However, if it is cleaned up and properly sourced I will reconsider. Nuttah68 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per haphar, noting WP:CSB, just needs sources. per nuttah68, a lot may have to go, but that's for the article talk page. (can't delete an article just because it contains o r.) odd nomination too: 'not for things made up in school one day' about a dialect/slang? are you serious? ⇒ bsnowball 08:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you misunderstand. My issue is not that I believe some of the article is OR, I believe, after numerous searches that ALL of the article is OR and should be deleted per WP:ATT. The article is already described as 'Bhopali Bakar - Hilarious Definition By Wikipedia' at one site. At another it is summed up as 'Went through it and found myself laughing like anything' Nuttah68 10:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cancel vote apologies to nom & all concerned, missed that the claim was 'is mostly rubbish' rather than 'might be rubbish'. cancelling my vote on grounds of ignorance :) ⇒ bsnowball 11:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Bhopali Bakar" seems to be a neologism -- I've never heard the term (I've lived in Bhopal for ten years, and Google doesn't know it either -- it returns Wikipedia and mirrors). Some people use the word "Bhopali" to refer to the Hindi accent of Soorma Bhopali (of Sholay fame). But it seems that in academic/linguistic circles, Bhopali isn't considered a separate dialect or language. In the 1962 census, merely 10 persons gave "Bhopali" as their mother tongue[9]. The only other reliable source where I could find Bhopali being mentioned as a dialect is a book by Colin Masica. But, Masica uses the term "Bhopali" as another name for Malvi, and not what this article talks about. And it goes without saying that the article is in horrible shape. utcursch | talk 09:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bakar" is definitely something one does not relate to, but Bhopali Hindi and the difference that it has to mainstream Hindi is something every resident of Bhopal would notice. Do not let a bad name cause the article to be deleted. The name can be changed. And Bakar seems odd, but actually refers to "BakarCh*di"- a term very much used in Bhopal, but not polite enough to mention ( and should not be put in the title).Haphar 12:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bhopali Hindi needs to be developed on the lines of the one on Bambaiya Hindi. The reason why Bhopali has no references is because it has not caught attention of anyone in or outside Bhopal to do a research. It has been in existence for decades now and is no neologism or one man's brainchild. Utcursch must have stayed in the new parts of Bhopal, hence has no idea about the dialect. This dialect has touch of Nawabi sophistication in it, which has turned more comical due to the witty nature of Bhopalis. The article needs better material and examples and a few references, if possible, more than anything else. Chintu rohit 09:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar[edit]

Delete: original research: no sign of attributable sources. Deletion as per Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar, New Earth Calendar, Sol Calendar and The 30x11 Calendar. Prod removed on the grounds that the article is well-written, ignoring the fact that it violates the core, non-negotiable policy of attribution and hoping that a source might be provided, again ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is upon editors wishing to retain information. Pak21 09:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources given or obviously available to indicate the subjects notability or whether this is OR. Nuttah68 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~

Merge and redirect to Lunisolar calendar. Actually, I removed the prod because Peter Meyer is a respected C-programmer with an interest in calendar algorithms...Hermetic is his company, hence the name. This is a well written article, that can be merged as a well-prepared example of this calendar type as per Wiki guidelines, single source not withstanding. It is a shame to see so many of these reform calendar articles nominated and removed, instead of templated, when Pax Calendar was saved by a single offline source someone happened on...these types of sources take time to find. Regardless it is appropriate to Merge this material to Lunisolar calendar and well within Wiki guidelines to do so. Warm regards, --Greatwalk 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) --Greatwalk 12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I would recommend against merging just this one calendar into Lunisolar calendar as that could be construed as introducing POV to the article. -- Black Falcon 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete looking at the names of the months, this is more of an amusing madeupinschooloneday than a serious proposal, despite the distinction of the inventor. DGG 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and Peter Meyer goes so far as to say any calendar proposal that does not feature a seven day week (in spite of inherent inaccuracies introduced by this Biblical reference) is doomed. This calendar was not created for popular acceptance, profit or as a 'serious proposal' for any other purpose other than offering a solid, well-presented example of a Lunisolar calendar based on a relatively straight-forward calculation as per NOT original research. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 12:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - At one point in the recent past there were 60+ wikipedia links to the Meyer site, which is primarily a commercial site pure and simple (Meyer's own press release states this). Some links, such as the ones to commercial cellular automata software and the links to commercial prime number software, have been deleted multiple times from wikipedia. A non-notable self-published masters thesis on the site was linked to from three different wikipedia physics articles, in addition to being self-listed on dmoz multiple times. The site also has potential copyright issues - I have been unable to find a statement that any of the articles on the Meyer site written by others are published with the original author's permission. The 60+ former links to the site squandered any benefit of the doubt I might have once had about the author or his site. 4.246.200.154 05:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Openpolitics.ca[edit]

Non-notable wiki (WP:WEB). No sources. Savidan 21:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An interesting claim of notability, but one that is rather subjective so it needs a source. —dgies^t_c 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. google news archives indicates there is more content to add. John Vandenberg 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I click that link, I only get two articles - neither of which assert any notability. Are we getting different results? -Joshuapaquin 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per John Vandenberg. GreenJoe 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The claims to notability seem very exaggerated without sourcing. -Joshuapaquin 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of how the subject meets WP:WEB and no sources. The two Google News stories relate to the same incident, and one of those is a rather trivial mention. Nuttah68 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Chevinki 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikocracy[edit]

Non-notable wiki (WP:WEB). ~~No sources.~~ One source from a college newspaper; no indication that a lot of people visit this website or that its gotten any other press coverage. Savidan 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it took me a long time to make up my mind, but after looking at the site and the Stanford University paper's coverage on it I decide it is better to keep it. It is a very innovative approach and is definitely notable, not just a frivolous wiki. I think we can relate it to Uncyclopedia except wikocracy is more political and less comical. Wooyi 23:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One mention in a student newspaper does not make notability. If it is notable, there would be independent press coverage on it. —dgies^t_c 01:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news archive does provide two references on AlterNet, this being the better of the two. LawMeme also has a decent article on it. fwiw, uncyclopedia has a non-trivial article on them that's entertaining. John Vandenberg 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon, we may be getting crazier around here by the day, but I don't think we'll say the day when Uncyclopedia is a reliable source (maybe around the time of the last topic) --UsaSatsui 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I have heard of this webpage outside Wikipedia, and it is more notable than a mention in a student newspaper. Also as per Wooyi; not a frivolous wiki. Its notable in the "Where's George?" way. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced and referenced Alf^Photoman 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'd like to see more sources. Stanford Daily, for the record, is a bit more than the average student newspaper, it's got a pretty good distribution outside the campus. --UsaSatsui 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per reasons given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On inspection, subject main page has been accessed 27587 times. A secondary source is provided. Undoubtedly more impressive sources exist. It is a serious project. “Notability” criteria are disputed. Has considerable potential for expansion. SmokeyJoe 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but believe it IS a frivolous wiki. CenozoicEra 04:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The one reference and the one independent external link weakly establish notability. -- Black Falcon 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deletion per CSD A5 by Irishguy. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess quotes[edit]

Contested prod on the basis that the quotes are 'inspirational'. The article is a list of quotes about chess. They belong on Wikiquote (if they're not already there) but not in an encyclopaedia. Nuttah68 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. This article is a duplicate of the Wikiquote chess page. --Muchness 11:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting, but of no encyclopedic value. Take to Wikiquote. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Belongs in wikiquote, not in wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr bab (talk • contribs) 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Given that this material already exists at Wikiquote, I think Speedy delete A5 is appropriate. Tagged as such. Alba 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Front of house (foodservice)[edit]

dictionary definition Vicarious 09:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on dicdef; Transwiki to Wiktionary, merge and redirect to Foodservice. Alba 16:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub. There is the the possibility of expansion to cover areas such the operations, etc. as evidenced by web articles such as this. -- Whpq 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Front of House and/or Foodservice. A quick mention in both wouldn't hurt. →Ed Gl 01:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge - but back into Front Of House, and not into Foodservice. Reasons: 1) "front of house" is a term used in many different public-house operations and not just in restaurants, and 2) this article originally was split from Front Of House, which deals with the more general meaning of the term. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Front of House, where it is appropriate to mention meanings of the term other than for venues. –Pomte 05:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me ask a simple question. How can I, someone who's totally clueless about food service industry jargon, tell if the term is something that's actually used in the food service industry, or if it's something an editor just made up? If the article doesn't give me enough information for a totally clueless person like myself to be able to tell, the attribution policy requires a Delete. Also, right now the only thing in the article is a definition (See WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Minimum requirements for a keep vote include an explanation of why the topic is something notable and reliable sources describing the term and explaining why it's of interest. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Every article has to start off with an attributed definition of terms? Does the first line always need an inline link to a definition from Dictionary.com? As fore, I still think this stub should be merged back into its original article, Front of House, which also doesn't have any attribution (and nor does Foodservice). Maybe I should just cut and paste the one line of this article and put this debate to death right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There. Done. WP:BB. After 30 seconds of strenuous labour, I have now merged its one line of text back into Front of House. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Mikhaylovich Petrov (TRIZ Master)[edit]

Subject does not appear to meet notability standards. Article is also being piped by Vladimir Petrov (talk · contribs) as per this edit--VectorPotential^Talk 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - unsourced, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sources can be added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT which is not acceptable i.a.w. WP:BLP Alf^Photoman 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Ridiculous nomination. Has big list of books in Laws of Technical Systems Evolution. Article requires references, but not deletion. `'mikka 06:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:12Z

Chaos (Professional Wrestler)[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:ATT, various combinations of Carl Williamson chaos only pulls a few ghits. MER-C 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to meet the primary notability criterion, or the criterion on people; additionally, this article fails the policy on attribution. Kyra_~(talk) 13:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: Speedily deleted by NYC JD (g3). - Mike Rosoft 12:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeenis[edit]

Fails most criteria for inclusion. Seems to be something the author just made up. Google on the article name barely show any hits, and nothing relevant to the article. Pekaje 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not for stuff made up in a school day. I wish hoaxes were criteria for speedy deletion. TJ Spyke 10:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. If we can't justify that then delete as an obvious hoax Jules 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense or -nocontext. skip (t / c) 10:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 11:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 and WP:SNOW. A redirect to Glenbuck Cherrypickers F.C. has been put in its place; it's on my watchlist in case non-notable material is readded. Qwghlm 12:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glenbuck Cherrypickers[edit]

Glenbuck Cherrypickers F.C. were an important club, a university team named in its honour isn't Bedders 10:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no assertion of notability; tagged as such. --Pak21 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability whatsoever, zero encyclopedic content ChrisTheDude 10:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No reasons have been provided for keeping, while on th other side it is correctly argued that the articles lacks an assertion of notability (see WP:CSD#A7), lacks the multiple reliable sources required for notability, and generally lacks attribution to reliable sources. Sandstein 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales University Theatrical Society[edit]

Another non-notable student organization. The best this article claims about the subject in terms of notability is its being a large club at New South Wales University. Great, but that does not warrant an article. This would work much better as a student newspaper article. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 11:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New South Wales University Theatrical Society resolved with no consensus, but discussion leaned toward a merge. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asw stated, this is another student society that makes no claim to notability and gives no indication of relevance beyond the university. Nuttah68 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article makes no claims that this is a notable organisation in Australian threatre and a Google News Archive search can come up with none. Might be worth mentioning on the University of New South Wales article. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move into a broader article on clubs and club culture at Sydney University. See also Previous AfD ...maelgwn talk 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney University and UNSW are different universities. JRG 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops must have been napping, thats what i mean to say, article on Clubs at UNSW. Maybe from previous AfD suggestions - Move University_of_New_South_Wales_Student_Guild to Student Clubs and Associations at University of New South Wales or such like, to which the content from this article could be moved ...maelgwn talk 00:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that either - the Student Guild I assume ran the Clubs and Societies program, but it encompassed far more than that. I don't go to UNSW, but I'm sure Joestella or someone like that who did can tell you more - but I'm pretty sure that it did a lot more than just club stuff. JRG 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - So is that then a vote for a delete and merge? Because I am amenable to that. I think that's probably the best outcome for this. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can this AfD debate be closed and listed properly as a 2nd nomination where the 1st nomination result was keep? I don't see new information here that suggests the first result should be overturned, certainly not in favour of a deletion. Nonetheless, the first discussion is relevant and it would be better if it was referred to in a prominent postion as is usual. Warm regards, --Greatwalk 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Greatwalk, and failing that, per Joestella below. JRG 03:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or merge - persistent re-nomination for deletion isn't nice, per Greatwalk. Unfortunately, the article University of New South Wales student clubs and associations does not exist as a merge target - are we instead referring to a subsection within the university article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep club is of a significant size and age. Suggest the article be improved somewhat though. Joestella 06:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Peta 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into school article. The club is not all that old and the article, other then the list of productions does not have much content. The suggested merges by maelgwn could however be the better solution and I would not object to someone being bold and doing those merges. I would use University of New South Wales student clubs and associations as the merge target, I think that is a more correct name. Vegaswikian 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A keep vote requires independent reliable sources demonstrating that this organization is notable. If these are forthcoming, my vote would change. --Shirahadasha 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Student organizations are not inherently notable. Caknuck 17:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, "I just made up a word that doesn't mean anything." NawlinWiki 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chubaluba[edit]

Contested prod, sounds like it was made up in school one day. Xnuala 11:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sign of any reliable sources as required by attribution. --Pak21 11:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS. Fails the lot. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources exist with which to attribute the information contained within this page about a non-notable WP:NEO:neologism that was most likely created in a school one day. Kyra_~(talk) 13:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant nonsense. --Folantin 14:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, not wiki standards, no content. ^SyBer_WoLff 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of boots in media and popular culture[edit]

Delete. Because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information." AlistairMcMillan 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey - delete - purely indiscriminate, WP:NOT is policy, not every fact about some random boots is of encyclopedic importance. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no difference between this and a hundred other lists on wikipedia. For example, List of Cognitive Biases, List of UML tools, List of Wii games, List of Homer Simpson's jobs.--85.211.178.206 13:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate and pointless. --Folantin 14:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up until this revision, the article was entitled "Go-go boots". In fact, the article has been around for a few years. Based on its history, I'm hesitant to recommend it for deletion, but it's possible that the list is getting crufty. In that case, a good spit-shine (er, cleanup) is in order. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, after rereading this article and Go-go boots, it looks like the list was split off from the main Go-go boots article because it got crufty. I'd suggest paring the list down to only the most prominent examples. We don't need to know every single time boots were mentioned (like Jeff Beck's song "Led Boots".) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant appearances of Go-Go boots (if any could be called significant) should be mentioned in the Go-Go boots article. This List should be deleted. AlistairMcMillan 14:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of go-go boots in media and popular culture, and edit down to a manageable size and focused topic. Alba 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A list of instances in which someone in music/movies/art is wearing boots? This is hopelessly trivial and indiscriminate. Fails WP:NOT in a bad way, and has absolutely no redeeming value. Arkyan 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was made for walking. Delete. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh dear god. Otto4711 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia well beyond WP:NOT. Nuttah68 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unbelievably indiscriminate. Krimpet 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sub-trivial and very crufty. Dragomiloff 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sheesh... it doesn't even have the quote from the movie Mafia! "Mmmmm... Booooot". Neonblak 01:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A random Maggie Gyllenthal TV interview, and War at Home and Good Burger references to fill the article out more? Now that's what I call crufty!! Or else someone's really obsessed with boots! Nate 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely trivial and indiscriminate. WjBscribe 03:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spectacularly indiscriminate, and begs the question of why there isn't a list of every popular culture instance of a shirt being worn too.Tt 225 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some people have obviously been working hard on this, but it could be cleaned up, edited down and perhaps renamed as Alba suggests. An alternative could be to move the few most famous examples to the article boot. John Anderson 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of appearances of God in fiction[edit]

God appears in far too many places in fiction (especially as an idea rather than a character) for it to be a good idea to try to list them all. Most of the material here is questionable; for instance, God doesn't really appear in The Chronicles of Narnia (which isn't a film anyway), Bedazzled, and certainly not in The Matrix... God does appear in some of the other movies as a brief reference, and I'm sure the list is grossly incomplete and always will be. Fundamentally, this is a similar article to Depictions of God in popular culture which I've also put up for deletion. The difference is that this one has slightly less crufty trivia, NO pretentions of attempting to create an article, and is a bad premise for a list. God is a major theme in western literature: for this reason it's essential to write about that as a general trend, but a very bad idea to list all the times God appears. Mango juice^talk 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. just a list. SYSS Mouse 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Makes for a very long list. Some would argue that god is a fictional character and thus every appearance would be in a work of fiction. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSome would argue that god is everywhere, so he's in every work of fiction, so...a very, very, very very long list! Emeraude 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emeraude. Raystorm 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this list would be too long if completed and unmaintainable. Alba 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The list says it has to be a physical or mental (i.e. voiceover) manifestation of God. So it's not possible for an editor to claim that God is everywhere and add every movie to this list. The list states its discriminating criteria at the top of the article, and as such, it's not actually a very long or incomplete list. If the list was about the idea of God, or God as a metaphor, or themes about God, then I'd probably agree with the deletion. But as is, it's a much narrower topic than that. --JayHenry 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and ill-defined. Captures appearances of "God" plus appearances of characters who falsely claim to be "God" or "God-characters" acting in opposition to common conceptions of "God." Otto4711 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be more than a list. God is sometimes considered to be a legit character in certain works of fiction; The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family describes him that way. So with discrimination you could make a good list. This also could be of interest to a social scientist- students of religion or the media. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh, and I spot an omission to the list. I'm sure God's mentioned in The Bible somewhere... Grutness...wha? 03:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unbelievably indiscriminate, Supreme Being(s) have been depicted in fictional works since before the dawn of recorded history. Thankfully though the article as-is ignores trivial mentions in unimportant old books like The Divine Comedy, in favor of highly important appearances in Family Guy and "WWE Backlash 2006." Krimpet 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously strong delete A POV Fork, as some people consider the Bible a work of fiction. Feeeshboy 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so people know, The Bible used to be on the list, but was removed. Per the talk page, it's controversial to consider the Bible fiction, although obviously some people do. But it does open up another difficulty: why can we include The Ten Commandments (the movie) which is an adaptation of a bible story -- how can it be fictional if the Bible isn't? And if we include all biblical adaptations... I shudder to think. Mango juice^talk 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Depictions of God in popular culture per the keeping reasons given by CanadianCaesar and JayHenry, which seem more rooted in policy to me than the reasons given to delete so far have been. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you come up with a reason to delete that hasn't been covered yet, to see if I'll change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Huge ridiculous list with no viable criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Wickethewok 22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_heroes_of_valhalla[edit]

Non-notable band with no record deal and selling self-made cd via My Space page). StuartDouglas 13:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been speedy deleted. Just a band. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I considered Speedy but there is a link (that doesn't appear too work currently, granted) to a music magazine which itself has a Wikipedia listing. Thought it might be better to get some discussion, just in case. StuartDouglas 14:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I have missed something, they appear totally to fail WP:MUSIC, and hence would have qualified for ((db-band)).--Anthony.bradbury 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7: The one claim to notability was an Alternative Press article mention, but AP's website claims to have never heard of these guys. Unverifiable: therefore, zap it. Alba 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete r3, unlikely typo. NawlinWiki 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientifc wisdom[edit]

misspelling of orphan article, prod was removed, "Scientfic-wisdom" and "Scientific wisdom" previously deleted TedFrank 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the current redirect as an unlikely typo (R3); tagged as such. ~~Recreating Scientific wisdom as a redirect to Wisdom#Scientific perspectives may be appropriate.~~ --Pak21 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect not appropriate: all material added by the editor who created this. --Pak21 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Speedy Delete R3 as already tagged--Anthony.bradbury 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Metal[edit]

Fails to satisfy notability as per WP:SOFTWARE. This was pointed out in a prod, which was removed without comment or addition of references/sources. Marasmusine 14:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that WP:Software is still under review so it should not be used as a rationale for keeping or deleting an article. →Bobby← 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was replied to on my user talk page, it seems the user has not read this.Kangphil 14:45, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Delete: the problem is not the quality of the page, it is that there are no reliable sources for the information mentioned as required by attribution. --Pak21 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A link to reviews has been added to the page and a significant number of players participate. .Kangphil 15:16, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

The source added would appear to be a self-published source, which does not mean attribution's requirement of being a "reliable published source". Cheers --Pak21 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you search google for for the game you will not be able to find many reviews for the game. If someone external to the game has written a review that isnt on the internet, nor does a page come up in the search, the wiki-page cannot exist? In america it may well have been printed in a local paper, but i cannot provide such a reference for i do not live in the U.S. .Kangphil

The burden of proof is on editors who wish to add or retain information to show that reliable sources, either online or offline, exist, not on the editors suggesting that information be removed to show the sources do not exist. Cheers --Pak21 15:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In this case, we're going to use the Alexa test. The game's url is ranked nearly 4,000,000. Only 15 pages link to Broken Metal. The fact of the matter is that at this moment in time, the site has not obtained enough notability to have its own page on WP. →Bobby← 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, over 18,000 people have played broken metal since it started, that is not counting the deletion of inactive accounts..Kangphil 15:47, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment - As far as I can tell, the game has not had 18000 players unless every hit to the page is a unique player. I'm sorry, but 18K hits over the past 4 years equates to only a dozen hits a day. As it stands now, there could be 12 people who go online everyday. I'd also like to point out that the site is declining in popularity relative to other sites (based on the fact that its rank has dropped about a million in the last few months). I would like to remind Kangphil that it is advisable for a page's author to identify themself when participating in an AfD discussion. I understand the frustration of losing an article that you've put a significant amount of time into, but I would encourage you to focus your enthusiasm towards a more notable topic. →Bobby← 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was refering to the number of accounts and thus players it has. ..Kangphil 16:24, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment After discussion with Kangphil, I decided to have a quick look for sources myself; the nearest I could find was a brief review here, but I don't know how reliable pc.gamezone.com is. Marasmusine 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question - Gamezone is a fairly large vg review and info site. However, if I recall correctly, they allow user submitted game reviews. I can't look at the link you posted through my company's filters, but could you determine who wrote the article? →Bobby← 16:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't say either way, unfortunatly. Not even a reviewers name. Marasmusine 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is the list of reviewers. If that helps at all? Kangphil 18:59, 9 March 2007 (GMT)
Delete as NN. Just another obscure webgame, and speaking as an online game player, I concur with Bobby that 18K hits over four years would have been a pathetic level for a game on a dedicated university server twenty years ago. There's no there there. Ravenswing 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 18,000 is the number of accounts in the game, not site hits.Kangphil 16:34, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Fair enough. Could you provide us with verification of that? Ravenswing 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the home page of Broken Metal here it gives the number of accounts, and the number of ships. These numbers are to the right of the log-in box. Kangphil 18:42, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Observation - We really need to see ~~some~~ more independant coverage of the game in order to try and insure that the topic is notable and the facts can be verified. Without these outside sources, I honestly don't see keeping the article. →Bobby← 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have contacted someone to see if they are willing to try the game and review it, they are from the website mentioned earlier. Kangphil 18:59, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Hrm. You mean the site claims to have 8,000+ (not 18,000) accounts. I was hoping for independent verification myself. Beyond that, getting someone from a website to review a game doesn't count for much. Please review the criteria from WP:WEB and let us know which elements of that your site meets. Ravenswing 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake i mis-read. If you won't wait for the site to the become applicable then there's nothing i can do, and i will stop editing it, and contributing to wikipedia until it does. Kangphil 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of the webgame being "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works". --TBCΦtalk? 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability and no reliable sources that I can see at the 450 GHits [10]. As a browser game probably fails the specific WP:WEB as well as WP:N. Nuttah68 22:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Beyond which ... Alexa reports that this site gets only 11 hits a day (by contrast, the modestly popular game I play gets nearly seven hundred times the traffic). Moreover, when I clicked the Wayback Machine to the first known views in April '03, the game was already claiming nearly 800 accounts. [11] The week it went live? I don't think so. Ravenswing 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Duveen[edit]

Non-notable University Lecturer. fraggle 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not apear to satisfy WP:PROF.--Anthony.bradbury 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence can be shown for WP:PROF notability. Alba 16:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:PROF and/or WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 21:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:PROF. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent sources make copious reference to works that Dr. Duveen has edited but there are fewer independent references to work that is distinctly his own. He appears to be well-regarded but does not meet WP:PROF at this time. Give him a couple of years. Irene Ringworm 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:CORP requires third party coverage. Sandstein 07:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shields Pictures, Inc.[edit]

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shields Pictures. I am renominating because that nomination was confused partly by nominating Shields Pictures along with some of their film series which are notable (but the articles were closely based on copyrighted material, and so were deleted by me as copyvios). As far as I can tell, Shields Pictures didn't have any role in producing these notable film clips, they just own them now and license them to others. No evidence that Shields Pictures itself meets WP:CORP. Mango juice^talk 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATT. No sources. —Carolfrog 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take this rubbish out to the curb. Nardman1 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Mark Punswick, President and owner of Shields Pictures. The person who posted this entry (as well as entries for our 3 historic Paramount series "Popular Science," "Unusual Occupations" and "Speaking of Animals" - all of which have been deleted according to what I've been told) contacted me and asked me to post a statement. I'm doing this purely as a courtesy to them as apparently they invested quite a bit of time and effort in listing information about us and our series on Wikipedia. For the uninitiated our film library holdings document important and historic personalities and events of the 20th Century. Our collections contain the earliest known film footage of Dr. Seuss, the earliest known color film on Philo T. Farnsworth, the Building of the Mount Palomar Space Telescope, the Building of Boulder/Hoover Dam, the Building of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the only known film footage of Paul Garber - founder of the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum, Frank Lloyd Wright, and on and on. We have a standing policy with academic institutions, researchers and archives in that we make selections available for viewing at no cost (we pay for transfer and shipping) which sets us apart from companies such as the Getty and Corbis (I just checked and both purely commercial enterprises have fairly substantial listings on Wikipedia so I fail to see what the issues are here). We also make 35mm film prints available for archival screenings all across the country and at no charge (we archive our film print masters with the UCLA FILM and Television Archives and sometimes they charge a small fulfillment fee but we never do). Content Listings for the series had apparently been posted (which is fine by me - this information is also available from the Library of Congress and the New York State Archives albeit not as easily searchable) and were subsequently deleted by Wikipedia editors. In perusing prior postings, deletions and comments I was quite dismayed to see statements posted by Wikipedia editors referring to the Academy Awards as a "popularity contest" and was a bit taken aback by the aforementioned comment referring to our holdings as rubbish. I have done was what was requested of me and now leave it to you fine folks to determine the outcome. If someone has a legitimate comment, question or request (no rants please) they can contact me at <redacted for spam protection>.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the sources, sorry they were overlooked - I have made the corrections. CCBear 23:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Ryan[edit]

Does not pass notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia Burghboy80 13:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources, thus non-notable. Huon 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not really sure what Wikipedia's policy on news personalities is. Personally, I don't think every local news anchor should get a page. However, I'd like to see some other ideas before making a decision. I will point out that if we are going to delete Ms. Ryan's article, we also need to delete all the other personalities from WFTS-TV. None of the individual's have anything more than a stub. Rather than list each one, it seems to make more sense to use Wendy as a basis for the other pages. →Bobby← 15:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All she is is a local talking head? NN. RGTraynor 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. →Bobby← 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penarth Downs Massive[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. This is a bunch of kids in a small town in South Wales - see their own Myspace page Completely non-notable Jules 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Ber Pinson[edit]

This article fails to assert any notability and should be speedily deleted. The article appears to be a vanity article, the user appears to have tried adding links all of wikipedia in the past few days. David Spart 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete David Spart 09:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:NN stub which may also run against WP:COI. IZAK 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COI? Whaa? David Spart 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the way of a vanity article. Chalk me up for a Speedy Delete as well, no assertion of notability. Ravenswing 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very little content, no sources to support claim of notability. NawlinWiki 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:A Alf^Photoman 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per recently added sources. And comment is someone would put in the sources from the beginning we would not have to waste our time on an AfD Alf^Photoman 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:N, WP:V, I've begun improving the article. He's published several books, as well as many articles for Chabad, and is well known on the lecture circuit on topics concerning Jewish mysticism. He's one of the few who has published in the areas of Jewish meditation and reincarnation. Here is an article in Spirituality & Health on him for starters. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not "well known". He certainly is not one of "the few" who have published on Jewish "meditation and mysticism" or in the areas of "meditation and reincarnation". He is a self published vanity author, who has never had a book reviewed by a major publication. He apparently created this article and spammed references to himself all around wikipedia to drum up publicity for himself. He is the very definition of WP:NN and has no non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, let alone multiple references. He has self published a few books and contributed a few (four) puff pieces (which you describe as "many articles") for his books to a minor website. David Spart 10:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his books are published by Jason Aronson, which is a reputable publisher known in the academic world. It certainly is not a vanity publisher. Here is a review of one of his books by The Forward. And another review by the Jewish journal Zeek. And here he's discussed alongside Aryeh Kaplan and others in Ziggurat, the journal of religion at Brown University. He's on the recommended booklist of "reliable and authoritative" works on Jewish mysticism by Ascent of Safed. I'm curious to know what well known living authorities on Jewish meditation and/or reincarnation you would name? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are incorrect. Aronson publish real books but are also a vanity publisher. Meaning they will publish almost anything as long as you pay them. Give them a call and ask them - I happen to be well aware of the situation there. Not that that would make any difference - there are still no non-trivial published works with Pinson as a subject way which are notable in any and he has very low ghits. There are many more notable than him Goldie Milgram, Ariel Bar Zadok, Akiva Belk, Akiva Tatz, Joanne Gerber and the list goes on. David Spart 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the books and external links show that he is notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the books are vanity, and the "reviews" are all in non-notable publications and are mostly not about his books especially. There are no non-trivial external sources about this individual, merely two or three fleeting references to his work (one by a friend) and a review in a non-notable web journal. "Ascent to Safed" said that he is "reliable and authoritative", that just about says it all. You choose to delete Sokolovsky a few weeks ago because he is against your POV despite being notable, but want an article on a genuine nobody because he conforms to your own POV despite having no notability whatsoever. David Spart 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most would not consider the religious journal from Brown University non-notable or trivial, nor Forward. At any rate, I think I've provided an ample broad sampling from religious and academic reliable sources that find him notable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the seconadry sources cited in fact do not make him notable. The citations at ZEEK/ Forward are using him as a safe whipping post to say what they dont like about current Haredi books seeking to present Judiasm in a hip way. They show just the oppsoite of notability. They show that he is a small enough person that a reviewer can trash him and not worry about reprisal. The article from Brown is in a STUDENT journal of Brown U. is just that, a student journal. We dont included every rock band, visiting rabbi, or hillel director who gets cited in a student article. The books do indeed seem vanity and it looks like several of his works have not even appeared. He uses of conflict of interest words and peacock words in his own self promotion, these words of promotion are then compied into the articles by and about him is equally a sign of NN. He may be a nice guy, a smart guy, and he may give many lectures, but he is less than Steve Burg - head of NCSY - whom we decided to delete. He is also less than several of the names mentioned above. He also may be important in 5 years from now, but now he is not. --Jayrav 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. It doesn't say that it's not notable if those sources "trash" the subject (meanwhile I don't agree that Forward or Zeek "trashes" Pinson). I also didn't like seeing the Steve Burg article deleted, as I think being the head of NCSY is notable, but I tried and was unable to find any secondary sources about him, unlike in this case. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is daft. The references have to be non-trivial. A trashing en passent is not good enough, and frankly any mere book review is not really ok since it is not discussing him only his book. Gratuitous (and useless) self publicist. David Spart 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the Forward was by the editor of Zeek, hence the articles are quite related. Unfortunatly, this is a case where a speedly delete might have been kinder and more efficient, so that two weeks later someone could start a normal modest article about the guy. The creators of the original article called him "the greatest modern Jewish philosopher" and compared him to Luria. Not a good way to start a modest article of a minor person. Maybe he does deserve an article but this case seems to be working backwards from COI and megalomaniac Peacock words to establishing even minor notability. Even now, I find it offputing that the article calls Pinson, someone who only gives a few adult ed classes, a "rosh yeshiva." --Jayrav 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the article about Pinson in Spirituality & Health which is a magazine that likely appeals to a narrower niche but still qualifies as a secondary source that is reliable and independent of the subject. Whatever peacock words the original author of this article used really doesn't matter as that's easy enough to remedy. Anyway, do whatever, I'm getting frustrated and exhausted wasting time and effort when so much of editing at WP seems to center around people's private beefs and personal quarrels with other editors rather than reasonableness (this is not directed at you particularly, just a general sense I'm getting on these afds, which means time for a break for me). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy is notable as MPerel has clearly demonstrated. --Shlomke 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability Avi 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MPerel. Just becuase he isn't "one of the few" that have published Judaic theory books and articles doesn't mean he's not "notable." --Oakshade 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MPerel. Meets notability guidelines. —Viriditas | Talk 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made to the article (including the addition of new sources). See diff. -- Black Falcon 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. The sources recently listed apparently show Ber Pinson to be notable; would like article to be expanded further because it is a stub. — Rickyrab | Talk 09:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in Judaism[edit]

Lack of reliable sources per WP:A and lack of apparent notability. Google search on topic shows no ghits at all except for this Wikipedia article. The authors' efforts to provide an unsourced "pro-nudity interpretation" of the Bible suggests that this effort may reflect original research. --Shirahadasha 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Tomer's revised google search criteria. However, agree with JFW that WP:POVFORK also represents a ground for deletion given the apparent POV fork created with the Tzniut article, and WP:A#No Original Research remains an issue --Shirahadasha 05:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 07:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is probably a better-suited gsearch than the one provided above... Tom e r ^talk 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Tzniut. This is a total violataion of WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX as it's just a modernistic pro-nudist mish-mash that makes no sense as it cites old Biblical verses out of context and links to secular Israeli nudist sites with pro-nudism POVs (with graphic pics to boot...) and assumes that this somehow translates into "Judaism" (a clear violation of WP:NEO by the way.) The article was obviously written by someone who knows nothing about Judaism, its views and how it's practiced, but does wish to promote nudism, which has nowadays been politically corrected (and redirects) to "Naturism". To be clear: The Jewish view of nudity is already recorded in the Tzniut article !!! One could "prove" anything from the Bible this way and add a dollop to it where it's mentioned on secular Israeli websites and call it or link it to "Jewish" or "Judaism" -- which would be totally dumb and falacious. Besides, classical Judaism as it has been practiced for millenia, and in Jewish law, forbids explicit displays of nudity, again see the Tzniut article in this regard. What will they think of next? Nudity in Islam? Nudity in Shintoism? Nudity in Atheism? Nudity in airplanes? Nudity in the White House? Nudity in Hollywood? (actually that is a good one) Nudity in the home? Nudity in the bathroom? Nudity in academia? Nudity in politics? (Or better yet, The politics of nudity!) The potential for this nonsense is endless... IZAK 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, and just look at the size of those Tzniuts!! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Izak. Pointless article filled with OR in the form of out-of-context quotes and personal interpretations. Daniel^C/_T+ 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect after stripping out original research. Alba 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? Tom e r ^talk 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, violates WP:OR, WP:NOT. Rambling essay/op-ed piece that belongs on a blog, not here. RGTraynor 16:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research Shlomke 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is mianly about references in the Old Testament which is not the same as Judaism. It talks about sex too which is not really about Nudity. So, unless some modern or talmidic sources can be found for this it is all a bit silly. David Spart 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mainly about manipulating text to support a POV. This sort of textual manipulation is intellectual dishonesty, and using the Bible as a source is an obvious appeal to authority. Pushing a POV (specifically, in this case, that Judaism is even open to the idea that public nudity is acceptable (which it is not, as noted above, and already well-covered in the tzeni`uth article) is prohibited on WP. The author of the article should probably be gently reminded to be more careful when moving text around. Tom e r ^talk 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Delete and redirect but I'll be content with redirect. Tom e r ^talk 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak. It's original research, lacks notability and is unencyclopedic nonsense.69.111.84.209 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but while it is here, notice that there are two well-known illustrations (from Michelangelo and Masaccio) both of course in a OT but distinctly non-Jewish religious context.DGG 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fork. Redirect to Tzeniut. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tzniut, duplictated content. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- Olve 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to cover Jewish concepts, laws, points of view, etc. within the context in which they actually become issues. Creating a separate article like this is just nonsense, and it is too much of a burden on wikipedia editors to maintain it. --Metzenberg 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources, POV pushing, and seems to be a joke.--Sefringle 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak, nom, and Sef. JoshuaZ 17:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep and no consensus to move. Jersey Devil 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and intelligence[edit]

Does this topic really deserve an article of its own? I think it should either be deleted or merged with another article about sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Hetfield (talk • contribs)

Delete per above James Hetfield (talk · contribs)

Next time, just put your signature after your deletion argument. There's no need to say this twice. FrozenPurpleCube 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as long as we have Race and intelligence we ought to have this too. The article needs to be expanded to inculde more information on sexism. futurebird 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a resonable topic, encyclopedic and meeting article attribution requirements while not meeting the deletion criteria in any way. NeoFreak 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely controversial subject, deletion reeks of censorship. There are plenty of sources that could be included. There are other ways of dealing with controversial subjects on Wikipedia than deleting them. This is one subject that has had a great impact on society apart from sexism.--Parsleyjones 17:51, 9 March 2007
- "Deletion" does not "reek of censorship" since nobody is proposing we delete the articles of all the researchers and their work. Usedup 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except, by removing the single article, it could be interpreting as favoring one researcher or another. That would violate WP:NPOV. FrozenPurpleCube 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Censorship doesn't mean removing something completely; women's breasts are censored on TV, but there are still billions of them out there. To simply declare that the subject is a subheading of sexism is to declare a POV, and to prevent the subject from being addressed fairly. Is Wikipedia going to officially state that sex has no bearing on intelligence, and throw all research that might not support that under the heading of sexism?--Parsleyjones 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individuals like us can never write a good non-bias article on something like this. Get rid of Race and Intelligence while you're at it. Anyone wanting to look up that information has way more reliable collections of information to read than a poorly-written and potentially bias-ridden wikipedia article. Usedup 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we all took that attitude, there wouldn't be a wikipedia. The entire thing is created by "individuals like us". exolon 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, although it still needs to be shown that the wikipedia can make this kind of content work. It's up to us to do that work. futurebird 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    - An article like this needs expert attention, which most wikipedians don't have. There is no point of quibbing over this article when most of its points can be well covered in the biographies of researchers on the matter, like Richard Lynn etc. Usedup 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid I must disagree, since there is a wide gulf between what a researcher produces and the subject itself. Especially when there's more than one researcher. Besides, content disputes are not grounds for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there shouldn't be a big gulf between what a researcher says and what we report. Hence, it is perfectly fine. "content disputes are not grounds for deletion" No idea what that was suppose to mean or prove. Usedup 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, if a notable researcher says something, it would behoove Wikipedia to include that information. I don't see this as a real problem with Wikipedia, given that many times information is added within moments of being reported. Some people actually have trouble with that, thinking it's too quick. However, I don't think you understood my comment. Wikipedia is not a collection of sources of research, like say Nexis-Lexis, but rather a compilation of information. As such, the subject of an article is independent of the researchers. This is true for every subject, whether it be Sex and intelligence or astrophysics. People don't look for the researcher, they look for the subject. What you're talking about would be a different thing than an encyclopedia, or at least, fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia. So, that's something too large to discuss here. But anyway, content disputes are not grounds for deletion means exactly what it means. If there is a dispute as to the actual content of a page (as compared to disagreement over whether the subject of a page is encyclopedic or not), then the proper form to resolve those disputes is not through the deletion of an article. Perhaps you need to review the deletion policyand the guide to deletion so you can understand the difference better. You might also wish to review the AFD of the Daniel Brandt article, to see some responses as to why the mere trouble of editing an article is not convincing as grounds to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope I've helped you understand why your argument here is not persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no potential bias or original research interpretation of sources available in astrophysics as there is in sex and intelligence. Usedup 18:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Potential for bias is not a reason to delete, otherwise we'd have no articles on anything related to sex, sexuality, politics, religion, Israel-Palestine, Iraq, the United States, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, the EU, ... I disagree that the article needs expert attention--one can simply read the results of studies and report them here. -- Black Falcon 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Isn't there someone famous here who runs on the premise "no article is better than a bad article"? I'm actually well-read on Sex and Intelligence and Race and Intelligence and I know very well that although both articles do report plenty of facts, many of these facts are being misrepresented and morphed (on both sides). I don't consider myself an expert but I do think we need an expert to fix these articles up if we're gonna keep them. No one wishes to step forward so I see delete as the only option. Usedup 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The potential for bias only makes it a concern to edit the article properly, not a reason for deletion. Plus I know some people who might say there is quite a lot of potential for bias in astrophysics. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has nothing do with sexism. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Gender and intelligence as that name is less confusing than the current one. Otherwise keep. The subject itself is quite distinct from sexism and it's completely possible for us to write this article. Note that being difficult to write is not a grounds for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly move to Gender and ... , which is closer to the intended meaning. DGG 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, move to Gender and intelligence. futurebird 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are gender and sex the same thing? They say gender is a social construct, and it seems to me the question of sex and intelligence is asking a biological question.--Parsleyjones 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong Keep. An encyclopedic topic that has been the subject of (semi-)scientific inquiry for well over a century. Though much of the initial (i.e., 19th century) research was based in sexism, it is inappropriate to label more recent research on the subject as such. Also, do not move to gender and intelligence. Gender is a semi-flexible social construction, sex is a biological characteristic; research on this subject has (almost) always been about the latter. -- Black Falcon 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree.--Parsleyjones 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. --Mad Max 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Gender and intelligence. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Do Not Rename. The nomination asks if this material would be better merged, and yet this is a deletion discussion not a merge discussion. The size of the sourced content is large enough to force any article it would merge into into "verylong" status. So I cannot agree with the nominator's reasons for deletion. Usedup suggests that an article like this can't be written without bias, but the article lacks a current bias tag, and appears to contain a fairly reasonable dose of sourced information. Moreover, as someone who has done work on equally charged issues elsewhere in Wikipedia (the current debate over the Pope's past in the Hitler Youth comes to mind), I don't find that argument plausible either. As these two arguments for deletion are trivially rebutted, and I see no other reason to suggest deletion, I'm forced to "keep." As far as the rename--"gender" and "sex" are different things, the research listed deals with sex, not gender, so the rename would be inappropriate, thus "do not rename". --Joe Decker 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't understand how gender and sex are such different things, could you explain why? And can you offer some suggestions to fix the ambiguity in the title? I understand this article was moved from Gender and intelligence, but I don't see that the new title is an improvement. After all, sex is also the act of intercourse, and I could imagine some coverage of that subject. FrozenPurpleCube 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, glad to! A good description can be found here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Gender. Now, word definitions are more complex than that article describes, if you look at Merriam-Webster it will tell you that "sex" can both mean intercourse and male/female, and that gender can mean what I'm saying or "sex". But when the two terms are used near each other in a compare/contrast way, the breakdown is typically the way that Intro. to Sociology text describes. (And I don't have a third alternative that's less ambiguous, if I did I'd be very open to using it.) Given that both words are ambiguous, I kinda go with "sex", not because it's titillating, but because (a) I think it's what's used in the literature, and because (b) it's unlikely that someone reading the full article will think that the subject refers to relationships of intercourse and sexuality, but might well be confused as to whether the article discusses relationships of sexuality and physical characteristics, or relationships of sexuality and social constructs. Anyway, hope I didn't overexplain this. --Joe Decker 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't think your explanation is overly much, I just don't feel convinced by it. I'm aware of this technical distinction, I looked at the subject when somebody first objected to the alternate name I proposed. It didn't convince me, as while that may be the usage in that field, the problem with the ambiguity itself comes from an entirely different source, and that problem doesn't exist in the common vernacular with say Gender and intelligence. Ah well, I think it's a problem, but it's not one that's causing problems right now or violates NPOV. It's just a question of clarity. FrozenPurpleCube 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't move it to sexism because sexism has a negative connotation, and this topic need not be negative or positive, but objectective as a scientific article representing facts and not opinions. Sexism is very arbitrary and subjective as a topic, and if we were to combine intelligence with sexism we would be changing the tone of the article from scientific to non-scientific. The non-scientific should stay in sexism. The idea of changing the name to Gender and Intelligence is not good because, as someone else already mentioned, Gender is a social construct in which a person of male sex could have "female" gender. This is not good because once again it would change the tone of the article to nonscientific. 71.207.94.117 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Scifiintel 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC) I wrote this but forgot to sign in.[reply]
Keep Definitely a topic worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Discussions on merge, rename, etc. can be held in the proper fashion after this AfD is complete. ZueJay (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:19Z

The Amazing Spider-Man: The Series[edit]

I think they meant Spider-Man (1994 TV series). Or else it's a joke. Their doesn't seem to a TV show of this name. If this show actually exists, close this AfD. Peregrine Fisher 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more research... The numbers of episodes quoted don't match. I suspect you're right, and if so, move to merge and redirect.... but can someone check to make sure this is really what the author means? Alba 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm going to make a judgement call that this is a hoax. I can find no evidence of a show running for this length ever being produced based upon Spider-Man, much less aired on Cartoon, and there is no IMDb listing for "Tyler Braddock". I would speedy it myself, however I don't want to supercede this AFD in case anyone can actually prove this is legit. 23skidoo 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe it's all made upGman124 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would need like Alba said some extensive research, although if the Simpsons have articles for each episode,then I don't see why the Amazing Spider-Man would not even have an article (although I don't ask for article or resumes for each article). --JForget 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will this edit change your mind? Chris cheese whine 00:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. A whopping zero Google hits for "tyler braddock" spider-man -wikipedia. Chris cheese whine 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is clearly a hoax, If there had been a show that lasted 134 episodes as written in the article then we should have been able to find something about it on tv.com, so I think it's just a hoax and we don't need to keep this article.UDHSS 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Bokoko[edit]

Minor African author who fails WP:BIO. The only assertion of notability is an unspecified and unverified Senegalese award in 1981. Article tagged for notability since October 2006 and not improved. The web sources that Google finds on her all repeat the same mini-bio, so the subject lacks substantial depth of coverage and multiple independent sources. VSerrata 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- VSerrata 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- VSerrata 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as I know the anthology she is in was not widely distributed in Europe therefore it is hard to assert notability from what we have here Alf^Photoman 18:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the Nominator Your nomination comments open with the words "Minor African author." Why did you feel the need to use "African" as a reason for non-notability? --Oakshade 01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See African literature. That's the context for this author's limited work. But Bokoko's not mentioned in any of the standard reference works - as far as I know. She just doesn't seem to have any recognised stature in that context, unlike a number of other sub-Saharan women writers, such as Fatou Ndiaye Sow which I started recently. VSerrata 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, delete. A very short story (8 pages) is really too little for WP:BIO; and Google Books returns 0 awnsers.--Aldux 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Sefringle 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N Alf^Photoman 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An author of a 8/9-page short story who has not received the coverage required by WP:BIO. -- Black Falcon 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Renee[edit]

Entirely unsourced / unverified hagiography of a Canadian musician / actor Deiz talk 15:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:20Z

List of songs whose title is a full name of an actual famous person[edit]

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Delete. — coel acan — 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless trivia. Alba 16:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial cruft. Someone had way too much time on his or her hands. RGTraynor 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfect example of an indiscriminate collection of information. --SubSeven 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another "List of songs whose title is something completely arbitrary". Arkyan 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I find the list interesting. Unfortunately the article is an orphan without logical interlinking articles in truth. I don't believe it to be cruft, but rather information. I only question its comprehensiveness TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:"I find the list interesting" - please see WP:ILIKEIT. Punkmorten 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying I like it. I should say I find it as interesting as:

List of bands named after places
List of band names with date references
List of eponymous albums
List of band name etymologies TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the actual lists are getting sillier than the hypothetical "worst-case" scenario lists. --Action Jackson IV 21:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only is it an indiscriminate list, but it's inaccurate: many of these "full names" are people's pseudonyms. Krimpet 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyTheTiger --Infrangible 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If this is kept, I'm going to put up a list of songs whose titles are composed of more than 43% vowels. (N.B. I'm totally bluffing).Sarcasticidealist 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary and indiscriminate information. Pure trivia. WjBscribe 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is about as indiscriminate as it gets (as are the examples noted several paragraphs above). --Butseriouslyfolks 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's really too bad we don't have a Wikitrivia for articles like this. Not interesting to me, but it's not hard to imagine how it can be interesting to other people. None of the articles TonyTheTiger names seem encyclopedic either. Noroton 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Recording Studios[edit]

Wikipedia is not a telephone directory the last time I checked WP:NOT --Hydraton31 15:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT the yellow pages. Alba 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sentiments exactly Alba --PrincessBrat 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP not a phone book. Jules 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shining example of WP:NOT -- Whpq 11:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:21Z

Forrest Hill (CA Secretary of State candidate)[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate for public office who garnered just 2% of the vote. It seems mainly to be a promotional page at the moment but, even if cleaned up, I still fail to see how it could meet WP:BIO. -- Lincolnite 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: success or failing of the candidate has nothing to do with WP:BIO. The only thing that matters is: "are there multiple reliable sources to write an article from?" I'll look into whether that is the case. — coel acan — 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. WjBscribe 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: It looks like he's published in several places. CounterPunch carries work by him,[12] as do other sites.[13] Over on WP:WEB there's a criterion that says: "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". I don't see why that shouldn't apply here too. — coel acan — 16:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also on board with the Green Institute, a think tank.[14] Bio information there can be used. — coel acan — 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Forrest Hill (politician) in keeping with naming polity. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Weisenbacher[edit]

This all sounds great, but there are no third party reliable sources for notability. I can't find any mention of this man on Amnesty International's website; if he is one of the directors then this would be notability but it needs reliable sourcing. — coel acan — 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:V and WP:A Alf^Photoman 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIs own site is reliable source enought in my opinion: http://www.amnesty.sk/mf/index.php?page=stat&id=16&aid=1 --Ivanakralova 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the reference above is worked into the article Alf^Photoman 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference worked into article--Ivanakralova 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete published work consists of one co-written novel and one Master's thesis (though that thesis is linked to several times). The thesis seems not related to AI. The Amnesty link is simply documenting his existence as one of the Board-- many of the BoD are N, but its because of other work. Other articles are mentioned--if these can be documented, then that might be enough for N.. DGG 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep other works added aswell as science citation of the masters thesis --85.216.193.149 11:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep N proved by various activities--84.16.37.78 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — 84.16.37.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per the absence of independent and non-trivial sources. The AI link, though notable and perhaps even sufficiently independent, is essentially a directory entry. -- Black Falcon 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:22Z

Investment ingujarat[edit]

This page violated WP:OR. It is an article about the current investman climate in Gujrat, the author even has a section for his "thoughts". Ozzykhan 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be an original research advertisment for investment that fails WP:ATT and WP:NOT. NeoFreak 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and reading more like an ad than an encyclopedia article. And the formatting hurts my head, but that's not a reason to delete. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak promo, and WP:OR Tt 225 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:23Z

Baron Barrymore Halpenny[edit]

Claims notability as commercial artist, but the only sources available on the Web are his own sites. I am not able to verify the claimed independent coverage. NawlinWiki 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources to confirm notability by googling. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent critical reviews nor any of his art contained in any significant collections, probably self-projection Alf^Photoman 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, he's just done it all. And so young. Delete per nom and FisherQueen and Alf^Photoman. Freshacconci 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Just one moment please! First what does one mean by self-projection? And what is this about him being so young? The papers don't seem to share your views. His father is Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, his mother Marian Rose Halpenny, so it stands that he will be in the right environment for the arts in one form or another. All so eager to delete, just because you cannot find him on the internet? Why not check the newspapers or magazines like I did, some of which are listed on his article. I would also like to point out that he has not paid me nor do I know him personally, and I will take extreme offence if this is in anyway implied. Self projection, really I ask you?!

Goldburg 08:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment!

Interesting topic and am suprised he is being considered for deletion, but then, that is just my view. I can confirm that Baron Barrymore Halpenny is the son of Bruce Barrymore Halpenny. What has not been said here, or anywhere else for that matter, is that Mr Halpenny’s son, Baron, illustrates many pictures in his fathers books, he also has designed many book covers, including the Ghost Stations series that his father wrote. So when you are looking at a book cover, you may be looking at Baron Halpenny’s work, whether you regard that as notable, I really can’t say, though I personally would have thought it was and certainly from who his father is. I cannot comment on any of his cartoons in newspapers or magazines as I have not seen them, but his work that I have seen in his fathers books are exceptionally good and of a high standard. That is as much as I can offer in this discussion, as it is Mr Halpenny’s historical work, especially airfield histories, that I am more interested in and most of his books I have.

James Dunston 11:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)— James Dunston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Being someone's son does not establish notability. Freshacconci 10:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 23 Google hits, none of them, as far as I can tell, the least bit reliable? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world is mad! First I would like to say that there are artists in Wikipedia that have less google hits, so I find people on here are hypocritical, narrow minded and petty.

To top it all, at long last I have had a reply from the artist, who has had a look at the Wikipedia. It was a nice email, but alas, well I’ve pasted some of what he says

“

Thank you for your email and as I do warn, I am busy so don't get much time for emails etc. I’ve had a look at this wikipedia, and I have to admit, I had not heard of it before, but then my Internet involves my Websites, Yahoo, Hotmail and Google. I find the Internet takes up too much time and I’m not much of a fan of it.

However, I am amazed at seeing so much information about myself, and they have certainly been very busy, but then much can be found from the newspapers and my own Website along with where my Work appears. I see that there is a discussion to delete this and (I’m sorry if this may upset you) I really don't mind if they do. You see if I want someone to know about me, I would much rather they come to my Website … that is why I had them done for me.

My websites are part portfolios for such as publishers and agencies and my baronhalpenny.com site is for people who buy or are interested in my paintings.

In your discussion I note some very snide remarks (another reason why I like to keep things contained onto my websites only), one remark is, "Wow, he's just done it all. And so young", this I think was meant to be a catty remark, though I like the young bit ... I have done much, but not it all. I did do the Isle of Man DC-3 first day cover when I was 14 (not 15 as stated) and I was on the front page of the regional paper for this. I am also proud of creating Shaftism and love doing Cartoons and Illustrations.

I do however like the article of my father, he has done a lot and much, much more than has been put there, and should be acknowledged for his Work, much of it pioneering. His own personal military history would fill several sections of that website.

Anyway, once again thank you for e-mailing me, and my advice is not to get too wrapped up in the Internet. It’s always good to get a reality check. When I am abroad and especially in Italy I often visit the local War Cemeteries as a mark of respect. They made the supreme sacrifice for us to be here today and should never be forgotten. Seeing the graves row after row, helps to put things in perspective.

”

He does say more more, but is merely thanking me politely and asking my opinions and thoughts on the paintings I saw of his in Italy. It's like I've gone to all this trouble on Wikipedia for nothing. So I leave it to you! He would like it removed! But even so, I still feel he is notable and people will look him up, so should we make it an artist stub? This way it can be expanded at any future date. At least salvage something from my work! I have to say he is a very nice young man, it's just a pity he doesn't want to be in the Wikipedia.

Goldburg 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to say that there are artists in Wikipedia that have less google hits...
Name three. --Calton | Talk 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the one who made the "Wow, he's just done it all. And so young" comment above, and I do apologize for the sarcasm. When I made that comment it was with the belief that the subject himself had written this article. I'm getting tired of self-promotional articles and I responded as such. It's clear that the subject did not write the article and it's also clear that the author(s) are sincere. I still feel the artist has not reached notability at this point, and the standards of wikipedia maintain that independent sources are important for establishing notability. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a directory, nor an extension of a personal website. However, I don't think this was the intent of the authors. The artist may be notable some day. As for other artists with less notability, this may be because no one has stumbled those articles yet. Wikipedia is huge. But I would be interested in someone passing along the names of those articles to my talk page. I do believe in standards for wikipedia, and although it is very subjective on what is and isn't notable, some basic rules can be established. (That's why there's no article on me!). As for reducing the article to a stub that is built up as the artist establishes more notability, I'd have no problem with that. If the subject wants the article deleted outright, an administrator can do that, and it can be protected so google searches won't find negative terms associated with the artist (correct me if I'm wrong about that one). Also, if an administrator wishes to delete my first comment, I wouldn't object. Freshacconci 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Stub I will try to make this article an Artists Stub, if this is okay? If anyone here would like to help me please? Freshacconci is agreeable to this and I hope others are as well. I do do it reluctantly I might add, but at this moment in time I think this might be the best solution. The more notable the artist becomes, remember I started the article. You may all thank me later.

James Dunston has pointed out that the artist has created several book covers and even if these are for his father’s books, this is merely a collaboration. The publishers wouldn’t have used the artwork if it were not any good. Let’s face it, the family are talented and obviously work together. If Baron Barrymore Halpenny created the covers for the Ghost Stations series that would be 8 books he has designed and if you go to Amazon.co.uk, you will see it has a good following and are popular books. But of course, as the book cover illustrator he will not be mentioned on Amazon or the web. How many book cover artists are mentioned?

I have asked James Dunston to provide a list of the books that he knows the Artist has worked on, seeing as he has Bruce Barrymore Halpenny’s books. One point I would like to raise is that someone has put “James Dunston (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.” Next to his name. This “topic” is about Baron Barrymore Halpenny and James Dunston has made it clear that he is interested in Bruce Barrymore Halpenny’s historical work, especially airfield histories. That is a different topic to this one.

I still say Baron Barrymore Halpenny is notable and you cannot deny what he has done and is continuing to do. Even if he himself does not wish to be listed (he didn’t say not to, just that he wouldn’t mind if he wasn’t and NawlinWiki says The wishes of the subject of an article are usually not controlling.), his achievements and continued achievements warrants him a place in the Wikipedia, for people will look him up and it is the responsibility of a credible encyclopaedia to be useful and informative with credible information available to the user. My father always told me you have to list with an open mind and not be swayed by opinions.

Goldburg 10:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Kolis

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:24Z

Twerp[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; prod removed. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please don't delete twerp it is still be worked on, give me 3 days to work on improving it and then delete it if it's not good enough. I'm doing my best on the article. Check Twerps history for the next three days. I promise I will have worked on all of them days, unless something happens to my computer. Hope everyone will agree with this idea.Bloddyfriday 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfDs are generally kept for five days, so you don't have anything to worry about there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition -- Whpq 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef and WP:OR. If the author is able to provide an entry that goes beyond a dictionary definition that is sourced I can see changing my mind. However, I really don't see that happening. Arkyan 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary definition only Catwhoorg 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Author of Twerp I've taken out some content and am still finishing the project page. Any help or helpful suggestion would be apreciatted at the current moment I must admit that I would vote it deleted, But keep in mind im still working on it. Bloddyfriday 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that what you are looking at is a dictionary definition and it is against Wikipedia policy to have articles that are nothing more than a definition of a term. If you feel that you can expand the article beyond just a definition - for example, information regarding its effect on society, if any, might help - then do so, but remember that policy also dictates you have to properly source your information. Take a peek at some of the other policies and that should help! Arkyan 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dic def in violation of WP:NOT. Nuttah68 12:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twerp is starting to shape up. Bloddyfriday 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a definition. Bloddyfriday 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done all I can with Twerp make your desicions. Bloddyfriday 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A combination of unencyclopedic definitions and original research. Leebo ^T/C 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Arkyan's reasons. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After completion it's still more suited to Wiktionary (which incidentally has a pretty good definition, minus the speculative F. Scott Fitzgerald connection).Tt 225 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the moment I have edited the article to eliminate much of the speculation, which was padding out a few ounces of content. I have also added the designation stub; I do not know what stub category this should be. However, if the article is to remain, it needs to be expanded with some more substantive comment, with references i.e sources. Peterkingiron 23:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Third Coast International Audio Festival. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:25Z

Re:sound[edit]

This was originally a CSD A7 speedy deletion, overturned by DRV as improper, since a claim of notability is asserted. The matter is referred to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no references given outside those associated with the program. If reliable third party sources are discussing this local radio program, and if those sources were identified and attributed, the article would be fine. As is it fails WP:ATT. --Charlene 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no assertion of notability anywhere in this article. As much as I respect Xoloz, I disagree with the assessment that a claim of notability was asserted. The closest anyone came in the DRV discussion was "it's carried on a notable radio station". Notability is not inherited. The notability of a parent entity does not guarantee the notability of a subordinate entity. Every article must stand on its own. Note: I would be equally comfortable with a merge-and-redirect. My primary concern is with the lack of sources about such a minor topic. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Third Coast International Audio Festival. I don't see that this is anything more than a local radio program (albeit a nice one on a station I like). -- Dhartung | Talk 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Third Coast International Audio Festival or Chicago Public Radio, at the discretion of the editors who know the subject. Redirects are cheap. Kla'quot 08:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Third Coast International Audio Festival. Article has a confusing name that is not appropriate. Article does not have sufficient content derived from secondary sources. SmokeyJoe 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:25Z

Evan_Solot[edit]

Another artist using Wikipedia to post a resume; not notable, completely unsourced Parsleyjones 17:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only turned up one source that looked like it might verify notability, but on closer reading, it turned out to be a press release. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 23:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastikas in popular culture[edit]

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned. Please consider the matter afresh. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any appearance of anything that in the unattributable opinion of any random editor looks like it might possibly be similar in shape to a swastika, with no regard to the importance or triviality of the appearance in the fiction from which it's drawn or the real world. The arguments in favor of keeping it were largely centered around the notion that it was better to have this trivia in its own article than have it fouling the featured article Swastika, which argument is not compelling. In addition to these issues, the article is redundant to Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century, which while it still has some problems is a far superior article and actually restricts itself to appearances of the actual swastika and not manji or nonsense like runway patterns or comic book throwing stars or XFL team logos that are falsely labeled. Otto4711 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FYI the manji (Buddhist swastika) is derived directly from the Hindu swastika and has the same cultural and religious significance. Otto4711 is painting with too wide a brush here. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manji makes it pretty abundantly clear that the two symbols are not the same. Otto4711 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really have no idea what this is about, do you. You're certainly free to be ignorant, but there's no need for you to impose on others. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (link reminders, these are not on the article talk age, there may be older AfD's also) -- Stbalbach 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture
Nomination review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 4

Delete. A fully developed version of this would be as overlong and ridiculous as Crosses in popular culture, while this seems to be a pretty indiscriminate collection of information. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only purpose this article can have is to show some swastikas around. There is no encyclopedic relevance. Alf^Photoman 21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a separate concept which can be independently researched or discussed. There is nothing you can say about the topic of swastikas in popular culture except what's already in the main article. It's a fundamentally unfinishable and unmaintainable list. The primary reason given for the creation of the page (and in the article's defense in the prior discussions) was to keep the junk from overwhelming the primary article. Hiding the problem on a separate page does not solve the problem or somehow make bad content better. A few examples are appropriate in the main article. Attempting to create comprehensive lists are not. Encyclopedias are not concordances. Rossami (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an indiscriminate list including some of the most trivial appearances of the swastika imaginable, along with patterns and designs that only vaguely resemble swastikas. Krimpet 05:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meaningful, interesting topic. Some cruft should be removed. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a compelling argument for keeping. Otto4711 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the real problem here is that I pointed out your ill-informed reasoning. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real problem is that "it's interesting" is not a reason for keeping an article. All sorts of things are very interesting but not encyclopedic. Otto4711 05:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in popular culture The way to deal with crufty "in popular culture" sections that get too big is to prune them, not to expand them into whole pages of 100% cruft and no article. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against articles like this, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a Featured Article. What specific concerns did you have for wanting to delete this article? -- Stbalbach 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of policies against unattributable inciscriminate collections of information, policies against POV inclusion of information and policies against original research. Otto4711 05:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing Guy, and what Guy wrote, as his rationale for deleting the article. -- Stbalbach 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any rule that says I can't respond to your statements regardless of to whom they were initally addressed. Otto4711 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I did not say you broke a "rule". I already know your position and have responded to it elsewhere in the past. I was addressing what Guy wrote. -- Stbalbach 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect to Swastika) as the title itself violates WP:NPOV creating a "pro-swastika" presentation. The article could easily have been called Abuse of the swastika or Swastika distortions. How about Bellybuttons in popular culture or Dictators in popular culture etc ? IZAK 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up I agree that the article looks similar to what Crosses in popular culture would look like but I don't think it is beyond repair. If the list was organized by types of uses instead of the media it appeared in it could have some value. For example, if there was a section on "accidental swastikas" that had no intended meaning at all but people got worked up over is encyclopedic especially if the company later removed it. There are also many "misunderstood swastikas" which the author intended a manji meaning, listing them also has value. Many of the others on the list which are simply a reference to nazism should be removed ("In American History X, lead character Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), a white supremacist, has a swastika tattooed on his chest.") Jon513 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon513, I think if this article has any hope for survival it will need to be cleaned up right away, in the next few days, before the AfD closes. As it stands there seems to be little support to keep it. A serious attempt to clean it up now would give it a chance of survival, because even if the closing admin deletes it, it could be put up for review and restored, based on the fact it had been cleaned up late in the AfD process, after most of the votes had been cast. But if no one cleans it up before the AfD closes, it will be too late. How long would it take to clean up? -- Stbalbach 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swastika. Or delete. I prefer redirect because this might be useful as notes on an actual article, so it would be good to preserve the revisions somewhere. However, I think that unless someone actually makes this an article and nukes the list of trivia by the time this AfD ends, we've given it enough time as a trivia article. Mango juice^talk 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangojuice. I suggested a "highly selective merge" in the previous AfD, but there is really no point to such a small merge or even to argue a "merge" this late in the discussion. Yes, technically one good argument can outweigh a thousand poor ones, but I'm not a Spartan warrior and AFD is not the Battle of Thermopylae (and let's not forget what actually happend to the Spartans at that battle ...). As written, the article cannot stand. -- Black Falcon 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. DS 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Mix Tapes[edit]

This article was originally a CSD A7. A DRV consensus concluded that sufficient notability was asserted such that an AfD was appropriate, and overturned. The matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure if it's going to reach the draconian WP:WEB, but it is certainly noted a lot in the press and is often cited as an important review site internationally. Chances are, people who read music reviews online know this site, especially since so many offline resources look toward it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching under "TinyMixTapes" brings up a further variety of referencing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable music website. -- No Guru 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search shows 13 hits, none of which seem to meet WP:WEB standards. Unless I'm missing something... -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of the site is apparently all one word. Recury 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FisherQueen, as per my reply to Irishguy below, 13 actual individual hits is not what I am getting. My results are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Try a different browser. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of the criteria of WP:WEB. I'm not seeing that. "Tiny Mix Tapes" brings forth 11 unique hits. "Tinymixtapes" brings forth 107. Neither of those are staggering numbers. IrishGuy ^talk 19:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Irishguy, for your first link, I see 11 pages of hits (308,000), for your second, 20 pages and 70,000 hits. I know that Google cookies can personalize results, but I don't see how those are even possible. Try your search again with a different browser. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I'm not sure how I got those inital responses. I stand corrected...and equally confused. I will also strike my delete vote as the article now has references. The earlier version, devoid of references, didn't really assert notability. Now it does. IrishGuy ^talk 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear it! Thanks for double-checking. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian, Concord Monitor, Spartanburg Herald-Journal and St. Louis Dispatch all have writen about Tinymixtapes' automatic mix tapes generator. And I have no idea how editors who think Google hit counts mean something can become administrators. That argument has been chucked into the circular file a long time ago. ~ trialsanderrors 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since that nice little personal comment has so much to do with the article, thanks for sharing it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since that little comment on your rationale for recommending deletion has nothing to do with you as a person (I didn't even bother to look at your user page), it has everything to do with this debate and ultimately with the fate of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 03:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it isn't correct to assume that all knowledge is on the internet (scholarly works, biographies, etc.) when it is a website, I think that search hits can be relevant and shouldn't just be tossed as a rule. IrishGuy ^talk 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems important by glance at the article and reference to web hits. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as having significant third-party non-trivial media coverage. ObtuseAngle 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's notable and seems to have plenty of independent non-trivial coverage. This could be better documented in the article itself, but AFD is not the cleanup department. schi ^talk 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am glad some of the sources I brought up at DRV have been added, although inline references would be preferable. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Wizardman 04:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Riter[edit]

Local radio host in Buffalo, NY. Individual falls short of notability, especially compared to other local radio hosts, such as Shredd and Ragan, who have had articles deleted CastAStone|^(talk) 17:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything I'd call an independent nontrivial source to verify notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. →Ed Gl 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry L. Zubrow[edit]

This article was speedy deleted as CSD A7, with the complication that its authorship, by User:Mrzubrow, created obvious COI issues -- the author also linkspammed. A DRV consensus concluded that notability was asserted, and that COI issues were best left to AfD. Please see the DRV for additional details. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoes not appear to be notable. The sources are just company bios, which almost every officer of every company has. I don't think that it counts as a source for notability.Chunky Rice 18:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the company bios, I can't google up any reliable sources that would add to a claim of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete NN local political and business figure. No major specific accomplishments. "Facilitated" the sale of a major building. But DREV was right--this might have been a suitable prod, but not a speedy.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, A Forbes mention unfortuantely does not cut it for me. Despite what I said before, I don't really think anymore that Zubrow is notable enough to deserve an article. Warning: The following sentence presents faulty reasoning!: If B. Zubrow needed an article, then why was the only person to make an article his own son? No but seriously, this guy seems to me like another corporate guy just far enough up the ladder to technically merit an article, but not high enough for anybody to care, no offense. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Officers, bishops, investment bankers are not inherently notable, and I don't see anything that's different in this case. And the dripping language (having earned the highest respect and admiration from all his coworkers and employees) doesn't help either. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SalesTrax[edit]

This sure seems like corporate self-promotion to me, even with the given sources. Bringing here for further discussion after speedying earlier versions. NawlinWiki 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one of those sources has SalesTrax as its primary subject, and I'm not convinced that one is an independent source, or nontrivial. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, full of weblinks as opposed to wikilinks. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability per WP:CORP is not shown by the included links; merely being cited as a resource, even a recommended resource, is not sufficient independent commentary IMO. Sorry, no sale. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No solid non-trivial references. --SubSeven 20:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, lack of notability. Would consider speedy per db-corp Kai A. Simon 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing is written like an ad. The first section is "Recognition." Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was worth the looking at, to confirm that it is a trivial ad, and probably it would be impossible to write an acceptable article on this NN company.DGG 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The event is notable, the subject is not.--§hanel 22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Massoud Tofangsazan[edit]

This article survived a previous AfD with a no consensus closure. A DRV consensus narrowly overturned, citing inadequate consideration of WP:BLP, and lack of extensive reasoning by the closer. The matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Xoloz 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is actually the fourth time this article has been nominated for deletion. Sfacets 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two early nominations came while the matter was still in the tabloids, and before the current version of WP:LIVING a/k/a WP:BLP was adopted, and this is a relisting of the third nomination because the reviewing administrator at DRV decided to relist for more community input (see above). Newyorkbrad 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
Strong keep. There are no BLP concerns at work here, and it meets all of our standards. Given the amount of attention, no harm can be done by our article on it, so there's no problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A trivial piece of malicious gossip. No way is this encyclopaedic. Its brief appearance in a few sections of the UK media for a couple of days last summer does not mean this is permanently notable or accurate (count the "allegedlys"). Utterly unworthy of this project. --Folantin 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't seem to have gotten any media attention other than a few days in May... I can't buy that the alleged perpetrator of one count of small-time eBay fraud is notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the original AfD and DRV nominator. From my prior statement: "This article unnecessarily publicizes embarrassing events in the life of an otherwise unknown living person. As noted in the article itself, the Internet publicity given to these events has seriously damaged this individual's life and we should not knowingly participate in further doing so. The page, although created and edited in good faith, is the functional equivalent of an attack page against a non-notable person. See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and other participants' comments in that RfC, as well as recent threads on the notability policy pages for related discussion. In addition, it has been noted that this article's reports of unproven allegations raise WP:LIVING issues, and also that the proposed NOTNEWS guideline would also strongly support deletion. The "do no harm" test underlying WP:LIVING as applied to a non-notable person strongly supports deletion of this article, whose encyclopedic value is slight, as a matter of principle. It would be desirable for the community to have the opportunity to address this set of issues in a situation that is not wiki-notorious a la Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt." Newyorkbrad 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable as multiple reliable sources. --J2thawiki 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NYB sometimes we need to rise above the tendency to source count (and the sources here are bad anyway - and article which uses 'alleged' and 'claimed' as often as this one does should be speedy deleted anyway). With the powerful medium we are comes some responsibilities - the fact is that we don't need this trivial rubbish, and we are a better encyclopedia without it. BLP isn't just a rule to be applied - it is a mindset to be adopted.--Doc^g 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT vigilante justice. This is the sort of material which circulates in a tabloid for a week then ends up in the bottom of the bird cage.. where it belongs because it's just not encyclopedic. Maybe if people are still talking about it years from now it will be worth documenting, but it's a violation of our duty to make a determination of notability which may ultimately be self-fulfilling. --Gmaxwell 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again. This is not encyclopedic, it's just a continuation of unfounded harrassment based on an unproven claim against a living person. We don't need to extend this ridiculous 15 minutes of fame piece. I see no reason to think this is of continued importance. The references are from a very limited time-span. Mak (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (possibly to Laptop Guy?) - the article needs a new name, certainly, but has notability via mention in several daily newspapers. I recall hearing about this back when it was still fresh, and I'm hardly a blogoholic. NPOV here is tricky, as to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Tofangsazan has not gone on the "official" record with his version of events, and I beleive it prudent to keep in mind that Richard Nixon was never convicted of any crime, either. Fifteen minutes of fame is still fame. --Action Jackson IV 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is the fourth AFD for this article - it meets all the criteria for an article, there is no reason it should be deleted. As well as being notable in the media, it was a huge Internet Phenomenon which attracted millions of visitors. If this article were to be deleted, it would be a hypocritical double standard and other articles such as Bonsai Kitten, and in fact most of the Category:Internet_memes. This has nothing to do with vigilante justice, the article is neutral in tone and well sourced. Keep. Sfacets 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is well referenced and there are dozens of other references that can be added from other British papers, if there is a need. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you cite those sources please? Most of us don't have access to UK news archives. I'm trying to see whether it would meet WP:NOTNEWS criteria. Kla'quot 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 18 under a search for his surname (which is pretty unique) at google news and some specific uk ones --J2thawiki 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added a couple more to the article, one from The Independent (major UK broadsheet) and one from the BBC. This incident is noteable. GameKeeper 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not convinced yet that it meets WP:NOTNEWS. If it does, it seems borderline. The sources from the Google News Archive are mostly from the same week, and the ones which come later are one- or two- paragraph mentions which use it as a hook for articles whose main focus is digital privacy. WP:NOTNEWS requires multiple-paragraph coverage in distinct articles spanning multiple weeks. Can you point to any multiple=paragraph coverage of this after early June, 2006? The longest I can find is two paragraphs in Macleans Kla'quot 17:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not think it meets WP:NOTNEWS either. However this is not wikipeida policy, it is proposed policy. If it passes then this should definitely be revisited and I will support any deletion. The sources provided are sufficent to meet WP:BLP. GameKeeper 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        According to its talk page, WP:NOTNEWS has support in principle. It is likely to pass in some form. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I think it's reasonable to apply a policy or guideline in advance of it actually passing.Kla'quot 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To say that there are no BLP concerns at all is to ignore the plain wording of that policy. The question remaining is whether those concerns are outweighed by other considerations. In this case, I do not consider them to justify the continuation of this page. It is a hostile page written about a person who is at best semi-public and who has not apparently taken any steps to put himself into the public eye. This is a trivial little spat that got some column-inches on a slow newsday. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. The argument that we have to keep it because "it's an internet meme" also utterly fails to convince me. This has no place in the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move This article does have a place in WP, but not under the name of the victim. (At least, the one whom I regard as the victim. It is NN to sell a defective computer. It is N to create a major web phenomenon out of it.)DGG 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like we also keep the Star Wars Kid and the Green Helmet Guy. It doesn't do any harm, his name is all over the net without wikipedia already. The article is rather a chance to present all sides and aspects of the story. --Tilman 06:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but move~~ It is noteable, not because it was an internet meme but because of the amount of press coverage, including editorial discussion, see the independant source I added to the article. I also added a link to a BBC source article, and there are more if anyone thinks that it is necessary to add more. I would appriciate it if someone added ((fact)) tags to anything in the article that looks dubiously sourced. I have looked at it too long to do this well myself. I have added some discussion to the talk page as to a suitable name. GameKeeper 09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Withdrawn my Keep , due to WP:NOTNEWS which this does not furfil and does appear to be accepted in principle, as per Kla'quot GameKeeper 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NY Brad, Makemi, Rossami, etc. A case of unremarkable people and unremarkable events. Please leave playing journalist to the people on Wikinews. I entirely agree with Doc Glasgow that articles on living people where "alleged" or its variants need to be employed to explain the "notability" of the subject should be speedily deleted, probably under G10. There's no deadline, and we can easily wait until allegations become facts, or not as the case may be, before publishing. It does a great deal of harm, to us and to the subjects, to include this egregious WP:BLP-ignoring eyesore. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for WP. Jpierreg --Jpierreg 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an attack page masquerading as an encyclopedia article, as such violates BLP. Perhaps the incident is notable, but this person certainly isn't. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Claiming that the case is unremarkable is original research and a user's own POV. The fact that it has been reported by major news sources, and that it doesn't contravene any policy on Wikipedia makes it an acceptable article. Sfacets 12:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's funny you should mention WP:NOR. It's irrelevant here AFD, but let's try a little thought experiment. It's 2050, and for whatever reason the subject of this article is going to be the subject of a PhD thesis (original research in action). How would the hypothetical PhD student research their thesis? They'd consult press and web archives, diaries, official documents, etc. Their paper would reference the Times, the Independent, diaries, an archive of Sawyer's blog if available, and similar material. Although it would be much longer, better written, and in a position to offer some broader context for the events, the hypothetical thesis would be based on exactly the same kind of sources as this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete again. These formal relistings are becoming extremely tiresome. Do they ever succeed? --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to eBay. Now, why would I say that. Well, the incident took place on eBay, and there is a section on eBay fraud in the article. So, what I would suggest is maybe merge the whole incident, condense to a few sentences and redirect the article to eBay. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it, delete it. The incident might be notable, but this person ain't. Many people are using net justice to out bad eBay sellers and are getting attention from the news. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Muliple independent published works. Passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for biography of living persons considerations. This may seem fascinating now, but in six months it'll be yesterday's news, and in ten years nobody will care except for the principals. If I'm wrong, and it continues to be relevant somehow in a year's time, we can write the article then. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - you are aware that the article is 9 months old, give or take? Sfacets 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the first of the handful of sources dates from May 30, 2006, the last from June 3, 2006. There has been nothing subsequently. All of which suggests that this minor incident of alleged fraud didn't even make it to "nine day wonder" status. --Folantin 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:IGNORE to the WP:N guideline WP:Notability is permanent might be okay, but a lot of editors disagree. --Oakshade 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Newyorkbrad. Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same vote as last time, after looking at the sources provided: *Delete. Strictly under WP:LIVING, this article unfortunately passes muster. However, I'll apply the proposed WP:NOTNEWS which is likely to gain consensus in a form that would support deleting this article. Even in the absence of WP:NOTNEWS, common sense indicates that we are not a directory of news stories, and if we have to cut off minor news stories this is a good place to start. The argument that the sources focus on the event, not the person, is also a good argument for not having an article at this title. Having said this, if this event happens to be discussed in an article describing its historical significance (if there is any), its significance to the study of Internet memes, etc., I don't think I would object to including the information in those kinds of contexts. Kla'quot 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDoesn't the fact that this has been afd'd FOUR TIMES tell you there is no consensus?Let's stop wasting all our time on this one.Sumoeagle179 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the respose to a similar comment above? Nil Einne 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, did you?Sumoeagle179 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an internet phenomenon does not necessarily mean that something is inherently notable, and neither does appearing in the news. This was in the news for a couple days nine months ago, there is no lasting significance. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, this article is not encyclopedic. Rje 11:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article use to be terrible. Photos with dubious copyright status and probably violating BLP, OR, and other such stuff. I did my best to improve it, nominating the photos to be deleted & removing some of the worst content. But none of this changes the fact the person is not noteable, only the incident so we shouldn't have an article on the person anyway. Nil Einne 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Needs sourcing, though. Sandstein 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel (band)[edit]

Of questionable notability Jammy Simpson | Talk | 13:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found this article, which seems to indicate some notability for the band, but that's the best I could do. Somebody else have a try? -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Strange Fantastic Dream seems to have been a minor success. Rich Farmbrough, 11:41 13 March 2007 (GMT).
Keep, band contains a notable band member who played in a notable band. →Ed Gl 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Karthaus[edit]

Violates "notability" guidelines: the subject does not appear to have *any* (let alone two) reliable and independent academic or journalistic secondary sources written about him to justify inclusion as a notable contributor in the field of chemistry or the Otaru Onsen lawsuit as stictly outlined in the WP guidelines. -- J Readings 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has a publication trail [15] but the text here suggests notability only because of some spa conflict. The page was likely created just to turn a red link to blue in Aldwinckle's article. Nullify this vote if someone changes the text into regular article about a notable scientist. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article has been modified to focus more on his academic contributions and the hot springs issue has been sidelined. -- Black Falcon 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, No Guru 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for professors at WP:PROF, which leaves his status as suer of onsen to be his lone remaining claim to notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professors at research Universities are N, having gotten there by rigourous peer-review, but Chitoise University was established only in 1998, and therefore probably does not yet count as a major research university. (as distinct from Hokkaido University, which is a notable research university of very high quality). Therefore it would depend on his publications. He has 44 peer-reviewed publications, according to Science citation Index, mostly in the top chemistry journals. The most cited one has been cited 116 times, the next highest 72 times. This is high for a physical chemist. This may not have been the reason the article was added (& lnone of the work seems to bear directly upon hot springs), but he is N. as a chemist. DGG 04:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One needs to keep in mind that the article was created, not because of his work in chemistry, but because of the hot spring issue. He is simply not notable because independent, reliable third-party sources failed to write about him (emphasis on the pronoun "him") in either capacity. That said, the article would need to be entirely re-written from a chemistry-biography perspective in order for it to make sense to the general reader. DGG's edits only compound the puzzle. In layman's terms, what did he specifically discover? How did the contribution affect the field? The fact that the 152 entries for "German chemists" do not usually rely on the number of index citations (and, by the way, relative to what subjective benchmark?) to justify an article tells us that we either need to re-write the article or delete it entirely. My vote: Delete. J Readings 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria He may have gotten noticed here because of the hot springs. Having been noticed, it turns out he's an important chemist & I dont see what's wrong with that. I added information tending to show that the chemistry aspect was sufficient, because its much easier to be objective about things that can be counted. Articles about chemists are not intended to teach chemistry. The importance of chemists for WP purposes is measured by their relative importance as compared with other chemists. Those who wish to find out about polymer chemistry should read the WP article on the subject. Those who want to find out about the career of Dr. K, should read the article about him. The article on Ringo Starr is not intended to teach about drumming. It is intended to describe his career.

The use of subsequent citations is not necessary for an article. In the case of a professor at a less-known university, it seemed advisable to offer additional evidence, since it was a questioned article. (It also technically meets the old N requirement--each article citing him is necessarily about his work. Scientists are N for their work, not for their bio details.) Each field is judged by its own standards, which can be see by examining other AfD'd articles. DGG 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable--Sefringle 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF point 3 (also possibly 4): The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. He has co-authord at least 5 article that have been cited 365 times. An average of 73 citations for such works and 116 citations for the first is very high. The hot springs issue is secondary and has, in any case, been minimalised in the article. -- Black Falcon 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since May 2005, virtually no material edits have been made by knowledgable persons in chemistry who care to improve the article. As it stands, unfortunately, it reads like a substandard resume. It's my sincere hope that those who vote to keep this article know (or intend to research) what exactly his contributions to the field are, and intend to improve the article, before they vote to keep it on a technicality. Regarding point 3, has he written a textbook? Is it the subject of multiple, independent works? More importantly, on the third clause (index citations), are they aware of what ideas are actually being discussed? The caveat to the third clause specifically states: Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page. Have the editors in favor of keeping this article actually read the works in question to know the answer? I would be willing to withdraw my delete nomination tomorrow if someone actually read these articles and can articulate their substance for Wikipedia readers in the form of a well-written article. If not, my vote remains: Delete.J Readings 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I am confused as to why you consider DGG's edit a non-material edit. More broadly, a lack of people caring to edit an article has no weight on the notability of its subject. As regards WP:PROF, please reread the full text of point 3. A "textbook" is only one of the examples given, and the other is this: if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature. This is how those 5 works meet point 3. I agree that the format in which the article is written is substandard, but for that there is ((wikify)). I will attempt to address some of the points you've raised, but I will not read the 365 works that cite these 5 articles to determine the extent to which they are about these works. The fact of having written something that is widely cited in a literature is itself a factor. -- Black Falcon 01:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - he is a self-described proponent of intelligent design. :-) If being a vaguely notable professor involved in a racial discrimination lawsuit covered in the press is not sufficient to sway the AfD debate one way or another, maybe being an ID proponent will? (I'm joking) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order to keep I would want to see not just a list of articles by him, but articles that say something about what he has done and describe what he's contributed. A complete review article or an article totally about him isn't needed, but a mere cite isn't enough. A sentence or two in an independent article that indicates he's done something notable which has influenced subsequent work is the barebones minimum for what's missing, and multiple such articles (at least two) would meet policy requirements. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Precisely, Shirahadasha. This has been my position from the beginning. DGG's edits (supported by Black Falcon) are appreciated, but far too mechanical. What exactly is Karthaus' contribution to the field of chemistry (in layman's terms) that makes him notable? This is not a rhetorical question; it's a genuine attempt to write articles for the benefit of the WP readership, and not for the sole benefit of the WP editors. J Readings 07:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint. The sole benefit of the WP editors? Exactly what benefit am I or DGG getting out of this article? I admit that my basic knowledge of chemistry and my complete ignorance of the academic field do not afford me the capacity to discover the particular nature of Karthaus' contribution to the field nor to express it in layman's terms if I knew of it. But if your concern is the "benefit of the WP readership", let me assure you as a reader of WP for over 2 years before I became an editor that readers would prefer to find the few details available in this article over the absence of an article. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. I'm neutral on the issue of triviality, but would like to note that the patent numbers are probably sufficient Attribution, and (as a jurist) I'm unconvinced that we have a copyvio issue here: patent records are PD as government records and I don't know if the specific selection of individuals per se qualifies for copyright. Sandstein 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity inventors[edit]

Just because one blog online presents us with this fun trivia information doesn't mean it merits inclusion on wikipedia. Delete this list, but move the patent information to each actor's individual article, seeing as it may be something noteworthy for them. Usedup 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's kind of interesting, but appears to be copied from its one source, changed only in alphabetizing- that's still a copyviolation issue, in my opinion. Any of the patents that are noteworthy (and I'm not convinced that they all are), can be added to individual articles. Interesting web page, though. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any article with the word "celebrity" in the title is going to suffer from POV problems as there is no objective definition of who is or isn't a "celebrity." Otto4711 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and add more sources. The term "celebrity" is loaded, so change it to "actors" or "public figures" or something like that. I think the topic warrants inclusion and is a specific enough subject to be maintainable as a list. Plus it is of genuine interest - I'd heard about Marlon Brando's invention recently, and Hedy Lamarr's work is legendary and notable, but it's a revelation to learn Abraham Lincoln and Danny Kaye also had inventions. Once again, though, material like this needs to be better sourced, but otherwise in my view the subject is perfectly encyclopedic. 23skidoo 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being encyclopedic and meriting its very own article is not synonymous. What "more sources"? There's nothing more to say about this. Usedup 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One in 100 Americans has a patent - it's not especially notable that members of one profession (or one POV aggregation such as "celebrity") have filed patents. Notable patents such as Winchell's heart and Lamarr's device should have their own articles due to third-party notice. Others can be mentioned on the notable individual's page. --Charlene 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely. :) Usedup 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOT#PAPER. I agree the name should changed to public figures. - Peregrine Fisher 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia should be attributable to a reliable source. This is policy. That entire page is attributable to some blogger's personal excursion into the patent files. Usedup 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, patent files are very reliable, and the information is thus easily attributable. That said, I remain neutral on this particular article. -- Black Falcon 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link to patents. I doubt that 1/100 people have a patent, I would have to see a source. Anyway, 1/100 people are not in Wikipedia, and these are patents held by actors listed in Wikipedia or patents outside ones field. Its a good almanac type entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, I agree that I'd like to see proof that one in 100 Amercians holds a patent. I'm willing to bet one in 100 Americans aren't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles (or otherwise be world famous) as those listed here are. Obviously the list would need to be vetted for any unconfirmed or made-up information, but that applies to any list. 23skidoo 03:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable patents should be mentioned in the persons article, other patents shouldn't be mentioned at all. :) Having a list of the patents of a certain group of people is not useful. "List of celebrity inventors" is as bad as a "List of high school teacher inventors". Pax:Vobiscum 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though I'm partial to myself, cause I put up this article, I'd say keep. There are tons of celebrity lists on wikipedia if you do a quick search, and this one is informative enough for me. I want to keep it, and rather write a little bit more on each patent on this article. Bib 15:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per possible copyvio concerns raised by FisherQueen and Usedup's WP:ATT concerns. Information like this is probably best suited to a small mention on the individual celebritys' articles. If the article is significantly re-written, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and see if I'll change my vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo and WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we had a Wikitrivia, we could transwiki it to that. I'm neutral. Noroton 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:26Z

Ethnic Cleansing To Turkish Cypriots By Greek Cypriots[edit]

No real content. Inflammatory name and every sign of becoming a POV magnet. Delete exolon 18:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom 80.202.208.26 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

survive Because, in 2007 february there have found many massive graves belonging to Cypriot Turks in Strovillia of South Cyprus. Also, deleting something may damage the realities in many cases. In Srebrenitza of Bosnia,Herzegovina, Hollands' soldiers in United Nations submitted muslim bosnians to serbians and 8000 bosnians were killed. Holland's government gave medals to their soldiers!! Now, in 2007 European Union Justice Court announced that Srebrenitza was exposed to an explicit ethnic-cleansing. The fact that Holland's government gave medals to their soldiers DOES NOT indicate that these soldiers protected honorously the innocent bosnian people. Do they? Even, I am sure that the people of Holland also opposes their governments decision if they are asked about these medalling oddness! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HectorVasilius (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete unless relevance demonstrated by secondary sources by end of this AfD. If it should survive the next five days I recommend semi-protection to avoid POV battles that could easily escalate into a Greek-Turkish editing war Alf^Photoman 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, no, no, no, we shouldn't be giving the Turkish and Greek editors more to fight about. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete we already have Cyprus dispute & Cypriot Civil War & there's nothing here to even merge to either of them. ⇒ bsnowball 08:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is redundant to Cypriot Civil War, highly POV, and also inaccurate: the Republic of Cyprus was not founded in 1900, but 1960. -- Black Falcon 08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Men-only passenger car[edit]

Delete A hoax article meant to be a counterpart to Women-only passenger car. The only cited article talks about women-only cars, not men-only cars. Women-only cars, and the male-on-female sexual harassment that necessitated them, are widely documented in reliable sources. The opposite is not true. The Groping article has suffered similar misinformation from IP users 88.108.79.79 and 88.108.14.150 Ytny (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the world would be a fairer place if these existed, there's no evidence that this is anything other than a hoax. Delete unless verified by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The world would be a fairer place if there was no need for either. --Charlene 10:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:A Alf^Photoman 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, pov fork, or nonsense. Whichever Koweja 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. --Charlene 10:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:27Z

Chris Calhoun[edit]

A Korean War vet. Three sources, two on free web hosts and one to amazon.com which doesn't even include the page it's on, just the root. Maybe decent sources can be found, but this does not have any. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete - based on the statements in the article this person has a perfectly good claim to notability, but unfortunately the current references aren't sufficient as evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources per WP:BIO. I would prefer to keep this article; however, delete unless sources can be found by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I fail to see non-trivial secondary sources conforming WP:BIO. If adequate sources are found change to keep Alf^Photoman 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article quoted in that first link is in lexis-nexis. I'll add the newspaper article to the page. Bucketsofg 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'weak keep It might depend on how widely the matter was reported--nationally or just locally.DGG 04:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep marginally notable person, with article barely sourced but enough information to believe that it could be well-sourced in the future. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkwad[edit]

Suspected hoax. Joe Decker 19:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Tried to prod, prod was removed by an anon. user without edit summary or note on discussion page. Attempted to find salient references via Google, failed. --Joe Decker 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (Also, concur on WP:BJAODN, I hadn't known of it, thanks. --Joe Decker 03:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete unless evidence turns up. This is a nicely done hoax, so I nominate it for WP:BJAODN, but I can't find anything to back it up either. William Pietri 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as hoax. Bucketsofg 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided. WP:BJAODN is a good idea, as this is remarkably well written for a probably hoax. Natalie 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at Dogpile and couldn't fetch anything on that. The best thing I found was the urban dictionnary,[16] which didn't really have anything related to what they where talking about. Probably some home made recipe or something. --FR Soliloquy 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. 0 actual sources, and doesn't assert notability. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YICS[edit]

This was the first article I created on Wikipedia, and was originally created to increase awareness of my project. As an administrator I now feel that letting it exist without any kind of discussion about possible issues (such as WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:PROG) would be a violation of the community's trust. Despite this being listed in AfD, I am not voting to delete or keep. Since I am involved in the topic of the article I would prefer to stay out of the debate entirely, but I do want to see the debate happen. --Chris (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the level of disclosure, I would see no problem if you provided sources. If they aren't any then we should delete. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As near as I can tell, YICS is a project of the author of the article that has not yet reached the stage where it justifies an entry. If he gets it up and running, and succeeds in attracting a substantial number of users, it may then meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Most of the links on the page do not yet appear to function. The project itself is commendable as Yahoo! Games continues to be one of the most popular places to play chess online despite bearing almost no resemblance to bona-fide chess servers. YICS is a worthy project; the Wikipedia article, however, should be deleted. JStripes 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment many useful Wikipedia articles are being deleted after an AfD because notability is not established. Other useful Wikipedia articles are being deleted after AfD even though proofs of notability are given, because there is disagreement whether the proofs are sufficient. I don't think any of that is fair, but is there sufficient proof of notability in this case? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Packaged with Debian, and in the Ubuntu repositories. Good enough for me. All it needs is a couple of sources. Cloveoil 02:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge; protected redirect to Monster Hunter. Content may be merged from the history. Sandstein 07:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rathalos[edit]

This article has already been deleted twice, once by a successful prod nomination. Since it keeps being recreated, I'm taking it to AfD. A particular monster in a video game isn't notable enough for a separate article, especially given how thin the information is and that there are no attributed sources. Gwernol 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Monster Hunter. No need for a separate article. Slideshow Bob 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article was neccesary because i found many empty links on other pages citing the rathalos. Also i feel that if this page should be deleted because it is irellevent due to the fact that the rathalos is a video game character than the many other pages with video game characters should be deleted also such as Vincent Valentine from Dirge of Cerberus. Also i plan on updating it i was in a hurry the day i made it as i am now. baval2 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Slideshow Bob. →Ed Gl 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:28Z

Nigger guy[edit]

It doesn't even deserve its own page as it is not worthy of it. Just because it's from South Park does not give it the special right to a page. If it should be on any page it should be under the South Park episode article or Nigger article. Laeek 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism, not even worth keeping on a South Park article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ↔NMajdan•talk 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would not surprise me if a good editor could turn this into a valid neologism, but this article is more confusion than information. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, not notable enough to merit a seperate article.--TBCΦtalk? 22:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson per WP:NEO. A very newly created (3 days ago) neologism, which as far as I know is yet to appear anywhere else in the media besides the show. The article in its current context doesn't offer more than the episode article on the subject, nor qualifies for a merge anywhere else. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect way too short article. -Toastypk
Redirect to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson the term "Ginger Kids" and "Ginger People" redirects to the South Park episode that uses these terms. The same should apply here. - 75.19.63.116 23:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TBC and others. Bucketsofg 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Woogums 00:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, if we can't make it go away, at least make it go somewhere. Shenme 04:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though it is something that is reference to on South Park it is NOT Encyclopedia. They call me Mr. Pibb 05:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect People referring to may not be very likely to remember the episode specifically as "With Apologies to Jesse Jackson", but plenty will remember it as "the nigger guy episode". Mwelch 09:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, on account that it will serve as a useful redirect for those unsure of the episode title, and those looking for the episode guide. Doctorbob 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, racial neologicism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all the reasons given so far. People may very well search for this, but they want the article With Apologies to Jesse Jackson instead. Remember Wikipedia policies: redirects are cheap. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. M.G. In Da Hizzhouse 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and barring that Delete. A phrase used in one episode of South Park that at this time has no notability outside of the show's sphere of influence does not warrant its own article. (→Netscott) 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless nonsense. Why is there even any debate? Captain Infinity 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- definitely does not deserve its own article.Hoponpop69 04:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson Possibly add a section entitled "Nigger guy" to that article as well. Arnesh 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --71.197.149.164 04:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to With Apologies to Jesse Jackson --J2thawiki 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no redirect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the original episode- With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. I think its pointless to try and stand up for keeping it as noone else feels that way, so lets just redirect it to its original source.
Delete fails WP:NEO. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:29Z

Emily Chang[edit]

No evidence provided of notability Pontificake 21:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although the article provides little evidence of notability, a quick google search sugests she may be. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr.Z-man. Bucketsofg 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if sources are added.04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:29Z

The Knot[edit]

An admittedly shallow Google scan of the group name, city and members could find no hits. Possible hoax. At the least, doesn't meet WP:BAND. For some reason, my brain couldn't kick out a good speedy delete reason so it's here. Pig^man_dialogue 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Admittedly it really looks like something that should go for speedy A7, but they do claim to be "of the South's most heralded groups of all time". But there's no evidence of notability. —dgies^t_c 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, possibly made up. A google search for "Track Shack Recordings" returned 2 unrelated results. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no references, reads like self-promotion. Kai A. Simon 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC Bucketsofg 00:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to Palo Alto Unified School District. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:31Z

Addison Elementary School (2nd nomination)[edit]

Just an elementary school in California. No assertion of notability and the references are directly connected with the school. Previous AfD here Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Palo Alto Unified School District.--TBCΦtalk? 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bit about The Donnas is interesting, but I think that could be merged to the Palo Alto article, if there isn't a mention there already. That is probably the most likely place someone would be looking for info like that, anyways. I think an elementary school has to be pretty extraordinary to merit an article, and this one doesn't seem to be. --Brianyoumans 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elementary schools are rarely ever notable, and this is not one of the exceptions. TJ Spyke 03:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palo Alto Unified School District and don't count this as a keep vote. Vegaswikian 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Storck[edit]

WP:PEACOCK issues aside, Google search provides only cursory mentions of the man in notable media. Part Deux 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:AUTO. If the best reference that he can come up with is a "mention" in the San Francisco Gate, he probably wouldn't belong in Wikipedia even if someone else wrote the article. Stebbins 22:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not speedy as there is an assertion of notability. Best to get full endorsement of an AfD. Tyrenius 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I voted speedy because the article is self-written, but I see that that is merely a guideline and not a criterion for speedy deletion. Stebbins 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His stuff isn't too widespread and hasn't drawn enough attention. - PoliticalJunkie 22:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources appear by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing in Lexis-nexis. Bucketsofg 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Natalie 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell visit[edit]

The article is a poorly written stub with no references, has been orphaned for months, and it can be easily merged into the article Diyu, which is about the Chinese hell. Zeus1234 23:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Diyu or Taoism. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing worth merging. This article was plainly created to support the article about a recent book The Travel Notes in Hell (since moved to Journeys to The Under-World). The page is linked to a Chinese wikipedia page, which has one external link to an article giving some support, but it still doesn't make a significant article. The author was warned in January of likely deletion and only made a minor change after that. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources.--Sefringle 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be multiple reliable sources on this subject, judging by the zh article as well. –Pomte 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]