< September 25	September 27 >

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hatch[edit]

This article's subject does not meet the notability requirement of Wikipedia. Furthermore, being a member of the Diva Search does not make someone notabile. There is precedent for deleting Diva Search contestants whose careers outside of the Diva Search do not make them notable: Amy Zidian, Milena Roucka, Leilene Ondrade, Tracie Wright, Elisabeth Rouffaer, among others. Nikki311 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 00:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN model. This years Diva Search contestants are even less notable than previous years since WWE decided to do this years one online rather than on TV like the previous ones. TJ Spyke 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything about her other then the WWE diva search. -Icewedge 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete murderously fails the notability policy. The Hyb rid 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing on the Google News search that suggests meeting WP:BIO Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Davnel03 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Keeper | 76 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect here, maybe the linked article should have a bit of more bio info on the least notable ones.--JForget 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is on national television and has done television work locally and nationally. Angel222 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, As of this posting, the above poster has made little to no edits outside this topic. See contributions. Nikki311 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Any needed info. can be put at Diva search. JJL 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Harvard United Nations simulations. There is a consensus that these simulations are just barely notable and that they should be merged into one article (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Model United Nations[edit]

These articles are about the the three Model UN organizations based at Harvard. Despite being affiliated with one of the most distinguished schools in the world, I cannot find any coverage of any of these organizations in independent reliable sources, meaning they fail verifiability and notability guidelines. These articles have been tagged to be merged into one whole article about all Harvard Model UN organizations for months, but there has been no action on going through with this merger. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since no one seems to care, be bold and Merge them yourself. MarkBul 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It still wouldn't address the notability problems for the individual organizations. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak keep It's been some months since I last looked at them, but I do recall seeing a handful of relatively weak sources that, while not adequate to maintain separate articles, might have made something adequate when combined. That said, I don't have any notes from that far back, so we'd have to do it from scratch if we were to make with the merging. Deletion wouldn't be a bad alternative, given their current, quite stagnant, state. That said, a GNS search for Harvard+"model united nations" returns several relevant results without even hitting the archives. MrZaius^talk 07:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one and merge the others into it. (Disclosure: I was in four Harvard National Model United Nations from 1983 through 1986, representing four different nations for SUNY New Paltz.) Yes, it's notable as a set of competitions. A simple Google search may not help find much. Bearian 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not very notable.132.205.44.5 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one and merge as Bearian suggests --there isnt enough material for all three, but as the major group of its kind, this one is notable. DGG (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep/merge all harvard - one of the oldest Model United Nations (claioms since 1920s) Mukadderat 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit High School (Bend, Oregon)[edit]

Contested PROD. ~~This article is about a non notable school. Article does not assert the importance for the subject. Rjd0060 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: I wish there was an official way to retract my nomination. There have been a number of improvements to the article since I nominated it. Article seems to be in good shape to keep now. - Rjd0060 18:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 01:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high schools are notable per WP:OUTCOMES. shoy 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That doesn't make it notable. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, not a policy or guideline. And, that essay doesn't rule anything as notable or not notable. It simply says that high schools seem to get kept. Doesn't mean they all do, nor does it mean they should. I am getting this from WP:OUTCOMES#Education. - Rjd0060 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There are tons of High School entries on wikipedia. Some actually pretty good. But I find them all to be non-notable, yet here they are. So... why pick on this one? --Blue Tie 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is one that I ran across somehow. WP:WAX - Rjd0060 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one because it's notable and referenced. The view that no high school is notable is a little mistaken--for high schools or anything else. Even some elementary schools can be notable if there are sufficient sources. I am not sure if all high schools are notable. I think that even with diligent work, it will only come to 80 or 90 %.-- but I suggest that we do simply keep them all rather than waste time arguing over the remaining 10 or 20%, especially if people are going to nominate reasonably sound articles like theseDGG (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We seem to be operating without a specific guideline, just precedent. Not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are five what I would call reliable sources, which suffices for WP:NOTE in my opinion. Aboutmovies 05:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in my opinion this school and article meet the criteria for inclusion. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't open a bag of worms here. This is actually one of the better high school articles I've seen, which seem to fall victim to "study hall computer time" student vandalism problems frequently. This one has sources, it is concise and specific without POV problems. It is thin, but the high school has only existed for 6 years. It's relative youth does not mean it's NN. Keeper | 76 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a current resident of Bend, I can't help but defend this. There are many School articles, this being one of the better ones, so why choose this one to delete? You would also have to delete all school articles, like the article for my own school.

Anyways, the fact remains, it's a good article. It has relevant information, and good sources to back it up. Theres no reason to delete it. Dengarde ► Complaints 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See: Other stuff exists. Katr67 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on self-inflicted criteria. — RJH (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has the reliable sources to pass notability.--JForget 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - has refs, and would just need improvement, not deletion if it didn't. - Peregrine Fisher 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram 09:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Culkin[edit]

Suggesting to delete because the article does not assert notability about the subject through reliable, third party party publications. n.b. The external links at the bottom of the page are either links to irrelevant books on Amazon or to the subject's own affiliated sites (unifon.org) which presents a certain conflict of interest as well. Burntsauce 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable from the description of the career. Better sourcing would certainly help. DGG (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see where he meets WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Change to keep Someone has added references and rewritten. Meets WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep or ~~Delayed Delete~~. ~~Give this one time. If Mr. Culkin did as much as this article attests, surely some independent sources could be found. Have the author/contributors been contacted?~~ Keeper | 76 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time healed all wounds here. Article is well written, concise, well sourced, and easily verifiable for accuracy. Subject passes notability IMO. Nice work. Keeper | 76 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete agree with Dlohcierekim, I dont see how he passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. cleanup works for me. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, the article now has plenty of reliable sources to assert its own notability now. Xihr 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Weak delete. WP:BIO could be marginal, but with no reliable, third-party sources, currenly it fails to assert his notability as is required.Xihr 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Writer comment and query. 1) I am changing references to the original articles instead of making it easy to learn more about John Culkin. 2). Culkin's brother destroyed his estate; it takes some digging to uncover data; that doesn't make the man's legacy less vital, just harder to corroborate; most of this information came only from his obit in The New York Times, corrodorated by the article "The man who invented..." cited here, and the articles he wrote. 3) Maybe someone else should write this article. I feel that since a pornographic actor can be notable enough for a place in Wikipedia, per your "notable" guideline, then John M. Culkin certainly deserves a place. 4) Frank Maguire hired Culkin at Federal Express, later became his partner in Hearth Communications. Talk to him. You are correct to admit that John M. Culkin is notable enough to feature here, though you may not have been aware of his influence. I'll try to make this bio work for Wiki. Keep watching edits and commenting, but please be patient, this is spare time activity for me.

Keninyork 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review our guideline for independent, verifiable sources. Talking to people and sources connected with the subject or family of the subject may not meet this. News paper articles go a long way. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient independent evidence of notability (not to say of the whole text itself). Mukadderat 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy was a serious researcher and had novel ideas. He recognized and supported the notion that TV was The Glass Teat. He was 10 times more educational than porno stars.--Mightyms 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. As it currently stands, notability not established, although NYT obit suggests otherwise. --Crusio 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, being a serious researcher and a great idea man do not equate to notability. The hard part on pre-web topics is proving verifiability. On a personal preference note, I would just as soon all the porn star articles were not here. I agree, I'd much rather see an article about this subject than the porn stars. My hope on a personal level is that this article is kept. My personal preferences and values sometimes conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to share those thoughts over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability (people) V Notability (pornographic actors) criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyms (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PBS calls him a "media education pioneer", and not only Variety, but the New York Times gives him an obituary. That's sufficiently notable for our purposes. However, I'm puzzled why people are bringing up porn stars. We also have articles about mass murderers and Pokemon characters, which I thought would be easier targets to take completely unrelated cheap shots at. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to claim of Burntsauce above, the article does "assert notability"; Burntsauce does not seem to understand what that means. The only issue here is whether the assertions of notability can be backed up with verifiable sources. If they are not, that is not a good reason for immediate deletion. It is a good reason to add a ((unreferenced)) or ((Unreliablesources)) template to the article. That is what Burntsauce should have done, in my opinion. The article could then have been proposed for deletion if the necessary references were not added in a timely fashion. -- Dominus 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dominus, I don't see why it's necessary for you to question Burntsauce's "understanding" of policy/guidelines. Really off topic. Also, the nomination for deletion came well before the reliable sources. The sources have been added since Burntsauce's posts and before yours, and two votes were changed from weak keep or delete, to keep (including my own) because of the addition of the sources. If you have a problem with Burntsauce's knowledge of WP policy, take it to his discussion page please. This has otherwise been a notably civil discussion. Keeper | 76 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a significant figure in the development of media studies, and the Variety obit and interview provide the necessary in-depth reliable sources. —David Eppstein 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rhys Grigg[edit]

Delete Yet another parliamentary candidate, one of thousands. Wikipedia is not a listing of parliamentary candidate biographies. Timrollpickering 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously not updated (the election was in May) and has no claim to notability beyond selection in an unwinnable seat. Sam Blacketer 23:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be anything notable about this individual. They failed to achieve either an Assembly or Parliamentary seat that would give that notability and the minor party posts indicated do not in themselves meet the criteria either. Galloglass 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Looks like a left over, abandoned campaign sign that should have come down after the election. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Mall (Chapel Hill, North Carolina)[edit]

Vaguely spammy page on a non-notable mall in North Carolina. Features a fair whack of external links and some unencyclopedic language. An online search finds nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been there, and have seen no indication that there's anything special which has been documented in reliable sources enough for attribution per WP:ATT. No claim in the article or coverage found in Google searching shows anything to distinguish it from hundreds of other malls. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, and editors continue to argue whether malls are inherently notable. Barno 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo assertion of notability. Malls are not inherently notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, well-timed improvement, even the nominator changed to vote keep. @pple complain 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostown, Oakland, California[edit]

Another non notable made up place. No references indicate its existence. Sounds WP:OR. Chris! _{my talk} 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: ~~WP:OR. Could be a hoax.~~ Now sourced. - Rjd0060 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Change to Keep since the sources have pretty much help the article satisfy the notability criteria no to mention historical neighborhoods are generally notable.--JForget 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: ~~No references, and OR.~~ I see some improvements done to the article. Chris! _{my talk} 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a well defined and notable neighborhood in the city of Oakland, California. The nominator may not have noticed that the article title was mis-spelled by the article creator (not me). The nominator of this AfD may have engaged in bad faith editing by deleting the reliable source of the San Francisco Chronicle immediately before his/her nomination. Anlace 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a historically defined neighborhood, could you get us some good references? Does the city recognize Ghost town? Are there Ghost Town resident associations, etc? Google gives too many spurious hits for ghost town for an outsider to do it easily. MarkBul 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: learn how to use Google better. Try "ghosttown oakland" as search terms. Obviously, if you type in "ghost town" you're going to get hits on everything from Bodie, California to stories about haunted fictional places. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still you have provided no references to this article. And the reference I deleted is disputable and hardly a reliable source as no link is provided. You seem to be engaging in bad faith editing by removing a PROD tag without significantly improving the article. Also misspelling of article name is irrelevant to this discussion. Now I begin to see some references. Chris! _{my talk} 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the refs provided, not sure if it's enough though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is an actual neighborhood, and therefore not a hoax, but it is certainly not an "officially recognized" neighborhood of Oakland. You won't find it on any maps. (By way of contrast, check out this very nice neighborhood locator maintained by the Oakland Museum of California; notice that there's no Ghosttown there.) This is one of a number of articles recently created here of these unofficial neighborhoods of Oakland, which all seem to stem primarily somehow from hip hip culture. This casts a lot of doubt on the "encyclopedic" nature of such articles. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above comment is factually incorrect. Reference 6 of the subject article clearly shows that the city of Oakland officially recognizes this neighborhood in name and by the grant funding proposed to be allocated to the Ghosttown neighborhood. Anlace 05:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chronicle is a reliable source, and if they feel they can refer to the neighborhood without even having to explain what and where it is to their readers, then it's clearly in common usage. The newspaper referring to a neighborhood by a name is pretty much an endorsement of that name. Wikidemo 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macleod Mall[edit]

Disputed speedy deletion nomination; better to debate things here rather than in edit summaries. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Speedy delete (A7 or A1) anyway, very non-notable mall, very short article. Google search turns up only Yellow Pages listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - incorrect. Notability is on a par with Centennial Mall and Centre 2000. See references in text citing notability.68.146.179.223 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that is was that a major shopping mall in Calgary.--JForget 23:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - incorrect. See cited material in article.68.146.179.223 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Tiptoety 23:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is the mall not major, ~~but the category it's in says it all: "Defunct Shopping Malls in Calgary". PS, that category is up for deletion too.~~ --Ioeth 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There shouldn't be any Yellow Page listings showing up for this because it was demolished a decade ago to make way for a Revy hardware superstore. I think articles on major shopping centres (even those of only regional interest) are fine, but this one is a bit too NN for an article. 23skidoo 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Incorrect. The mall is still standing and still referred to as Macleod Mall. See referenced items in article.68.146.179.223 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't see how it is any less notable than Centennial Mall. If there is a standard being applied, it is not being applied evenly. 68.146.179.223 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also please explain the notability of Centre 2000 to me. I really don't see what standard is being applied.68.146.179.223 04:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment the additional edits I've made should satisfy notability and verifiability (WP:VER). I'd recommend the deletionists take a hard second look at the article.68.146.179.223 04:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out commentary - category has been changed in accordance with deletion discussion at the CfD page.68.146.179.223 04:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because there are articles an other not notable subjects does not mean we should keep one. Maybe we need to delete them too. Thanks for the info about the other malls. I'll have a look. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references do not assert notability. Mostly just ads and one general article about malls. Thanks again for the heads up on the other two. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Out of curiosity - if you're so concerned about Wikipedia's disk space - why do you have [1] stored on their server when no actual article points to it? Aside from being a crappy picture of ... a strip mall ... I don't see what purpose it serves. Doesn't it violate the spirit of the rule that says WP user pages are not intended to be user pages? Wouldn't you be serving WP more by uploading that picure to your Facebook or Myspace page? Seems hypocritical to delete an article on a historically significant structure citing concern over WP's disk space, and then uploading sub-par photography to illustrate nothing but your personal ego-driven page.68.144.31.71 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disk space has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure where your grounds for that accusation are. GlassCobra 03:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is the notability? Seems like a simple small strip mall. Vegaswikian 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourced notability TerriersFan 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram 09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Towers[edit]

Proposed for speedy deletion; articles at nl and de seem to indicate notability. Needs sources to be kept, however. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 22:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unsourced. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some articles about him in the Dutch paper De Telegraaf [2], [3], [4]. As far as I can make out he took part in a reality show (maybe as a celebrity trying to revitalise his career?). Here's a discography showing that he has been releasing records since the 1970s. He's mentioned here in The Register as "a well-known Dutch Frank Sinatra impersonator". Bláthnaid 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they list him as a Frank Sinatra impersonator, they're wrong. One of his nicknames is "the Dutch Frank Sinatra" though, because they have a similar voice and a similar personal background. But he's not an impersonator. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, enlightenment! Thanks Aecis. Bláthnaid 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, I don't see any indication of meeting WP:BIO or WP:Music. Nothing helpful at Allmusic. In fact, I see no assertion of notability in the article. Perhaps there is info in the other articles that needs to be brought over. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The best information I can find on him in English is from his own website [5] [6]. There is enough there to make him notable eg he was given the Order of the Dutch Lion. There are more than 130 Dutch Google News hits for "lee towers", so I'll try and decipher some to provide RS. Bláthnaid 19:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article now has 4 reliable sources, and there are much more available. He's much more famous than I initially thought, he's had chart hits since the 1970s and there are many newspaper articles from last year that are just about an illness he had. Bláthnaid 09:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete* (with an asterisk) Not being from the Netherlands I’ve never heard him, or of him. Can someone who knows more please weigh in? The only one from Holland I can think of is Goldmember. Lee Towere may be a Dutch Elvis. I don't know. Tiptopper 12:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~. Can someone put a tag that english language source are needed? Mukadderat 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote: strong keep. Both article authors and the voters are very lazy. There are reliable english sources which show that Towers has a very significan discography: [7] Mukadderat 23:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Lee Towers is very notable, and has been notable for the past thirty years. From charting songs to television appearances to important gigs to press coverage to gold and platinum albums to awards (the Edison Award, for instance) to a knighthood in both the Order of Orange-Nassau and the Order of the Dutch Lion. Lee Towers meets just about every point in WP:MUSIC. Yes, the article needs cleanup, but the subject is very, very notable. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have notified the WikiProject Netherlands of this AFD: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands#Lee Towers up for deletion. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most well-known Dutch singers. Arnoutf 06:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It semms clear that he has enough of a demonstrable track record to count as notable. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ridiculous nomination, please do some research beforehand. Lee Towers is a very notable singer in the Netherlands, and yes, he does meet the letter of WP:MUSIC#C2 (see nl:Lee Towers#Songs, he's had multiple Top 10 hits). Melsaran (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does having an article on the Dutch Wikipedia automatically carry him over for the English Wikipedia? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not automatically, for two reasons. Firstly because the consensus on the notability criteria may vary from Wikipedia to Wikipedia (Kenji Nagai for instance has been deemed notable enough for the English language Wikipedia, but is up for deletion on the German language Wikipedia for non-notability), and secondly because there's always the possibility that the article shouldn't actually be on a specific Wikipedia but may have gone unnoticed. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN for english wiki DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeep Rana[edit]

Okaaaay... a weird one here. This appears to be two completely different articles, one of which has overwritten the other. The original version (which I've reverted to) is about an individual who undoubtedly would pass WP:MILMOS#Notability were he to actually have existed, but has precisely 0 Google hits, which seems unlikely for a bona fide general & MC winner. This bio was overwritten with an attack page on someone else of the same name, which is so spectacularly libellous it should probably be oversighted altogether. To make matters even odder, both articles were substantially created by the same single-purpose account. I freely admit to being confused by now. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused too. Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits on Google or Google News relevant to either version of the article, which would hardly be the case if the information that either contained was at all accurate. Deor 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ff m 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, unverifiable, and I find it hard to believe a General in the Gulf War would have charged an enemy position to save his superior without making the papers. perhaps it could be transferred to Uncyclopedia. LOL. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is discussion, which is good, but would serve better on the article's talk page. However, my first impulse would be to redirect to Pseudepigrapha, which is what I would advice at this point, until the lack of sources can be fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern pseudepigrapha[edit]

This article is about something that seems to be entirely original reserach. Googling the term demonstrates the notability of this (there doesn't seem to even be a class of text that is called this). The one cited source, Goodspeed's Famous Biblical Hoaxes doesn't even use this term. The word "Modern" generally has a meaning that means contemporary/recent or between late 1800s to mid 1900s. This article describes medieval and earlier texts as "modern". Then there is the term "pseudepigrapha", which just means a writing forged in someone else's name. However, this article seems to be more about apocrypha, deuterocanonical or simply religious texts. I believe this was an attempt to categorize late Christian writings that at some point posed as authentic texts, only the attempt was full of original research. Look through the list and you will find a hodgepodge: there is a recent book that collects ancient texts (some of them pseudepigraphical, but not many modern), there is a book written by a 19th century spiritualist, then there is an actual pseudepigraphical text, the Gospel of Barnabas, but it isn't "modern". Andrew c ^[talk] 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure Andrew is right on all these points, but with some or all of a rename, copyedit, addition of dates, and clearer lead, I think a satisfactory start article is within fairly easy reach. Johnbod 23:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of these self-important articles that use sesquipedelian words for an added sense of security. Once you get past the 14 letter word, however, it's an indiscriminate list that's served by the category "New Testament Apocrypha". I remember all the articles about the "tetragrammatron" or something that came down to the four letters used in Hebrew to express the name of Jehovah. This one is about apocryphal works (i.e., ones whose authenticity is in doubt), but it sounds more, uh, doctoral, to call it "pseudepigraphia". Use that term next time you see a Wikipedia hoax. Just say, "Hey, that's a bit of modern pseudepigraphia!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, these are not apocrypha, and I don't think calling things presumably written in the last century in many cases by that term would be a positive move. Johnbod 02:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this where things like the forged Hitler Diaries, The autobiography of Howard Hughes by Clifford Irving and maybe the Salamander Letter would go? Should this, perhaps be a category? I'm not sure who cares anyway, but maybe there is something to this modern pseudopigraphia thing that might be worthy of something. --Blue Tie 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The word pseudepigrapha is (usually) specific to religious works. Wanderer57 04:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will certainly be enough sources on every one of them; the general phenomenon is worth an article, and there are sources on it to. the word used is meaningful, and standard, and items misplaced here can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have several points. I'll try to keep it short.
1. This is complicated, though the article is brief. It is also sensitive. As indicated in the article Talk page, some people assert that religious Books at the core of other people's beliefs are "pseudepigrapha".
2. I don't think pseudepigrapha just means "a writing forged in someone else's name." (I'm no expert on this.) It is rather a technical term referring to certain writings from between 200 BC and 200 AD. Compared to that, pseudepigrapha as old as the Middle Ages are modern.
3. Andrew is right that the term "Modern Pseudepigrapha" is not in general use. The article would be on solider ground if it talked about "modern pseudepigrapha" (all in lower case). This would not imply that "Modern Pseudepigrapha" is standard terminology.
4. As Johnbod says, there are issues with the article that could be fixed.
5. Five days is not enough time to consider the AFD. I raised my issues #6 and 7 (see below) on the Talk page of Modern Pseudepigrapha 5 days ago. As of earlier this evening there were NO responses. I thought my note was BOLD enough to draw some comment. Either few people care about the article OR those who do care do not look at Wikipedia as often as Wikipedia addicts (or maybe my writing lulls people to sleep.)
6. The most important point is the ambiguity of the article. The body of the article does not say the 14 or so works listed ARE pseudepigrapha. It says:
  "The following is a list of works commonly alleged to be modern pseudepigrapha. Groups supporting the authenticity of these works would not agree with this classification." (emphasis added)
  
  This casts suspicion on works, without proving anything about them. Perhaps the "test" for inclusion in the article should be stronger than "commonly alleged to be...". Maybe "the scholarly consensus is that these books are..." or something similar.
7. If the wording now in the article is acceptable, how much "alleging" is required before it is considered "common"? Wanderer57 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnbod and per some of Wanderer57's points (there are a few I don't agree with). My principal additional concern is that the nomination mistakes "modern pseudepigrapha" as a term of art, failing to recognize that it is "pseudepigrapha", a term of art in religious scriptural and historical scholarship, modified for Wikipedia article organizational purposes by the logical adjective "modern"; we regularly and routinely split articles and topics in such ways. If the billiard ball article got to be very long, and a wealth of article information were being written on modern manufacturing techniques (phenolic resins, polyurethanes, acrylics, and other modern plastics) as opposed to historical ones (ivory, wood, clay, bakelite, celluloid, etc.), it would be perfectly reasonable to move that material to Modern billiard balls or billiard balls (modern); it wouldn't be original research, and there would be no need whatsoever to demonstrate any usage of the phrase "modern billiard balls" as an industry term of art. The stub has issues, yes, but they are reparable. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what I am hearing is that editors believe that it is useful and encyclopedic to have an article on the concept of Christians writings that purport to come from "Biblical times" (NT would be 50~200 CE, OT would be of course earlier), when in actuality most scholars believe that they come from at the very least hundreds of years later. Ok, I can accept that. However, the title still has issues. If we can work out a name change, I'd be glad to withdraw my nomination. However, I still have big concerns with calling medieval work "modern". As for pseudepigrapha, are we to limit the works to religious writings that claim to be by some figure from ancient times? We need a title that conveys something along the lines of "Writings that allege to be biblical but most likely originate from the 2nd millennium". Of course, that is too verbose for an article title. Another issue that has come up is the inclusion of Mormon texts. I believe objectively, they do belong in this category, but because the Mormon followers are larger than say various New Age movements that accept the validity of some of those other texts, it is more offensive to categorize Mormon texts as "false" or "forgeries". I'm thinking an article title along the lines of Recent alleged biblical texts and define recent as a few hundred years past the apostolic period, or Second millennium alleged biblical texts? Anyway, I'm curious if anyone else has similar concerns with the title, or at least has any ideas that would help alleviate my concerns, and I'm also curious what others think about if the Mormon texts fit into this general category.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probably the most judicious way to handle the Mormon texts is as a separate article. Those who believe, can see this as indicating their distinctiveness as true revelation. Those who disbelieve, can see it as a prominent special case of the general phenomenon. Personally, I consider people well able to judge if what the texts say is objectively presented.DGG (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the Mormons consider their texts biblical. But I also do not think that pseudopigraph must be biblical. I think pseudopigrapha must be writings falsely attributed to another... usually with intent, though not necessarily with intent to harm. --Blue Tie 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Mormon texts are best left out of this, except maybe for a see also on the cat page. Is "Post-Antique" better than "modern"? Recent is also a bit vague. Post-Antique alleged biblical texts might work. Johnbod 03:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. First, should this article be redone as a "list" in Wikipedia? Second, what are the specific criteria for inclusion in this list/article? To avoid the problem of original research and a synthetic compilation, we'd need to have reliable sources that identify each item as worthy of inclusion. Specifically, a secondary source needs to use a term like "pseudopigrapha" to describe each listed item. Does Goodspeed do this and is he a sufficient source? I think it's a fascinating topic but I'm skeptical if you can only find one source that uses this terminology. To bring this more within my own area of expertise, how would you decide whether or not the Zohar belongs on this list? If the criteria are too vague, or too reliant on Wikipedians' opinions, then it's hard to justify this article. Thanks! HG | Talk 08:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key question is the one HG just asked, "what are the specific criteria for inclusion in this list/article?" I would say 'Keep' if I thought this question could be answered adequately. I am doubtful that it can. I hope someone with knowledge of the subject has an answer. Wanderer57 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, verifiable concept. Mukadderat 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above --129.115.102.13 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the preceding Keep voters could say why they assert that it's a verifiable concept, since it doesn't appear that way from the current article's sources. Or, asked another way, by what sources and criteria would you expect to verify items for inclusion? Thanks. HG | Talk 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Apocrypha in the first instance, and redirect, then if the section expands sufficiently at a later date consider re-creating as a separate page. At the moment it's just a definition, not an article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a merger would solve any of the issues raised above. (Though that does not mean they would not solve any, as the first two quotes on my user page are meant to remind me.) Wanderer57 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Moth Nights[edit]

Lack of notability. Berolina 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is unsourced, poorly written, needs to be wikified, and is in essay rather than article form. Still, I'm not sure if it should be deleted or massively cleaned up; the subject is far outside of my field. I have no objection to deletion, but I won't recommend it for deletion either. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tried googling for some results on the web and news and found nothing in the way of reliable sources. The current article would need a complete rewrite anyways even if sources could be found. -- Whpq 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Wikipedia is not a notice board or a web host. Cleaned it up. Especially the part with instructions for this year's participants. It's still not notable. {Dear Admin, please let me know if you decide to keep this. I'll add it to my collection.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 07:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosiomania[edit]

Contested prod. Dicdef of what appears to be an non notable neologism. Darksun 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as it stands his claimed etymology of the word isn't even accurate. I might call this one sentence of gibberish/nonsense.Merkinsmum 23:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsphere projection[edit]

Non notable neologism coined in a master's thesis written by Dudziak, a remarkably similar name to the article's primary contributor, Dudzcom. Only 143 Google hits, most off-topic and all remaining ones related to this thesis paper. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least until we can get more eyes on this. It looks like a reasonable article, though it may need to be moved to a better name. I admit it does look a bit like WP:VANITY, but the article looks keepable... until/unless something else surfaces, I'd not want to lose this. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It can be recreated by somebody other than the author of the only reference. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm pretty sure that Jehochman is correct in that the subject is only published in a Dudziak's Master's thesis. Apparently )see talk page), some other papers are submitted or in press, but they are all by Dudziak. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom & Jehochman, vanity promotion of non-notable work. Pete.Hurd 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pr. WP:NOR. The article is not written encyclopedical, and the mathematics need some years of work in order to introduce rigor (naturally this requires far more than a Master's thesis), which should be in place before it is possible to write an encyclopedic entry for it. All talk about illumination, microspheres and projection is mostly just wrapping, which probably will not be there if this ever becomes a standard algorithm. --Berland 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed; this concept has only just been published, and by one person. If it becomes notable, the article can be restored. Someguy1221 08:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTE because it does not cite independent sources. Gandalf61 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable, per Jehochman. • Lawrence Cohen 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from mainspace, I suggest moving this to a user sub-page such as User:Dudzcom/Microsphere projection until the submitted papers have been published. Tim Vickers 15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though this article is properly wikified and well illustrated, it appears to violate WP:NOR and lacks reliable sources that comment on the method. The comparison of this method against other interpolation methods is not very complete or satisfying, and lacks full descriptions of any of the alternatives. EdJohnston 01:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already covered at Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)#Molly. — Edokter • Talk • 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molly the Yellow Engine[edit]

The page was created for a character which the rules CLEARLY state should not have had a page created for. Not only that, but it contained obvious false information. On accordance to WIKI:Thomas. CBFan 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - containing false information isn't grounds for deletion, it should just be fixed. What rules clearly state this article could not exist? Darksun 22:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems perfectly valid to me. A glance at the template at the bottom of the page shows that plenty of other characters in the series have their own article, and this is one of the most successful British kids TV programmes of all time, not some six-episode flop. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems reasonable to me. Could be sourced better, but that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. Also, to echo Darksun: what rules? Bfigura ^(talk) 23:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Change to delete per Iridescent. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete having found this guideline - seems the WikiProject in question has criteria for which character gets their own page, which this one doesn't meet. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete. Per the guideline, "If the character cannot be seen as a 'regular' (eg. only had one appearance), then the correct article for the character is Minor characters from Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Minor characters from Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, or other suitable article. Darksun 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just for the record, the real suitable place is the Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) page, as the Minor characters page would not fit the frequently appearing Molly, nor is it really usuable anymore. Besides, if you check that page, you'll see that all this page is is just a complete copy of Molly's article from that page, plus bogus information. CBFan 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct place is Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends)#Molly, per WP:THOMAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.23.60 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character Mbisanz 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Strong assertions of notability abound, and there's now many reliable sources to support those claims. No need to keep this up. — Scientizzle 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pooh[edit]

Contested PROD after deletion. The PROD reason was Article about a person, group, company, or web content that does not assert the importance of the subject. I've got no solid opinion right now, but do note that the article cites no sources. WODUP 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tasc0 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of strong assertions of notability even within the small size of the existing article. Lack of sources is a good reason for a "more sources" tag, a bad reason for deletion. tomasz. 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mos Def keep, DJ Pooh is a legendary producer, come on now, The Predator, All Eyez on Me, Tha Doggfather and Bigger & Deffer? Those are four of the greatest rap albums ever thanks to Pooh.SameAsItEverWas 19:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reference.--Tasc0 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - interesting. i found a few solid ones without even particularly looking very hard. tomasz. 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is diffenetly notable enough, all the articles needs are some refs - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contributed on All Eyez on Me, a 9x platinum album, producing "When We Ride". Contributed on The Predator, a 2x platinum album. Contributed on Dogg Food, a 2x platinum album, producing "New York, New York" and "Smooth". Contributed on Tha Doggfather, a 2x platinum album, producing "Up Jump tha Boogie", "Snoop Bounce", "2001", "Doggyland", "Vapors" (which reached number 18 on the UK Singles Chart), and "Snoop's Upside Ya Head" (which reached number 44 on the Australian Singles Chart, number 47 on the Eurochart Singles, and number 12 on the UK Singles Chart). There's more, but I think this is enough. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worked on Down for Life, a "gold" album. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really pretty, but that's not cited in the article.--Tasc0 21:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So add an "unreferenced template". I have proven he is notable. Some user wanted to delete the Ja Rule page because it had no references, but he is clearly a notable musician, and so is DJ Pooh. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also produced "Groupie Luv", a song by 213 from their album The Hard Way, which peaked at number 48 on the U.S. R&B chart, and number 24 on the U.S. Rap chart. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) He also co-wrote the film Friday. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

check it out – four references have appeared from nowhere in the article. does this mean we can stop the semantic quibbling over an obviously notable musician and filmmaker and speedy keep this now? tomasz. 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He also directed, produced, wrote, and starred in The Wash. He even contributed to the film's official soundtrack. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Named the 35th best hip-hop producer by About.com. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Released an album, on Atlantic Records, a major record label. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is always funny how people just go crazy to avoid the deletion of an article.--Tasc0 22:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm proving his notability, what are you doing? --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not the one who wants to keep the article, remember?--Tasc0 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't care about what you want, but I want you to stop making comments like that. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. i think we can all see the article is staying anyway, so never mind all that and let's just close this and get to putting the references Dead Wrong has found into it. tomasz. 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not done yet. He also directed and wrote 3 Strikes. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep: He has worked on very well known albums such as 2pacs All Eyez on Me.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram 09:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedo[edit]

~~Non-notable software. No substantial or multiple sources of non-trivial coverage. • Lawrence Cohen 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOFT. No media coverage. ff m 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A software application with limited use and subscribers.--Gavin Collins 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent non trivial news reviews indicates notability. Over 100 hits on Google news archives. For instance:
- San Diego Union Tribune - Jan 15, 2007
- IT December 28, 2006
- Thumb drives: smaller and smarter storage US News and World Reports September 28, 2006. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo of nn soft. Promo newspaper articles cost a dime a dozen. Mukadderat 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
US News and World Reportd San Diego Union Tribune??!! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, I was about to ask the same question. Those aren't trivial by any stretch. • Lawrence Cohen 12:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep as nominator. Good sourcing has been found. • Lawrence Cohen 12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Dlohcierekim, has been covered by multiple mainstream press publications, clearly notable. Melsaran (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram 09:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xenosaga cast members[edit]

This is a list of Voice actors for the Xenosaga series. This list, however, is already on the pages for their respective articles. Furthermore, it's been tagged for an unneeded merge since April. Dengarde ► Complaints 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article restored after being deleted at end of PROD period so that discussion can ensue and outcome determined here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: it looks like the PROD tag was not replaced with the AFD1 tag when the article was listed here, which explains why the article was deleted at the expiry of the PROD period. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deleting per suggestion on article page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete If the information is already in other articles. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fin©™ 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASuite[edit]

Non-notable software application. A product of "SalvadoreSoftware", the article was created whole by User:Salvadorbs. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable software application and WP:COI issues with the article's creation. Accounting4Taste 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable software application? A software with 32800 downloads? And if you don't know this software, it doesn't means a non-notable software... --Salvadorbs 08:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources given. Fails WP:SOFT. ff m 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A software application with limited use and subscribers. --Gavin Collins 20:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Limited use and subscribers? Do you test this software before vote it? Salvadorbs 09:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Use or downloads isn't notability. Please read Wikipedia:Notability, which describes what is required. Has ASuite received multiple instances of non-trivial (i.e., not just mentioned in passing) coverage in reliable independent sources that have nothing to do with you or your company? • Lawrence Cohen 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, for example this http://www.linux.com/feature/56930 Salvadorbs 10:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any others? We'd need a couple. • Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I found two sources on ASuite, but unfortunately in German language: http://www.opensource-dvd.de/desktop1.htm and http://www.tecchannel.de/test_technik/software/1723791/index2.html . Another source http://www.nothickmanuals.info/doku.php/portableopensource Salvadorbs 16:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and also fails WP:SOFT. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the software documentation isn't clear. It should be explained briefly, though it lacks notability. --NAHID 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another windows widget. humblefool ® 19:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8start Launcher[edit]

Non-notable portable application. Nominating for deletion. Created by User:Andygoh who developed this product. • Lawrence Cohen 20:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 20:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability, fails WP:SOFT ff m 16:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable or Merge with an appropriate list/article. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two Google News Archives Hits do not support claim of notability. One gives a 404 error. The other is in Danish, which I cannot read. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. These lists have no clear inclusion criteria (all slogans ever, for every company? Only slogans for companies with an article? Only slogans with an article? ), are not used for navigation (since most of these slogans don't have and never will have an article of their own), add no info on their notability (why is slogan X or Y listed? Only because it exists?). Similar lists with good, strict inclusion criteria and a purpose (listing e.g. award-winning slogans like those here[8]) would make good articles. This though is just an indiscriminate list if ever there was one. Fram 09:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of advertising slogans[edit]

Add List of advertising slogans (transport) to this AfD.

Listcruft. Not an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a lot of work, and a complete waste of time. Delete. Keeper76 20:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Well, what more can be said? Endless. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, all of them? delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also add: List of advertising slogans (fashion), List of advertising slogans (food and drink)

Delete all four lists. They are hopelessly unreferenced. -SCEhard T 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all, per WP:NOT#INFO Chris! _{my talk} 23:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because people studying advertising slogans will find convenient, comparative and verifiable lists as handy tools and are therefore appropriate reference material. After all, an encyclopedia catalogs and organizes knowledge. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are these lists 'verifiable'? -SCEhard T 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the notes and references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a few of the items are referenced. However, the vast majority are not. Of the whole List of advertising slogans, exactly two entries pass WP:V -SCEhard T 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should keep what can be referenced; I'll do a quick check before I drive home in a few moinutes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Delete all including the (fashion) and (food and drink) ones added. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a Wikiquote list already. MarkBul 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Le Grand, these lists seem to have some value from an historical marketing angle. Maybe assign them to the appropriate WikiProject(s) to clean up and verify all slogans. Put a time frame on it and if it has not been deemed worthy to save in that time frame by the particular WikiProject, or if even after a clean up they still are a mess, renominate them for AfD. Or just delete all unreferenced slogans.--Old Hoss 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list, as it stands, will go on and on, since every new ad campaign can introduce a slogan. A list of memorable slogans would be another matter (and there are books on the subject). Students of advertising quickly learn that there have been a small minority of slogans that are considered so famous, nobody has to be reminded what product was being advertised, like "99 and 44/100ths percent pure". There are others that become part of the language long after the ad campaign is over, "Only YOU can prevent forest fires". But most of these are here today, but will be forgotten by 2032. Mandsford 01:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them as listcruft. ff m 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Lack of references is an editing issue, not a reason to delete. Most, if not all, of these slogans can be verified from reliable sources, as User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is showing; the ones that can't should be deleted. But demanding that all of these be referenced in five days or face deletion of the entire list is placing an unreasonable burden on editors. "Listcruft" and "unencyclopedic" are both considered arguments to avoid, and nothing in WP:NOT#IINFO says that lists of slogans are not allowed. It is certainly not a FAQ, plot summary, list of statistics, or news report; and I don't believe for one second that WP:NOT#LYRICS was intended to prohibit the quoting of one-line jingles. I also don't see why the work of over three hundred editors, representing a strong consensus, should be deleted by the decision of less than a dozen. DHowell 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. This is something someone might need someday and would not be able to fond elsewhere. Of course, notability and verifiability guidelines should be used to determine contents. If the list grows, it can be divided in some way. The fact that the contents will expand is a good thing. Managing the article is an editing concern that will be addressed through consensus, not a reason for deletion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What constitutes a "slogan"? Most of these were used for one campaign and then tossed by the wayside. List is rather useless as stands now. Certain slogans are, of course, encyclopedia-worthy, but on the whole they're not. humblefool ® 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Useless Crap Batman! Bring Out The Batnuke! ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. listcruft. Mukadderat 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unencyclopedic lists, definite listcruft. Keb25 09:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it's not to one's liking doesn't exclude it from existing. It's obvious a lot of work went into it so the value is there for a group, perhaps advertisers, sociologists and marketers? As well as those researching in those fields. Although I find the list a bit mind-numbing it is useful and wikipedia seems one of the only places you would find a neutral list that is regularly updated. The fact that thre are several spin-off lists is evident that there is organization and growth that's being managed. If anything I think the lists should include a brief introduction to assert notability like The foundation of our consumerism society is partially perpetuated by getting cranky editors to buy crap using spiffy slogans like "do no harm," "in Jimbo we trust" and "I'm Listcruft and I can't get up" - in this spirit we present an incomplete list of advertising slogans. Benjiboi 12:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Problems about which slogans should be included in the article can be solved by making a reference to a secondary source a condition for a slogan's inclusion in the article. Sources like these [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] [15], can be used for that. There are often articles in newspapers when a company dumps an old famous slogan, eg, [16] Kit Kat and [17] Asda. Lists of old advertisements are of historical value eg beauty and transport. I've read commentary about fashion and beauty slogans, eg L'oreal's "because you're worth it", so that article at least could be expanded beyond a list. Here's some information about DeBeers "a diamond is forever". I would also like to point out that people pay for information about slogans. Here's a quote from the Chair in Marketing at Indiana University:

"It’s amazing the length of time...that famous ad marketing slogans stay with us...To this day, when you show people, let’s just say, the BMW name, they can pretty much often tell you, if they’re in that market segment, “It’s the Ultimate Driving Machine.” Or GE: “We Bring Good Things to Life,”...it’s amazing, the longevity of advertising slogans and the power of just putting them into our mindset. One of the slogans that was very popular several decades ago...is “I Can’t Believe I Ate the Whole Thing,” and what was amazing about that was, of all ad slogans that were running during that period of time, it had the highest recall rate of any of them and yet people could recall the slogan but could not recall the product – it was Alka-Seltzer." Bláthnaid 13:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I'm assuming good faith on User:Jotel's part, but I really see no point in keeping this discussion open -- we've already proven millions of times that towns are inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jabłonowo Pomorskie[edit]

No context. Very short articles with little or no context for their statements Jotel 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously it needs more content, but give it a chance. Places are inherently notable, and the Polish Wikipedia page shows there's scope for expansion. Gordonofcartoon 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually the article does have context; a town located in a certain region of Poland. The article needs expansion, but that in no way is a reason to delete it. Towns/villages are notable just by being a town/village. The Polish Wikipedia article has more content. A fluent Polish speaker can start translating from that if someone's in a hurry for article expansion. --Oakshade 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gordonofcartoon. Places are inherently notable per consensus. (I wouldn't be suprised if that's a policy too, but I don't have my finger on it at the moment). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/redirect. I have just found that a reasonably encyclopedic article, fear of frogs, is possible. `'Míkka 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranidaphobia[edit]

Transwiki & Delete nothing more than a dictionary definition, sub-stub Carlossuarez46 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, ranidaphobiaphobic? (which is, of course, afraid of those that are afraid of frogs). Just kidding. Move to Wiktionary. Keeper76 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to -phob-#Zoophobias and add entry there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Carlos Mandsford 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. ff m 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
swift and merciless delete, no transwiki, nonnotable neologism. wiktionary is not a place for garbage. Mukadderat 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um, "Ranidaphobia" has been in Wiktionary since October 2004 here Most -phobic entries end up staying even if nominated for deletion, and even if perceived as neologistic garbage, because of the vast amount of sources that can be found (ie, online lists). I say, delete from WP and leave the Wiktionary article as is. In a move of unusual boldness on my part, I went ahead and added it to the already existing list mentioned above by Lenticel as an appropriate placement -- Keeper | 76 15:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. If you can find a reliable text with encyclopedi information about "ranidaphobia", you are welcome to add an article. There is plentty of garbage floating in the internet, and wikipedia is not a place to colelct it. Please see -phob-#Phobia lists. `'Míkka 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Sanchez[edit]

Delete unsourced BLP about a playboy model with no indication that she is notable - like significant coverage in reliable sources, etc. per WP:BIO and WP:N Carlossuarez46 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BLP. Also WP:BIO. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability - TexasAndroid 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, plus lack of success on GIS :( --Sc straker 03:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one's obvious. NN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptopper (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Edokter • Talk • 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Before The Calm[edit]

Episode plot fails Wikipedia:Television episodes. superβεεcat 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Keeper76 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Over 200 unique Google hits suggest some notability. Wikipedia:Television episodes is a content guideline for writing articles. It is not a notability guideline. The cure for poor content is vigorous rewriting, not deletion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to delete as not notable. The suggestion was not fulfilled by reality. A review of 100 unique g hits found personal web pages, youtube, lists of episodes, wiki's and Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing that satisfied WP:V Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What words did you search? I am seeing no notability asseriting google hits in mine. — i ^said 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that the number of hits to anything is not a reason to keep an article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plot summary, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No apparent reliable sources to fix the problem. Jay32183 02:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and inuniverse. Mbisanz 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Televailable[edit]

The result was closed delete per WP:SNOW. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been deleted long ago. Word was "coined" by a Mr. Curtis in "early 2007" and only used by him. Creator of page also named Curtis. Non-notable, non-existent word Keeper76 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. --Endless Dan 19:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Wow. How did that thing stay here for 6 months? Obvious delete per nom, would not even qualify for an entry on wiktionary, much less wikipedia, as it is clearly a made-up word.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How did anyone miss this. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. I'd like to point out the attempt at phonetic spelling, too. At least use IPA! Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per norm. Chris! _{my talk} 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Patent case of WP:MADEUP. (Not a true reason under CSD, true, but I don't think this is going to be a heavily disputed AfD). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But congratulations to Joseph Curtis of Grantsville, Maryland, for having the guts to do the article and for keeping this on Wikipedia from March 22 onward. I had a similar dream about the word "forenot", which means "If it had not have been for..." WTG Joe. Mandsford 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:NEO ff m 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Murphy (Magazine Editor)[edit]

Delete 2 line unsourced BLP about a magazine editor- no showing of meeting WP:BIO or WP:N; so nn that we don't know when or where he was born red flags of non-notability for living people. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Keeper76 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. 2 ggogle hits including this article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Mbisanz 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram 10:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shima Kōsaku[edit]

Delete fictional character with no real world importance or notability. Carlossuarez46 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even say which manga the character is in. Concrete Complex 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Concrete Complex. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 11:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Ned Scott 02:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix Horrible article, not even at the right article name. Easily the most famous salaryman manga, has Kodansha Bilingual editions. Needs a heavy rewrite and assertion of notability, sources. Manga went through several title changes as the character was promoted, so probably should be under the Shima Kosaku series. Doceirias 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix and keep per Doceirias, and what should the proper article name be? Chris 23:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to have won Kodansha Manga Award. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name appears to be backward. It should be Kōsaku Shima. The information at the Award page matches the info in the article. Character also has a redlink at Kodansha Manga Award with the other spelling. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doceirias and Dlohcierekim. —Quasirandom 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved it to the correct location, turning it into a page on the series rather than the character. Added a link to the Japanese wikipedia and at least the titles of the other series. It should be at least a respectable stub now. Doceirias 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Chauvinism[edit]

A highly POV article with a POV title made up of carefully selected and largely distorted facts from various Wikipedia articles. We do have articles about society-specific nationalisms, but the title and content of this article is an attack on Georgia rather than the encyclopedic treatment of the issues of Georgian nationalism. I also have a suspicion of sockpuppetry. This is the very first article by user:Toobigtohide who seems to be quite familiar with wiki syntax. Kober^Talk 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV nastiness. MarkBul 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's probably room for an article about minorities in contemporary Georgia but definitely not under this title. Way too soapboxy, under-referenced and under-researched. --Folantin 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is based on facts and only on facts. And they are backed by references. There are people who would love to hide facts, not show the full truth of the topic that deals with issues in their own country. Like user Kober who intensively fights against any information on Wikipedia that highlights negative issues in Georgia. You can look at his page and see that that where he spend majority of his time. And instead of providing facts telling the contrary (which of course he cannot) he keeps accusing the author in whatever his imagination is capable of... without any factual arguments from his side! -- Toobigtohide 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't engage in personal attacks and don't make false assumptions. I'd oppose any article under the title of "X Chauvinism". Your own posts reveal that this article is aimed at propaganda.--Kober^Talk 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal and no propaganda. Issues in every society need to be openly discussed. I am just learning Wikipedia. This information is true and verifyable. It is the choice of community to decide how important are facts there. Any comment on how to improve it will be welcome. Toobigtohide 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original-research essay, trashy POV-pushing. Moreschi ^Talk 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people bother tagging this stuff? Kill, biased soapboxing. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; thoroughly unencyclopedic. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it's a stub and highly subjective. Rustavizauri 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, POV, biased, unencyclopaedic etc. --Beloved Freak 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's probably possible to write an article on racial discrimation in this area, but this POV/OR/attack-y article isn't it. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and most all others voting delete here -- it's POV pushing at its finest. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Georgianization or Georgification similar to Armenianisation or Azerification and de-POV the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of having one-sentence articles with unscholarly titles like Armenianisation and Azerification? The issues addressed in these articles can be discussed elsewhere.--Kober^Talk 07:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This particular article is more than one sentence and it's sourced but it's POV it needs to be NPOV. Georgianisation is actually a word used in more scholarly material. So is Georgian Chauvinism by the way and they both generated hundreds of thousands of hits when you do a search for these terms. If you don't like Georgianisation, how about Allegations of Georgian Chauvinism? Or how about Human Rights in the Republic of Georgia? I think it's notable to have an article in wikipedia about the conditions, real or alleged, of the minorities in Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Georgian Chauvinism? Are you suggesting creating a POV fork? The human rights article would be helpful, but please note that "the Republic of Georgia" is only a historical name of the country.--Kober^Talk 08:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a need to more extensive approach for this topic, and this article is just a stub, so feel free to add more content to it. The article contains true facts and only true facts. The country name makes little difference as the issue existed and exists as many people currently living in the Georgia can attest. Renaming the article to Human Rights In Georgia is almost the same, doesn't make the issue less or more. I chose the term as the most descriptive and exactly characterising the issue. Toobigtohide 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you the only user who finds the title "most descriptive and exactly characterising". Most of what you have written in your masterpiece is taken out of context, distorted or copy-pasted from unreliable sources such as the already mentioned anti-globalization journalistic corporation.--Kober^Talk 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not the only one Wikipedia user that found interest in this article. Second your allegations on distortion are speculations and in your turn - attempt to distort the truth of facts described in this article, based on four different references from specialists and and organizations that made research in this area. Or you prefer to call anything that doesn't match you POV a distortion...? Toobigtohide 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Extremely POV article that has no place in an encyclopedia. Grandmaster 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al. Violates core principles including , unreliable sources, WP:NOT, etc. Bearian 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Every source is reliable. Toobigtohide 15:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Especially the Centre for Research on Globalization notorious for its journalistic speculations and conspiracy theories. --Kober^Talk 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. What are the facts suggesting that? Other then your speculations... Toobigtohide 15:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A blatant NPOV infringement. --Brand спойт 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous WP:SOAPboxing, trying to incite larger conflicts along national lines in Wikipedia. Interestingly, POV page was created by a user established just 3-days ago, who only edited this one article. Atabek 23:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really ridiculous is your ignorance to the topic and instead of giving constructive arguments you are making points based on how long ago the user created article was registered before he created an article... As if there a period of time after registration when you are allowed to make contributions to Wikipedia. Any suggestions how to make this article NPOV are welcome... I just am not that professional in writing articles to do best job. That is why this article is a stub. But the only thing I can guarantee is whatever it contains is truth. Toobigtohide 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people ignorant is outside the accepted tone of Wikipedia. Please consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks if you really are a newbie.--Kober^Talk 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people ridiculous is the non lesser offence. And interestingly enough you didn't respond in the same way to his comment. Evidently, your comments are biased... Anyway, let's all be polite and NPOV to each other. This article is a first try to lit light on this issue in Wikipedia format. And best benefit will be any constructive suggestions how to improve it to match Wikipedia standards. Most commented response is POV view of this article. I dont' quite understand what specifically makes it so, and how to make it NPOV, so any comments will be welcome in this area. Toobigtohide 14:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what was said was "...Ridiculous WP:SOAPboxing...". Here "Ridiculous" would mean an absurdly high level. This is a comment on the tone of the article (I presume, under AGF), not an attack on an editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. VartanM 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kober. Parishan 07:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alæxis_¿question? 08:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iberieli 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete irrelevant vote, though --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was} delete. — Edokter • Talk • 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peripheral Vision (silent Witness episode)[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT for plot summaries. No assertion as to why this particular episode is notable. shoy 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and actually speedy for copyvio. Editor has created several for Series 11 of the show Silent Witness and is at last talking to me via talk pages. Seems to understand and is asking how to delete. I showed them the ((db-author)) tag. For reference, the other pages still around are: Peripheral Vision (silent witness episode), Peripheral Vision (Silent Witness episode) (spelled differently), Suffer the Children (Silent Witness episode), Hippocratic Oath (Silent Witness episode), & Double Dare (Silent Witness episode) --EarthPerson 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, fails WP:PLOT even if not a copyvio. shoeofdeath 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not assertion of notabilityMbisanz 15:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; closed as moot. The current article has been rewritten, and is no longer the nominated article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micropolygyria[edit]

Transwiki & Delete unless expanded to show us why it's important. Dicdef: every disease has a name but an article just telling us that there is a disease of this name really isn't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Definitely a sub-stub, without enough context to evaluate, really. Not much would be lost in deleting this six word article. But it seems real enough: Google Scholar counts 344 hits, so it seems to be a subject that is both real and worthwhile. I'd try to interpret some of the material and expand it, but my neurons have all flown down to the Bahamas where they spend the winter, so it might be better expanded by someone who understood what they were looking at. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term certainly seems legit, and the page has only been there for three days - give it a chance! It may be better merged into another article, but you'd need insider knowdedge to know where. This AfD was done way too soon - there must be 10,000 crap pages that could be nominated before this one. MarkBul 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 09:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there are only 8 hits on Medline, there seems to be potential for an expert to expand this beyond a dictionary definition. Espresso Addict 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a disease exactly, but rather a pathological growth pattern, present in a number of specific neurological diseases, notably. Fukuyama congenital muscular dystrophy. I have replaced the vague content of the article with something meaningful from a RS & given the links and some references, just as a start. A fuller explanation can & should be written. DGG (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unless someone steps forward soon and proposes some new grounds to delete this, I mean to close this as moot. The article has been entirely rewritten and seems to me to be a reasonable stub now. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Edokter • Talk • 22:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenplec[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. I see nothing in [11 Google hits] that meets independent, verifiable sources attesting to notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found 15 Google hits, and essentially nothing notable that wasn't self-referential or that meets WP:V. Accounting4Taste 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:WEB ff m 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Way of All Flesh (Band)[edit]

I'm not quite sure about this, are you sure this is notable or something? Also, if it IS notable, we need EXPANSION BABY! ViperSnake151 19:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram 10:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Johnson[edit]

Delete nn author, the four books Amazon carries are ranked 102,040th, 37,795th, 789,366th, 914,573rd in sales at Amazon.com and there is no evidence that any of them meet WP:BK or that he meets WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the books don't appear sufficiently notable. Eusebeus 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep. 33,739 Amazon.com ranking for I'll Quit Tomorrow [18] seems pretty high to me for a book first published in 1980; the fact it's still in print is evidence of its notability. There are likely to be independent reviews for the first edition, but the date of publication might mean that they are not accessible online. Espresso Addict 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you examine the book cover carefully, it says "OVER 350 000 COPIES SOLD". That was the number when they were designing the cover. However, since that version probably sold some copies too, the number must have risen since then. --Puchiko 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of a very notable book, but thee is surely a fuller bio waiting to be written. DGG (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but DGG may be right that there may be more. Willing to change my vote if someone provides references establishing notability. --Crusio 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Keep as per Puchiko --Crusio 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added, and referenced the fact that seven editions of I'll Quit Tomorrow have been published. Five editions of Intervention have been published. Is that proof of notability? --Puchiko 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are also two separate sound recordings of the work. The book is held in 1615 libraries; DGG (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded, and referenced the information about the Johnson institute. There were third party sources, and therefore the subject is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puchiko (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Note: Sorry, keep forgetting to sign. --Puchiko 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United DJs[edit]

Delete Article for nn unsigned group of DJs that has made some mix tapes. Was tagged for notability back in March and no improvement; basically unsourced and fails WP:BAND or WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Tasc0 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability - TexasAndroid 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of significance in the article. No hits at Google news. Nothing at AllMusic suggests meeting WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. @pple complain 17:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay McGraw[edit]

Delete son of Dr. Phil but no real independent notability - all his major achievements are in capacities procured by his dad (head of one of dad's companies, producer of a few shows starring dad) and the sources for all those are his dad's website and imdb - not the significant coverage in reliable third party sources that WP:BIO requires. Simply put, notability is not inherited. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have a real affinity for the guy or his dad, I say Keep. The article definitely needs better, independent sourcing, but McGraw Junior has carved out his own notability IMO even if it started with his dad. Several books, apparently a movie, CEO (whether nepatistic or not, still CEO) are enough for me. Keeper76 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that notability can absolutely be inherited. Whether "junior" likes it, or not. Keeper76 20:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I agree that notability is not inherited, Jay does have his own presence, even if it's as his Dad's lackey. Corvus cornix 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable in his own right...even if his dad did kinda pay for it all. Hosted a network TV show, but more importantly, his books are best sellers. This one is #4 in its category, the others were ranked highly when they came out, but I can't seem to find any reference. Smashville 21:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than sufficiently notable in his own right. No different from Ivanka Trump -- or Donald Trump for that matter. He started with a leg up, but this isn't about judging how you got there. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(keep) And, ironically, Phil himself would never have found notability had it not been for his "mother" Oprah. If we delete Jay because of his dad, then are we going to seriously consider also deleting him, him, and her? All notable in their own right, but none would be notable without their parents handing over the keys to their respective kingdoms. At least Jay wrote some books. (and bestsellers at that) Keeper | 76 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville and Dhartung. Maxa megalon 2000 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable in his own right as a television host and best-selling author. How he got the opportunity to become a television host and author does not detract from that. --Metropolitan90 05:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so far from notable it hurts. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like it; he didn't earn it. He IS notable... Tiptopper 12:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not transferable. We are not seeking deletion because of his dad, but despite dad's notabilty. He has written books, but I do not see that they come close in terms of ranking at Amazon. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a Speedy and a salt JForget 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bemanistyle[edit]

This has been deleted and recreated six times now. Rather than carry on wasting everyone's time playing whack-a-mole with it, bringing it here for either a decision that it does somehow pass WP:WEB, or once-and-for-all decision to delete. (If the latter, I strongly recommend salting this and Bemanistyle.com.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant advertising, re-creation of deleted article with no improvement, non-notable. and please, for the love of pie, SALT. - superβεεcat 17:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author has been told repeatedly in the article talk page and their personal talk page(see also before user deleted earlier talk page entries) what the article fails to meet, and what it needs in order to be kept. Rather than edit the article to include these Tme2nsb has instead resorted to multiple recreations, insults and such. Improbcat 18:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. Re-create in userspace and send to DRV at this point. - Chardish 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Article has been recreated too many times, never with demonstration of notability, and current creator is disrupting other articles about web pages in an effort to prove his point. Any new creator who has actual sources can take it to DRV.-FisherQueen (Talk) 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio since the new creator copied it out of a cached version and therefore lost the edit history. Salt. And warn the originator about being civil in edit summaries. Corvus cornix 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. How many times do we need to say it before its done????? Burntsauce 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't want to do it myself as I'm involved yadda yadda but if anyone else feels the urge to pull the trigger on Image:Bmslogo.gif as well, feel free — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by User:Philippe. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 07:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infestation[edit]

Suggesting to delete because this is a pathetic one-liner dictionary definition (after many years no less) and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. The history shows that this has already been moved to Wiktionary where it belongs. Burntsauce 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom... nice signature by the way! :) --Endless Dan 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy A5 -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a DAB page --- I think this page could serve as a disambiguation page for articles such as invasive species, pest control, pest_(organism) etc. since it is a very common word. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Edokter • Talk • 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberlife Technology[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Another Creatures article. Endless Dan 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Mukadderat 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable corp. Mbisanz 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Celebrity[edit]

Not exactly made up in school but WP:NFT still applies. Spryde 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dicdef & NFT. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also, not notable and dripping with a tone of pity and disgust. Bearian 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pseudo-article. Dicdef at best, but really it's just an obvious and typical use of "pseudo-" as a modifying prefix, used in this instance to attack the fame of some as lacking in merit. Postdlf 16:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why you hatin' on JFK Jr.? Tiptopper 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bidaroo.com[edit]

This appears to be a SPAM article for bidaroo.com. After reviewing the site in question, I was bombarded with numerous pop-ups, in my opinion, not appropriate for wikipedia RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 17:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant spam, marking it as such. - superβεεcat 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Better off in the Creatures (artificial life program article, however it's already there. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grendel (Creatures)[edit]

Delete or Merge. See below merge requests for Shee (Creatures) and Ettin (Creatures) Endless Dan 17:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste merge (with slight improvement along the way) to Creatures (artificial life program). Also dropped the related and/or external links sections. — SheeEttin {T/C} 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, information is sufficient in the Creatures parent article. No need for merge. Be careful with any redirect, a "Grendel" search should end up on the existing disambiguation page. Keeper | 76 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Info is already in the main Creatures (artificial life program), and this topic isn't notable enough for it's own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shee (Creatures)[edit]

Delete or Merge. Same reason for nomination as the Ettin (Creatures) nomination below. Endless Dan 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste merge (with slight improvement along the way) to Creatures (artificial life program). Also dropped the related and/or external links sections. — SheeEttin {T/C} 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Info already exists in many Creatures article. Interestingly, typing "shee" in wikisearch brings you to Sidhe (modern Irish shee), but the disamb. doesn't list Shee from Creatures. I'll add it now. Keeper | 76 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. Can be covered sufficiently in the article on the game. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fin©™ 09:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Info is already in the main Creatures (artificial life program), and this topic isn't notable enough for it's own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ettin (Creatures)[edit]

Delete or Merge. Not notable characters. If kept, should be merged with the Creatures video game series it references. Not significant enough to warrant it's own article. Endless Dan 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste merge (with slight improvement along the way) to Creatures (artificial life program). Also dropped the related and/or external links sections. — SheeEttin {T/C} 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to complete the merge as this is now adequately covered in the main Creatures article. — brighterorange (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Be careful with a redirect here - if someone searches for "Ettin" they should end up on the disambiguation, not the Creatures specific article. Keeper | 76 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I appreciate there is a Wired article that refers to this term, one tech magazine mentioning the term doesn't really establish notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptables[edit]

Not notable Endless Dan 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism ff m 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable neologism with only 73 unique Google hits. Were it notable, there would be more. The article says they are "beginning to spring up." Once they have sprung, the subject may then be notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of Wired Magazine reference and attempt by rescue squad to save article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to notability concerns. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Cory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Priscilla Cory

Non-notable and self-promotion Sc straker 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This autobiographical article was created by the subject (user id: Beatress) and mostly edited by her. Checking her IMDB entries, out of a dozen or so films she appeared in, only one was credited, all the rest were as an "extra". I keep stumbling upon this because of my edits of the Jan and Dean page where this user keeps interjecting her self as a "star" of the 1977 TV movie "Deadman's Curve", when in reality it was not a starring role, and was the only time this person had a credited movie role. Please also see my discussions on the talk page of the main article. Also see the forums discussions on IMDB discussing this person's propensity to self-promote. --Sc straker 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--Sc straker 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: - The user Beatress has added an argument against deletion which can be found here: Talk:Priscilla Cory#Priscilla Cory notability. Just adding it here to be fair to her. --Sc straker 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability. Claims for notability are not backed by reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to multiple references; if article reads too autobiographyically, that can always be fixed with revisions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the provided references don't really indicate notability and aren't reliable sources. The IMDB profile shows a string of non-notable roles. Certainly nothing that indicates a starring role, and that includes the Deadman's curve role. The remainder are videos, and amazon links which aren're reliable sources. These may help to verify she exists, but do nothing to indicate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 18:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - possible meat puppet MrWeissmann attempting to influence notability on main article. --Sc straker 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""discussion"" - I Mr Weissmann just learned that Priscilla Cory was a co-star and Bruce Davison, Richard Hatch had the only starring role as Jan Berry. The videos and DVDs of Priscilla Cory are for sale on Amazon because they are of the movies which she's been in for sale, to buy them. To delete this person who does have notability for several years now would be a loss to her many fans and I myself. No I am not a meat puppet as you call it. I am sorry but I wish to see Priscilla Cory not deleted and others backing her too. MrWeissmann 19:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""discussion"" - I am appalled that you're assuming that we're the same Beatress, this definitely coincidence. With so many user IDs it's impossible to know who is who, like Michele Spector, using Chele commenting on Judge Fidler, it's an assumption. Please do not delte this person with notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatress (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Messy, NN Tiptopper 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with apologies to Ms Cory, Beatress, and Mr. Weissman, but subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - yet another possible meat or sock puppet RayRappa attempting to influence notability on article talk page. --Sc straker 22:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The video clips of her singing from her dad's tv show are delightful, and it is great that she had a part in the Jan and Dean movie, but Wikipedia's WP:N and WP:BIO are technically not satisfied. Edison 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anonymous user 76.208.133.71 attempted to remove some comments from the article's talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This all seems very sad to me. This poor soul is not without some notability, but it's pathetic to read Beatress or Priscilla or whatever frantically clinging to that 15-minutes of fame, so long after it's gone. It's gone... Ritametermaid 00:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Condolences to the family. The issue is that the individual does not meet our notability criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Milano[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; Wikipedia is not a memorial web site. Article content does not indicate significance of subject beyond personal/ family connection. Propose deletion Hu Gadarn 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I feel that he was in the news a lot after his death, especially local, so therefore his is notable. Smartyshoe 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be notable for only one event- his death. Seems to have no lasting notability, sad though the story is. J Milburn 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tragic, but notability is based on one event that did not receive widespread or lasting coverage. Cap'n Walker 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is well established. Colonel Warden 22:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Sadly, high school sports result in the deaths of a handful of young people very year. They are not notable simply because they are few. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy to which your slogan points is mainly concerned to limit damage to living people by repeating hurtful stories about them. It is not applicable in this case because the person is dead. Colonel Warden 05:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad, but, as has been said, not notable. ff m 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with condolences to family. I see no established notability, and Colonel Warden has not provided any lnik. Google news archives provided many hits for this name. None were relevant to the subject when filtering for 2006. As tragic as this is, the subject does not meet WP:N. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains links to news stories. Unfortunantely, you must pay to view them, and they are only accesible through the Poughkeepsie Journal's news archives, then paying, and then viewing them. That is why the links in the article return erros. Smartyshoe 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Poughkeepsie Journal alone would not satisfy notability. Newspaper accounts in one's hometown do not indicate significant news coverage. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an atricle from the Times Herald Record. Smartyshoe 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Sad. Very sad. Maybe the author should make a memorial webpage... But not notable. Tiptopper 23:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There IS a memorial webpage (the link's in the article), this seems to me to be enough. NN Tiptopper 00:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I believe they satisfy the notability criteria, due to the number of published books and his notability in the Odessa Numismatics Museum. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Loboda[edit]

Belatedly contested prod; was prodded for nn. Carlossuarez46 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogues of the collection of the Odessa Numismatics Museum published with Peter Loboda participation, undoubtedly are the important scientific publications. Interest to them is very huge in World scientific community. The author’s name is well-known to numismatists and historians in the different countries of the World. Mariusz Mielczarek Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii w Toruniu. Professor. Torun, Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.0.78 (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This says that the museum he founded is important. Bláthnaid 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Blathnaid Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, text needs cleanup and better sourcing but the subject is pretty clearly notable. shoeofdeath 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional linkVlad Fedchenko 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Re-closed as keep. I had closed this as keep earlier but the nominator protested, so I re-opened it. Since then, others have called for a keep as well, so I think that WP:SNOW is definitely applicable now if it wasn't before. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutants and Masterminds[edit]

The extensive coverage of this game's settings and instructions have been copied from a gaming playing Wiki, but lack of independent sources fail to provide evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep - this is getting ridiculous Gavin. This is a multiple award winning game. Your nomination for deletion of this article is unresearched and produced in bad faith. Web Warlock 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no mention of awards in the article when it was nominated, so I have done my homework. Try not to take the process so personally. Please observe AfD Wikietiquette if you can.--Gavin Collins 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Researching is not looking at one page. In the few minutes since your uncalled for nomination I have discovered over a dozen awards for this game and I have more to add. I am not taking it personal at all, but nominating a page fro deletion right after your tag is removed sounds like you are taking it personal to me. If you want to show you are a professional and unbiased then withdraw your nomination now. Web Warlock 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All you had to do was look at an Amazon.com entry to find evidence of awards. Please review WP:OSTRICH. Zagalejo^^^ 17:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep - Agree with Web Warlock. Nominating an article in retaliation for someone removing a tag is a poor reason for making such a nomination, which seems to be what has happened in this case. This game is probably the most popular title in the superhero roleplaying game genre today. Rray 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable RPG. Possible bad faith nomination. -Chunky Rice 17:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Strong and speedy keep awards mentioned here at least, and these nominations from Gavin are getting a little ridiculous. SamBC(talk) 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep — Per above. I've assumed good faith up until now, but, based on past history, nom. appears demonstrating an anti-gaming agenda. Hmm... — RJH (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the above. If I understand correctly, an AfD nominator can close the debate himself with a keep result in snowballing cases like this one. Is this correct, Gavin? --Goochelaar 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Tone it down fellas - Those sources are kinda borderline. That said, it's a close enough that it doesn't deletion isn't warranted, and the article should certainly be salvageable. Could still use some press sources or something of the sort to flesh it out. That's an awful lot of content for so few citations and so tangentially related sources, raising legitimate concerns about WP:OR. MrZaius^talk 18:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) PS: In defense of the nom/of my labeling the sources as "borderline," the GenCon awards plainly meet WP:RS, but that's only one strong source. The others are some forum/slashdot-style news site's readers awards (borderline RS - wouldn't stand on it's own, but it's valid next to the GenCon source), the official site of the game (primary source), and a bookmarked search at a bookstore (now deleted, for obvious reasons). Nom incorrect, but it is inappropriate to not still assume good faith.[reply]

Comment Working a full time job and doing these edits as time permits I have a few dozen other sources and links. Web Warlock 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC) PS: The Bad-Faith assumption is based on a pattern of behavior over the course of a couple of weeks and several dozen similar nominations. Granted, the links I have put are, in and of themselves, not enough, but combined leads this to a strong keep. Web Warlock 18:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As does the nom, surely. The bad faith call still didn't really seem warranted in this particular case - ~~can't speak for any over-arching trends.~~ Here's a couple links to print sources, btw: [19]. No GNS hits other than press releases, no other obvious print sources from a 10 min search. MrZaius^talk 18:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I guess I can speak to overarching trends. Over the last few days, the nom only targetted Exalted in any particular depth, and, IMHO, that was wholly warranted. Really not seeing anything approaching bad faith. MrZaius^talk 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - then please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games talk page.Web Warlock 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep It's won multiple awards, and recently gained the rights to do a Wild Cards RPG (which is notable enough to be mentioned on the Wild Cards page). --Dr Archeville 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had closed this as a speedy keep last night, but the nominator thought that I used WP:SNOW too hastily. I'm re-opening the discussion per the nom's concerns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please provide evidence of the copying "from a game playing Wiki" (i.e. like a link to such a Wiki)? --Craw-daddy | T | 12:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and award winning RPG. KitHutch 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SNOW was fine. Nominator is wasting everyone's time. Percy Snoodle 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate the nom's cleanup of the crufty stuff on Vampire and Exalted, but this is an award-winning book here. I think it needs a chainsaw taken to it, however, it's in bad need of pruning.--UsaSatsui 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW was perfectly appropriate here. The nominator is wasting everyone's time with a pointless deletion nomination. Rray 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability concerns. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pros from Dover[edit]

Another article that does not appear notable outside of it's own magazine. Endless Dan 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was about a phrase from a book/movie. While I'm not going to make the argument that the phrase is notable enough for an article, the information about the magazine didn't appear until a couple hours ago. --Onorem♠Dil 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Nance[edit]

Self-proclaimed "gonzo journalist"; doesn't appear to be notable beyond his online magazine. NawlinWiki 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also conflict of interest per article creator. --Endless Dan 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Chad Nance" gonzo returns 7 ghits. "Chad Nance" skunk returns 7 ghits. "Chad Nance" journalist jumps to 16 ghits. All either this page, blogs, messageboards, or myspace. No reliable sources provided that verify any type of notability. --Onorem♠Dil 12:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GONZO regarding notability. --Sc straker 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 16:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing on Google-- web, news or archives to support notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Peace movement (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The peace movement[edit]

Non-notable movement/rally/day that has not even had its first annual day. No independent sources given, no coverage in third-party sources found (all I could find was about similar "days of silence" for different causes). Contested ProD. ~Matticus ^T_C 16:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peace movement (which could use some cleanup, actually, but it's clearly a valid article). JavaTenor 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, put The Peace Movement as a sub-article under Peace Movement? Or have both, so by clicking on the link in Peace Movement, one would be redirected to The Peace Movement page, and vice versa... --Kirinv 19:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matticus - The papers haven't had any articles yet because we're still a few weeks early for that. --Kirinv 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content of this and replace with redirect to Peace movement. I cannot imagine anyone using this as a search term looking for anything else, and (as per the sole editor's own comments above) no sources for this exist. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until October 24. And please try to stay out of a bank on October 23. Mandsford 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, creator admits there is no notability above. Should be named Day of Silence for Peace if kept; current name is simply asking for confusion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEWS, or rename as Day of Silence for Peace if per Dhartung. Bearian 13:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the Peace Movement page, as per suggestions above. Newspaper links will be added as they appear. Shall the individual page be deleted, then? --Kirinv 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How bold of you. :-) As to your question, the answer is, Maybe? Bearian 20:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be an announcement for a future event without any indication of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with this violating WP:CRYSTAL. Further, the persistence of this article here serves to advertise the event, particularly through article replication via republishers. For this reason, it perhaps could have been speedy-deleted as spam ... perhaps. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McKinven[edit]

Obvious vanity article. Needs to be deleted pronto. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article doesn't really go out of it's way to establish importance or notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to better explain my decision. There are actually 3 keeps, 2 comments and one delete here. However, if you look at the keeps, the first was that it is carried on the iTunes tuner service, and that this is a good metric for notability. However, I couldn't really see where there is consensus that this is something that is a good enough metric for determining a station is notable - one other contributor agreed with Haikupoet, and to be frank this doesn't form consensus. The other keep was that there is 64,000 hits for DI.fm... but no explanation of what was being searched on, so I couldn't verify this info. The other two comments were totally non-committal.

One thing I might mention is that it looks like this wasn't submitted properly to AFD... thus, probably a good idea for me to list on DRV. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digitally Imported[edit]

Delete . Non-notable internet radio broadcast. Google gives "Sky.fm" 574 hits none of which seem to include reliable sources to confer its notability. Maybe even speedy since it doesn't even assert that it is notable. --NightRider63 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- DI.fm/Sky.fm has about a dozen stations carried on the iTunes tuner service. Unless someone has a better metric for measuring webcaster notability, I'd say that's a pretty good measure of it. Haikupoet 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know of a few internet radio stations that have more than a dozen listings that are not notable.--NightRider63 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, what metric should we be using? Haikupoet 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to suggest that we set a standard for all Internet Radio stations. It's not like I have a grudge on Digitally Imported, But there are more networks out there, that are more well known, and cite third party verifiable sources. A few projects I have been working on here based on Internet Radio have gotten AfD requests or deleted all together. Perhaps we make one page with a list of well-known Internet Radio stations?--NightRider63 00:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable; also seems like a good time to withdraw the AfD pending further discussion. I would suggest, however, that presence on the iTunes tuner (or other notable tuning services) is a point in favor of a given station, so that (as well as the listener figures on Shoutcast, however you wish to interpret them) is a good place to start. Haikupoet 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N and WP:WEB should be sufficient to cover internet radio. There's no need for an internet radio-specific notability guideline. — Scientizzle 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shouldn't there really be a separate policy for dealing with Internet services that aren't strictly web-based, Internet radio being one? HTTP isn't the only game in town, protocol-wise. Haikupoet 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. When in doubt, avoid instruction creep. WP:WEB is simply a small extension of WP:N. WP:MUSIC could apply, too, possibly. Bottom line, if the core notability guideline isn't met (that is, coverage from mutiple reliable, independent sources), then a convincing case should be presented as to why the subject merits an article. The subject-specific guidelines act as a tool to help build these type of cases. — Scientizzle 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This, to me, appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. NightRider63 (talk · contribs) is currently defending his or her articles on internet radio stations DHMRO (AfD) & 207 Live (AfD). I have no current opinion on whether this subject merits an article. — Scientizzle 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not a WP:POINT, I am just stating that If one is not valid, with sources, then this article with many others is not valid, when this has no outside sources, nor does this one establish notability.--NightRider63 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, but the use of much of this comment in your nomination didn't go unnoticed... — Scientizzle 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More like 640,000 results for "DI.fm"? Just 20 seconds finds me what looks to be a decently reliable source... this isn't hard folks. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 08:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Haikupoet about metrics for measuring webcaster notability. aphexddb 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless it does not assert its notability or has any outside sources see WP:CORP, and this is mainly edited by IP Addresses that Trace back to the address of the Sky.fm building that is a direct violation of WP:COI--NightRider63 19:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, article was put up for AfD only four minutes after creation -- please tag short unsourced articles for expansion or references instead of putting them up for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Padraig Quinn[edit]

Delete - no references, non-notable position. --Counter-revolutionary 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as disruptive nomination. Article was AfDed 4 minutes after it was created, without asking for references or expansion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong Appears in Edo[edit]

This article is based on a hoax. No one has made any attempt to prove otherwise. Look at the explanation on the talk page for a more in-depth reason for why it's clearly a hoax. --Juansidious 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been any proof presented that this film has ever existed, nor has any credible attempt been made by any member to prove otherwise. Yakofujimato

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This hoax even has an IMDB listing, equally as fraudulent. --Agamemnon2 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a hoax. I'm not sure if all the details in the article are correct, but there was indeed a film with this title released in 1938. It's briefly mentioned on page 123 of this book, which I own. Zagalejo^^^ 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, wonderful: [20]. Zagalejo^^^ 17:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added three citations, including confirmation of the film's existence by Ohashi, the man who created King Kong for the film (he also created the Godzilla suit). The film is mentioned in at least two books, so there's no reason for deletion here. Even if it were a hoax, it's still a notable one, but Ohashi's statement is convincing. Pufnstuf 00:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can fake out Google, but you can't fake out Google Books. When you can display page 123 of King Kong: The History of a Movie Icon from Fay Wray to Peter Jackson by Ray Morton, it's like turning over the cards to reveal a full house. I woulda thought it was a hoax too, but after the nominator sees this, I think it's going to be a "nomination withdrawn". Mandsford 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the book citations and the interview with specific quotes from Ohashi. Even if it is a hoax, that verifiability trumps anon OR arguments on the Talk page. But it needs scrutiny and trimming down to what's reliably sourced. Gordonofcartoon 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Enough reliable sources, especially if books about King Kong discuss this movie. I've just noticed an IP editor is removing the references in the article, someone should watchlist this article. Masaruemoto 03:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeated reference which simply repeat rumors is not substantiating anything! I suppose these sources can explain why most of the actors don't seem to exist, why 'Kong' in medival Edo is walking through European looking streets, why there is no documented evidence of it ever had existed, why it never seemed to have been mentioned until the early 2000's. Morton's booki which is cited by some was published on November 1, 2005 AFTER the Edo hoax was already underway. You can cite one million personal site which repeat misinformation as "verification" but it doesn't become a fact! No one can cite ANY reference to this film before the 2000s! No one can produce any of these elusive "rare books" out of Japan. If any can produce REAL PROOF then please do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting important words in capitals doesn't make it more true. As I said at the Talk page, by WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Whether they provide evidence or not, books from respectable publishers have to be viewed as reliable sources. Robert Hood, as a writer with an established reputation in the relevant field, also comes well under WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). SciFan Japan is a well-established online magazine, with an article providing direct quotes from a known figure saying he was involved. These all trump whatever novel deductions - which count as WP:NOR anyway - you or I might make. Gordonofcartoon 12:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even assuming it's not a hoax, a film which doesn't exist any more, recieved horrible reviews and failed at the box office isn't notable. OZ OO (What?) 14:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Change vote to Neutral --OZOO (What?) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those things have anything to do with notability. Indeed, if the film did receive horrible reviews, that would mean that it was the subject of multiple, non-trivial newspaper/magazine articles, thereby passing WP:N. Zagalejo^^^ 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no mention of any of these reviews. There is no proof of these reviews. There is a fact tag there. However, after re-reading WP:NOTFILM I will withdraw my vote. --OZOO (What?) 20:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You brought up the reviews. Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking around on kaiju message boards, it appears that the film was mentioned in a 1978 Japanese book called Daitokusatsu. [21]. Zagalejo^^^ 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese title is 大特撮 : 日本特撮映画史. It looks like the local library has a few different editions, first one dates to 1979. I'll see if I can get there to read up on it. Neier 12:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it was the first Japanese monster movie then that's notable, and the sources pass WP:V. Crazysuit 02:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some comments to the talk page of the article. With the book sources, this should be kept even if it is somehow (and, imho very unlikely) proven a hoax, as the hoax would meet WP:V and WP:N requirements. Neier 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The objective here is not to "prove it as a hoax". The point is to verify it's existence, or to present evidence that it existed at one time. All that has been presented here is that three websites repeat what has already been claimed on wikipedia and imdb and add nothing new and offer no evidence (with the exception of a claimed, and conveniently recently discovered all of a sudden, quote from the special effects man which is an apparently very recent addition to that site and seems to not be noted anywhere else, despite the interview allegedly taking place in 1988-nearly 20 years ago)

The other book mentioned the history of the Kong movies, again merely repeats the same Kong Edo tale without any new evidence or cited research.

The Japanese book from the late 1970s has yet to be verified as authentic.

So thus far, all we have are claims and protestations.

If this film really existed, then what is the explanation for the actors, the alleged studio, all of the promotional material, posters, newspaper articles, and the like have all completely having vanished?

Why does the only photo that is on the main page show someone in an ape costume holding a doll in front of a European landscape even though the film is supposed to be Tokyo in the middle ages?

Where did the person posting this information get all this specific information?

The totality of evidence here points towards a hoax. Even if some evidence is produced to prove this film did exist, most of the "facts" claimed in wikipedia and imdb are almost certainly bogus, or the poster has some incredible information that they are not sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.238.113 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1970s book most certainly does exist: [22]. Unfortunately, the nearest copy is 130 miles away from where I live, and I don't read Japanese anyway, so I'm unable to say if it has any information about a 1930s Kong film. Zagalejo^^^ 07:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's possible that the IMDB entry could be "bogus," as the above unsigned anon IP comments assert, the three cited articles in References offer more than sufficient verifiability. This AfD should be withdrawn, IMHO. Shawn in Montreal 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A3, empty pages, but they can be recreated per Oakshade. Daniel 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierrelaye (SNCF)[edit]

page is empty, and just contains links Montchav 23:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are identically empty:

Delete, but don't salt - These pages are blank and per WP:BLANK, we shouldn't have these. However these are stations on Paris RER and Paris Métro lines and can have articles if editors take the time to write them. --Oakshade 03:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation (G12), unencyclopedically-written promotional material (G11), no assertion of notability (A7). —David Eppstein 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Laizer[edit]

Autobiography bordering on advert/letter to someone else... Arendedwinter 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as the references provided in Louie_Giglio#References are sufficient to establish the notability of this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Giglio[edit]

Non-notable minister. Anything worth keeping could be merged into the record label article, but otherwise he's just a run-of-the-mill pastor. Corvus cornix 22:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge relevant information into Passion Conferences, his notable organization. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn person, if his organization's article is kept despite its non notability, merge this into it. Carlossuarez46 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that he is a "non-notable" and "run of the mill" minister. He is an author, an excellent minister, a dynamic speaker, and the founder and organizer of nationwide youth/college conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.107.224 (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GRBerry 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —GRBerry 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - relisted because he founded two organizations (which is only partly addressed by the discussion above) and is also a published author (which is not at all addressed) so I don't believe consensus is yet determinable. GRBerry 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason for deleting this article - even to have it so that readers of Passion Conferences can get an idea of who the person who created the conferences is. I second the "founded two organizations and is a published author" statement...that's definitely notable, and I think people would be hard-pressed to come up with reasons why that NOT notable. Thoroughbred Phoenix 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as apparently notable, but needing clean-up. I started to fix the awful grammar and stopped. He's the son of the guy who designed a chicken sandwich logo. So what? His other activities may have been notable. Can someone else clean up this mess? Bearian 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his name comes up in "louie%20giglio" 175 Google news archive results - mostly pay-per-view articles, so a nuisance to reference, and mostly (but not only) smaller newspapers, but they're there. (I've cleaned up the article a little but it could do with more referencing work.) --Zeborah 11:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thougt this would be a cinch delete. Google news archives suggests sufficient notability to keep. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN - imo Tiptopper 15:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Catholic Musicians[edit]

Nom - non-notable group; poorly sourced; prod tag removed without correcting problems Rklawton 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Music --Endless Dan 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no third party sources. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I see a lot of local news coverage on Google Archives, I see nothing that shows significant news coverage. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It doesn't meet our notability criteria. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek to Me (series)[edit]

Delete - fails WP:N and WP:WEB as a non-notable Youtube "series." No independent reliable sources. Otto4711 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mainly procedural. nominator proded, but didn't contact authors as suggested in prod, so i removed the prod, awaiting him to at least contact someone. The nominator then took this to afd. TO me it is a stub that needs marked for improvement before nominating for AFD, the nominator did not mark for improvement, nor consider that the article could be improved. There is no evidence of research to verify that nominator's opinion. it seems like he's just going around marking things for deletion without considering any other solution to his perceived situation. I assume he has the best intent, but i am concerned that he is not trying to follow any recommended procedure other than nominate for afd. perhaps afd is just iar for him. contentwise i don't care, procedurewise i do. --Buridan 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no requirement that an article be listed for improvement before deletion, nor should there be, as that would make the deletion process impossible. There is no requirement that an author be contacted on a PROD, and removing the PROD tag merely for that reason is disruptive and not conducive to properly maintaining a good encyclopedia. If you think that the article can be improved, then go ahead and do it, but it is not incumbent on others to do the work that you, personally, think should be done. If the article can be improved by the end of the five day AfD period such that it can be proven that it is something other than any other run-of-the-mill Youtube video, then more power to you. I'll change my !vote. But until such a time, this is just another run-of-the-mill Youtube video with no sources to indicate that it is anything else, and should be deleted accordingly. Corvus cornix 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment not a bureaucracy, true, but it is a series of communities of editors, following the recommendations of that community in its own documents is likely a good thing when possible. I never said that he should improve it, what i said was that he should have at least let the editors who created know, it is common courtesy. it is a common courtesy that when it is forgone on other perhaps more important articles causes things to be deleted which communities might otherwise support. everyone can't be everywhere. and no removing the prod for that is not disruptive, it is WP:common --Buridan 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removing a prod because the prodder didn't notify somebody is a WP:POINT violation. And just how many people in an article's edit history should the prodder notify? The person who created a one-sentence stub two years ago? The editor who has been editing one sentence at a time for a year or so? The anon who has vandalized the article every day for a month? Corvus cornix 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - seeing as there are few... one one contact all, else usually the last 2-3 contributors seem sufficient. again common sense is applied. the issue is when the nominator uses prod, doesn't always put it in the edit summary, and doesn't notify anyone, don't you see where that causes issues? here he used an edit summary, yet the prod template provides a simple way to notify. given his prolific edits and deletion contributions, it might be worth the time to at least follow template recs. as for making a point, yeah IAR, sometimes a point has to be made.--Buridan 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For failing WP:WEB and WP:V Bfigura ^(talk) 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment anyone can remove a prod for any reason, so there's no need to dispute about process. I always notify, though, and I hope other people do. It's time we arranged for doing it securely and automatically--it shouldn't depend on individual action. We want to encourage nominating for PROD, and also for notification. Various bots have been written , but none seem to be working consistently. Time to get it right. DGG (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sure what the debate above portends. The subject of the article appears to be not notable. Google hits for +"Greek to Me" +kapelos yields 5 Google hits. I fail to see how not telling those who have edited the article will change that. Making assertions that seem not to assume good faith do not change the article's lack of notability. That there are no verifiable sources listed on the article may be because there are none to be found. Whether the creator was notified or not, this article should probably have been deleted without too much controversy. Bringing it here and carrying on a debate that could have taken place on the article or user talk pages just feels disruptive to me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Many people say that this is a notable topic in it's own right, but others say that it isn't a topic that is notable in it's own right. However, on the delete side, they mention WP:TRIVIA, which is a guideline and not a policy (though personally, I think it a very good one). Also mentioned was WP:NOT. In this case though, the topic itself is rather notable, even if the quality of the article is questionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NSA in fiction[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely- or un-associated items. The presence of agents of a particular government agency does not establish a relationship between the items on this laundry list, which otherwise have nothing in common with each other. Otto4711 15:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list, does not need own page, a fair paragraph is shown in the main page, and this basically reads as an essay. Dannycali 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as article begins with an introduction indicating notability and follows in a well-organized manner. Lists help demonstrate the degree or extent of something's influence. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The intro is OR, and it fails to show why a segment about the NSA even deserves its own article. We don't need a billion trivial references plopped into an article, this is pure trash and not what WP is all about. Dannycali 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've attempted some refactoring. Ronabop 07:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even The Washinton Post has covered the topic: A LOOK AT . . . Spy Satellites & Hollywood. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dannycali hits it on the head, the intro paragraph says that the NSA is often inaccurately portrayed. Wouldn't trying to make an accurate article about inaccurate portrayals be kind of, I dunno, not necessary? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is worth an article but this article isn't it, and should be deleted per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the subject is worth an article, then the article should be kept and improved. We dont fix by deleting. As for those who keep saying that the existence of a common theme is a meaningless association, i've commented on that reasoning in quite enough detail already; I'll just summarize that if theme and setting are loose associations, there are no close associations. DGG (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is mentioning the NSA a "theme"? Also, "We dont fix by deleting" is bullshit. Go read WP:CSD G11. Requiring a blatant rewrite is, right there, a candidate for deletion. 68.163.65.119 07:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G11 refers to articles promoting a person, product, or service, not to articles in general. "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." (WP:CSD) There is no policy whatsoever that we delete articles in general which need extensive rewriting. Before you use insulting words, check your facts. DGG (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia, trivia, trivia. Here we've got a bunch of garbage like "This guy had an NSA ID card in an episode of Star Trek". I feel dumber having read it. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. I can't wait to see what these articles would look like when they contain all references to the various arms of our government. Encyclopedias are supposed to consist of high-level analysis (in Wikipedia's case, attributed to reliable sources), not vast dumps of primary source data. --68.163.65.119 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the requirement for "high level analysis"? Anything that would count as high level analysis, I'd think would qualify as OR. We're just an encyclopedia that collects and organizes material. DGG (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA ff m 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated trivia, most of these aren't any more notable for featuring the NSA. Crazysuit 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be useful to someone. Not paper. The article does need some cleaning out, yes. That's an editing thing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment, expand keep rationale. OK, Keep per DGG. The information is not trivial. This is information someone would turn to an encyclopedia for and there is plenty of room in the encyclopedia for it.[[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| The NSA is a notable subject, and references to the NSA in literature is as well. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment to above There's a statement somewhere on WP, it goes to the effect of Notability is not inherited. Just because the NSA is notable doesn't mean every possible mention is. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL is nto a valid reason for keeping and neither is WP:NOT#PAPER.Otto4711 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: Not Inherited.' Every possible mention is not. However, each item on the list is blue linked at least once. Notability collectively and individually. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeplist is notable, needs improvement. list does not look unrelated to me, the material looks significantly related. The proposers posiiton seems to based on his own cognizance of relations, which is fine, but not universal. --Buridan 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A very trivial list. RobJ1981 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan D. Rosenberg[edit]

NN; subject has self-published three books and appears in one Baltimore City Paper article [23]. Bm gub 15:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a non-notable self-published author. The article has serious BLP issues, but given how many of the reader comments at Amazon.com appear to be by a certain Morgan D. Rosenberg, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it were written by the subject. Espresso Addict 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Tiptopper 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not many google hits. Books ranked over 1,000,000 on Amazon. Not notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A few have said to keep the article because it is useful, however that is disputable. A few others have said to merge into Charon. Many have said to delete, per WP:NOT#DIR. In this case, the decision is to delete because it is a list of information that would be better off in the main Charon article. However, the article needs a great deal of work to note what is and isn't notable in terms of popular culture. Therefore, best to delete as this article isn't really salvagable before the merge, nor is it necessary for a full article about the topic in popular culture. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charon in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely- and un-associated items. Seeks to capture any appearance of or reference to the mythical figure with no regard to the triviality of the appearance, along with originally researched 'may be based on' or 'resembles' entries and entries for things that are not the mythical figure but have the same name. Tells us nothing about Charon, nothing about the fiction from which the items are drawn, nothing about their (non-existent) relationship to each other and nothing about the real world. Oppose merging any of this to any other article about Charon as it is no less of a trivia collection in another article as it is on its own. Otto4711 15:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- awfully written by no doubt spamming, academic authors, unsaveable.JJJ999 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not merge. Simply not an encyclopedic topic, and the entries show it. MarkBul 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list of trivial mentions, Charon is important, sure, that's why it has its own article. Every mythological figure has been mentioned a lot in "popular culture", but that does not mean it is a suitable page for an encyclopedia. Dannycali 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep list format demonstrates the extent of Charon's influence and impact on popular culture. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and so benefits from large numbers of articles. Add references, as always, but definitely keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PAPER is not a free pass for articles. They must still otherwise meet all relevant policies and guidelines. Otto4711 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the well-phrased rationales above (trivia, original research resemblance, and complete lack of context). --68.163.65.119 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP, as someone said once, makes the internet not suck. that includes organising references to notable characters and themes and assembling the information into articles. The article has been listed for rescue--Im glad to see that some of the people who are a little less ready to keep than I, think it a good candidate for improvement. Sure, it needs improvement., Most WP articles do. DGG (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, this is not a debate to whether Charon is notable, that's a given, but it's having a page about various occurances of Charon in "popular culture" that is not notable. This laundry list is even bigger than the main page. Dannycali 06:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Charon. He has always been a popular culture character. Mandsford 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge I usually don't advocate for merging but the Charon article is pretty lightweight unless I'm missing something. This is an informative list which should be turned into several sections in the main article about Charon's influences in pop culture. Benjiboi 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charon per WP:POPCULTURE. --Alksub 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a discussion on excessive deletionism, using the afd on this article as one of the obviously absurd examples, is at [24]

Comment. Actually that's more an article in the LA Times about issues including deletionism more than a discussion. Benjiboi 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Citrus King. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it uses the words "in popular culture" its going to get a delete vote from me... period. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good, bad, or indifferent? Perhaps you could explain your reasoning? DGG (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever the article title has the words "in popular culture" it is a spin off of a trivia section... aka some writer was too damn lazy to include the more valuable items in paragraph form, and unable to differentiate between content of substance and random facts. It is typically an unreferenced list of poorly jumbled together facts with no cohesion and very little rhyme or reason. This list falls squarely into all of those aforementioned stereotypes. I don't even need to look (but I did) to know its in rough shape. An encyclopedia is not just a loose collection of random facts. WP:NOT a guide to pop trivia. Any of this ringing a bell? Can you grasp my rationale now? ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is well associated, especially at it's core. It may need cleaned up and i see no strong argument against merge. otherwise agree with dgg--Buridan 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, this is another list of loosely associated trivia and violates our WP:FIVE pillars. Burntsauce 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if its horribly written, improve the prose; yes it needs referencing, but articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting "deleting all the excellent articles." That sort of "oh noes, the sky will fall" argumentation is nonsense. Otto4711 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and where is Don't Pay the Ferryman? Carlossuarez46 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The topic is notable, even if there are quality concerns with the article. There is nothing to say that it can't be salvaged. I'll add a cleanup tag to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, there were more than a few there already. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autariatae[edit]

Contested prod. I prodded it as an unreferenced essay and probable Original Research but it was deprodded by Tikiwont with the comment "DEPROD: Google Books produces quite a few hits", which misses the point. The subject of the article is definitely notable but the article itself seems to be someone's research paper - that's clear both from the style and the fact that the only reference given is labelled "magister disertation, Zagreb, 2004". So if it's not the author's research then it's a copyvio. andy 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic is notable, how do you AfD it? Edit it down to a stub and wait for someone who knows Balkan history to make a good article out of it. MarkBul 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, I actually put the OR and sources tag for the next knowledgeable editor to come along. Maybe I could have pointed out that the article was already for some time a stub before it was expanded to its current form. If we do not want to keep the addition, we can revert it back out, but it may make sense to keep the material on the talk page. --Tikiwont 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly real and notable (see Google Books). But I agree it looks like a dump from someone's thesis. As suggested, trim to stub, keep current form on Talk page, and see how it compares with other sources. Is Vieto Dezitijatski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still about to help with sourcing? Daesitiates has the same problem. Gordonofcartoon 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, as passing WP:N, although I am in no measure an expert on the topic. Bearian 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the blind leading the blind. There seems to be agreement that it's a dump of a thesis (copyvio?) but nobody knows what to do with it. The only possible stub is very limited and unreferenced. But if the emerging consensus is to reduce to a stub I'll go along with that, reluctantly. andy 22:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much not knowing as feeling inhibited about doing it, as it comes across as a well-written good-faith contribution, but it's going to be fiddly to confirm it all (and as a dissertation, it may contain original arguments and/or be not published anywhere peer-reviewed). Google Books has a lot of accessible material, but we really need the author to help sort out what's solidly sourced and what's personal. I've left a message asking for help with sourcing. Gordonofcartoon 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repair as above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g1 nonsense, third attempted title (Anatefca and Anatefcan Empire are already salted, now this one is too). NawlinWiki 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anatefcan Empire[edit]

Recreation of deleted article. Was speedied on the 24th (original article was Anatefcan Emprire). Not a real nation, nor is it recognized as one by any others. Arendedwinter 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Afd was reverted by article creator and marked as vandalism... Arendedwinter 15:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really doesn't look like it belongs here. Is this something made up by a group of friends? They've linked to a Micronations wiki in the article, they really should take this article there instead. MorganaFiolett 15:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Lucas, Jr.[edit]

NN academic; article promotes the subject's self-published pseudoscience but asserts no other notability Bm gub 14:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:PROF, but that's not surprising given his alternative career track. More relevantly, the "references" are uniformly about other people's contributions to the stuff he's worked on rather than any kind of reliable source about his own work. He's a crackpot, sure, but he doesn't seem to be a notable crackpot. —David Eppstein 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above (although I had an amusing 5 minutes reading that article, amazing the things people will invent to "prove" their world view.... :-) --Crusio 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Pete.Hurd 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--as the article said, he;s written a lot. As the references seem to show, nobody has noticed. Definition of non-notable. DGG (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROFL I ride his commuter bus back to Southern MD (MD 903, last one of the day). Claims to have been involved with inventing free electric generator that returns 1600% power back to grid (but held up by courts in all 50 states). His "organization" does sell them in Europe for $20k (all the French McDonalds have them), invented electric car that came in 2nd at Indy 500 (but subsequently banned), consumer electric car that cant be marketed because it needs "catalytic converter" per government, sold his designed supercomputers to the US Government but it replaced so many government computers it made management look stupid so he was asked to leave...Dont believe me? Ride that bus, sit anywhere and you will hear him for the next hour. Crackpot? you decide. Yes, I have read his work.. Lot of mind-"boggling" concepts, nothing more... Stewysmoot
Delete Cannot find indication of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Kimberly[edit]

Nothing to indicate this man meets WP:BIO any more than every other WWI pilot. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nicely written, nn. Tiptopper 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 28-Sep-2007[reply]
Delete unless verifiability of notability can be found. I left a note on creator's talk page. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gupi[edit]

Delete. Can't find an article about this toy. Endless Dan 14:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inside baseball[edit]

Delete. Doesn't seem like something that should warrant it's own encyclopedia article. Endless Dan 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half a dicdef. Neologism. Etc. No reference to explain why this is anything more. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why did anyone post this? Tiptopper 01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And how did it survive more than three years? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article most definitely has a problem, in that it is called the "personal relationships" of James I. The problem is that this doesn't necessarily have to mean sexual relationships (there are other kinds you know - why is everyone so obsessed with this to the exclusion of all else?) However, there is enough literature that discussed James I's alleged homosexuality that it is significant for us to note this in it's own article. I don't see how the article is a POV fork, because it was named well enough to allow for expansion to other types of relationships, as I noted above. It's a verifiable article, if fairly controversial. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal relationships of James I of England[edit]

Seems to me to be a WP:POVFORK. Large amounts of information in the article is totally unreferenced, including the core assertion that "throughout his life James I had relationships with his male courtiers", as well as the details about his alleged sexual relationship with Esmé Stewart. Almost all of the cited, referenced information is already included in James I of England, a featured article, under the appropriate heading. Certainly there are enough citeable, verifiable historical suggestions of James I's homosexuality that it merits mention in the main article on him; however, this article seems to give undue weight to the view that he was an active homosexual, and makes a lot of assertions about his relationships without providing sufficient citations. I therefore propose to delete this article; a merge is unnecessary, since most relevant and cited info can already be found in James I of England. Walton^One 14:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tag as NPOV.Operating 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issues are not just with NPOV (and lack of verification); the article title itself is unnecessary, and implicitly POV. Since the cited and neutral information is covered under James I of England, there's really no need for this article. Walton^One 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He was a homosexual king. This is unusual and somewhat unique, and as such the matter is notable enough for a separate article. Keep and tag appropriately. Operating 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well established theory, with cites to back it up. If this was better covered in the main article this one might be unnecessary, but the main article is rather coy about it, so keep for now. If you feel the article has POV issues possibly they'd be better dealt with by editing the article? Artw 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walton - James's homosexuality is well dealt with in the main article. This one is superfluous to that. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just barely. I don't believe the word actually appears in the article. If this artcile is deleted the smerge suggestion below has a lot of merit. Artw 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge Shorten and merge whatever content has supporting cites and which is not already in the main article. This seems to be a POV fork from the main article. Any referenced statements about his sexual orientation or relationships can go in the main article. Here I would say that it is not necessary to have documented sworn statements from first hand participants or verdicts from a court of law, since the standard of WP:BLP is inappropriate for ancient historical figures. If respected historians through the ages have promulgated rumors and beliefs, the article can say exactly that, without going the step further and promoting the beliefs and rumors to facts. Fight the battle in the main article to present a balaned and NPOV discussion which mirrors the coverage in reliable historical works, rather than creating a separate article to emphasize one point of view. Modern works which assert without proof that he was (or was not)a homosexual may not qualify as reliable sources, because we must also consider the possible agenda and quality of scholarship of the author. The assertion above "He was a homosexual king." is not in accord with the main article statement that he fathered eight children with his wife, with whom he was "infatuated" for a time at least. The claim of paternity might be supported or refuted by DNA testing on the royal lines of Europe. Could he have been a bisexual king? Edison 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, gay people having kids is not unheard of you know. Artw 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I question the claim that if he was infatuated with his wife (as the main article states) and fathered eight children, that he was exclusively or even predominantly homosexual rather than bisexual. What is your definition of "homosexual?"Edison 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POV fork, and provide a little weight to this in the main article. A separate article is undue weight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename this aspect of James has been the subject of much study, debate, and scholarly writings - so while a merge would give this topic undue weight in the main biography it is a notable field of inquiry and scholarship - a not unprecedented move: Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Hitler's sexuality, Jesus' sexuality, and Sexuality of James Buchanan and no doubt others. "Personal relationships" in the title is used euphemistically to mean "Sexuality" and the title should be changed accordingly, because euphemisms are to be avoided especially in titles: that's why we have an article at death, not at passing on. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. In particular, Hitler's sexuality and Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (yes, I know the latter survived AfD, but that's for complex reasons) are very poor examples of how to treat topics like this. The existence of separate articles on these issues is a POV fork, which gives undue weight to the opinions of those historians who've questioned the sexuality of prominent historical figures. Certainly such opinions, if notable, should be noted in the main articles, but we really don't need the separate articles. If the people in question were living, this would be a serious WP:BLP violation; although BLP obviously doesn't apply to historical figures, we should still try and apply the same principles of neutrality and fairness. Walton^One 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - <sigh> Oh how quickly the essay is trotted out to see how to categorize a position contrary to one's own. Let's see; what part of: "this aspect of James has been the subject of much study, debate, and scholarly writings" can you contradict? with which part of "a merge would give this topic undue weight in the main biography" do you disagree? and do you really dispute my statement that having such a subarticle is "a not unprecedented move"? the essay is becoming the Bible around here and is being as misused as the Bible as well. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, leaving the essay aside, I can counter most of your points. Firstly, yes, his sexuality has been the subject of various academic studies; however, these are adequately covered in the main article, while this article is mostly full of unsourced assertions that give undue weight to a certain point of view. Secondly, I agree that a merge would give this topic undue weight in the main biography; that's why I'm arguing for a straightforward Delete, not a merge. Thirdly, although you're right that the subarticle is a not unprecedented move, it's a very bad move IMO, in all cases. Having an article solely on a historical figure's sexuality, and filling it with original research and unverified claims, seems like POV-forking to me, and certainly gives the topic undue weight in relation to James' life. Walton^One 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is sourced to published works, and problems with POV can be fixed. Mandsford 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as notable and verified by reliable sources, except for one section. I may be blind, or it may be fixed, but where is the POV? The city of Albany, New York was named for him, which I noted in my research on this exact issue! I'll get the cite for you, but that may be a COI for me to insert it into the article. Bearian 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was a different king (James II of England, Duke of Albany). And I don't see how this would have been relevant to his personal relationships, anyway. I'm certainly not arguing that King James or his sexuality aren't notable; I'm arguing that we don't need a separate article on his sexuality, giving undue weight, when it's adequately covered in the main article. Walton^One 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrrected! Bearian 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This should be a subsection of an article, not an article unto itself. Tiptopper 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Terms used for "homosexuality" were as laced with vitriol and derision in the past, as they are now and established records show, that puritannical opponents of the Stuart court called all Cavaliers and Catholics, "effeminate" and "foppish"--invectives no doubt. The late king's penchant for bombastic and melodramatic speech, used a philosophical approach that makes him father and male (including "god" on Earth) to all his subjects, including his closest confidantes. Modern scholars are confusing that for some homosexual affection or tendency, even though Alison Weir states that the king had an affair shortly after marrying Queen Anne, with Anne Murray, which no doubt put strain on their relationship, as Anne was with child or soon to be, at the time. Lacey Baldwin Smith is a modern historian, who says that James's father Lord Darnley was "effeminate" and "vicious". How so? Darnley murdered in a fit of jealousy over his wife's possible infidelity, which was common in those days and cnsidered a typical masculine over-reaction. This is why such articles on Wikipedia need to go the way of the dodo, when they only give revisionists a reason to do their worst. Fergus Mór 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to concerns about copyright violations/plagiarism/spam. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid management[edit]

This appears to be a spam page for OilSafe products. Parts are a reword from here while others are a reword from here. I am at a loss on how to salvage this for the encyclopedia. Spryde 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even a speedy delete as a thinly-veiled copyvio of [25] or as a G11 spam page. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite and expand. I was able to find journal articles and NASA articles on fluid management as well as multiple businesses named Fluid Management, so there is an article to be written using these sources, as these are reliable sources and they indicate the phrase's notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree totally, maybe if I or someone else can find time later today I will stub it and ref it. But the current form has to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, is obviously spam. ff m 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic particle[edit]

Neologism. I think it was invented in connection with the (currently AFD) Basic-particle_formation_scheme but it is absolutely not a meaningful category in mainstream particle physics. Bm gub 14:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if it's WP:OR or WP:NFT but it sure isn't the particle physics I learned. Delete. Alba 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. The author might be thinking of fundamental particles that you find in particle physics.Operating 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a confusion about the concept "elementary particle". No sources, and guess why. (By the way, I wonder what the author would call a neutron.) --B. Wolterding 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only one author sourced. Need evidence that it's becoming accepted.--SarekOfVulcan 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to acidic particle? shoy 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the article on the theory, this would appear to be just one guy's idea. This has also existed on the Wiki for a scary amount of time. Someguy1221 08:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same rationale as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic-particle formation scheme. All non-notable OR. • Lawrence Cohen 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Publimation[edit]

Gsearch shows this term only used in connection with a company of the same name. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability for the company. Contested prod (by director of the company.) Fabrictramp 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible COI (about director) + reads like a complete ad. OSborn^arf 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This definitely WP:COI, A google search shows up no reliable sources for this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI, WP:NEO, and to top it all off, WP:SPAM ff m 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced neologism. --Alvestrand 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alvestrand. -- Magioladitis 11:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Form[edit]

"Form Continuum" and "form scale" don't come up as widely used (in this context) in gsearches. Eliminating these, we're only left with a dictdef. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism. Even if there is such a phrase Wikipedia is not a dictionary RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 14:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced neologism. --Alvestrand 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Well known phrase throughout the Sydney region, the nom has shown some poor form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotownbro (talk • contribs) 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reference to prove that is nothing more than a neologism. -- Magioladitis 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Kilgore[edit]

Not notable. There are several links to independent well-known news outlets that mention Kilgore, but only in passing, e.g. "I think when SMU wants something, they're going to do anything and everything they can to get it," said Austin Kilgore, editor in chief of the SMU Daily. (Note: User:Austinkilgore created the article, and remove "notability" and "COI" templates without comment. The very model of a minor general 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotional article per COI, and NN; As per nom. Spawn Man 12:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely self-promotion, doesn't deserve a page to itself RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 13:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable auto-biography. Sounds like a résumé. Useight 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are trivial mentions of him in the context of his college activities. Cap'n Walker 20:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Tiptopper 02:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO for Creative professionals. --Sc straker 03:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matador Travel[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Matador Travel. Hu12 12:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN & SPAM. Spawn Man 12:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPAM RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, sources are blogs, nothing here.--Crossmr 04:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 1500 users according to the stats provided on the List of social networking websites article. Also, the source for this figure is from the Matador Travel website. JamminBen 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Matador is not the subject of any of the listed sources, as required by WP:Notability. UnitedStatesian 12:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florizel (The Winter's Tale)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Florizel (The Winter's Tale)

Speedy deletion declined as a character in a Shakespeare play would seem to be inherently notable. However further discussion would be appreciated. I propose a Merge into The Winter's Tale and redirect. Pedro : Chat 12:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, do not Merge. In general, articles of Shakespearean plays describe plots, not character details, so I recommend against a merge. Some characters do have their own articles. Since this character seems to have an important role in this play, I think it is appropriate, and consistent with other Wiki articles, for this article to remain. It deserves to be expanded to a level similar to the Perdita article, another character in this play of similar importance. Truthanado 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge into The Winter's Tale - some characters are notable enough, but sadly, this one is not. Spawn Man 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am heartily amused to find this: a context-free, in-universe article about a fictional character — from Shakespeare! But Florizel is a fairly major character in The Winter's Tale; Florizel and Perdita are the romantic leads. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs sourcing, but easily sourceable, since any character from these plays will have dozens at least of possible sources. DGG (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major character in a Shakespeare play seems prime encyclopedia material to me. As DGG mentions, there are likely to be loads of sources. Espresso Addict 10:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite notable. Everyking 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. I am actually in favour of having an article on every Shakespeare figure. If not that, then definitely a character as notable as Florizel. --Thorwald 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, do not Merge. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate swimming[edit]

Contested proposed deletion. No evidence is presented to demonstrate that this game is well-known or wide-spread. WP:NFT may or may not apply in this circumstance. JavaTenor 12:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About 10 pages into google on both "ultimate swimming" (with quotes) and "ulitmate swimming" sports I gave up. If it's popular, it's sure hiding its popularity. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN and unverifiable. Sounds fun though; taking in large quantities of water whilst an angry athlete sits on your head hoping you'll pass out... Yep, great times... ;) Spawn Man 12:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if there were such a sport, I'm sure it could be combined with an existing Swimming related article RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a sport. Simple as that. --Gp75motorsports 14:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable sport. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Useight 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be added. I wikified the first sentence and added an unreferenced tag. The article has only been up for about a month, I believe, so maybe contact the article creator and request sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFT ff m 17:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Parking[edit]

Neologism. "Social parking" gets 717 Google hits,[26] but most of these are about real life (car) parking. "Social Parking" plus "domain name" (what this is all about) gives only 5 Google hits[27], none of them indicating that this is a notable concept. No relevant hits in Google Scholar[28] or Google News either. Fram 11:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a domain industry-specific term. It is recognized among domain name monetization professionals. -Mayyada
Delete - NN and unverifiable. Spawn Man 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never heard of it, no sources or references. Neologism I believe RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 13:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Corvus cornix 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. It sounds more like antisocial parking to me. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the author: There is Domain parking and there is also Social Software. The active and practical combination of the two is Social Parking. This term is recognized among domain name monetizer. It is industry-specific. -IDNexpert 02:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide reliable sources which discuss this term as a central point of the discussion in the source. Corvus cornix 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references seem to exist: [29]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This reference doesn't apply. A 'synthesis of commuter parking and community green space' is not what this topic is about. EdJohnston 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources comment on this term. What's provided here doesn't even satisfy the requirements of WP:NEO, to show that the word is generally accepted under this meaning and not a pure neologism. EdJohnston 05:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the entry generally makes sense. The author has cited relevant references as well. Fastabbas —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentCited references are various Wikipeia articles. Not sure how that affects things. Closing admin, Fastabbas is a very new user. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a reliable source can be produced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. shoy 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Camp Lazlo[edit]

This is a list one one-time trivial characters for the cartoon Camp Lazlo. Several of us have tried to bring this to a higher quality, but it just keeps getting filled up with trivia, supposition; non-verifiable as the only source is in-universe, and non-notable even within the show. I am also nominating the following under the same reason:

Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I withdraw my nomination. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Why? Spawn Man 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us have been talking it over, and it's premature. There may be some hope yet. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QStik Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Music publisher that fails corporate notability. Though the label's bands have received press coverage Qstik has not. I cannot find anything that makes Qstick notable. There is a lack of independant+multiple articles primarily about them (and very fews news articles seem to even mention them).

Previously deleted following an AfD disussion, then recreated and deleted under speedy deletion G4 (recreation). I tagged it for speedy deletion after the second recreation but this is disputed so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Please see the talk page -> Talk:QStik_Records <- for discussion by the articles creator as to it's notability. Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more than well sourced by this point. The label has a roster with a bunch of notable acts (this is normally enough to establish a label's notability, since independent coverage can be established by the raft of album reviews that the artists get, but the creator of the article has gone well beyond that to include other third-party sourcing). Chubbles 11:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that none of the sources are even about the company - they just mention it in passing. The band's notability does not pass back to the company any more than say Mark Davis's passes back to a company he worked at. Please check the sources as they are only noted (not written about) and their website is even dead - Peripitus (Talk) 12:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their website being dead means nothing. It could be out of business, for all anyone cares. Labels with a notable list of musicians get multiple independent coverage through the album reviews their musicians get; that's what it means for a record label to have, in the words of WP:CORP, "people independent of the subject itself consider the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Although WP:CORP is a bad standard to judge labels by (they really should have an independent standard under WP:MUSIC, and the kind of do, under WP:MUSIC point 5 - which Qstik fits), it would even pass, in my opinion, with the awards it's been nominated for. This is not a trivial label. Chubbles 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have not attracted press attention and, if the dead website means their defunct, they will attract none. Point 5 under WP:MUSIC is related to the notability of the Musicians rather than the label. Per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited - the notability of the bands does not imply the label is also, rather it has to be notable in it's own right - Peripitus (Talk) 04:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am arguing is that the notability of a label is entirely dependent upon the notability of its acts, just as the notability of a musician is entirely dependent upon the notability of the songs/albums they write. If no one pays attention to the songs, the musician is not notable; they become notable as people write about the music they compose. Likewise, a label becomes noteworthy when its musicians attract independent attention. Which I believe is the case here. My line of reasoning is, I think, entirely aside from WP:NOTINHERITED. Chubbles 06:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument, however labels like Island Records have attracted press, and other printed, attention themselves which although related to the artists is about the label. With Qstik it appears that noone cares enough to write about them. If there is nothing written about Qstik then we cannot generate a verifyable wikipedia article about them- Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources make brief mention of the label, agree with Peripitus. Cap'n Walker 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. WP:MUSIC seems to hint that if a record label has a roster of several notable artists, then the label must be notable too (see Category 5 Records as an example). However, looking at these bands, none of them seem to have charted, and although their articles seem to sport decent sources, I'm not entirely convinced if any of the bands on this label are indeed notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of independent sources - nearly all sources are primary - which is a problem under WP:RS. This debate's already been had. Orderinchaos 21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only independent source on the article[30] doesnt mention QStik, and searching for online news turns up nothing. There are a few gov.au hits, and I suspect that street rags and industry mags may have a few focus pieces, but they would need to be researched first and often they are not independent. Compare this Jarrah Records who has won the Best WA Based Record Label award for the last two years; a quick search for Jarrah+record+label provides a lot more coverage. John Vandenberg 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable label. Keb25 09:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and salt The editor in question who has recreated the article is well known to members of my local project for his self-promotion activities on the wiki, and to the best of my recollection that the previous AfD for this article took place at the same time as many others that were cleaning house after dan arndt's efforts (sic). I did not participate in the previous AfD, but the fact the article's creator obviously refuses to stand by a community decision causes me to weigh in here. The points raised in both this and the previous AfD went to the issue of notability, and this has not been satisfactorily resolved in any version of the article to date. Further, the inability of many experienced editors including myself being unable to locate any WP:RS to support the claim of notability shows that this article is unlikely to meet the basic standards such as WP:MUSIC. It is a virtually unknown independent label, has no major or minor artists that have achieved reasonable notability. Further to this, the editor in question has seen fit to recreate a number of other articles which were deleted by consensus, which do not seem to be an improvement by any stretch of the imagination over the deleted versions. Salt this article and all reasonable variations of the name, issue the user a stern warning (and maybe find an admin who might consider a block for at least 72hrs), and help him get the message that his actions are out of step with long standing accepted practice here. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm endophrastically closing this discussion. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endophrastically[edit]

Made up word. A google search reveals exactly zero hits. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Even if evidence of existence outside one school comes to light, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An earlier WP:CSD#A1 tag was removed by the article's creator. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any reference to this word in any online dictionary. I also believe it's a made-up word RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 10:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the "alternate spelling" shows no usage Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, patent nonsense. Keb25 10:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Neologism. John Vandenberg 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nonsense. - Longhair\^talk 10:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism, it is just nonsense. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates almost every deletion rationale I can think of; OR, MADE UP, WP:CSD#A1, WP is not a Dictionary, the list goes on and on. Spawn Man 12:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G1. shoy 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Endophrastically" is not a cromulent word. Rob T Firefly 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , WP:NEO, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be copacetic to remove all such undocumented neologisms from Wikipedia. Edison 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Smoking[edit]

This article is redundant. See Smoking. This article is being developed in an effort to promote opinions held by one user, Naacats. See Talk:Smoking#Request_for_comments and read it all the way to the bottom, see Talk:Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking#Severe_Bias and read that all the way to the bottom, also see Talk:Passive_smoking#wow , and read the article he's written over at Smokers Rights. In the unlikely event this article were to become neither a redundant article nor a WP:NPOV violation, it would still be a mostly-empty article "under-construction" which belongs in a sandbox somewhere, not in the mainspace. Despite his claim that he's "running between computers" and therefore unable to use a sandbox, I'd like to point out that the sandbox pages are no different than a user page, and that one must simply navigate to where one made the sandbox to find it regardless of IP address. The article is unnecessary and its content will merely become an insipid point of contention. TeamZissou 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (Thiis at the request of an editor having difficulty with the AfD system. Reposting this on his behalf) superβεεcat 10:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I feel sorry for the guy in regards to his desperate pleas to keep the article I believe he should merge his ideas into an already existing smoking related article. Also, as TeamZissou quite rightly pointed out, this kind of 'under-construction' testing belongs in the sandbox. RyanLupin (^talk/_contribs) 10:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this page is being created to explain the HISTORY of smoking, exclusivly. This article was created in response to the lack of real information in smoking. The small ammount of historical information there would be welcome to be merged into here. The greater smoking article

Finally the user Teamzissou is POV pushing, and looking for any way to "fight" truth being put into the smoking article. I belive he's hoping to pressure me into giving up my efforts to correct the infactual information his POV supports, and get as many people "on his side" to look at the discussion there as possible. As proof you can see that he's messaged individuals, posted notes on other pages discussions, and now finally is trying to get the articles (Even the ones independant of the articles he's fighting about) that I am creating deleted. Check out his posting history if you need any further examples.

In any case, perhaps yes I should be using a sandbox. Despite notes across the page in multiple places stating that the page is being worked on, hes insisting on deleting the article. The other advantage to me not using a sandbox is that its easier for other people to contribute to the article. Naacats 10:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must point out that whatever difficulties you are facing with this, what you are doing with the article is really not the proper way of dealing with it at all. Use of a sandbox for your overhaul, along with a note on the article's talk page pointing interested editors to said sandbox so they could help, would be a far better way to go about it than the current mess. Additionally, it seems what you are doing would fit far better as a subsection in the Smoking article. Once the content is there and stable, if it grows enough it can then be split off into its own article. Rob T Firefly 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork, and apparent COI problem as well. JQ 11:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already fully covered in Smoking. Unless smoking article is to be drastically shortened and all its history information were to be moved over to here. However the smoking article is very good in covering a wide breadth of aspects (history, physiology, cultural etc etc) that I do not see that article needing splitting. David Ruben ^Talk 11:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR and POV. Although in the future, this article might be used for splitting off the main smoking article's history section to a subpage, it is being used at the moment as a OR POV article for the mentioned user. There's no current need to split off the history section of smoking and in which case, should be deleted. Spawn Man 12:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant: the material is already covered in Smoking.Yilloslime (t) 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly redundant and, under the circumstances, an obivous and intentional POV fork. Needs to go. Relevant info can be handled in smoking. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly userfy if this guy really wants to work on it. And there were about 4 templates on that page too many, including 2 AFD notices and a prod. I removed them.--UsaSatsui 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be salvaged into Smoking and delete. ff m 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see anything sourced or salvageable. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing there to work with and this looks like just a POV fork. Userfication dose not seem to be an option because User:Naacats has been banned. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Martyrs of a Lost Cause[edit]

Deliciously ironically named band with no label, no citations, no notability. Has a trivia section. Formed by a member of another non-notable band. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN band, reads like a promotional page and they're unsigned to a label. Spawn Man 12:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN band, Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under CSD A7..--Fuhghettaboutit 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rancour[edit]

A band. I tried to look them up, found nothing to indicate notability. Not signed, four gigs total. No citations showing any reason to have a Wikipedia entry. Fee Fi Foe Fum 09:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN band, with edits by users such as User:Luke rancour, which is the name of a band member, which suggests COI. Reads like a promotional page and they're unsigned to a label. Delete, Spawn Man 12:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy under WP:CSD#A7, no notability asserted. shoy 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion No assertion of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From These Pages[edit]

Clearly not a notable group as yet, they fail notability guidelines at WP:BAND. No album and apparently have never even played a live show! Article seems basically promotional. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN band; have only released demos and as nom said, haven't even played a live show! Spawn Man 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN band Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neither notable nor asserting any claim to notability. tomasz. 10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T20 world champion[edit]

POV essay. Somebody's recollection of a cricket match. Prod removed by author without comment, so I brought it here. Chubbles 08:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR & POV to the extreme. Spawn Man 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsalvagable POV, no need for a page of this title; not even worth redirecting to 2007 ICC World Twenty20. Just begone with it, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 08:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biased article, really not what we're looking for here. ~ Sebi _[talk] 10:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1/10 for the essay. Operating 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 ICC World Twenty20. Nothing worth merging. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is T20 a common abbreviation for the Twenty20? If so, it should redirect simply to ICC World Twenty20. In any case, it seems a somewhat improbable redirect. Chubbles 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is common, but the article title isn't particularly helpful for redirecting (and infact one could argue that it should redirect to India national cricket team, anyway...). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would only apply for this year; the T20 world champion isn't always India. If anything, I think it should redirect to the tournament page. Chubbles 18:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, I'm aware, but they are for now: the redirect could be changed after the 09 one. But as I said, I would simply go for deleting over redirecting, personally. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Having read this discussion and the disputed article, I believe that the article does amount to a POV fork. (It is not, however, a recreation of the deleted Soviet occupation denialism.) Its title, structure and content are clearly intended to draw a parallel between the Russian government's position and the general phenomenon of denialism. Few if any of the article's sources support the depiction of the Russian government's position in this light, suggesting that the framing of the article reflects the biases of its editors rather than the position of the sources (which contravenes WP:OR). The article is framed from the start as an exposition of a particular point of view on the legitimacy of the Russian presence in the Baltic states (thus violating WP:NPOV). As several people have noted, there seems to be no good reason why the position of the Russian government cannot be discussed in Occupation of Baltic states; much of the content in Denial of Soviet occupation appears to overlap with that article in any case. I suggest that Occupation of Baltic states#Official position of the Russian government should be expanded first; then, if there is agreement among editors, there should be a spinout under a neutral article name (not "Denial of Soviet occupation"). -- ChrisO 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Soviet occupation[edit]

Reason: already deleted (as Soviet occupation denialism). This article is a re-creation of a recently deleted (see discussion) POV fork, created by a number of closely associated accounts (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX, User:Sander Säde, Alexia Death), based in Estonia, as well as Martintg representing extreme nationalist point of view. We already have numerous relevant articles and POV forks Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet occupations (created by the same user), Soviet occupations of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, Soviet occupation of Estonia and many others, covering the question. The accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA shortly (several hours) after creation (there was a mutual personal agreement to promote each other's POV articles between reviewers [31]), altough the decision was quickly revised. I was unable to put deletion template into the article as it is now blocked due to permanent edit-war. The creator of the article has been recently unblocked from a two-week block only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him (see blocklog:[32]). He also already has been blocked for re-creation of deleted articles. Besides i want to note that the very name of the article is inherently POV as it recalls associations with Holocaust denial.--Dojarca 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, some comments about the nomination, which Dojarca keeps changing ever so often.

Article is not re-creation of deleted material, it is a total rewrite according to the suggestions from previous AfD
"created by a number of closely associated accounts" is flat out lie. Article was created by Digwuren - nor are accounts "closely related"
"extreme nationalist point of view" means in this context that Dojarca does not agree with material sourced in BBC, Holocaust Encyclopedia, European Parliament and numerous books.
"accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA shortly (several hours) after creation". Once again, a lie. No "mob" was created, Digwuren did GA request alone. And "several hours" is actually 28 hours.
"creator of the article has been recently unblocked from a two-week block only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him". Half lie, the unblock reason is "I've unblocked you in favor of protecting the article, since the edit warring is more extensive among others than I realized, and so that you can keep participating in the ArbCom case", see [33].

-- Sander Säde 16:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: my name was been added above after I voted to Keep[34]. I am based in Australia, I did not create this article and categorily refute the suggestion I hold extreme nationalist viewpoints, infact I voted for the Australian Labour Party in the last elections. I request the author of this statement to remove my name.Martintg 05:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have some issues some of the inaccuracies of the nomination

It is a re-creation of a recently deleted article. Apparently there are significant differences between the this and the deleted article. No policy against creating improved articles that are sunstantially different to the deleted article.
created by a number of closely associated accounts based in Estonia. Actually only one individual created this article
The accounts created a mob and promoted the article to GA. Only a single person handled the GA process, the creator. Martintg 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Good article reassessment#Denial of Soviet occupation. Also, several administrators have not seen fit to dominate this article to AfD. -- Sander Säde 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Digwuren was unblocked not because "only to give him ability to participate in an arbcom case opened against him". Instead he was unblocked because "I've unblocked you in favor of protecting the article, since the edit warring is more extensive among others than I realized, and so that you can keep participating in the ArbCom case", see [35]. Please stop your attempts to paint all Estonian users as some kind of nationalist trolls and follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines (note that there are no edits in the article by me). -- Sander Säde 11:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR, POV and since it's already supposed to have been deleted, that'll have to be a delete from me... Spawn Man 08:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the article, it is a total rewrite, not "re-creation" -- Sander Säde 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article, hence the OR & POV issues, but considering that the last article was deleted, I'm going on the nom's word in regard to the recreation of text. OR & POV are still sufficiant enough for me to oppose. Spawn Man 11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As nominator very well knows, it is a total rewrite where issues described in previous AfD are addressed. Article is very well sourced, and follows WP:NPOV guideline by also describing contradicting viewpoints. Article contains no original research, but is annoying to a well-known group of Soviet supporters, who try to get this article deleted no matter what, only reason being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Validity of the topic cannot be questioned, as shown by multitude of sources. Also, nominator should be reported for gross personal attacks, knowingly promoting lies and ethnical hatred. -- Sander Säde 10:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Denial of Soviet occupation is the revisionist concept..." - is it NPOV? --Dojarca 10:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to show, which part of the WP:NPOV guideline it breaks? There is no "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" clause there. -- Sander Säde 10:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It presents opinion as a fact.--Dojarca 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article attempts to present the fact of the opinion, which is perfectly acceptable. Martintg 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Dojarca there SS. Besides, I really don't think that arguing we're all Pro-Soviet is a legitimate argument do you? If no one else, I have given rationale as to why the article should be deleted and I didn't even comment on the last AfD. You could say that I was an unbiased party before this AfD. Spawn Man 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [36] - version that was accepted as GA. In my opinion it is quite a lot better, then the current protected version. -- Sander Säde 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I still would have voted delete then too as POV. If the article is a complete rewrite, then how come this POV sentence still exists in the current article as it did in the old version? "Soviet Union was a strongly ideology-based regime with peculiar ideas..." Peculiar etc? "As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." The article keeps on barraging the reader with anti-Soviet text; that is why it's POV. It needs to be neutral. C'mon guys, I thought the Cold War finished ages ago! Spawn Man 11:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As of 2007, Russia is the only country in Europe to maintain this denial..." is both sourced and fact, how is it not neutral? -- Sander Säde 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only source for that is a phrase by Estonian nationalist politician Tunne Kelam. Is it reliable source for you?--Dojarca 11:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a non-Russian source that either calls Tunne Kelam "nationalist politician" or tells that there is another country in Europe, that denies occupation (very probably Belorussia does, as it is under dictatorship as well)? -- Sander Säde 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is unsourced and you indirectly accept it by asking for a non-Russian source. An Estonian politician cannot be taken as neutral by the same rationale: he is an involved party here and has an inherent conflict of interest. --Yury Petrachenko 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, stop. Sander Säde, you're being way too argumentative in regard to this AfD; calling us Soviet lovers, replying to everything, making obviously inflammatory remarks when a user gives their rationale etc etc. Please stop. It's an article on an online encyclopedia! Who cares? If you're going to get all wrapped up about it, I'd suggest everyone else stops replying to Sander, and you Sander, should occupy your time on Wikipedia with another endevour. I'm sure there's another article out there you'd rather be editing or which could need your help? Anyway, guys, just cool it. Regards, Spawn Man 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply because I don't think there's enough here to make a separate article. The title says "Denial of Soviet occupation" yet very little in the article focuses on the denial of the Soviet invasion(s) and rule in the Baltic States (which seems to be the chief concern here). As the nominator says "We already have relevant articles Occupation of Baltic states, Soviet occupation of Latvia, Soviet occupation of Estonia and many others, covering the question". Any valuable material should be moved to the appropriate pages. --Folantin 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a synthesized original research article. Looking through the related articles it clearly is a POV fork. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, this screams POV-fork and original synthesis. I've deleted this rubbish once and it's tedious to have to do so again. Any material of any repute can be used elsewhere. Moreschi ^Talk 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, If it is a POV fork, what's the alternative view? I thought NPOV was about representing all significant viewpoints, so presumably there is some other views that is not expressed in this article if it is considered POV.Martintg 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV, trolling, OR and violating just about every policy WP has. Recreation of deleted content too btw. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a WP:POVFORK and re-creation of a deleted article (which already warrants it for speedying). - Francis Tyers · 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been totally re-written, not a simple re-creation. I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV: "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view." Martintg 23:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because denial of Soviet occupation is a notable issue in politics, in Latvia at least. Maybe the issue wasn't that notable when the previous article was deleted, but it became notable just days after that, as it was one of the main issues in Latvian presidental election debate, after it was discovered that one of the candidates had denied occupation, in fact it was the pretext why he wasn't elected. I saw the previous article - it was different. I see issues of POV - the article favours the view that occupations did take place, thus all oppinions are not taken into account - but these could be worked with ---- Xil...sist! 13:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have numerous articles of the topic. This can well be described in Occupation of Latvia. Existance of this article is a source for permanent edit war.--Dojarca 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so - what we have is nummerous articles on occupations of this and occupations of that - those are historical events. Denial of Soviet occupation in turn is a modern concept in politics. This isn't about whether there was or was not any occupation, but about the fact that there is an argument in which one side denies that there was occupation. The article is POVish (starting with "revisionist" and "echoed" in the lead) and has redundant sections (namely how the hell is "Economic background" connected with this ?), it should be worked with, but I think that the concept is notable enough to have it. ---- Xil...sist! 18:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "modern concept" but one of the mainstram points of view all after the WWII.--Dojarca 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" in sence still important, and if it exists for 60 years as you imply surely that is another proof that it is important and could be improved beyond POV and OR -- Xil...sist! 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if there are problems with POV, it is not criteria for deletion. SpeedKing1980 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- POV problems that cannot be solved are criteria for deletion. Moreschi ^Talk 18:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The criteria for deletion here is not POV issues but that the article is a POV fork. Read the prevous deletion discusson please.--Dojarca 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a POV fork, see Wikipedia:Content_forking#What_content/POV forking is not. Martintg 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork, recreation of deleted content, synthesis. Strongly tempted to speedy it. Neil ム 15:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV: "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view." Martintg 23:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Original research. The article is not legitimately created - it is a bunch of POV and dubiously phrased garbage and synthesis (my favourite is the creation of a specious Wikiquote page to lend this rubbish some legitimacy). But it will no doubt get kept, as I see the hordes of meatpuppets have now arrived. Neil ム 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather uncivil comment Neil, do you regularly call those who don't agree with your viewpoint "meatpuppets"? Some people tell me that your speedy delete of Estophilia was an abuse of admin privileges, is that true? Martintg 09:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you know what "abuse of admin privileges" actually means. Neil ム 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Wikiquote thing, it's not because I think the article's good (I delisted it from GA), it's because there was an entire section of quotes. We should, in that case, put that content, on Wikiquote, just like the bible verse John 3's content is on Wikisource. Will ^(talk) 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Xil, as a main issue in Latvian Presidential elections, noteworthy though this will need cleanup. Chris 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that the current name of the article makes associations with Holocaust denial, so it is essentially POV as existance of Holocaust is a non-controversial concept while occupatin of the Baltics is.--Dojarca 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The occupation of the Baltics is not a controversial subject in academic literature, the controversy only exists within some sections of the Wikipedia community. Martintg 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, many Western news outlets reported on Russias policy of denial of Soviet occupation and some anaylses have been done by some think tanks, so it is definitely notable. POV issues are not a criteria for deletion either. Martintg 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources presented exclude OR. POV is not a criteria for deletion, not that I'm saying its a valid concern. The previous article was deleted as NEOLOGISM, this article is free of that fault, thus no grounds for deletion.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prevous article was deleted as POV fork. It is clearly visible from the discussion page. This article is nothing less POV fork than the prevous one.--Dojarca 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then do answer, POV fork of what? --Alexia Death the Grey 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation of Baltic states. Neil ム 11:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? What is the viewpoint of this article and how does it differ from the other one? Martintg 11:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how revisionist concept almost never fails to equate to troublesome Wikipedia article. Delete per Grafikm. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is debunking Soviet propaganda "revisionist"? As if the propaganda were ever true? — Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being well-referenced is not a valid argument for retention. Neil ム 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too POV for inclusion. Definitely not neutral. Captain panda 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV: "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view." Martintg 23:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That quote you have states that the article must have the point of view subject expressed neutrally and that it should cross-reference other articles with different points of view. The neutrality in that article is not very high and the articles linked to with other points of view have disputed neutrality tags on them. Captain panda 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken, but I don't believe lack of neutrality is sufficient ground for deletion. What improvements do you suggest to increase the level of neutrality? Note that all a tag indicates is that there is no concensus among editors that an article is neutral, nothing more, it only takes one dissenting editor to tag an article. No doubt creationist would view the article Evolution and not neutral, and vice versa and we would have endless tag wars as a result. That is why Wikipedia has this principle I quoted above. Martintg 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that just because an article covers a controversial topic does not necessarily mean that it lacks neutrality. For example, the articles that you gave me, Evolution and Creationism, do not have neutrality tags. As for improvements to help the neutrality, I would first suggest confirming or removing the many disputed references in the article. Also, various statements such as "The Soviet regime, in a classic way of totalitarianism", should be rephrased. In addition, though it only takes one editor to add such a tag, it only takes one to remove it if it foolishly placed. The tag has to have some merit or it would have been removed quite some time ago. Captain panda 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feed back, I'll chase up those issues you mentioned. A number of editors below like Irpen, believes denial of Soviet occupation is a valid topic, and I believe the article can be improved further, so under those circumstances you would keep? Martintg 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. If the article is improved like I suggested, I would still be not sure if it is a topic that should be included, but I would be open for it to be kept as it wouldn't cause any problems. For now, I am still going to say Delete. Captain panda 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a valid topic. There was a lot of media frenzy in May of 2005 as Russia celebrated 50th anniversary of WWII end. There are plenty of sources - BBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. - to back up the claim. In no way it is original research. Renata 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A valid topic indeed. However, this by itself is not the justification for an article to be kept. An imaginary article on valid topic titled, say, Latvian Academy of Art must also contain valid content to be kept. If one feels this red link with "poop" or "I love Latvian art", and no one restarts the garbage from scratch before AfD closure, the junk gets deleted no matter how valid the topic is.
- The question one must ask is whether the article in the current state has a basis for improvement or is it a total junk and the potential article on such valid topic would have to be rewritten from scratch. The article's claimed wide scope is not supported by the sources it uses. The article's statements disagree with the sources allegedly used and none of this content can be reused.
- AfD process is not based on the validity of the topic. It is about the validity of the article in its current form and, if it is totally out of whack (like this one) whether it is improvable as is or whether it would have to be rewritten, like in this case. --Irpen 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To compare a serious article to a poop is a really interesting way of conversation. Congratulations Tymek 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make such comparison. I merely stated that the validity of the topic is not enough reason to keep. The validity of the article as of the time of the AfD is needed. --Irpen 02:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between a topic and an article? If the topic of the denial of Soviet occupation is valid as you say, then why wouldn't the article be ammenable to improvement? Martintg 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the valid article on a valid topic would have to be written from scratch and the current state of it is useless for the future article, as I believe it is, it cannot be called "amenable to improvement". The topic is "amenable to coverage" is not the same as the article in the form as of AfD being usable for such coverage. I am not suggesting to salt the Earth and prevent the article's recreation. I am merely commenting on the article we have, not the encyclopedic potential of the topic. If you are willing to completely rewrite it and replace the nonsense whose citations do not even support it with a short but valid stub, I would change my vote to keep. I do not oppose the very existence of the article under this title. I am only commenting on the article in its current shape and form. When my substub on a totally valid topic was deleted based on this discussion I did not have a problem with that. The main qualm of those who voted delete was not lack of the subject's validity, but lack of the content's validity and usefulness at the time of AfD. If anyone ever rewrites that redirect into a valid article, I am sure it would survive. Same here. I call for the deletion of the useless junk in its current form and shape only. I do not call for the protection of the redlink from recreation unless it becomes abusive. This is only a second recreation. So, it is too early to Salt the Earth. --Irpen 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captain panda has already offered some suggestions for improvement and your inline tags you added today are a great help too. Thanks. Martintg 03:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have never seen any Nazi/German sources denying their occupation of the Netherlands, Denmark and other countries. Yet Soviet/Russian sources and politicians consistently denying their occupation of the Baltic States are numerous and as such should be mentioned. This article is very-well referenced and it touches a very important yet neglected subject Tymek 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Renata, Tymek, and the others. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A very real and noteworthy topic, which deserves to be presented encyclopedically. The admitted issues with POV, style and perhaps inappropriate syntheses of sources are no reason to delete an article, rather to improve it. The fact that a handful of editors apparently prefer that the entire issue not be mentioned at all is hardly a valid rationale for outright deletion. K. Lásztocska 04:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic keep - this is a well-referenced, reasonably neutral article on a very valid topic. Can it be improved? Sure. But that's not reason to delete - indeed the main "delete" rationale appears to be an ill-concealed wish to suppress discussion of Communist atrocities. Let's not succumb to this desire. Biruitorul 04:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The denial of Soviet occupations and on-going history falsification in Russia is a topic that has been frequently reported in the media in many countries (Sweden, UK, Finland, Poland, Estonia come to mind). This is a very real phenomenon and one that is causing more and more concern, not unlike Holocaust denial. The effort to have this article removed looks very much like a part of the campaign to deny and falsify the history of the USSR. JdeJ 08:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per JdeJ. I would also like to note that someone already used this argument here: "Occupation denial can't exist because there was no occupation". :) One of the reasons why Estonia didn't criminalize holocaust denial is the fact that public demanded criminalization of occupation denial in the same run. That, in turn, would have caused panic in russia again. The problem is definitely notable and also present in Wikipedia editors. Suva Чего? 08:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination of the predecessor article. The non-notable historical construct has obvious neo-Nazi connotations and Holocaust denial issues. The supposed "denial" of a controversial and self-contradictory concept, known either as liberation of Eastern Europe from the Nazis or "Soviet occupation", is overtly patterned upon and conflated with Holocaust denial (see the posts above), ergo, the Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe is put on the same footing as the Holocaust. The unique nature of the Holocaust is thereby diluted to make room for comparisons with what the current governments (the Kasczynski tandem, Rein Lang, etc) deem pertinent and appropriate for promoting their political ends. As a result, war criminals (such as Ain-Ervin Mere) end up by being absolved of gassing prisoners in the concentration camps, the extermination of the entire Jewish population of Estonia, etc, and recast as "freedom fighters". This is pretty disgusting, as is the penchant of folks to opine along pre-established ethnic lines, something which brings the entire AfD process into disrepute. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? When the supposed "ethnical lines" are drawn after the votes, it's no wonder that the sharpshooter always hits. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Trying to derail this debate with your transparent provocations? Martintg 10:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, another incivil remark - and I will ask an administrator to interfere. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I apologize for my bluntness, but your accusations of "neo-Nazi connotations and Holocaust denial issues" are absurd, outrageous, slanderous and completely baseless. Not only is it a classic proof of Godwin's Law, but it is an obvious attempt to discredit all your opponents in this debate by insinuating that they are Nazis or neo-fascists, an extremely serious allegation which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. K. Lásztocska 11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too resent that. I voted based on my interpretation of Wikipedia policies - an interpretation that may have been wrong, as might yours. I've voted against the Romanian "line" before. I have tremendous respect for Dahn but it doesn't derive from bean-counting on his AfD votes; I strongly object to the implication that my vote here renders me an "ordinary member of an ethnic clique". Moreover, the repeated line about the "unique nature of the Holocaust" rings hollow: while the Holocaust was indeed just about the worst thing to happen last century, very useful comparisons can be made to the Holodomor, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Great Purges, the Great Leap Forward, and a handful of other state-sponsored mass-murder events. That does nothing to take away from the Holocaust's horrific nature, but keeping it in a glass box and declaring it "unique" and immune from comparison is deeply counterproductive. Biruitorul 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a POV fork of Occupation of Baltic states with false generalization.Anonimu 10:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inheritantly POV title, I would vote the same way for the Denial of minorities right violation in Baltic state or Denial of Estonian-Nazi connections, etc. Alex Bakharev 10:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. The loaded term "denial" has been selected by authors on purpose to evoke associations with the Holocaust denial (it's the same guys who arranged the deletion of Category:Holocaust in Estonia). This reminds me of the Wikipedia:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid saga. What's next, Denial of Soviet occupation denial? --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking the Allegation saga would be corresponded to the Allegations of Soviet occupation I could live with that title, though still find the WP:POVFORK to be unnecessary. Alex Bakharev 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. People chose to name it "denial" rather than "allegations" with a view toward inflaming the discussion. I should also point out, just as a rifle shot in passing, that the alleged "anti-Estonian clique" in Wikipedia resisted the urge to start Allegations of Estonian apartheid, although these particular allegations are so notable that Russia's pro-Western Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyrev denounced Estonia's citizenship law as "quiet apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing in white gloves" more than ten years ago. This sheds some light on who insists on escalating the dispute and who seeks to defuse it. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is already an article Allegations of apartheid, so presumably you could add a section there if you are so inclined. Martintg 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Valid topic as both Renata and Irpen have agreed. Martintg 10:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "keep" comment. Neil ム 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've scanned up and down this page and I don't see where this duplicate keep comment is. Martintg 11:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the page is getting quite dense it was difficult to spot. Martintg 11:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Deletion is announced on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latvia by User:Xil, I have added announcements on Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia and P:RUS/NEW Alex Bakharev 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic and POV fork, the result of a way-too-extended exercise about the Soviet occupations. The article, which is basically an essay, has no particular purpose, and the phenomenon seems to have been coined by the article's authors. One could write an article about denials of anything and everything, on the logic of "we have x, therefore we could have anti-x", but, if any of the info is any way salvageable, it belongs in other articles. Dahn 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have placed notifications of this discussion on Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Europe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Czech Republic and Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. K. Lásztocska 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view this spam-campaign as a transparent attempt to skew discussion in a certain direction. Neither Hungary nor Romania is mentioned in the article, for crying out loud. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that Hungary and Romania were also subject to Soviet occupation, and these occupations are also termed "liberation" from time to time, there is nothing objectionable about leaving notes on these noticeboards. As to "an attempt to skew discussion", just see my recommendation below – I came via the Hungarian noticeboard. Striking or removing this comment would be quite in order. K issL 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, settle down. It's already mentioned, as stated directly above me, on WikiProject Latvia and on the Russian noticeboard, I was only trying to get more people to come and comment. Unfortunately, I found no Communist Wikipedians' notice board, else I would have posted there as well. K. Lásztocska 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Coined by the article's author"? I've read two long articles about it in major newspapers just this week, accusing Russia of "gloryfying" its WWII-history and to treat it in a very biased way. A spokesperson for the Russian ministry of Education said that the aim of teaching history in Russia should be to make young Russians worshipd and honour their country, so nothing that is critical to Russia should be thaught in Russian schools. Based on many comments here, that policy is working very well. I suggest many people here actually believe that the USSR was right. That's the whole reason for having articles such as these. Hitler and Stalin were both about equally bad, both of them had millions murdered in camps, both of them started wars, occupied and enslavec other countries. The main different is that Germany has not tried to deny this. Russia is still doing it. JdeJ 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is still not a phenomenon. It is merely a note. A phenomenon is not "I read in newspapers that Russia denied the occupation", it is "I have several scholarly books that discuss Russia's denial of the occupation as a phenomenon, applying a methodology and a terminology".

Let us also note that, no matter how unsubstantiated I consider the Russian viewpoint to be, it is part of a minority of voices that disagree with the term "occupation". I consider the term "occupation" applies, and the arguments against it to be weak, and I think that the minority opinion should not become overrepresented - but creating this article is basically branding people who disagree and turning an ongoing debate into "we're right and they're wrong". This is not and cannot be validated by this project.

The fact that you have to appeal to off-topic arguments in order to draw up support the article is, to me, indicative that this article has a message to give to its readers. Dahn 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official Russian viewpoint is fact, this article is about that viewpoint. It is quite legitimate to have articles reporting the fact of the viewpoint with out making any judgements about the validiity or correctness of that view point. Martintg 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing convincing me that official viewpoints need separate articles as a rule, especially when all that is relevant can be summarized in a single paragraph. In fact, I strongly object to creating articles about each single POV, which is the definition of content forking, and this strikes me as an attempt to marginalize that POV, disguise it as a phenomenon, and place a label on it. In fact, the definitions of both denial and denialism indicate that the article is written from a POV, and clash with your definition of reporting "without making any judgments about the validity or correctness of that view point". Dahn 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single overarching principle here. Sometimes, official viewpoints need articles of their own, sometimes, not. It depends on a number of factors; for example, structurally simple viewpoints often don't, and viewpoints with heavy background data requirements often do. Notability is a factor, too -- and this particular viewpoint, having been a major factor in a Latvian presidential election, not to mention an important force in recent international relations between Russia, Northern Europe and Eastern Europe, is certainly quite notable in its own rights. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles discussing a single POV can still be neutral and is not considered a POV fork, see Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV: "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other other appropriate points of view." The viewpoint of the Russian federation in regard to Soviet occupation is notable. Its denial is related to the fact that many former Eastern bloc countries have made noises about claiming compensation. So it is understandable that Russia would deny it, as anyone faced with a potential compension claim would. This article attempts not to promote a particular viewpoint of the viiewpoint, just the fact of the viewpoint, and the reasons behind it. Martintg 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is a world of difference between "can" and "should", and wikipedia is not about creating all articles that could be created. 2. If you would address my full point, you'll note that I raise the issue of this article being put up as a way to marginalize a viewpoint. As far as I am concerned, the viewpoint marginalizes itself, since it contrasts with scholarly approaches. That doesn't mean that it's open season for debasing it and for inventing a phenomenon of "denial" with the certainty this implies (a certainty which, I feel compelled to point out, is in actuality the editors' interpretation of a limited number of written sources). 3. In any case, all info referring to the official Russian position (speculations about its motivations aside!) should be summarized somewhere in any any existing "occupation" article, as it is a relevant take on the events even if going against scholarly consensus. The article we are discussing only touches that official Russian position briefly, under a POV title and in a context filled with peacock terms and weasel words (not to mention original research), and connects it with Soviet historiography - which may or may not be the case. This is indicative that there is nothing to validate a separate article on the position in question, especially when considering that a proper article on the official position would have to explain and reference the whole historical context. This in turn means that this topic, already overwhelmed by articles on the exact same topic, would only gain another tiresome and obsessing text. Dahn 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your point of view, I respect that, but I have to disagree. I don't see the intent of the article is to marginalise some viewpoint, in fact quite the opposite, rather than have it hidden in a number of occupation articles as you seem to suggest, it brings it to the forefront in an article of its own. If there are issues of neutrality, peacock terms or weasel words, this is an editorial issue than can be fixed. The fact that the article is legitimately concerned with a particular point-of-view subject, therefore it must necessarily indicate that in the title to be compliant with policy. Martintg 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Sander Säde. Dpotop 12:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very aggressively re-write. Despite improved sourcing, it is still a POV fork, filled with wild claims, which violates WP's core principles. Finally, quite frankly, I am shocked by the log-rolling that has allegedly happened here. Bearian 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As this discussion seems to have been announced already at everywhere else, I made also little notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania.--Staberinde 13:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (1) A Google phrase search, google:"Denial+of+Soviet+Occupation", yields just eight results, including two here at Wikipedia. This is a non-notable neologism, unlike google:"Holocaust+denial", which yields more than a million hits. (2) This article was created as a WP:COATRACK, to push a nationalistic agenda, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:POINT. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The general topic is all right, but the "denial phenomenon" just does not merit its own article. As stated, calling the Soviet occupations of various countries a "liberation" is a minority opinion everywhere outside Russia. Even if the article's neutrality is improved (which is already unlikely in itself, the topic being as much of a flamebait as any stupid ethnic debate), it has zero chance of ever meeting WP:SYN. The encyclopedic part of the information in there should go into Foreign relations of Russia, Occupation of Baltic states, and possibly elsewhere. KissL 14:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, wouldn't merge to Soviet occupations be a better solution then deletion?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since I have proposed a similar solution, I take the liberty to comment on this. Merge is an okay alternative in theory, but, afaict, the fact is that most of the article does not comply with any wikipedia principles and will simply have to be deleted. IMO, what is not pure speculation of manifesto in that text amounts to a single paragraph or so, which can be merged just as it can be re-written and added to the "occupations" article. Dahn 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basically, I agree: there is too little useful information (a few sentences) to mention in too many articles (probably tens of them). Also, when the signal-to-noise ratio of a flamebait article is low, it is better to have it deleted in its entirety so that you don't end up having to explain the removal of each and every inappropriate sentence or section once every month. K issL 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 1[edit]

Delete This is clearly a POV fork of several articles as mentioned above. The fact that it is also recreation of a deleted article seals it. I'm not saying this can't be dealt with but there are several articles that this could be fitted into to maintain a NPOV perspective on this.Keep per Staberinde whose arguments have convinced me. EconomicsGuy 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Jehochman and Bearian. They both raise excellent points, so rather than reiterate, I'm just going to support their statements. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alex Bakharev and Jehochman.--Yaroslav Blanter 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no any doubts that Russian officials denied occupation of Baltic states, as follows from cited sources. This is a notable phenomenon, as follows from numerous publications on the subject. Yes, these denails could be mentioned in Soviet occupations article. However, "Soviet occupations" is too big already; so it makes a lot of sense to provide a number of separate, more detailed articles on related topics, such as this one. Soviet denialism was different and of wider scope, and its deletion was far from a clear consensus.Biophys 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article defines its scope as not limited to Baltic states. It speaks about denialism in context of entire E Europe and falsifies sources that they support that. We are not discussing the notability of the phenomen at AfD. We are discussing the validity of the article in its current form and shape. --Irpen 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, the editors should be given some time (say a week) to provide sources about the denials with respect to entire E. Europe. If they can not, the scope of this artiicle should be reduced. There is no reason for deletion.Biophys 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fix POV, Fix OR. these are not reasons for deletion. If there are disputes about how to fix it, resolve them. When i read the article the OR wasn't that bad, the article has a point of view, but it can be fixed up. Those editors who are "nationalists" of all stripes will hate hate hate the proper article that should be written here. try to remember that. --Rocksanddirt 16:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and a repost. ff m 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per Rocksandritt and K. Lásztocska. --Koppany 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as repost. Everything notable about russian point of view is already in Occupation of Baltic states.Garret Beaumain 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Renata and other users with good faith and common sense. - Darwinek 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that people still opine according to their foregone national preconceptions. Dahn was one notable exception, and it's probably the reason why he enjoys such a standing in the community, as opposed to ordinary members of ethnic cliques. This is so predictable that one can't do anything but sigh. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- May I point out, dear sir, that you too are voting according to what might be considered your own "foregone national preconceptions." Look at the speck in your own eye before throwing rocks out of glass houses, or whatever...K. Lásztocska 18:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A comment to Ghirla's remark - "And look who is talking..." Tymek 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amazing that Ghirla is the same individual that talked about reporting another user for incivility. I've never lived a day of my life in Soviet-occupied Europe, nor have my parents or grand-parents. What "foregone national preconceptions" am I a victim of? JdeJ 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Soviet historiography or something else. --Brand спойт 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about the interpretation of history, the main driver is potential liability for compensation, if Moscow admits it, it fears that it may make itself liable. I recall reading about it in the english language Russian news sites some years back. Certainly many former Eastern bloc countries have made noises. It's standard legal practice to deny everything if you are faced with a potential claim. Martintg 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and POV. --Zserghei 19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV-fork and per Ghirlandajo Serebr 20:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Occupation of Baltic States article should concentrate on the historical events themselves while this article is about the present-day discussion. The topic seems to be an important factor in Russian-Baltic relations. Zello 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IF, as the article states, the topic is indeed an official position of the Russian Federation then this is certainly encyclopaedic and not necessarily WP:POVFORK. In this case it could be improved and uncluttered (start by removing all those tags next to the references) but there's no reason the casual browser should not hear of it in an encyclopaedia. If on the other hand, it can be shown that this is not an official position of the Russian Federation then I will consider it a POVFORK and change my vote. István 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Lantios 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is an Original Research and Non-Neutral Point-Of-View fork. There are no authoritative references concerning existence of the article's subject. It rather seems to be a neologism invented to make parallels between Nazi and Soviets. The article itself is not about subject matter, but about alleged occupation which is well covered by other more accurately written articles. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The leading French news magazine L'Express devotes a part of its latest edition exactly to the subject of how modern Russia is trying to whitewash the crimes committed during Stalin's regime. Worth to mention, as some misinformed users here suggested that this is all in the mind of the person who created this article and another user questioned whether this has any notability at all. The Economist also wrote about the same thing a while ago. This is a topic that has been featured in most of the leading journals across Europe, where's the lack of notability? And there's no need to "invent" stories to make parallels between Nazi Germani and Stalin's USSR, the evidences have been known to everybody for decades although they are denied these days in Russia. What I will agree upon is that the title isn't very good. The article should be extended to feature the whole story of how Russia is trying to whitewash and falsify its history, including Stalin's crimes against ordinary Russians and other peoples within the USSR. JdeJ 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my say here, and I'll let readers decide on the value of my arguments. However, I have to point out that the above is an invitation to conflate various events into an article that will be, invariably, written from a POV perspective and contain elements dismissed by this policy. If the mentions of "misinformed users" include me, I have to point out that, for the sake of this project's credibility, wikipedia should not start generating articles on each type of commentary conceivable. If the events are noteworthy, they can be discussed within individual articles that focus on identifiable and autonomous topics, not on ad-hoc overviews. I could start articles on "Romania's failure to meet EU standards on the vaccination of pigs", "Hungary's problems with far right extremism", and "The refusal of Hamas to recognize Israel". All of these would be topics on events and tendencies for which we could gather enough material and otherwise elaborate for all we like, but that does not make them valid articles. In all such cases, other articles already exist for the relevant info to be summarized and summarized well. And encourage editors to stay out of comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union - for all the validity I tend to see in the argument when it comes to specific topics such as the Gulag (and, no, I do not believe that the comparison is perfect, for reasons that stand as self-evident), that discussion has no relevancy here. Dahn 22:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my reference to "misinformed users" does in no way refer to Dahn. I disagree with him in this particular case, but unless most of the contributors he has remained calm, polite and provided articulate arguments for his case. That is very welcome in a discussion in which many seem to be voting just because of their nationality and unwillingness to have articles that might be critical of their own country. JdeJ 22:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the intent of the article to be critical to any particular country, but to represent a notable point of view in a neutral way. Martintg 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, some have asked for a reference to the official Russian position regarding occupation. The following link is an official Russian Foreign Ministry press release from 2005 denying occupation and consequently any liability for financial compensation. [37] --Martintg 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your citation brilliantly features the problem of this article. The citation deals with the Baltic issue narrowly. The article, however, defines its scope Europe-wide and falsifies the citations by making sweeping general statement, referenced only to much narrower claims in the literature. --Irpen 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't explicitly define the scope Europe-wide, so I don't see how you could claim it falsifies the citation. Note there is a further reference to a potential Czech claim for compensation for the 1968 occupation in the body of the article. I'm sure there are similar references to official denials of responsibility in relation to other countries in the Russian language media, unless ofcourse there is no debate within Russia and all think as one mind. Since you believe the topic is notable, you could assist in finding sources in the Russian language media. This article is not intended to to pass any judgement. In my personal view, if some countries had not have made noises about squeezing Russia for compensation, official Russia may well have recognised the occupations by the Soviet Union. Martintg 01:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note a classical demagogic trick at play here. First, let's consider the facts. Soviet Union occupied a number of countries for varying numbers of years. The Baltic states were occupied between 1940 and 1991; some of the Central European countries had other kinds of relations with Soviet Union in addition to occupation, and had shorter military occupation periods. The Baltic states ended up restoring their independence on basis of legal continuity; most of the other occupied territories recognised, to varying degrees, the occupations' puppet regimes, post facto. Accordingly, while Soviet Union has denied all the occupations, it has paid greatest attention to Soviet occupation of Baltic states, and this denial is the most notable and best-researched denial. Now, let's consider the sophistry: Irpen refuses to recognise the aspect of varying conditions of occupation, and pretends there "must" be a single cut-off point -- except that he places the "single cut-off point" into various places, based on what suits his idé du jour. This is not intellectual integrity. If Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, it must forcefully reject such games, and make sure its coverage is accurate in facts and neutral in opinions, according to their notability. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the Russian position on the lunatic POV that the countries were the Russian troops were legally stationed under the agreement with their national government, PL, CZ, HU, E Germany, can be considered "Occupied" all the way till late 80s-early 90s. The claim that the Baltic takeover of 1940 was in fact an illegal occupation is by far more plausible, has a wide international support and Russia addresses it. The claim that the entire period of 1944 to 1991 for Baltics may be called "occupation" is by far weaker, less universally accepted, but still referenceable view. The claim about EE all the way till 1989 is even more bizarre and Russia never ever even commented on that. There are many strange claims voiced from time to time. The government do not comment on each and every of them. But since you claim that the article "article doesn't explicitly define the scope Europe-wide", I will now edit it to make sure it does not and please do not revert me like you did last time. --Irpen 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the official position of the Czech Government is that they were occupied between 1968 to 1989 [38], I find it highly implausible that there has been no official Russian position on the Czech claim. And I don't think the Czechs are lunatics either for hold that point of view. So the scope cannot be artificially confined to the Baltics either. Martintg 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martintg finding something "highly implausible" is not a valid reason to assume something exists. At least not good enough for a WP article. --Irpen 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your personal view point, I am entitled to mine, but we are not to entitled to push it here on Wikipedia. Martintg 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. So, please stop pushing this article based on your own speculations about the Russia's view that does not exist. --Irpen 02:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, but your denial that Russia is denying the Soviet Union ever occupied EE is rather intriguing, given the extensive media coverage in the European press that JdeJ refers to above. Martintg 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My denying and your disagreeing can be discussed at alt.politics.socialism or any other internet fora. Keep your being surprised or intrigued by my "denial" or anything out of Wikipedia pages please. The central premise of the article is that Russia has an official position on denying something while in fact Russia did not issues any such statements except in relation to the Baltic states. --Irpen 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore it is a notable topic. Martintg 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some problems in its current form but nothing that can't be fixed over time. I see no valid reason for deletion the article should be improved instead. Hobartimus 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Denial of Soviet occupation is a real phenomenon and as such it deserves an article on Wikipedia, which so proudly dubs itself a free encyclopedia. Deletion of the article will not erase the existence of this phenomenon, and comparing those who oppose Soviet view of history to Nazis is a gross exaggeration. As Norman Davies wrote in "No simple victory": "Anyone genuinely committed to freedom, justice and democracy is duty-bound to condemn both of the great totalitarian systems without fear or favour" Tymek 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first AfD had nothing close to a consensus, so it's really not helpful to just reference the decision. I would have supported renaming Soviet occupation denialism since it does seem to implicitly ascribe fringe status to a defensible POV, and IMO does have inappropriate connotations with Holocaust denial. If Denial of Soviet occupation has either of these problems, I think it is to a much lesser extent. The rest of the nomination is just attacks on the article's creator. I don't think his revision was outrageously POV before anyone else edited it, amd it has since been edited by a healthy handful of others. I have no expertise on the subject, but it seems clear that whatever content biases there may be are not outstanding to the point of requiring a rewrite. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an issue that might have contributed to the sad final outcome of the previous AFD: back then, I was a very new Wikipedia user, and trying hard to do things Right. While I noticed multiple voices calling for renaming, I believed (falsely, it turned out) that renaming during an AFD would be prohibited, and seen as trying to hide the article so as to spare it from the proper result, and decided to postpone the renaming until the AFD was over. Well, it turned out there was nothing to rename when the AFD was over ... Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete coatrack synthesis. I waited with the vote thinking that the article will be reasonably fitted to wikipedia rule. The creators once again genuinely fail to understand the WP:NOR policy. Someone starts with ajuicy personal essay, and then after improvements under the pressure the artcle turns into a weird cactus. While the correct way for a historical article is to start with solid, scholarly sources and then expand the topic with newspapers and what not. Right now whole article is a complilation of supporting statements and not a single quootation that discusses the "soviet occupation denial" as a phenomenon or "a point of view" as the article says. Any new content absent in other wikipedia articles (not so much of it: 2-3 short paragraphs) may be safely merged by the contributors into "Soviet occupations" article. `'Míkka 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After you deleting a whole sourced section with the exact quote of "denial of Soviet occupation", under the false pretense of "speculation", your murmuring about "not a single quotation" is less than worthless. It's hypocritical. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a history article, but an article about a notable politcal point of view about history, with global significance. When the President of the USA asks the President of Russia to stop denying occupation, this is significant. The article has a range of sources from newspapers, to official government statements to scholarly papers. Martintg 06:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False. Not a single source is found to support Russian denial of anything wrt non-Soviet countries to which the article claims to apply. --Irpen 06:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already improved the article by bringing the lead in line with the sources presented so far [39], so I fail to see what your issue is. BTW, have you voted yet? I don't think it is ethically correct for those who intend to vote for deletion to be editing the article while the AfD is open, as there is a clear conflict of interest here. Martintg 07:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you are in no position to teach me ethics, OK? Now, to your question. Yes, I brought the lead in agreement with sources it uses. However, it still contains bullshit statements (and unsourced) about the European-wide denial. And even that cannot be fixed as the article's title and scope claims to apply wider. The article by its title and scope is not in line with the sources and it cannot be since no such sources exist. Once stripped from nonsense, the useful content is only about the Occupation of Baltic states. This itself already has its own article and as of now, there is no compelling reason to spin the denial off. Please note that the Holocaust denial was started much later than the Holocaust article once the amount of denial info warranted the proper content forking. This here is not proper forking. What it is is disruptive user:Digwuren grinding an ax and creating one more sandbox for himself by tweaking the title of the AfDed article. Was Soviet occupation denialism (deleted), now Denial of Soviet occupation. --Irpen 07:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False. This article has been totally re-written from scratch and bears no resemblance to the previously AfDed article. Please confine your personal issues with Digwurem to the appropriate ArbCom forum. Martintg 07:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up and improve. For example, moving the quotes to wikiquote was quite useless. (There were four quotes, all highly relevant. Of course, hundreds of more quotes may eventually be collected, and then using wikiquote to maintain them might be useful.) The Latvian presidential elections incident over occupation denial of one major candidate needs to be fully documented. Relevant international treaties need to be referenced, along with scholarly analyses of their applicability and circumstances. The status of Warsaw Pact needs to be explained, and the military alternative usage (which was exactly sourced, by the way, until Mikkalai deleted the whole section along with source) needs to be restored. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth so that we do not have to do this discussion all over again in three months, since Digwuren and his group are basically on Wikipedia to write articles like that. Of course this is a POV fork. What is "Denial of Soviet Occupation" to nationalist Poles is "Denial of Soviet liberation and Subsequent Polish Occupation" to Masurians. Oh, and it is not because "Polish Occupation" is now a viewpoint mostly held by nazis that we should immediately dismiss the idea of "Denial of Polish Occupation". After all, at one time in history everybody in the civilized world thought of the Soviet Army entering East Europe, not as "occupation" but as "liberation" (it would not be too difficult to find "liberation" in the archives of Time magazine for the years 1944 and 1945). Returning to a point made earlier, it is not true that there is no such thing as "Denial of German Occupation" - it is true that 95% of Germans themselves, the descendants of the occupiers, would never dream of doing that (though many would rather call it "Nazi Occupation") - with the descendants of those who suffered the occupation, it is a different story: there is a lot of "Denial of German Occupation" or, alternatively "Denial of Nazi Occupation" in Croatia, Flanders and, yes, the Baltic states. In as far as the "Soviet Occupation" is believed to have started the day the Soviet army entered the country concerned, saying "Soviet Occupation" just like that, is actually a misnomer, because Free French troops were involved as well, particularly in the North of Eastern Europe. To illustrate the point Dahn makes (an article which is basically aimed at telling a group of other contributors "we are right, and you are wrong" does not belong in an encyclopedia): should I now write an article titled "Denial of French Occupation" (dealing with Poland, East Prussia, Vietnam and Northern Africa - now that would be a nice mishmash, would it not?). What are you saying? WP:POINT? My point exactly.--Pan Gerwazy 08:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliably sourced data about notable denial of Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany, why have you not added even a reference of it to the article? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 09:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's hard to follow the logic of Pan Gerwazy. Are there sources verifying a denial of German occupations. As for the French involvement, the French certainly didn't stay on to impose a puppet-dictatorship in Poland. They continued to occupy parts of East Asia and North Africa, but nobody's denying that. In short, it looks like you're only trying to disguise the facts in a lot of rather irrelevant comparisons. JdeJ 12:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there was German occupation. Germany officially occupied Soviet territory. There was even ministry of occupied territories in Germany. Different case with the USSR. The Baltics already belonged to the USSR, so the USSR could not occupy its own territory. According the International Red Cross' definition, situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory.--Dojarca 13:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, say what? The Baltic states belonged to the USSR? Well, after the Red Army marched in and occupied it in 1940, yes. Not that any other country recognised the occupation as legal, so they still didn't belong to the USSR even after that. The paradox here is that we are debating if this denial exists and we get these absurd comments from people who still deny it. JdeJ 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not debating whether this denial exists. We are debating whether it should be the topic of a separate Wikipedia article. K issL 14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, for me it seems that here are whole lot of people who want to deny not only the occupation but also deny the denial. If that denial does not exist, then there is no need for Wikipedia article about it. If the denial exists - and is covered with multiple independent sources - why exactly do we even have to discuss this? -- Sander Säde 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now let's be absurd. I exist, and I can cover that with multiple independent sources, yet I do not have a Wikipedia article (and do not want one either). Ever read WP:NOT? Those who think this article should be kept would do well to get the discussion back on track by talking about why this phenomenon deserves a separate article. I for one could possibly be convinced that it does, but nobody seems to even give it a try. (Have I heard someone talk about a logical fallacy?) K issL 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This phenomenon deserves a separate article because is a notable phenomenon in the politics of Eastern Europe.--MariusM 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't denial that flying dishes exist also a notable phenomenon?--Dojarca 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nice that you compare denial of an event in which hundreds of thousands were murdered with flying saucers. What a nice way to respect their memory, thank you. -- Sander Säde 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is blaming soldiers who payed by their lived to save the world from fascism occupants a good respect to their memory?--Dojarca 15:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Soviets invaded and subjugated the Baltics while Stalin and Hitler were still buddies, long before the Great Patriotic War. Why does everyone professing the Soviets died for the Baltics to save them from fascism patently ignore this fact? It was an illegal invasion and occupation the first time. It was an illegal invasion and ocupation the second time when they returned, resuming right where they left off when the Nazis interrupted with their invasion, and didn't leave until the Soviet Union fell apart. The Red Army lost, I don't recall at the moment, 175,000? 300,000? trying to take the Courland Pocket. Such a waste of life, the Soviets could have observed Baltic neutrality and stayed out. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think really the Baltics could stay neutral throughout WWII ?--Dojarca 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they "made us free", why did they stay here for half a century? SpeedKing1980 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Saved the world from fascism"? So it was to save the world from Fascism that Stalin made a pact with Hitler to divide Eastern Europe between them? It was to save the world from fascism that Stalin occupied half of Poland, all of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, parts of Romania and parts of Finland why he was a Nazi-ally. Interesting way to save the world from fascism, I must say. JdeJ 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons why denial is so almost impossible for germans is that the nazis, as good Germans, kept meticulous records of what they did, and were very proud of doing. The odd SSer who objected to the way workers from the East were being transported to Germany, would do so because cleaning dead bodies of women and babies out of the transport trains caused delays on getting troops to teh Russian front. Still, there is some denial of "German occupation", particularly on Wikipedia. Just have a look at the edit war on Erika Steinbach. --Pan Gerwazy 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To JdeJ: the argument is in fact mostly about when the occupation started. Taking the first day the "Allied" or "Soviet" troops entered the country in question, as is done by most of these nationalist editors, takes you into the silly position where you not only must forget what Western observers thought at the time, but must also consider the French as accomplices in the occupation, and of course of the German troops and their fascist allies from all over Europe then automatically the defenders of the country. It does not matter what the French did or did not do afterwards, because according to these nationalist editors it is all one and the same process. Petri Krohn once suggested splitting up these "occupations", between the actual coming after the Germans and the "overstaying their welcome", but he was treated to the accusation of, yes, "Soviet occupation denier". Wikipedia being not a platform for political opinions, its articles must be free of POV. As for "denial of Nazi occupation", apart from having a good look at the edit war over Erika Steinbach, I invite you to read Cyriel Verschaeve, who is still the favourite literary author of the leaders of the Vlaams Belang. Most biographers of Stijn Streuvels never mentioned what he did during the war, how he became the sweetheart of the German occupiers of Belgium and their cultural wing. Our article on him also does not mention that sordid episode at all - I suppose it cannot be "sourced" because most historians wanted to spare an old man (he died aged 97). Does the fact that our article, like the Dutch article on Streuvels does not even mention that he in person supervised the filming of his novel "De Vlaschaard" by a German film crew, and that that was "controversial" (controversieel in Dutch, see [40]) constitute "Denial of German Occupation"? --Pan Gerwazy 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany was continuously nominated for speedy deletion by the creator of Denial of Soviet occupation.--Dojarca 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Digwuren had absolutely nothing to do with nominating your article for speedy deletion, which was no more than a cut and paste of a section from an existing article. The article wasn't contiuously nominated, you basically revert warred the speedy template while the nomination was open. Your nomination statement above contains many similar falsehoods. Please remove my name from your nomination statement, which you added after my vote to "Keep" [41]. Martintg 16:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this nomination was completely against any of Wikipedia's rules on speedy deletion. I think by the way it is worth enough to plus it to the ongoing arbitration case.--Dojarca 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again, please remove my name for the nomination statement completely. This is highly improper. I have not been involved increating this article, nor do I hold extremiist nationalist view, I voted for the Australian Labour Party in the previous Federal elections. Martintg 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good idea to devide voters like this--Dojarca 16:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, Dojarca, as well as many other calims made by you here. The creator of the Denial of Soviet occupation is Digwuren. He has never edited the Occupation of Baltic republics by Nazi Germany. Colchicum 16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You're right. It was closely associated account of User:Sander Säde.--Dojarca 16:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dojarca, please stop your flat out lies. Digwuren is not "closely associated account of User:Sander Säde". Nor did I create the article. And you broke Wikipedia rules by removing speedy template from article you had created yourself. So how about some truth, instead of broken record lies and propaganda? -- Sander Säde 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dojarca, your nomination contains a lot of irrelevant, unverifiable and even false stuff. Could you please re-read WP:DP and provide a rationale? While I am not going to cast a vote, I have to note that a reference to the personality of User:Digwuren isn't among the options according to our policy. Colchicum 16:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only potentially legitimate reason for deletion that has been given by Dojarca so far (re-creation of a deleted article) has to be verified by an administrator. Is the article in question substantially similar to the deleted Soviet occupation denialism? Colchicum 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article appears to have been moved or copied into userspace as User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes - you don't need to be an admin to view it. -- ChrisO 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, more precisely, the version as of May 26. Well, they are far from identical. That doesn't mean that the old reasoning is completely inapplicable, but the present version has not yet been deleted, and all this should be considered with caution, especially as the administrator who deleted the previous version was so eager to participate in the current voting, kindly invited by the nominator. Colchicum 00:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nit pick, but User:Digwuren/Denial_of_Soviet_crimes has a totally different title to the article Soviet Occupation Denialism that was previously deleted. Martintg 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article history is complicated. See the history for 26 May 2007 onwards - it appears that Soviet occupation denialism was moved into userspace and renamed a couple of times before ending up at User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes. -- ChrisO 01:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that link, confirming that the deleted article is totally different. It included Katyn, the famine in the Ukraine, and othe significant differences. Martintg 03:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV-fork--JukoFF 21:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

Conflict of interest - Both Irpen and Mikka, who have voted to ""delete" this article, continue to edit war by removing referenced content in the article [42]. I request all who voted for "deletion" not make any edits while this AfD remains open ,as there is an obvious conflict of interest here. Irpen, I request that you undo your last change Martintg 16:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Votes or not, your "referenced content" is original research, often irrelevant. `'Míkka 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you are not the right person to even utter the word "ethics" at all. Note, however, that COI point would be valid if the editor votes delete with one hand and makes sure that his edits make the article look worse thus ensuring that it gets more delete votes. You were not around when the Anti-Semitism in Poland was voted for deletion (it ended up deleted and redirected to History of Jews in Poland. At the time some of the users who campaigned for deletion were editing the article they were trying to delete in such a way, as to make it as much nonsensially and Polonophobically sounding as possible. Some where replacing the lead by "The Poles are the most anti-Semitic nation in the world" and other such crap in order to make voters who would read such crap vote delete even though the article originally did not include any of that. If Mikka's and mine edit were destructive, then you would have a valid point
However, Mikka's and mine edits are quite opposite. You admitted yourself that my changes brought this masterpiece into a better agreement with sources. So, just cut the nonsense and, instead, find at last a single source that confirm the Russia's "denial" of "occupation" with respect to any European country outside of the Baltic republics. By finding it, you would greatly boost the chances of the article to survive. Good luck. --Irpen 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, Irpen, this article is under AfD, you have voted or intend to vote "delete". Regardless of whether or not you believe your edits are constructive or destructive, there is nevertheless a clear conflict of interest when you make changes to an article that you want deleted. Please restraint yourselves from further editing while this AfD case remains open. Martintg 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far, Jimbo is the only person who can give unconditional orders here. I will be guided in what I do by your ordering me to. You start your own web-site for that. --Irpen 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sander, Xil and others. Article may need improving but that itselfly is not serious reason for delete.--Staberinde 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if the current content can be useful for such improvement. Unfortunately, it isn't. We are not discussing the deletion of the topic. We are discussing the deletion of the article as it is as of now. --Irpen 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -the article describes a real and important subject that influences relations between several countries.--Molobo 20:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are voting to delete bad article, not "inportant subject" whose very definition was concocted by Russophobes and remains unfererenced during the whole debate. `'Míkka 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article is not bad just because it doesn't support Soviet worldview. As to 'concocted by Russophobes'- I think you emotional attitude to the subject, there is no need to insult people.--Molobo 22:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is bad not because it does not support some POV. It is bad because it defines the scope falsely, brings in sources that support quite different claims, serves as a coatrack to push irrelevant stuff. Molobo, instead of putting things in other people mouthes, please try to find a single source were Russia "denies" that Poland was "occupied" by it until 1989, as you like to say. --Irpen 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Took me one second:[43].--Molobo 23:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. Bot someone just deleted all references from the aricle, probably to show that it is "unreferenced".Biophys 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What does this reference claim? It is nonegnlish. So, please let the readers know. --Irpen 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I will, once I expand the article. Btw-the statement that Poland was occupied till 1989 is issued not by me but by scholars, and of course Polish Government in Exile existed for some reason till 1989...--Molobo 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That may well be so. I hear Taiwan still claims the mainland China while China claims Taiwan. Point is that the Polish government in Warsaw was an internationally recognized one. That some people in London or whatever chose to call themselves a "Polish government in exile" does not add any relevancy to the claim that Russia "denies" that Poland was "occupied" till 1989. --Irpen 23:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That some countries reckognised occupation of Poland doesn't change the occupation's existance. And of course it is nice to hear that 'some people' formed a Polish government. They likely met in a street ;) Anyway I am off to improving articles, rather then engage in endless debates on Soviet Union's with you on talk pages. Cheers.--Molobo 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, with my rather broken Polish, I found nothing there about the "Soviet denial of occupation till 1989". --Irpen 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -even though Dahn made some points above, the topic is too important not to have its own article in its own rights. I also think Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV applies here. Squash Racket 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument does not apply here. This article does not present an existing point-of-view. What it does is tries to equate one POV to Holocaust denial. If we wanted to have an article about a POV, it should be named "The Liberation of Eastern Europe by the glorious Red Army", or for the other POV, "Soviet occupation". -- Petri Krohn 01:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article is a POV, while Holocaust denial is not. The first title you mentioned would be unencyclopedic, Soviet occupation is NPOV, so thanks for your comment. Squash Racket 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my argument is essentially CSD G4 and WP:POVFORK. This was not deleted in such a way that encourages recreation. The rationale given was: "The result was Delete. A whole bundle of unconvincing arguments here, on both sides, but ultimately this is a classic POV fork, and it's also original synthesis. While there are plenty of "references" provided, the vast bulk of them are irrelevant to this term's notability and significance, and have been strung together to constitute a POV synthesized narrative." POV forks and synthesis are not welcome on an encyclopaedia. I speak as someone whose own relatives were oppressed under one such occupation government (Czechoslovakia) so I have some sympathy for the topic, but the atmosphere surrounding the creation and promotion of this article is too polluted to generate a consensus amongst users which would point to a constructive way forward. Orderinchaos 07:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD does not apply, as this article is a total rewrite. Since this article is a total re-write, the closing comments of the previous AfD does not apply. It must be noted that no clear concensus for deletion emerged within the debate in that previous AfD. If it is a POV fork, it should be simple enough to articulate what the consensus view is that this article is meant to fork, but I don't think anyone has. Martintg 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man argument. See this cross diff. Much of the wording is identical, and in perspective and tone, it is basically the same article. Orderinchaos 05:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article repeats a lot of information from other articles and doesn't concentrate on topic. DVoit 09:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intent. See Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq for a list of articles that comply with Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV. The intent of this article is to present the view of the Russian government on Soviet occupations in a similar way. Obviously more work needs to be done with the article, ofcourse. Martintg 11:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is an article on a valid and timely topic, presenting a real and noteworthy phenomenon. If there are some problems with style and/or presentation, those can be addressed. Let's improve the article, not spike it! Turgidson 13:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not voting for the validity of the topic. We are voting for the validity of the article. The article has nothing to do with the topic it claims to cover. It makes some wild claims about "occupation" of Europe lasting till end 1980s its "denial" and fails to bring a single ref for the latter. The fact is that there is not s single statement by Russia about such "denial" with an exception of the Baltic states which is already covered in the Occupation of Baltic states. --Irpen 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Validity as a reason for deletion is only applicable if the topic is invalid. If the topic is valid and the article intends to cover that topic, the course of action is to improve that article. Perhaps to take into accout your concerns with the term "denial" in the title, and the view expressed by others here that the article should also cover events like the Soviet role in the invasion of Poland, the Katyn massacre and the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, perhaps a rename to Russian government view of Soviet expansion in Europe could be more acceptable? After all, the view expressed by the President of the Russian Federation that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Martintg 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. The present title does not allow the creation of an encyclopedic article. -- Petri Krohn 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument does not apply here. New title, content changed. Squash Racket 04:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deleteas instant rusophoby POV-fork. --Paukrus 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good argument. That an article is critical of certain aspects of the USSR is not even close to russiophobia. Please refrain from using cheap shots like that one unless they can be backed up. The user Paukrus has the habit of accusing all those who don't agree with him of russophobia, as is evident by his edit history. Such accusations constitute personal attacks and violate Wikipedia policies. I see nothing in the article that is russiophobic. JdeJ 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3[edit]

General comment Many of the pro-deletion people taking part in this discussion have asserted that this article attempts to draw a false parallel between the phenomeon is question and Holocaust denial, and by extention equates the period of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe with the Holocaust itself. Excuse me, but how exactly does it do that? Is it the simple appearance of the word "denial" in the title? (We might as well purge the word "denial" from the English language then, along with "concentration" and "camp.") K. Lásztocska 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Unfortunately, some of the contributors here are more interest in nationalism than in an NPOV wikipedia. Dojarca who nominated this article for deletion and who has been most vocal in crying foul over denial is one of them. From what I've seen from him on Wikipedia, all his actions are directed towards "gloryfying the Russian nationa". He adds POV-tags to perfectly well balanced and sourced articles if he feels they are critical of the USSR under Stalin. I should point out that this does not apply to everybody who has voted to have this article deleted, but some of them are the same names that keep popping up in every single effort to whitewash the crimes committed by Stalin, either for political reasons (communists) or nationalistic ones (Russians). I should again point out that most communists are as anti-Stalin as anyone else and many Russians are as prepared to recognise the crimes against humanity committed by Stalin as are many German to recognise those committed by Hitler. What we have here is a small but very active fringe group that moves from article to article trying to rewrite history untill they get their way: Stalin and the USSR were the big saviours of the world from Hitler and all countries freely joined the USSR. That sounds so much nicer than the fact that Stalin and Hitler collaborated to divide Europe between them, both of them attacked most of their neighbours and both of them had millions of civilans killed in death camps. That's the only connection with Holocaust denial because these are the facts (found in any NPOV history book or encyclopedia) that both Nazis and some extreme communists and Russians would prefer the world to forget. JdeJ 07:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, comparison with Holocaust denial seems to be based completely on assumption that word "denial" is limited to Holocaust related topics, which is totally ridiculous.--Staberinde 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean up. Remove information not related to the phenomenon. POV is a problem susceptible to editing judiciously. Hopefully it can be made into a real good article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Denial of Soviet occupation AKA Russia denies Baltic occupation [44] is a fact by itself promoted by the current Russian government at the time when Soviet occupation is a fact according to Encyclopædia Britannica [45], European Court of Human Rights [46], the European Parliament,[47], the US state department [48] etc. --Termer 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article attempts to paint its scope much wider that the Baltic context, but the entire Eastern Block. Denial of Baltic is sourced at least, regardless whether the separate article is warranted at this point. However, "Denial of the whole Eastern Europe till 1990" is nothing but the author's invention. --Irpen 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe someone pointed out Putin's words regarding Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia that Russia bears a "moral responsibility" for the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Maybe it's me but it doesn't seem like a denial at all. Not that I'm getting it why Russia takes any stand on the Soviet policies back then at all, it's all history long gone. However, regarding "Denial of the whole Eastern Europe till 1990", I can bet on it that the Soviet Union back then didn't admit occupying anybody. They were fighting the "contra revolutionaries" back then instead of occupying. Therefore it would not be that difficult to find relevant sources for the entire Eastern Block I think once it comes down to that. --Termer 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've got plenty of these "I can bet"s, etc and not a single source to this day. The article is not too new to find such source if it existed. --Irpen 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems it goes both ways, I would not feel motivated going after the sources since tagging the articles regarding Soviet occupations have been mostly supported by editors opinions not actual sources. Lets take it this way, WP is suppose to be about sharing knowledge, right? I happen to be one (and it seems I'm not the only one) of the editors that has known all my life that Soviet Union occupied the Eastern Europe including the Baltic states. Also I know that Soviet Union always portrayed it as a fight for socialism, liberating the workers from capitalism etc. as a cover story for the imperialism, meaning denied the occupations. I can see some editors know something different. So lets take it from here, we'd need to put this pile of knowledge together somehow anyway in the end.--Termer 19:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You are wrong. I showed plenty of sources that do not call the post-war baltics as an occupation regime. It just shows that "occupational" POV is valid by not the only one. However, not a single source exists about the non-baltic denial. Perhaps there may be a statement that 1939 Poland was not an occupation, I give you that. But no "denial" of the "till 1989" theory. Your "knowledge" of a pseudonymous WP editors does not interest Wikipedia readers, I am afraid. --Irpen 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry Irpen, I'm getting confused, are you saying that Soviet Union admitted occupying the Eastern Europe, didn't deny it? if thats the case I surely would be clad to be wrong about my knowledge and most of all, I'd be the first interested reader of WP to get it confirmed and would make the scope of this article cover the Baltic states only. Regarding the sources you have provided, bard my ignorance but I personally haven't seen any from you. I have accepted your opinions though once I got it what exactly were you talking about regarding the post-war baltic occupation regimes--Termer 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Read carefully what I said. There was nothing about admittance. Soviets needn't deny the fringe theory. EE countries has internationally recognized own governments and no one but irrelevant "exile governments" and ultra-right wingers even called this "occupation till 1990" at the time. You may disagree with the latest statement if you want but no one ever yet pointed a single source on the USSR's position on the thery of "occupation till 1989" with the exception of the Baltic issue. The article would have been much better off if it limited its scope to this issue alone. But for some warriors "just right" is never enough. --Irpen 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Will you withdraw your erroneous assertions and apologise for the mistake if evidence contrary to these assertions is provided? Think carefully. If you agree, evidence will be provided, and you will be held to your word. If you disagree, you have shown that you do not care about evidence but about something else; something that is certainly not encyclopædic. If you ignore the choice, all folks will see you're not serious about putting your money where your mouth is. If you try to defer this choice with meaningless rhetoric, everything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in the ongoing arbcom. Which is it? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There is no need to get cocky here, I can read just fine. Including the facts that for exmpl Romania and Yugoslavia opposed the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia back then. Calling these communist countries "exile governments" and ultra-right wingers is quite a stretch.--Termer 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        PS. Ok here is a source that reports the Romania's reaction to occupation of Czechoslovakia that also clearly denies it as occupation from the Soviet POV: -RCP county committees and the RCP Tulcea municipal committee described the assistance provided to the Czechoslovak people by the five socialist countries as an “invasion,” “occupation,” and other such things. [49]
        
        Irpen, your contention that you have produced "plenty of sources" is precisely the syllogistic history you have been producing all along. You et al. produce sources which do not discuss occupation either way and contend that by their not discussing occupation, the Baltics were not occupied. This is no better than Anonimu contending there are no sources written about Romania not being occupied because one need not write about what is obviously true, only those writing fiction put their words to paper, that is, by definition, any source saying the Soviets occupied Romania is a lie. You have not produced one single source. I am still waiting for the factual basis for the Russian Duma proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding parallel with Holocaust and Holocaust denial. I think the critics should either choose between the POV fork accusations or the parallel theory. You can't have it both ways. In case there is a parallel, would Holocaust denial be a POV fork? There are another examples Armenian Genocide versus Denial of the Armenian Genocide, so what's wrong with having Denial of Soviet occupation? Perhaps the title and the content should be specified, what kind of soviet occupations are actually denied. ~~I haven't came across for example anybody denying the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia~~ or -Afghanistan etc. But in case anybody ever has denied these, it would become relevant to the article--Termer 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't going to comment anymore, but I feel I need to point out some things. For one, the whole Holocaust comparison is counterproductive for both sides: Holocaust denial, like Armenian Genocide denial, is a concept easily found in secondary and tertiary scholarly literature, and is discussed as a phenomenon with distinct characteristics. It strikes me as ingenious but absurd to presume that all negations are equivalent to Holocaust denial in what presumes creations of articles (especially when all sides are readily to admit that Soviet occupation is not the Holocaust). As for the other side of the debate: we are not discussing whether the Holocaust and occupation are comparable, so let's please not let get absorbed into that paradigm. However, the latter are right in that denial and denialism are problematic terms, since these tend to indicate that their advocate is fighting against universal consensus - this may be the case in reality, but it has clearly not been discussed as such in scholarly literature. Furthermore, this denial is one of interpretations, not one of facts - people who deny the Holocaust etc deny that people were ever killed, whereas the people who deem Soviet occupation "liberation" etc are applying another interpretation to the same situation (the denial of massacres such as Katyn etc is oart of an altogether different chapter).

I see that the official Romanian position on the Prague Spring is being quoted (btw, one could find such attitudes also expressed in China, Yugoslavia, and among Eurocommunist parties). I'm sorry, but this is just conflating the point: not only is that POV irrelevant, not only is it taken completely out of context, but it glosses over the fact that the Romanian communist leadership had no problem with all the other occupations (except perhaps Romania's, which it masqueraded into "a people's revolution against fascism"). Furthermore, guys, this article is about Russia's position, which may or not be based by the Soviet precedent (Gorbachev's frankness on these issues seems to point that there is at least a hiatus to separate the waters). By definition and sheer logic, Russia's position cannot be answered to by the Communist Romanian position!

I will not discuss to what measure other such articles are validated. For most, they do not appear to be work of consensus, and, like this article, seem to cover the same topic in various fashions that don't establish anything relevant for the readers. Dahn 23:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument by some here that this so called "phenonema" must be discussed in scholarly literature is really a strawman argument, since this article is not attempting to discuss a phenonema, but a viewpoint, just like this list of articlesViews_on_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. Sources such as newpaper articles, opinion pieces and official government statements are sufficiently reliable. There are all sorts of articles where reference to scholarly articles will never be found, like biographies of entertainers for example. Martintg 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this to me is admitting that this article is guided by WP:OR. Since all such articles (not "biographies of entertainers") are expected to be sourced with scholarly sources, and since an official position presented in a certain context is disguised as a phenomenon of "denial" (the only such parallels are phenomenons), and since it could and ultimately should be discussed in existing articles (not marginalized to "what the others say, but we know they're wrong"), there is really not one solid argument to validate this separate topic. The issue is not one of reliability of sources, but of the coatrack nature of this article, and on the original synthesis of published material advocated in it and on this very page.

And, to add: I was specifically referring to Iraq series in my earlier messages. There are at least three articles on that page which have identical coverage (the separation between them is arbitrary), and they don't seem to be validated by the community. Meaning that they are as debatable of this article, and that the argument above is reduced to "but they do it elsewhere". Dahn 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I am pointing out that viewpoint articles are valid under policy and I cite these as good examples to follow. In this case this article could only be construed as describing a phenomenon requiring scholarly sources if it incorporated the term Denialism, which was a problem of the previous article that was deleted. But since this article is a total re-write and attempting to describe a particular viewpoint, the only issue is the neutrality of the title, which is not grounds for deletion, and which can be solved by a rename. Martintg 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the correct solution would be renaming this (to something like Attitudes toward X or Views on X). Wrong name is not a legitimate reason for deletion, contrary to Alex Bakharev's vote above. Colchicum 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will still be a synthesis of published material, a coatrack, a superfluous text, and the marginalization of a position, no matter what the name. Dahn 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has not been demonstrated to be the case. Martintg 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been been demonstrated by the present article, and a discussion on a phenomenon that is defined and limited by the eyes of a beholder (as is one on "Russian attitudes towards...") is the very definition of OR. Dahn 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for my eyes you just got lost in here Dahn. First of all, you're mixing up the liberations during WWII with occupations and denials under discussion, Soviet occupation of the Baltic states in 1940, the denial of it by Russia nowadays and another one came up -occupation of Czechoslovakia, denied by Soviet sources back then. Nobody has quoted the official Romanian position on the Prague Spring and Russia's position is clear on it, Putin says he feels "moral responsibility". Now, the Romanian thing was a report made by Soviet visitors to Romania, the report called the occupation: the assistance provided to the Czechoslovak people that was the Soviet position, not the current Russian. So I have no idea from where exactly did you draw the conclusions regarding Russia's position versus Communist Romania that actually are not that different.--Termer 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is remarkable. First of all: no, a confusion between those terms is what the article does, and it is the promise that it will remain in the article under any form it may take in the future (since it will be about the Russian position on all those issues). As for Romania: do you know what "RCP" stands for, and can you identify the context? Because I did, and this is something I do before quoting anything. Dahn 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what exactly are you talking about other than "RCP" stands for the Romanian Communist Party--Termer 01:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To outline my position: we are discussing the Russian position, not the Soviet one. this is why any arguments about the Communist Party's reaction to the 1968 invasion do not belong here. In this context, Russia's position is very different from that of Communist Romania - but citing the Soviet position as a direct source for the latter is pointless. Dahn 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, these are your opinions I don't share.--Termer 07:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be a well-written, thoroughly cited article. Reasons given are not valid reasons for deletion, but rather for administrative action against any users violating Wikipedia sockpuppetry or other policies. IPSOS (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the arguments listed above. Tankred 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 4[edit]

Delete overgeneralized unduly overblown essay. If delete everything not immediately relevant to the title, the content boils down to two sentences: "Russia refuses to acknowledge the fact of occupation" and "Latvia and Estonia attempted to criminalize the denial of Soviet occupation but failed". Both can easily be placed into Soviet occupation of Baltic states, and the title is not a searchable phrase worth keeping a redirect. Mukadderat 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has multiple references a sound organization and that comparative map in the center is absolutely excellent! Plus, we shouldn't be afraid of controversial topics as long as references exist. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or MergeTitle is inherently POV. A denial of Soviet occupation, states as a matter of fact that there was a soviet occupation, in those terms, and those who deny it are denying facts. This is a POV, yet that is the title of the article? Hence, its inherently POV, and a fork at that. This POV has a place in WP, provided its not OR, and well cited, but within a larger article adhereing to policies on Undue Weight.Giovanni33 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... care to give any reliable sources that refute the occupation? Soviets-Forever! have tried to do this for a while now, not a single rs has emerged... -- Sander Säde 05:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the point. Its not a matter of refuting, or of us knowing or saying the the "truth" may be. Its a matter of recognizing the title itself asserts a particular stance, which is a matter of perspective, of a POV. The matter--or the way one puts it--speaks of a certain perspective. Its fine to explore that perspective in detail in a NPOV way, discuss it according to the consensus within historians (in academia), given proper weight, but its not appropriate to take one stance (however truth), and make that the title. It violates NPOV.Giovanni33 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia should ignore the concensus for the term "Soviet occupation" in the scholarly literature because a handful of essentially anonymous Wikipedian editors disagree. There are 5330 hits in google scholar for the term "Soviet occupation" [50] and only 106 hits in google scholar for the term "Soviet liberation" [51] Martintg 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, every Time article on the Eastern front from 1944 or 1945 falls under "Soviets forever". Actually, Giovanni33 makes an interesting point. Basically, "Soviet occupation" is a term which in twenty years' time, no serious historian will want to touch with a shovel and wearing latex gloves. The moment that the Soviet army invaded (containing a French contingent, as I explained - so it was also an "allied" occupation) could indeed hardly be denied to be an act of occupying (but why not the act of liberating? - there is POV on that level as well). But to describe the whole period from day 1 (implying that the retreating German troops and their fascist volunteer allies were the defenders of the country) until the fall of the Berlin wall as "occupation" (which here is ambiguous and both means "occupying" and "keeping occupied") is something no serious historian will dare to do when passions have quietened down. Just compare the google result for "Mongol Rule"+Russia to the google result for "Mongol occupation"+Russia. Interestingly, many of the links for "occupation" come from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. For some time, Wikipedians have had a love-hate relationship with terms such as "liberation" and "occupation", it is not healthy (stops people from collaborating on writing good articles), it is not encyclopaedic and it is inherently POV. It should stop. Even "Soviet yoke" or "Soviet imperialism" are better historical terms than the ones that are now being proposed. --Pan Gerwazy 09:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are kidding, right? For "soviet liberation" we have 106 hits in google scholar [52] and 465 hits in google books [53] and for "soviet imperialism" we have 824 hits in google scholar [54] and 905 hits in google books [55]

Compare this with "soviet occupation", we have 5330 hits in google scholar [56] and 2960 hits in google books [57]. Martintg 09:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Gerwazy, your continued contention that the Eastern European Waffen SS (implied) were fighting for anything other than keeping the Red Army out (that is, that they supported fascism) is not based in historical fact. Not everyone was thankful for--in many cases--the RETURN of the Red Army. If Stalin hadn't invaded, pillaged, and murdered before Hitler ever got there, then Stalin would likely have been greeted as a liberator (and everyone would have only found out later how wrong they were). As it was, everyone already knew from the Baltic and Polish experience EXACTLY what the Red Army was bringing--and it wasn't anything anyone would call "liberation"--for many it was one occupying despotic power (Stalin) replaced by another occupying despotic power (Hitler) replaced by the original occupying despotic power (Stalin). Those are the ever so inconvenient facts: Stalin started WWII along with Hitler his buddy. And with the start of WWII and the invasion of Poland, Stalin actively supported Hitler's invasion (transmitting radio messages supporting the air invasion), congratulated Hitler on his excellent progress; and in that partnership, Stalin took possession of more than 50% of Polish territory. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With no disrespect intended, [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33] makes an almost sensationally bad argument. There are a few people who refuse to believe the earth isn't flat, those who believe man never walked on the moon etc. If [[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33] is under the impression that some 100% consensus among all humans is needed, he is mislead. And what about Einstein's theories? Should we get every human being to voice an opinion on them as well and delete them from Wikipedia is anybody fails to understand them? Any encyclopedia or history book will contain information on the Soviet occupation, it is a fact and there is nothing POV about stating that fact. History isn't always neutral, there are times when a country or a regime actually is rather bad (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot) and to try to deny that is more POV than stating rather obvious facts. Read the Encyclopedia Britannica or any extensive work on WWII. JdeJ 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles - the subject is currently a very sensitive issue in the baltics.Jmnil 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've tried to improve the article taking into account some of the issues expressed here, even renaming it Russian government view on Soviet occupation, by User:Mikkalai and User:Irpen who both want to see the article deleted, continue to purposely make changes that decrease the quality of the article. Martintg 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not use this page to spread lies. All my changes were about bringing the article in agreement with references and scope. --Irpen 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marting's renaming was an excellent choice, the title indicates neither denial or agreement, only a review of the Russian position. We may in fact find, for example, that Russia agrees that the Soviets occupied Czechoslovakia 1968. The entirely and completely appropriate scope is to (a) indicate what scholarship says regarding Baltic/Eastern European countries (could be others) and their occupation (b) what those countries themselves say about their occupation, and (c) what the official Russian position is: agree, disagree/deny, or there has been no official comment. It can't get any more neutral than that. Note that the basis of this, as any encyclopedia article, must be (a) -- what does reputable scholarship say? Not the elevation of empty opinions to be presented at the same level as facts, not the tagging to representing indisputable facts as portrayed by reputable sources as biased opinions, not the insistence that's it's all a complete matter of interpretation whether there was any occupation, all opinions equally valid regardless of the facts. I haven't seen a single "lie", only statements you (Irpen) don't like. I strongly support keeping this article, with Marting's appropriate NPOV renaming and the scope that title describes. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mikkalai voted to delete and you also indicated that the article should be deleted. Therefore regardless of your intent, your editing during the AfD debate constitutes a conflict of interest and is a hinderance to those who want the article kept to address some of the concerns. For example, some expressed the concern that having the term "denial" in the title was not neutral, thus I changed the name of the article to Russian government view on Soviet occupation, but User:Mikkalai moved it back to Denial of Soviet occupation. Martintg 02:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether people who take part in AfD vote can edit or not is the question that so obviously comes to mind that if there was an established opinion on the issue that they can't, the guideline would have addressed that. My edits were in good faith and brought an article in closer compliance with its sources and the scope according your own admission. I explained above the difference between WP:POINTy editing aimed at making the article worse to facilitate deletion and good-faith editing that make the article better. I am not going to tolerate the issues about the ethicallity of my edits raised by you in a blatant attempt to smear me. You are free to raise the issue at WP:ANI with diffs to mine and your edits and enjoy the response. If you refuse but continue this smearing accusations here unabated, I will raise the issue myself. This is the last time I am responding to this harassment here. --Irpen 02:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith? Most certainly not. Your attempt to move the article to under a name referring to "Soviet occupation theory" was not only a clear WP:POINTy edit against the consensus, it was also a bare indication of your true intentions. Remember, kids -- "just a theory" is a simple and common pseudorefutation used by denialists everywhere! Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please now make it clear. Irpen and Mikkalai, your active edditing of the article(not including adding/removing tags) should logically prove that you think that article can be fixed. If article can be fixed then this whole deleting debate is pointless. I can not see any reason why you would edit it if you were confident that it can not be fixed and will be deleted anyway. So do you still support deleting the article, and if yes then could you explain why you are edit warring with people who think that article can be fixed and are trying to do it? I am currently assuming good faith but I fail to see any logic in your actions.--Staberinde 10:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring Digwuren's usual rant, Starebind you are presumption is incorrect. My trying to fix the article does not prove that it can be fixed. What it does show is that I do think that having this topic covered in Wikipedia is possible in principle due to the topic's scholarly potential. But AfD is never about just the validity of the topic. The AfD is about the combination of three things:

the validity of the topic
whether the topic can be adequately presented in a separate article
the degree to which the hypothetic article that would adequately represent the topic can be based on the article in the state as of AfD.

If the adequate article can be written by fixing the current one or at least basing the rewrite on the current one within the reasonable extent, then it makes perfect sense to keep it. If, however, "fixing" requires a complete rewrite including the retitling, changing the scope's emphasis and other fundamental change, the current article would be useless and has to be deleted .

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose we get an article on, say, Maya culture. Is it a valid topic? Of course it is. Suppose the article consists of a single sentence "Maya culture is amazing". Is it a valid article on a valid topic? No. Suppose we AfD it and during the vote editors try to improve it to an acceptable state. They may or may not succeed at that depending on whether the knowledgeable editors take enough interest at the time and/or whether, depending on the current state of the art in the field, a separate article is warranted rather than a section in the Maya civilization. If the editors succeed in improving the article by the time of the AfD close, the article is worthy to be kept. If, however, the article remains a piece of junk and a valid article would require a complete rewrite and reshuffle or the topic is better covered within the existing article than the article must be deleted. It is useless to try to present the anti-occupational POV out of the context of the occupational POV. Such should be done within the neutrally and descriptively titled article such as Occupation of Baltic states (term).

I attempted to do something with the article under AfD. I might as well try again. However, so far no editor was able to make anything encyclopedic out of this ax-grinding page. If the situation does not change by the time of the AfD close, the article would have to be deleted and the future umpteenth recreation of it by Digwuren would have to be dealt with at the user conduct-related board rather than at one more AfD. --Irpen 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article clearly is not one short sentence without any value so analogy is weak. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. and Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves. and The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. If there is possibility that article can be fixed it would be logical to give it some time before rushing it into deletion. Serious content disputes are very unlikely to be solved in such short time. If there is no progress and nobody shows any intention to fix article then AfD can be easily restarted. Like there was article Allied occupation of Europe, during first AfD it survived as several editors proposed fixing it, 1.5 months later it was in exactly same miserable condition and was deleted.--Staberinde 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's were people may disagree. The article that was started off the wrong foot can rarely be "fixed" but completely rewritten. The topic may be a valid one but the presentation of the topic may be "articleable" only if the proper scope is chosen for such presentation. Looking at denial separately from the opposite POV rather than present them both together is only a good idea if the denial in itself has received enough scholarly study, just like the Holocaust denial did. This is clearly not the case here as one cannot talk about one POV without constantly invoking the other. Both POV can be validly presented in the article whose scope is the presentation of the debate on whether the term "occupation" applies to the events in question. This, however, is not a single problem.

The article not only defines the scope falsely, it also deviates from it at random, the title is poor and the sources are misapplied or falsely sited. When I edited the article, I corrected the sources' falsification or misapplication but I was not able to fix the general problem the page suffers through its very inception. The topic presentation possibly "can be fixed" be it by starting over under a different title or covering the issue in a more general article(s). But this article can't be fixed. My mere bringing its parts in agreement with the sources that allegedly supported that stuff made it more factually accurate but it could not help make it an acceptable article. And so was anything else done to it up to this time. --Irpen 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one enforcing the scope by disputing the move to Russian government view on Soviet occupation and editing to preserve the scope, then come back and claim the scope is inproper. Martintg 19:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ru-gov view on Soviet occupation" is no clear scope either. Is it on Baltics? On CZ? On Afghanistan? Is there an indication that such combination is a valid one? And finally, it is a totally different scope from the original ax-grinding "denial". Even if valid, it requires a rewrite, not "fixing". --Irpen 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence you decide to enforce one particular scope, then claim that scope is improper. Martintg 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence what? Your proposed title did not define the clear scope either. Nothing prevents you from starting the new article with the new scope under the proper title (not the one were occupation of what is not defined) and, most importantly, that other scope requires a rewrite, not "fixing" upon the current mess. Last but not least, stop attempting to bully me. You manage to come up with new weird accusations each time the old ones are shown ridiculous. I have better things to do than expose the weirdness of your smearing attempts to the unsuspecting public who is not familiar with your ways to conduct the discussions. --Irpen 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an attempt to marginalize free speech. Comparison to denial of Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is absolutely irrelevant. Both Holocaust and Armenian genocide deniers are denying facts, questioning either scale or course of event (number of victims, organized effort versus "collateral damages of war"). As far as I know, nobody in his/her right mind denies that Soviet forces entered Eastern Europe during WWII and had been there for a long time. Main issue here seems to be an assessment of this event. Russians may consider it a liberation, Estonians - an occupation. Trying to label one of positions as "denialism" and therefore marginalize it ("denialism" conveys pretty strong negative meaning in English) constitutes an attempt to limit freedom of thinking. Oh yes, and while we're at it, block the article's author for violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is an offense punishable by block, as confirmed here: [58]RJ CG 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was tentative keep. I'm asking where the copyvios are from. If there are copyvios, then I'm going to have to delete this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embarazada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary, and certainly not a Spanish dictionary. This phrase has no importance outside of learning Spanish, at least not enough to warrant its own article in an encyclopedia. Delete. Spawn Man 07:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but a moderately weak one. It's mucked up a couple advertising campaigns, if you believe the urban legends. If the stories about the "Embarrassed/Pregnant" slipups can be sourced, this could pass the notability threshhold. --UsaSatsui 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this false friend has had a significant cultural impact, and as such has inherent encyclopedic value beyond dicdef. Chubbles 08:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide references and sources to prove that this has had a significant cultural impact? I'd withdraw the nom if you could, but so far I've seen nothing from either AfDs. Spawn Man 08:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bulk of the article was written (or possibly, copied) by user:Primetime, who was banned for unapologetic plagiarism. Primetime was also the article's most vocal defender in its first AfD. After his banning many articles he'd worked on were deleted; this was kept because he was not the sole contributor and it did not appear to have been copied outright. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My main problem is with the article's unnotability in the world - People have said it's been important, but I've yet to see sources for these claims. People have said it's supposed to have stuffed up advertising campaigns - so have other mispellings and grammatical errors, but we don't include those on Wikipedia because they're simply not notable. Hopefully people will appreciate that view when they comment here. Spawn Man 04:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite away any copyvio. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. There is a huge amount of speculation and original research being conducted by all sorts of folks on the internet, and Wikipedia should not be one of those places (to that effect, I've been forced to protect Chris Jericho and may have to do the same with its talk page). With regards to the research and opinions about the meaning of the spot, most wrestling fans know what its about, but that doesn't make the ad notable, nor the waves of fan research valid. Getting this out of the way NOW to keep the nonsense at bay, but its going to be a bit of a battle until either WWE or Mr. Jericho makes an official statement, or Mr. Jericho appears on WWE television. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save us.222[edit]

Article was prodded but tag was removed so I've put it up for an AfD. Although we have about 50,000 wrestling articles, I don't think we need one on a mysterious phrase seen in a commercial. This is an essentially promotional article about a completely non-notable topic. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: An advert for an event which has yet to happen is hardly every likely to be notable unless it was banned or if it was in another way extremely unusual. This article appears part of the ad campaign to raise awareness of the PPV event in October. B1atv 07:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely NN. Spawn Man 07:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per B1atv. Kip Smithers 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Beyond what the above said, it's just chock full of speculation and weasel words. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, for reasons of notability and WP:CRYSTAL. Overwhelming consensus is to delete, because though they may one day be a significant band, they are not there yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LAX (group)[edit]

heavy air play reference is not backed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha851 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the deletion process include a vote by the wikipedia community ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha851 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

This is a new band which may hit the big time; but they haven't yet. The only sources in the article are myspace and youtube and a Google search produces only similar results. Speedy deletion was declined on the basis that the groups is signed to a major lable (Blackground Records / Universal Records) yet a quick Google search reveals that Blackground is an ~~small~~ independent label which is merely has a distribution deal with Universal. Universal's website does not list the band as one of theirs [59]. The band's album hasn't been released; they do have a single available through Youtube. This is clearly a non-notable group and the article should go. B1atv 07:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Universal list you cite is not at all a complete list of artists distributed by Universal Records. It's just a list of the artists they're promoting at the moment. And their single "Forget You" is not only "available through Youtube" but in fact availble to purchase through iTunes and other major music purchasing websites just like any other artist recording with notable labels. --Oakshade 16:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BAND. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guideline? There's a strong argument that it passes WP:BAND by being signed and recorded by a notable label and distributed by an internationally gigantic one. Also secondary sources were written about the band. --Oakshade 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN band. I don't think they'll be as big as the label's last one hit wonders though, LAXitive Gurlz; On the whole I thought they just let everything go... ;) Spawn Man 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as reposted material if the content is the same. It looks like the article was recreated about two weeks after the last AfD. Regardless, it still fails WP:MUSIC, having released only one single. That single, "Forget You" should probably be shown the door as well. --Bongwarrior 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not the same as the deleted version in Januray and there are now secondary reliable sources cited. --Oakshade 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blackground is a major label subsidiary, so the admin did the right thing. Also, the group has an Allmusic bio that asserts radio airplay for "Forget You". Chubbles 08:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment 1 I wasn't questioning the decision of the first admin. Articles can survive speedy deletion but still be eligible for deletion via community consensus here. I was questioning the misleading statement on the article that the girls are signed to Universal. Blackground is not a major label subsidiary according to Blackground Records - it is owned by a father and son. Having a distribution deal with a record company is not the same as being owned by the record company. Distribution deals are what record labels do. And even if they WERE signed to universal, that in itself doesn't make them notable, but is a sign that at some point they might be. B1atv 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blackground's roster speaks for itself; it clearly qualifies as a "notable indie label", if you insist upon defining it that way. Chubbles 09:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a considerable difference betweenbeing a "notable indie label" and being a "major label". But this isn't relevant. I'm not proposing Blackground Records for deletion, I am nominating a non-notable band linked to the label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1atv (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles makes a good point about the label; Blackground does seem to be a pretty respectable one. But being signed to a good label doesn't automatically confer notability. The artist must release albums on a good label, which LAX hasn't done. --Bongwarrior 09:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A band doesn't have to release albums to be notable. They can release singles as well to be notable as this band has. --Oakshade 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One single that didn't chart? Come on. --Bongwarrior 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment 2 I am the original nominator, but now that it transpires that this has gone through AFD before and recreated two weeks later with none of the concerns from the original AFD dealt with this ought now to be speedily deleted as recreation of deleted material. B1atv 09:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion is out of the question at this point. The original version that was AfD'd last January had absolutely no secondary sources and minimal assertion of notability. Articles improve over time, as this one has. The "This article was awful 8 months ago, therefore it should never be in existence and be eliminated imediately" approach just seems like the desire to delete articles just for the sake of deletionism. --Oakshade 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC. Band who's part of notable label Blackground Records, which is distributed by the extremely major Universal Records. Even just being distrubed by Universal makes them notable. Also Billboard Magazine and All Music Guide profiled the band [60]. Billboard Magazine also reviewed their single "Forget You" [61]. Being the subject of secondary sources adds to the notability and passing WP:MUSIC. --Oakshade 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, they've been profiled by Billboard and All Music Guide, which might just satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC ("It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being profiled by allmusic does not indicate notability. Nothing at the allmusic page suggests meeting WP:MUSIC. Being part of a notable label does not convey notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for WP:Music yet and having them here on the basis of what they might do in the future would be in violation of WP:Crystal. A1octopus 19:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as the outcome looks obviously, so close it now.--JForget 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bend Over Boyfriend[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Speedy deletion overturned at Deletion Review. No opinion on the merit. ~ trialsanderrors 06:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing more here than the barest assertion of notability. I don't see anything in the article or the DRV meeting WP:N or WP:NOTFILM. Eluchil404 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it again... and again... and again... and again... and again... ad nauseum until its finally gone ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments like this are just terrible and frankly, irresponsible... especially if you aren't going to check back or participate in the discussion. --W.marsh 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carol Queen. If this woman was the main force behind the movie, maybe it would be better suited to send this two-three line stub to an article that needs to be added with content. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claim or establishment of notability. Delete. Best case one can merge the very minimal content to Carol Queen, but a full keep is right out. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Perhaps deserves a mention in Carol Queen, but that's all.--Danaman5 07:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep after viewing the changes made to the article.--Danaman5 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although "pegging" is notable, these tapes about it are not. This is so frustrating though, that no matter how much I think about it, I simply can't come up with a humourous, sexually orientated punchline for this AfD. I think Alkivar's is by far the funniest so far... Darn... Spawn Man 07:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five sources, which by itself makes this meet WP:N. There are also many more sources [62], just the fact that some sex ed video has gotten so much coverage should be evidence of notability. At any rate, there are now some claims of notability and importance in the article... this video apparently had a lot to do with popularizing "pegging" (and was apparently an early term for the practice). So please, step back from your deletionism people... some of the above comments are pretty sad. Is content that scary? It's not like the sources weren't mentioned in the DRV. --W.marsh 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, apparently this AFD was mentioned in the admin chatroom last night... that explains why so many people showed up at the same time. Hmmmmm... --W.marsh 13:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. One of the most notable and influential of sex-ed videos. The Nation? The Village Voice? Properly sourced and verifiable. bikeable (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed how much of the article, including all the sources, was due to a single improvement by W.marsh. Nice work! bikeable (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that W. Marsh has done a WP:HEY, adding the sources. Meets WP:N hands down. Not my favorite subject, but no buts about it, not a cra- -- no, I won't say it. Noroton 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. Rob T Firefly 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W.marsh's improvements. Being a sex tape (or, rather, a series of sex tapes) does not make the topic inherently non-notable (if such a thing exists at all). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that it's been substantially improved, this is a no-brainer. Pascal.Tesson 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Barely meets WP:N with the added refs by W. Marsh. It does seem spammy in that it promotes films made by one source, and does not place them in historical context by mentioning Raquel Welch with a strap-on bending a guy over in the Hollywood major (failure)motion picture (1970) Myra Breckinridge (film) where she says ""I won't kill you, I'll just educate you. You and the rest of America!" (p 9 of plot summary) [63]. Edison 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:W.marsh's sources, seems to satisfy WP:N now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - one of the more well known and critically acclaimed porn series. Georgewilliamherbert 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- new editsand references fix above problems, as noted above.JJJ999 00:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I commend W marsh for his edits to the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously notable (and the source of sufficient cultural references by now that it makes searching for WP:RS a bit harder), and much improved thanks to W.marsh. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — clearly meets notability guidelines after the extensive cleanup and addition of sources. --Haemo 04:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the newsprint material, there seems to be a significant amount of material on the topic that can be found in books. With so much information, FA status doesn't seem out of the question. -- Jreferee t/c 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider WP:SNOW in light of the, shall we say, quality, of the delete arguments. Clearly notable based on sources. Otto4711 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truewater[edit]

Small political group at municipal level, no significant coverage in sources. Alksub 06:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no verifiable information from reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:ORG. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is difficult to verify the contents of this article. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SPAM & NN group which isn't even notable in New Zealand. This article was probably created for/by the group in order to advertise for the upcoming Auckland city council elections which all coucils are undergoing in New Zealand (I'm a New Zealander...). Delete. Spawn Man 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above users' reasoning. ~ Sebi _[talk] 10:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:V. Noroton 14:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above, plus it's soo short.--Tiptopper 13:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. --Sc straker 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basic-particle formation scheme[edit]

OR, uncited, non-peer-reviewed theory Bm gub 05:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original thought. All referenced papers are by the same two authors. --Alksub 06:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR & COI as the article is written by User:Jxzj, who is the co-author of the references used in the article. No outside sources to back up the self references used to cite the article. Spawn Man 07:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've also AFD'ed the apparently-related neologism Basic particle.Bm gub 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The given references certainly give this theory the appearance of one guy's crazy ideas. I'd also like to say this article has been here for a scary amount of time. Someguy1221 08:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely non-notable original research. • Lawrence Cohen 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was combine this and Triplane Turmoil 2 into Triplane Turmoil series. History has been left intact due to the interest in merging, though quite frankly, most of the old Triplane Turmoil article appeared to be in-depth game guide/instruction manual material and editorializing on the nature of the gameplay. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triplane Turmoil[edit]

This article was deleted via prod and then contested at DRV. I undeleted but am listing at AfD because I feel that notability has not been established. The article is a simple product description with no independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 05:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems NN. Delete for now until reliable sources can be added to the article... Spawn Man 07:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cute but non notable shareware which is of no importance. Burntsauce 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of millions of shareware games existent, no evidence has proven this one to be of any more significance than any of the rest. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. (Full disclosure: I was the original deleting admin). ♠P M C♠ 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. A significant Finnish game - note that the particular scene is rather insular as the country is small, remote and its language peculiar, and that crude graphics combined with sophisticated gameplay is characteristic. "Product description", I feel, is unfair since we're not dealing with an advertisement. This is very widely known amongst Finnish video gamers, so I'll see what I can do, but I'm highly bogged down by schoolwork at the moment so I don't know what I can... but at the least note that the game has a commerical sequel that's been picked up for retail distribution - if you insist on process, which you will, then this and the sequel are so similar that they could be merged into one article, as is done with Space Rangers (video game).
Oh, and I found this right away, an elaborate article and interview that's mostly about the sequel but has non-passing mention of the first game. --Kizor 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Triplane Turmoil 2. With looking through the google search results, I'd found several articles that explained Triplane Turmoil's gameplay and such. Of four of them, two were (probably) Czech and one was Finnish. I don't speak either of the languages at all. But I believe they all will help establish the notability of the game. Below shown are the articles in question; Home of the Underdogs (written in English), Finnish article (Suomipelit.com), Czech article (FreeHry.cz), and another Czech article (Doupe.cz). If they wouldn't be suffice, then I think that merging with Triplane Turmoil 2 is a neater solution as per Kizor. Neko jarashi 07:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Triplane articles into one. Probably not notable enough separately, but together, with the sources above, probably they are. User:Krator (t c) 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two independent sources in the links section now. Alphonze 04:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my bold-faced word to keep on the basis of the found links. While I can't read a word of Czhech, the interview is hosted by a long-term major player in the realm of Finnish gaming and has a relatively-big-name author with a good reputation. The review is hosted by the center of Finnish games, both indies and company-made ones. Neither site is trivial, nor a fansite; I'd accept them as reliable sources on this field. Both texts were written by staff, not by users. This should be enough to satisfy inclusion criteria concerns - if only by scraping past, but satisfy them it does, on a field where doing so is inherently difficult. The biggest problem here has been setting this game apart from all the other shareware games out there, which the review addresses by calling Triplane Turmoil "a living legend" ("legenda jo eläessään"). The ratings and readers' opinions concur. --Kizor 01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out that the definitive Finnish gaming magazine has two pages on the sequel, putting to rest the possibility of having to merge that here. --Kizor 17:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Kaminski[edit]

non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources for the article. --Aude (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 05:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN and POV. No sources to back up claims... Spawn Man 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somewhere between WP:COATRACK and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, all with not a single independent attribution. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,cannot establish notability. There are more notable people of the same name who do not have articles. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN Tiptopper 01:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Town Center[edit]

Non-notable strip mall in Michigan, makes no claims of notability. I've seen this place, it's just a fancy looking strip with fairly ordinary stores, even if it does have its own website. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this mall. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this mall. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Spawn Man 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strip-malls and shopping squares like this exists almost everywhere within the United States. No sources are provided to distinguish this one as notable. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, no assertion of notability. Dannycali 06:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than a strip mall, it is a regional mall with 444,000 square feet of retail space, per the mall's web site. Still, nothing to show notability. Edison 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nitpick, but it's laid out like a strip, actually; not an enclosed mall. As I said, I've seen this place before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyran Democratic Republic[edit]

Looks to be a totally in-universe essay, with no sources. CitiCat^♫ 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, Unsourced, and fan cruft. Completely unnotable to the outside world with no references to show that it is... Spawn Man 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly fancruft. A quick google search shows up very few or no reliable sources for this subject in question. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, is that how you do it? - The "-wikipedia" thing in the search bar...? I'm assuming that removes the links associated with Wikipedia? Spawn Man 04:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, it removes search results that contain the string "wikipedia", thus at least the mirrors and cut-and-paste copies where somebody mentions us. See Google Search Basics. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish there were a big button we could make people push that would open up a whole new wiki for all the in-universery they can stand. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one? CitiCat^♫ 18:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong universe. Memory Alpha generally limits itself to current Paramount canon and things derived directly from it. --Rindis 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. NN fancruft, no independent sources, etc. MrZaius^talk 12:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aurum sulphuricum[edit]

This article has no sources for any of the content that might make it notable.

None of the sources talk about Russia. So every single claim about its importance in Russia is completely unverifiable and unsourced.
"The characteristics of Aurum but the influence of sulphur is strong. There is a resemblance to Aurum sulphuricum as well" How could Aurum sulphuricum resemble itself? Because that link is talking about Aurum Sulfuratum. So, we have a non-notable, non-reliable source talking about a completely different homeopathic remedy.
As for the other two cites, both link to a web-published article entitled "Kent's New Remedies" - I clicked to the introduction to the article. Now, my French isn't that good, but I can read enough to get the gist: The person who made the webpage went through a turn-of-the-century homeopath's papers, and typed up some that were never published, and do not appear in the standard homeopathic works.

In short, non-notable, inaccurate, and makes unverifiable claims. Even ignoring the POV-pushing, this is a pretty clear delete.

...And then I found this quote from the creator on the page he linked here:

Look, I'm fucked if I understand any of the science, but a room mate of mine had some he gto from Russia, was awesome shit. I could have the name wrong, but after googling all day this link I found appears to justify me belief it is correct.JJJ999 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to say more. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- given you've inserted your reasons above others, I will do so too. As per my comments below, this article needs clean up, not deletion, and the name was one chosen by the chemistry students responsible for this stuff. I don't know of care whether it is more scientifically sound to call it sulphuricum, or sulphatum, or whatever. The stuff clearly exists, and does what the article says it does.JJJ999 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References do not fulfill WP:RS. Unsubstantiated claims. --Rifleman 82 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- This has been through 3 deletion prods/discussions/speedies in the last week, and it has survived all of them (during which th articles name was somewhat altered among other things), including a discussion by the WikiChem group, and addition of more sources and info. The improvements people have, and will continue to make, vis the article have occurred as expected. Not only is it a groundless delete for a prominent form of medicine, but it is too soon. If this deletion is not speedily removed, I must re-evaluate what I believe AfD policy to be, and assumedly I can renominate anything I lost the vote/discussion for less than a week ago. JJJ999 03:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Aurum_sulfide.2C_Aurum_Sulfides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aurum_Sulfides JJJ999 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry was that the article did not belong at either Aurum sulfide or Aurum Sulfides. It did not survive any prod; the exact same article was simply recreated once and again. --Rifleman 82 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyway, isn't the point of Prod to see if it needs to go to the formal AFD process? Just because one person removed a few prods doesn't mean it should be speedy kept. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:RS, especially the reliable part. Of the impressive list of three references, two are repeats of each other and that reference is unintelligible. About a fourth of the article consists of a quote from the third reference, which makes nearly unintelligible claims. If there has been prior discussion of this article, I can't find it. The speedy delete was quickly converted within minutes to a prod by the same editor that added the speedy tag. The prod was removed by User:JJJ999 that made the above comment. The discussion page is similarly empty. eaolson 03:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if you could clean up the POV and find reliable sources, the topic is not notable. There is nothing that makes this remedy more important than the thousands of other homeopathic and alternative medicines on the market. --Art Carlson 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This same argument could apply to the handful of articles on other homeopathic remedies listed in Category:Homeopathic remedies. We should try to apply a consistent policy, one way or another. --Art Carlson 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Adam Cuerden writes "The characteristics of Aurum but the influence of sulphur is strong. There is a resemblance to Aurum sulphuricum as well" How could Aurum sulphuricum resemble itself?"

-I wondered the exact same thing myself. "Because that link is talking about Aurum Sulfuratum." Aaah, that would explain it.:) So I vote for-

delete because otherwise how would we know which info in it is accurate or not? I would have to take someone's word for it, and in the comment Adam found from JJJ999, he admits even he doesn't know how it works. It was full of spelling errors- not picking on anyone for that, but- so how do we know the actual text isn't in error? JJJ999 altered the article a bit for me to explain what was actually in it, he put 'sulphides' but I would have thought sulphides have to be of something. It says what the poor use instead of whatever it should be made from, but not what it should be made from. There are so few reliable sources and few/none which discuss it at length, we're literately groping in the dark. What Adam Cuerden found- that the source is comparing aurum sulfuratum to this, means this is not Aurum Sulfuratum (which is more well-known) as one might think. So, this page's title gets 52 unique google hits!Merkinsmum 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete quickly. The sources admit to not being reliable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails to show the subjects notability, lacks reliable sources and fails to show verifiability. The article makes medicinal claims: "strong aspirin like effects" and "It is an important antipsychotic remedy." Scientific and medical claims in Wikipedia need strong sourcing, such as papers in respected refereed scientific journals, or science textbooks from reputable publishers. Otherwise the virtually unsourced Wikipedia article will itself be pointed to as proof of the efficacy and legitimacy of the remedy. Edison 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources. There conceivably is some kind of popular idea or even a widespread misconception contained in this topic area, but the present article is no help whatever. Earlier in this AfD there is a suggestion that this article doesn't even have the right name for the homeopathic thing it is trying to discuss. Since there are no reliable sources, there is no way to correct this confusion. EdJohnston 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't actually say what substance it talks about; the references are useless. If we discovered what kind of a compound the article talks about, would it be worth merging? Probably not; homeopaths use pretty much every substance in their preparates. The verdict is unambiguous: delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had prodded it as hopelessly confusing. At User:JJJ999's request, I looked again & finally figured out that it was a homeopathic remedy of partially defined composition intended to serve in some manner as a psychotherapeutic agent. I have a bias about the validity of such claims, so I removed the tag, & merely suggested rewriting to clarify. My feeling is it could be an article, if done from scratch with better sources properly translated, used according to whatever may be the standards of homeopathic pharamcology. DGG (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken hunter wanted[edit]

Delete a set of unsourced articles about some nn computer games. WP:N. Also nominating:

Chicken hunter (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Country Varmint Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chicken hunter License to grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chicken hunter wanted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 03:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - NN, one is unreleased, and although the articles make claims such as "...is a famous game...", the editor provides no sources for these statements. However, I have heard that Colonel Sanders secretly funded the first three games... Spawn Man 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is all stuff made up one day. No sources confirm that these games exist. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Neutral, these products exist and were sold in stores, however I can't find any reviews or other coverage in reliable sources to show that they're notable. The ridiculous claims that it's a "famous game" should be removed if kept, though; never heard of it until now. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as NN. There is insufficient detail in the articles to inform a reader why they should care about these games. Looking at the company website, only one seems to be real. --Rodhullandemu 09:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Nowherer nere notable enough. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All for non-notability as per nom.Watchingthevitalsigns 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. No reviews or coverage in any media source ff m 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All They are obviously all fake or non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuxtron (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G3 telecom[edit]

This article is a very clear and serious violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The initial two edits were by Gr8rates (talk · contribs), who has no other edits. An IP address has also made 5 edits to this article and no other edits. Thus, all the substantive page history comes from a single-purpose user who has no other interest in Wikipedia whatsoever. It's not as if this telecom company is a shining example of a notable corporation. If it were, someone else would have created a neutral article. To me, the removal of such COI articles is a form of housekeeping, but of course other opinions are welcome as always. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite - Probable COI, reads like an ad. OSborn^arf 03:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI and SPAM. Spawn Man 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly COI. A quick goolge search shows up very few or no reliable hits for this article. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI. Blatent advertising ff m 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is writing an article about a company/service I found useful on the net a violation?

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie McGee[edit]

Proposing a Delete and Redirect; The only reason this article was created is because of his notability from being a contestant on Big Brother. He has a bio on the Big Brother page that is sufficient. Winning Big Brother really isn't that notable. At least not so notable that a person will need his or her own article. Rjd0060 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

   :Will Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Lisa Donahue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Jun Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Andrew Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Maggie Ausburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Mike Malin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :Dick Donato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Rjd0060 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Donato struck, that was already under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Donato (2nd nomination). GRBerry 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Sigh Keep" - I don't particularly want to pick through this AfD, as I have never cared for multiple biographical listings - not all people are the same. To the nom - your assertion as to why the articles were created is a non-issue. Speculation does not belong here. Will Kirby is notable for winning, yes, but also for being a featured physician on Dr. 90210. Mike Malin is a notable investor, night-club owner, etc, outside of Big Brother. It's a national television show in which each contestant plays a major role and as a criteria for entertainer 'has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.' With a limited amount of people picked to compete in annual reality shows, I would assume each contestant is notable. the_undertow ^talk 03:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I'm seriously on the line with this one. I'd like to see the outcome of the Dick Donato AfD first though... Spawn Man 05:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, even though the nominator has gone about it in an odd way, he/she's right to address the issue rather than jump on an individual article. His/her argument for deletion of the Dick Donato is bigger than one article. Anyway, these articles have content that's not in the Big Brother, Survivor, whatever articles. If national spelling bee champions can get their own articles, Big Brother winners certainly can. Yeah, I know (other stuff exists).

Regarding Dick Donato, whose AfD led to this mess, maybe he won't do anything additionally notable, but we can't know. To reject on the basis on what he hasn't done yet would be an odd kind of crystal balling. He is presently notable because his big win on Big Brother is a current event. The original AfD was handled so horribly with people removing the AfD tag for four days, pronouncing it closed when they weren't admins and therefore had no such authority, plus his notability changed mid-AfD. He went from contestant to winner. This is a big deal. Wryspy 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Donato's being the subject of multiple, verifiable 3rd party sources makes him notable. the_undertow ^talk 05:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Wryspy, I'm sorry, but your rationale is IMHO crazy. I have a 3 year old niece - Now if I were to create an article on her, you're basically saying that you'd keep it because we can't know if she'd do anything notable or not. It's not crystal balling, it's common wiki-sense. She hasn't done anything notable and until she has, she shouldn't have an article. There's always the "Create article" link ya know, but seriously, keeping an article because the subject might do something notable is silly. Regards, Spawn Man 05:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the National Organization of Women's outrage, the petition to oust him, the many news articles about him, and oh yeah the Big Brother win make Donato more famous, more newsworthy, and far more notable than your niece. Wryspy 05:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... It was an example to demonstrate your somewhat flawed logistics... Spawn Man 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or better to renominate separately: These batched nominations almost always end up as train wrecks. Most of these are valid candidates for deletion as the articles are pure trivia out of the show with no biography worthy of an encyclopaedia. Most are unsourced or are sourced to show marketing or gossip columns, and would fail WP:RS, but I'm generalising here. Ohconfucius 05:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments for each of these individuals are too diverse to handle in a single nomination. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Winning a major (IMO major == long-running, prime-time network TV) reality TV show satisfies WP:N as far as I'm concerned. Some of the not-so-outgoing earlier winners may need a bit of sourcing about their winning seasons and such, but for others like Will and Boogie...er, Mike...the win + repeat appearance on an all-star season + their respective notability outside of Big Brother is unquestionable. Tarc 13:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. More notable than a huge percentage of the living people with articles in Wikipedia, and far more famous. (Donato should not have been removed from this list. The other Donato nom should have been closed.) Shoester 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thats what I thought. It has been done many times before. - Rjd0060 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete They belong in the Big Brother articles in the series they appeared. Why in the world should someone be notable because they won a meager half million? Big Brother, at least in the US, is a summer show, therefore has much lower ratings than primetime fall shows. Also, who will remember them a couple of months from now? Let alone years from now? And how is that notable for an encyclopedia? With maybe the exeption of Will, most of the people listed here, are long forgotten. Except for those who are diehard fans. Also WP is not a crystal ball, in that they may do something notable is not a reason to keep them and sets a poor precedent. Until they murder someone, or get a large role on a popular PRIMETIME show, or become like Paris Hilton et. al then maybe one or the other deserves a little blurb outside of the show's article. Jeeny 19:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, but it does not trump the fact that many or all have 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.' The policy will withstand the fact you find 500K to be meager or summer to be an inferior television season. the_undertow ^talk 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will Kirby. His appearance on this season's Dr. 90210 makes him notable. Corvus cornix 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you think they all should be kept, or just Will Kirby? - Rjd0060 23:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that all reality show people who are not notable for anything else should go, but that ship has sailed already, unfortunately. Corvus cornix 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all unless the winner has done something notable outside of the show. AniMate 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all That's a very good suggestion AniMate, as collectively the winners are notable, but not as individuals. Tiptopper 00:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice. Altough I'm no expert in this sport, the consensus is to recreate the article once he's more notable. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane O'Rorke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shane O'Rorke

Procedural nom. Expired prod but the prod was contested (though never removed) with the rationale:

As it seems to be impossible to discuss the deletion of this article I would just like to point out the following facts. Shane O'Rorke has recently been promoted to the Dublin senior hurling team. This puts him on one of the premier hurling teams in the GAA. And to quote Wikipedia's page on the GAA "It is the largest and most popular organisation in Ireland with some 800,000 members out of the island's population of almost 6 million.[1] Gaelic football and Hurling are the main and most popular activities promoted by the organisation." For this reason I find it farcical and hugely contradictory that the page on Shane O'Rorke be deleted because he plays at an underage level of a minority sport.

I have no opinion on the matter. Pascal.Tesson 02:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he has recently been made part of the senior hurling team, he is notable enough to have an article. However, I can't find anything online to say that he has and I don't follow hurling, so I can't say for sure. I'll notify WikiProject Gaelic Games of this AfD. Bláthnaid 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing verifiable to indicate notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a couple of mentions out there that he has made it to the panel for the senior team, although he hasn't played yet and the season doesn't start until next year. Soooo.... The chances are that he will play (and that isn't that too much of a breach of CRYSTAL :O)), and he would pass WP:N then. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to recreation in a few months time when the season starts, because at the moment there are no sources for thing that makes him notable. Bláthnaid 10:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If someone wanted to add some info about this individual to Greed (game show), I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. CitiCat^♫ 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Warren (game show contestant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Poorly sourced bio of a game show contestant whose all-time money-winning record lasted 4 days. No evidence of any other notability. Please note, this is obviously not the more notable British criminal. Sethacus 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Transient game show notability, which is fine in some cases (Ken Jennings), but not here.--Sethacus 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee 02:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, completely non notable, fails WP:BIO.--Strothra 03:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I dunno if he's completely NN, but he's enough so that I'm gonna vote to delete. Spawn Man 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn game show contestant. Dannycali 06:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable for multiple shows, passes notability guidelines in my view. StaticElectric 08:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Competed on several game shows, was, at one point, the money leader of all time. I think that's enough to be considered notable. Useight 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I stated, he was money leader for four days. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila (2nd nomination).‎ Where do we draw the line?--Sethacus 16:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete had his 15 minutes of (minor) fame, but notability eludes him. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I would think that anyone who has ever held a record, even if only for four days, is notable; notability doesn't usually expire. This article cites two reliable sources; I'm sure more can be found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appeared on more than just one show, i.e. not notable for one show and that's it. Thus, he has some greater widespread notability than if he only appeared on one show once. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO for Entertainers (television personalities) for the following criteria:

1) With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. (very, very weak)

2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (no)

3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (no)

Another issue is that these game shows are most likely notable only in the USA.

--Sc straker 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough... NN Tiptopper 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Number 4 all time game show money winner. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as fails on notability. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources to support a clear claim of notability. Alansohn 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwerk (the band)[edit]

Non-notable band with no reliable sourcing. No evidence of produced albums, just an unsubstantiated claim of "numberous" shows on the East Coast, with somewhat more notable acts. Sethacus 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom.--Sethacus 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like PR. Renee 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. If we can perhaps get a notable news source mentioning the band, then undelete the article. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN band... They've gone through the normal routes (Myspace etc) and now have tried their hand at an article on Wikipedia... Spawn Man 03:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This is not a mainstream band and should not be treated as such. The group has cultural relevance and is actually surprisingly well known on the East coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmyths (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Well it's obviously because their particular sound is just so unique that it can't be defined and confined by society, and we're obviously too narrow-minded to understand. ;) Spawn Man 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well delete this entry then. I'm frightfully ashamed of posting something while being unaware that capitalism is the primary focus of proof. I can only imagine the amount undocumented art that has fallen through Wikipedia's hands due to people who assume that the only thing that exists is that which is accepted by mass popular culture. I felt that my references were just, as well as the members of this group having rather reputable backgrounds. I did only post this after recognizing that this group was referenced on an approved page, that being the Eccentrik Festival's page. Thanks for you time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isamu242 (talk •

contribs) 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, take your little appeal to emotion and get the hell out. I'm sick to the teeth of hearing about Wikipedia's bias and how we oppress this group and that. If you don't like it, leave. --Agamemnon2 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Isamu242. -- Ben 04:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as they do not appear to be notable, but no prejudice against re-creation at a later date.--Danaman5 07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it asserts notability for a non-mainstream genre per WP:MUSIC. I would delete Adam Daub, however. Bearian 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Band. --Endless Dan 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Operating 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crush Deluxe[edit]

Potentially not notable game; not written in an encyclopedic manner. OSborn^arf 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything that starts off with "promotional blurb" deserves to be deleted off of wiki. Renee 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author' - Perhaps I have been premature in committing my changes and certainly I have violated wiki etiquette with my initial entries. This is my first foray into editing a Wiki article and I apologise for my obvious gafs. I didn't realise, and I am impressed, that the Wikipedia review process would be so thorough and so prompt. Is it possible to leave this article offline until I feel it is ready for review? In response to the query if the game is notable I wonder what the criteria for that classification would be? Cannonade 02:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! You could certainly move it to your user area (i.e. copy and paste to User:Cannonade/Crush Deluxe - others will be able to contribute, but it won't be in the main article name space.) The game would need to be mentioned, in, say, a majorish newspaper or magazine, or online, in a rather major website, usually one with editorial oversight. You might want to take a look at other video game articles in something like Category:Windows_games. Happy editing! OSborn^arf 02:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OSborn - I have moved the content to the user area and will edit it there. Do I need to clear the content on the live page or can this stay around till I am ready to commit my changes? (Is this the appropriate place for these questions ?) Cannonade 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best place to get answers would probably be Wikipedia:Questions - I'm don't really know about that. Thanks, OSborn^arf 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know about the moving etc, but as it is, and possibly as it will be, this article is NN and should be deleted... Spawn Man 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see that this meets notability guideline. If creator could establish notability through verifiable sources it would be helpful. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In no way it deserves an article on WP. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasspeedily deleted under A5. Natalie 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn of the Soviet Union (other language versions)[edit]

This is a last resort; anyways, what this page is various lyrics to the Soviet Anthem that are in other languages. Other than a note at the top of the page regarding the Belarusian lyrics, it has no other text but lyrics and a template. I have copied the text from this page to Wikisource, which can be seen at wikisource:National_Anthem_of_the_Soviet_Union. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. hmmmm...I actually think that knowing one can find the lyrics to any song fits an encyclopedia and is of value. Renee 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main Hymn of the Soviet Union page. There's no reason for a separate page for these. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The English lyrics are already in the article, but what we have left is non-English lyrics for the anthem. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, isn't this what Wikisource does? Since it's already been transwiki'd, delete. humblefool ® 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#LYRICS and the TW is complete. There is a Wikisource template at the bottom of the article (although this is a case where I wish it could have a custom message, e.g. "lyrics in other languages"). --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, ((wikisourcehas)) does what's needed, and I have inserted it next to the paragraph that now holds a wikilink to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the current Wikisource link, out of full disclosure. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. T pities the fool who don't realize that transwiki'd articles are candidates for speedy deletion. Unless anyone has an objection? It's not a speedy slam dunk but it should be tried. Alba 14:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvisouly either Keep or include in the main article, since all these versions are as official as the Russian one. Wikisource may be a good place for unofficial versions like the Hungarian or the German ones, but not for the Ukrainian or Estonian ones. --Explendido Rocha 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikisource may be a good place for unofficial versions... but not for the Ukrainian or Estonian ones" -- where's that coming from??? --Ekjon Lok 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious, uncontroversial, speedy delete since the text already exists on Wikisource. --Ekjon Lok 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as speedy delete as creator has admitted it was created as a hoax. —Moondyne 09:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Perrella[edit]

Article is either a vanity piece about a non-notable individual or a hoax (probably the former). I can't uncover anything of significance about the subject and I understand that there's no such thing as a "Governor's prize" in this particular jurisdiction. 4 separate WP:SPA's have updated the article. —Moondyne 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in expected info sources (Libraries where copyright/publishing details would identify items that never hit any part of google - there are many local publications that are notable that dont hit google) to verify any of the claimed publications (that is the claimed english or italian publications) - I would be strongly for the pursuit/checkuser of the creator(s) - as the attempt at a hoax like this suggests a possible repeat offender - or an excellent example of a possible setup - the speedier it goes the better - there is nothing probable or possible about it - it is a hoax - google or no google Satu Suro 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nomination. Renee 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax. Non-notable, at any rate. Google Book Search for both author and book turn up nothing.--Sethacus 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it difficult to believe that the West Australian would do a book review on their page 2. —Moondyne 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - they have not done so in the last ten years SatuSuro 03:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Western Australian review supposedly came out almost 13 years ago.--Sethacus 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. ——Moondyne 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As HOAX. The picture looks as if it's been edited with an image software anyway... Spawn Man 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 03:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for definite lack of notability and possible hoax. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As SETUP. I initiated this article as a setup. Mr.Bobby.V 07:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cant find the book in NLA, Worldcat, or Google. John Vandenberg 11:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a set up. We are taking the piss. Azucar79 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a 'setup', as two above editors have said, shouldn't the author be warned/blocked?--Sethacus 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Keb25 09:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Chaser - T 23:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Donato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Big Brother 8 contestant of questionable notability. Closing admin of the original AFD, as well as deletion review, determined that the procedural problems during that AFD meant that a fair hearing was not had and the consensus therein may not represent community consensus. Restored for consideration afresh, this time without redirecting or detagging the article during the AFD discussion. So, is he notable by Wikipedia's standards for article inclusion? GRBerry 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Re-redirect: Dick Donato has a complete bio on the main BB8 Page. There was a redirect to this but when this page was created, the redirect was obviously removed. This page should be deleted and the redirect reapplied. The only thing consisting on the page in question is duplicate (Copy & Paste) of information from his bio on Big Brother 8 (US)#Dick. Dick has done absolutely nothing notable outside of the show. Also, before people even say "Well other Big Brother winners have pages, so Dick should have one too", please don't even say that. 5 out of the other 7 winners have notability other than being a Big Brother winner (notability like numerous TV appearances not related to Big Brother). Other people will say "Dick might..[do something notable].." , and that fails WP:CRYSTAL so don't go there either. As you can probably tell, I really believe this page should have been deleted by the last AfD discussion, and it is unfortunate that that discussion was conducted improperly and therefore invalid. - Rjd0060 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With redirect seems appropriate. Renee 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does have content that's not in the BB8 article -- not a lot, but enough that shouldn't be in the BB8 article. Maybe he won't do anything additionally notable, but we can't know. To reject on the basis on what he hasn't done yet would be an odd kind of crystal balling. He is presently notable because his big win on Big Brother is a current event. The original AfD was handled so horribly with people removing the AfD tag for four days, pronouncing it closed when they weren't admins and therefore had no such authority, plus his notability changed mid-AfD. He went from contestant to winner. This is a big deal. If national spelling bee champions can get their own articles, Big Brother winners certainly can. Yeah, I know (other stuff exists). Deleting him by himself is inappropriate. Either take on the issue and delete all of these winners at the same time, or let this one exist. Precedent matters. And now, let's let some new opinions weigh in on the matter. Wryspy 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Which crystal ball policy are you reading? Obviously not the correct one because if you look at the correct one it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". Are we really sure that he is going to do something notable outside of the house? Where are your references to this? WP:CRYSTAL also says "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. " To me, your argument to keep might fall under that "future history" and be considered original research. - Rjd0060 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as winning a notable reality TV show is itself notable. For those complaining that it is just a duplicate of his section of the BB article, the solution to that is rather simple; trim the BB entry to a paragraph-sized blurb, with a "see also" link to his main page. Tarc 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winners of many other reality shows have their own pages what makes Dick different?johnmen1 3:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

— johnmen1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

Reply: WP:WAX could explain it better. - Rjd0060 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll have to change my vote since the last AFD, seeing as he won the show, thus making him notable. All the other winners have pages, but I wouldn't mind if all were nominated for deletion for consistancy... As it is however, I'd have to say Keep... Spawn Man 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*This discussion should be immediately closed as this article (Dick Donato) has been nominated AFD along with a group of other nominees' See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie McGee - Rjd0060 03:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your pet peeve against reality tv winners doesn't override this AfD, which a) came as a result of a DRV overturn of the original redirect, and b) was created before yours. Tarc 03:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The individual discussion started first, and individual discussions are preferred to group noms when the issues have the potential to be different. So it should not have been included in the group nom, and has now been removed therefrom. Please, no more procedural irregularities. GRBerry 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that. I was misinformed and/or misunderstood. Thanks for correcting it, GRBerry. - Rjd0060 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He won a second tier reality show. That's not really all that notable. If he parlays that into something else, than we can have an article on him. AniMate 08:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is a prime-time network television show, one with 39 versions and permutations spanning the globe, considered "second tier" ? Tarc 16:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to reiterate that he could do something more notable in the future. However keeping the page until he does, well, that is a problem when it comes to the real WP:CRYSTAL (not the one Wryspy must be reading). - Rjd0060 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As explained up there. BigCoop 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, but that is not really helpful. This is not a ballot and there are no "votes", so your "input" (or lack of) would have had the same effect if you hadn't even added it to the page. - Rjd0060 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I never said this was a vote. Would you like me to copy and paste what was already said multiple times!? So next time have a lack of attitude. User:BigCoop 16:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, first of all, you (and other editors) picked up on some attitude in my last comment. That is unfortunate. I really didn't mean to have one. Secondly, I was wrong. I had thought you were referring to the nom's comments when you said "up there". Which is why I mentioned all of that other stuff. Because I am sure you know it is suggested that you don't say "...per nom", which you did not. My mistake. I think I have made my points as far as why I believe this article should be deleted, so I will just let the AfD process run its course. - Rjd0060 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like it. I really don't. But...winner of a reality show on primetime network TV is definitely notable. Smashville 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Currently newsworthy. There's too much information about what a stink he stirred up to crowd all of that into the Big Brother 8 article. What he may or may not do of note later on is irrelevant. Don't second guess the future. He's notable right now. Shoester 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Is there a shortage of space on Wikipedia? I didn't like the man either; but he is a winner of a very popular reality show watched by millions of people. That does seem notable. RobbChadwick 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person researching the show will want to know things about those who won, how they did, where they came from, &c. Besides, he is culturally significant. Juppiter 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as WP:IDONTLIKEIT this person does (obviously) meet our guidelines for notability. Burntsauce 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to BB8. No need for an individual entry since he has no notability independent of the show and we have clear policies, the result of extensive discussion, about such instances. Eusebeus 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy news: Dick Donato has been nominated as Reality Entertainer of the Year in the Fox Reality Really Awards for 2007 against Len Goodman, New York, Sanjaya Malakar, Ant (comedian), and Christopher Knight & Adrianne Curry.^[1]^[2] FYI: All the other nominees have their own Wikipedia articles. Wryspy 04:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McLeod[edit]

No google search hits for this Jim Mcleod. Fails WP:BIO Sasha Callahan 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable. However, I disagree with the nomination reasoning per WP:GHITS. - Rjd0060 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that WP:GHITS is an essay, not a policy. Useight 04:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, I already knew that but it is still a valid point. - Rjd0060 00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Renee 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found evidence, in Google Books, to suggest the subject testified in a criminal case Regina v. Robert Simpson. As I'm only seeing snippets of the book, I'm not sure how big the case was or of the subject's role.--Sethacus 03:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. Spawn Man 03:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability Bfigura ^(talk) 03:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm now filled with curiosity as to why a radio station transmission script (or transcript) was filed in a criminal case, but it does not seem notable in any significant way. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one has ever made a serious attempt to record the story of broadcasting in Saskatchewan, but if they had, Jim McLeod would have appeared prominently as the first face and first voice to ever appear on Saskatchewan television screens, not to mention his enormous viewership. But since I now understand the one source I could find to attribute this isn't enough, then it might as well go. Brithgob 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, blatant WP:SOAP violation, repeatedly reposted under multiple titles. User given final warning. NawlinWiki 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace censorship[edit]

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, borderline speedy G1/G3. Prod contested by author. Kesac 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not Speedy) — Original research, as well as WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a bad blog entry. Renee 02:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karlson and McKenzie (morning show)[edit]

This article practically meets CSD G11. It's topic is a local-market morning show. The article fails to assert notability, since there is none to be had. There are no sources. This is a 35K advertisement for a program that airs on a tiny fraction of the globe. ➪HiDrNick! 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Reduce to Stub. I agree with the nominator that right now this reads like a long advertisement. It has a few good sources but at most it should be cut to a paragraph if others believe it meets the notability test. I am unsure about this myself. Renee 02:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fan site about a local talk show; no independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 19:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the principal author of the Karlson and McKenzie article. To clear up any misunderstandings, my intention was not to create a "35K advertisement" for the morning show, nor have I asserted the show's notability in the article. As for sources, I am currently working on acquiring proper sources for the content in the article. If you have a problem with the way in which the article is written, please contribute some constructive criticism on its talk page; while I understand all the points of view on the article written on this page, I strongly disagree with the assessments that it just "advertises" the Karlson and McKenzie morning show.

As for the show's notability, here's a list of U.S. radio programs that most likely contains articles on some equally "local" radio shows.

Also, the show itself has acknowledged both the work put into the article and my efforts to collect legitimate information on the show and its members. The K&M show has even contributed, on several occasions (in a positive manner), to its authorship.

I implore you all—in no disrespectful way—to allow me to clean up the Karlson and McKenzie article as is required by Wikipedia's standards and to add appropriate sources where needed.

Preston47 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just this morning, the show stated that their ratings are above many other radio morning shows'. Furthermore, Karlson and McKenzie can be listened to anywhere in the world, due to WZLX's new feature that allows people all over the world listen to the station (and K&M)—provided that they have internet access.

So, basically, listeners of the show are not limited to the Boston, Massachusetts area. Their "notability" is quickly spreading, despite the fact that they are not nationally syndicated. They can be heard anywhere there is internet, though.

Preston47 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see local notability and blogs on a google web search. Could not find significant verifiable sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Suggestions: rename into "List of:..." and either expand the scope or tighten criteria. `'Míkka 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming[edit]

Inherently POV-pushing list. Severe and probably unsolvable problems with Wikipedia:Undue weight (the consensus view is all but missing from the article. The title of one of the references is far stronger than anything in the text) I don't see any way this could be made NPOV. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: There's also severe problems with the inclusion criteria: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, as you might guess, was created by people that governments chose to send. So Roger A. Pielke, who thinks the report was too conservative, is listed here as being against the scientific consensus. No, he was against a few aspects of one particular inherently conservative, statement. The IPCC report attempted to only include the material it considered proven beyond any reasonable doubt. By naming it as the sole arbiter of scientific consensus, utter stupidies such as Pielke's mainstream views appearing on this list resulted. And the principal conclusions listed are... just three of many conclusions not emphasised above the other ones in any way. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral - Comment~~ Wow... this is an interesting one. One the one hand, the article seems POV-pushing even though the citations themselves are theoretically factual, and it does contain much useful data with examples and attributions. In a perfect world I would hope to see this article merged into something like "Scientific opinions regarding global warming", but even that could not likely be comprehensive... Arakunem 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta change to a Keep now after some more rumination. Undue Weight does include this qualifier: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

This article does represent a minority view, and the article specifically acknowledges this, references what the majority viewpoint is, and does not try to argue its POV to the reader outside of the cited material. Thus, upon further consideration, I feel this article *does* satisfy NPOV in the context of Undue Weight. Arakunem 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious POV fork (even though it's one I largely agree with). 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realkyhick (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Realkyhick. Jonathan 02:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first I thought this should be included on Wiki, or else there will be endless debate on the main Global Warming page. This would be a nice way to solve the argument. But then I thought, wait, even the title is POV (i.e., "scientists opposing...") and therefore is unsuitable for Wiki. I'm sure there are numerous blogs out there with this complete information. Renee 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ""Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" ^ross^nixon 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it continues "But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." - This is not doing that, since it is, effectively a long list of quotes that oppose the mainstream view, given without reerence to the mainstream viewpoint or counterarguments. The mainstream view is reduced to three dubiously-principal conclusions of a single report. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks Adam, your comment above was really helpful in making up my mind about this. ~~Delete is the word!~~ Brusegadi 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. The section above the Table of Contents calls out the consensus view on the subject, and specifically identifies the article as representing an opposing minority viewpoint. The tone of the article outside the quotes does not try to sway the reader one direction or another (such as "These idiots don't agree", and such). NPOV does not require the article to be balanced if it is specifically about a minority viewpoint, per WP:Undue Weight. Arakunem 13:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list, not a regular article. As a list, the focus is on pointing out to readers what items (here, scientists) make up such a list. The primary function of this page is to briefly summarize the position of each scientist in order to adequately identify what it is that leaves the scientist outside the mainstream view (for the purpose of avoiding confusion or implying too much agreement among these dissenters). If the article tries to include each counter-argument for each point of view, it would become too long and easily lose its focus as, primarily, a navigational aid for readers. We already have articles on global warming that give the mainstream views and mention the minority views. We shouldn't be replicating that, certainly not in any detail, in this article. One possible improvement might be to state the mainstream view on the topic of each section at the head of that section. Just don't get into too many details that are best handled elsewhere. As for details of the views of each scientist on this list, it belongs on the article for that scientist. Counterarguments to that scientist's view, in more detail than here, might be appropriate in that article. (If a scientist is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, of course, that scientist shouldn't be on this list.) It would be better to rename this article somehow, with the first two words being "List of ..." Noroton 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per POV, and the fact that its inclusion range is too broad... Spawn Man 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some articles probably inherent in POV to some extent, and can be edited, as such Keep and edit it.JJJ999 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy~~Delete~~ - Read my comment above. Basically, Adam's quote is right on. ~~The article is merely a collection of quotes and does nothing to place them in perspective to the majority viewpoints.~~(I was caught skimming here, since it does do what I said it did not do.) There has been much discussion about changing the article's name too, so a full re-write with a new name might be in order. Finally, the article is a collection of loosely affiliated scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming. By that I mean that if you placed most of those scientists in a room they would probably not reach a specific conclusion as to what is wrong with the scientific consensus-view since each one of them opposes the consensus in "their own way." This makes the article more like a list. ~~This brings forward additional concerns about weight besides the already articulated concerns about POV. Brusegadi 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)~~ The name has been changed to "List of..." so I am happy with that and the weight problem I describe above is due to the high inclusion standard the list has given the political volatility of the main topic and BLP. So I am happy with what has been done. Brusegadi 00:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at 15:00 above. Lists are useful navigation tools, and they properly describe their items when that helps navigation purposes. The list is categorized by type of objection, which seems to be a good, rough division, appropriate to the topic and the purpose. No detailed arguments either way belong here.Noroton 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no barrier to this article being balanced out with the majority viewpoint; it would, on the contrary, improve it. Deleting this article removes an important set of information from Wikipedia and will surely serve to fan the fires of groups like Conservapedia. Chubbles 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter if deletion of this page upsets American conservatives? Their specific political views aren't relevant, nor are anyone else's, only facts are. Science doesn't serve political agendas; if it does--it's bad flawed science. Ditto for our articles, they shouldn't serve any political agenda, and any attempt to do so is wrong. Isn't it? • Lawrence Cohen 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What political agenda do you think that the list represents then? The "See all those notable scientists who oppose the IPCC "consensus""? Or "Look how small the list of scientists opposing the IPCC consensus is"? --Kim D. Petersen 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of scientists that support a non-notable non-mainstream fringe view, with all sources being scientifically wrong? Delete. This reads like an advocacy piece because of the title alone and continues failing past that. • Lawrence Cohen 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep. Per the great arguments below. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something is non-mainstream doesn't mean it's not notable. Wikipedia policy specifically supports inclusion of minority views and, when there are enough of them that are notable in the sense of the word used by Wikipedia policy, a separate article is perfectly appropriate for them, as per the specific language in WP:NPOV. In terms of Wikipedia policy, "notable" has a specific meaning related to amount and quality of sourcing, as is plainly spelled out in WP:Notability. This article is heavily sourced. Any notability problems would therefore be problems with the quality of the sources, and that argument hasn't been made here.Noroton 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know--but I don't see the value of this page, which reads as presented as an advocacy piece to make their fringe views accepted. It is on par with a page saying Bigfoot is real, or Nessie is real. It's all junk science fiction, unfortunately. If the page was a simple list without a tone of advocacy (all the quotes must go) I would reconsider. But it gives undue weight since the casual reader may come away thinking their views are accepted by the scientific community as legitimate, when they are certainly not. • Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What exactly is it "advocating"? The list starts out with a short concise description of what the consensus view is - with direct links to Scientific opinion on climate change. Then it lists the scientists with a specific quote to show succinctly that they are opposing the consensus (WP:V and WP:BLP). The list takes no view on how WP:FRINGE the view is - nor comments on them. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could this article be merged cleanly into Scientific opinion on climate change, where both sides would have more equal representation? It first blush it looks like that latter article would bloat somewhat, so I throw this out to the more experienced. Arakunem 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, although I don't have an opinion on whether some of the quotes here would benefit that article. You mention "more equal", which is not the same thing as "equal". Equal represenation would be too much, because these are minority views. As a list, this article performs a useful navigational function that would be lost in a merge. Noroton 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly states consensus view, so does not breach WP:UNDUE. Gives a legitimate NPOV treatment to a POV subject. Most statements come from reliable sources. Volume of statements indicates notability. The fact that this whole collection of minority views is almost certainly wrong is not grounds for deletion. Precedent for articles on minority scientific theories is established by articles in List of minority-opinion scientific theories. Could possibly rename to Minority opinions on global warming so that emphasis shifts away from individual scientists. Gandalf61 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you suggest is a worthy one, and if it doesn't exist, it should because the topic is notable enough; but what we have is a collection of organized quotes; what we need is well-thought-out description. As I say elsewhere, we already have enough good material for a list and it's in that format already.Noroton 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive confusion about the purpose of an article always seems to result when an article is misnamed. This article is clearly a list and the first two words in the title need to be "List of". Lists perform a different function in Wikipedia than articles do. Articles describe; lists help readers navigate. Brief descriptions of items within lists help readers avoid confusion, allowing them to get where they want to go quicker. A list may also provide a good overview of a topic, but it's not the best format for that. The quotes next to each scientist's name are inappropriate and would better be replaced with one or two sentences describing each scientist's reason for dissent. Probably an extremely short summary of the mainstream view they are dissenting from could be useful at the top of each section. How else are we supposed to help readers navigate through this essential aspect of this complicated issue? The dissent itself clearly is prominent enough to be worth covering by Wikipedia standards. If we're going to cover it, we need navigation tools and categories alone are clearly inadequate. Noroton 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading KDP's comments, below, about quotations, and after scanning a few of the many, many archived pages for this article's talk page, I have to agree that short quotes from each scientist are the way to go, not descriptive sentences. It looks like every square millimeter of this article has been a struggle. I don't think Wikipedia reports controversies well because, by definition, consensus is a little hard to come by when the subject is ... controversial. Use of quotes rather than descriptions is a reflection of Wikipedia's weakness, but apparently a necessary one. Noroton 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I renamed it to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and would consider changing to keep on the condition that all the frivilous and undue weight quotes are removed permanently. All this needs to be is a flat list of names with formatted reference links. Having the prior POV name and all their unscientific fringe views espoused is giving undue weight. • Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An informative, clearly notable list of notable scientists. Assists in navigation and categorization. Is highly well-watched and policed for accuracy and WP:RS. While the view the scientists in this article have is in the minority, it is easily notable (contrary to some posts above). Oren0 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per WP:V), and has to be directly from the scientist (to ensure that WP:BLP is in order). They have to be quotes so that we can assure that interpretation of text is kept to a bare minimum. (again WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). All the scientists have to be notable (per WP:Notable - ie. no red-links), to ensure that we are not diverging into WP:FRINGE. All quotes have to be in reliable sources (of course) (per WP:RS). There are two common ways to view the list (which to me at least indicates that WP:NPOV is upheld):
1. as a list to show that consensus doesn't exist.
2. as a list to show how few scientists really are in opposition.

I suggest that people take a look at the discussion archives, to see that there indeed has been a very thorough review of each inclusion. The editors have strived to keep away from POV-issues - and an inclusion has been discussed by both "pro-" mainstream and "contra-" mainstream editors. A common topic on the discussion pages is for instance that "why can't i include X - he is obviously a sceptic", after an inclusion has been reverted. The article is imho WP:NPOV, since we have "anti-" people who are pushing to get as many scientists on the list as possible (to show that statements of consensus is wrong (i presume)), and "pro-" people who are trying to keep people out of the list. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per KDP. The quotes are there to justify inclusion; names without quotes would be pointless. The intro makes it clear that these are these peoples opinions. Weight is irrelevant in this case William M. Connolley 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These scientists have received adequate coverage in reliable sources. Majority view is presented in global warming. Iceage77 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite right. GW presents all significant views, with due weight. This page presents only opposing views. This page *isn't* a POV fork of GW William M. Connolley 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Iceage77. The qualifications to be placed on this list are very strict. The scientists listed had to fit extensive requirements for notability, and all were subject to harsh scrutiny prior to final approval. Skepticism of global warming, while in the minority, is not a fringe belief by any means and certainly warrants mention. The fact that skeptics hold a skeptical point of view is hardly reason to delete the article, and suggests a simple attempt to silence a minority opinion. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per KDP. stolenbyme 19:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per KDP and per the arguments that convinced Lawrence Cohen to change to Keep. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV pushing, making such as list is POV inherently. Judgesurreal777 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article that opposes global warming would be POV. So i'm not sure why a list of people who oppose it isn't. Operating 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One has to think carefully: if such logic were to be enforced, what other articles would need to be slated for deletion for the same reason? We cannot indiscriminately remove any material which explains a minority position, simply for being in the minority. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no comparison between this article and a hypothetical one "opposing" global warming. The scientists listed do not even necessary deny global warming; many only take issue with specific aspects of the current consensus. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is meant to contain notable opinions, not arbitrate what is true. Writing an article about a view outside the scientific mainstream is not inherently POV, and neither is listing those who hold it. Someguy1221 08:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In keeping with wikipedia's intent of being a repository of all significant knowledge and ideas, and in keeping with overall neutrality, this article should remain. There are substantial articles on the subject of Global Warming that pretty much repeat the IPCC report or conclusions. That position is essentially a particular pov -- and needs some balance. But messing up the main article with "debate by proxy" is not so good either. This page is thus a good link on other "mainstream" pages to help them stay neutral. This page also describes those mainstream views and even holds those views as the standard for including names here, so the argument that the prevailing view is not represented does not hold water. But whereas the main articles give very little credit to these alternative views, this article allows wikipedia readers to review the minority (and possibly it is a substantial minority) alternative views on Global Warming. Some of what these people say is interesting and is both notable and worthy of mention. It helps inspire people to think for themselves and ask questions about those things that we just do not know. It strikes me that this is a key part of the vision of wikipedia. --Blue Tie 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a reasonable solution to POV [problems on this subject. the very title makes it clear what the POV is, and implies that there is another view--and says so clearly. It's reasonable to let both sides have a chance to present their arguments. future events will make the truth of the matter clear enough, & this will be a useful historical sumary. DGG (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's important to have documentation for these people because questions about them come up often. ←Ben^B4 10:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It think it's very POV. No criticism or responses are presented. Not really sure what this adds to the existing articles on Global Warming SolarBreeze 10:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overlapping with Category:Global_warming_skeptics. --Drieakko 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It doesn't overlap with that category at all. In addition to scientists, that category includes businesspeople, politicians, media personalities (Rush Limbaugh), etc. Not only does this page have entry criteria that limit it to the natural sciences, but this page discusses in a succinct way why exactly each scientist is a skeptic. Furthermore, some people on this list aren't skeptics at all; they just disagree with the accuracy of the IPCC or the harmfulness of AGW. Oren0 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia has no reason to list any other than scientists' opinions about scientific issues. Listing radio DJs and others as global warming "skeptics" completely ignores the fact that those people have no competence whatsoever to present skeptical views on scientific theories in an encyclopedia. Another thing is to list prominent people who promote global warming skepticism. --Drieakko 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate encyclopedic topic, which is an essential part of any complete discussion of the global warming debates. The inclusion criteria are pretty well defined and the list is well sourced and presented from a neutral point of view. There is no need to include "the mainstream view" because the topic of the article is not global warming but people who oppose global warming. For example, we say that Richard Lindzen opposes the mainstream assessment for reasons X and Y, we do not need to include counterarguments to arguments X and Y, because that's not the topic here. We could include for balance sources that showed that Lindzen actually supports the mainstream assessment, if any existed, in keeping with NPOV. But if there are none, there is no POV problem. --Itub 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep POV can be fixed, but whatever one's beliefs are about global warming, it's important to have facts about who the dissenters are. Global warming is a problem where the solution is dependent on politics. While a "it's a hoax" crowd can truthfully state that "scientists disagree", it's good to know which scientists disagree with a view that, as the title says, is in the mainstream. There are people who deny that the Holocaust occurred, and I'd like to be aware of who they are as well. Mandsford 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite Seems to be POV pushing, but could be kept with a substansial rewrite. ff m 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While some consider this POV pushing, the article actually provides readers with interesting information about scientists who disagree with the IPCC and why. A number of peer-reviewed papers have been published recently questioning global warming. This article provides important information for students and others who are researching the global warming science controversy, helping them stay on top of this changing controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for much of the same reason that talk.origins was originally created. Also, opposition to the IPCC consensus is very diverse. Discussing individual dissenters will lead to WP:WEIGHT problems (the IPCC or the Royal Society represent several thousand scientists each) in nearly all global warming related articles. Keeping them in one place allows an easy reference to them without that problem. --Stephan Schulz 05:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently POV and presents a completely skewed picture, obviously pushing an agenda. Such things should not be tolerated anywhere in Wikipedia. Moreschi ^Talk 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - There were some good suggestions here for improvement. keep on the POV tone of the article. fringe views are not a reason for deletion, being non-notable is. --Rocksanddirt 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scientific opposition to the IPCC consensus is a notable topic in and of itself and must be covered. The fact that only verifiable quotes are included solves much of the NPOV concerns. A few problems remain with regard to the article's title and who's in or who's out, but they're not problems of the kind that would warrant this article's deletion. --Childhood's End 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Presenting the nonconsensus viewpoint is valid if that viewpoint is notable, and this article seems to contain primarily notable quotes. Nothing wrong with that. And there do seem to be enough quotes to justify a separate article. A similar list of quotes from those who agree with the consensus viewpoint might not be a bad idea either, but the lack of such a list does not right now does not mean that this list of clearly notable statements doesn't qualify for inclusion. John Carter 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing people who hold a particular point of view, along with accurate descriptions of each person's POV, is not in itself asserting a POV, but is asserting facts about a POV, spefically allowed by NPOV policy. DHowell 04:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure this list is going to be kept because participants on both sides of the endless wrangling about Wikipedia's global warming articles want to keep the list. Nevertheless, I don't think this list has encyclopedic value, and it exists to further POV-pushing at places like Talk:Global warming. Scientific disagreement with the IPCC consensus should be covered in an article, not a list/quotefarm. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wouldn't that be more like Rewrite instead of Delete?--Blue Tie 05:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. The final form wouldn't be a list; I think it would be better to cover scientific opposition to the IPCC consensus as part of an article like Global warming controversy rather than being a separate article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we do, but the history of that and related articles shows why an article like this is appropriate in addition. DGG (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename to an unambiguous title such as "list of global warming critics", and keep whatever is objective and sourced. The title "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment" is completely untenable, because it implies there is a fixed and unambiguous "mainstream assessment", and that the reader is familiar with it. This appears to be simple pov-pushing-by-article-title. dab (𒁳) 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is clearly on record that there is an unambiguous mainstream scientific assessment in connection with Global Warming - the IPPC reports. This article's title was developed in that context. The Global Warming / Climate Change project gatekeepers assert that there is a consensus in the Scientific Community on Global Warming.--Blue Tie 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rename like that is a can of worms we don't want to open. First off, most on this list are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, not GW in general. Furthermore, many of them disagree with specific parts of the IPCC consensus while agreeing with other components. To label these people "global warming critics" based on disagreement with one component of the IPCC view seems unreasonable to me. I think the article title needs to include something about "mainstream assessment", "consensus", etc. Oren0 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - such a broad title would also open up a can of worms in terms of who would be included on the list. the current list has a very tight definition on only including scientists in relevant fields. stolenbyme 18:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a factual list of people who oppose global warming. How could it be unworthy of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.173.102 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Probably useful list. Not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a factual and neutral list. To enumerate those holding a point of view is not to advance that point of view as Wikipedia's opinion. The mainstream view of global warming is well-covered elsewhere. EdJohnston 04:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying question. I'm inclined to keep. However, to evaluate the article from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, I would like to know whether these scientists are expressing a "significant minority" or a "fringe" position per WP:UNDUE? As many folks know, "mainstream" is a WP term of art, contrasted with fringe. If the "mainstream" wording implies that these are fringe opinions, I can see that this could be a notable fringe. However, if these opinions constitute a "significant minority," then it is much harder to justify a separate article on a single POV. (A significant minority would cover scientific opinions that are carried well enough in peer-reviewed journals, even though they don't sway most of the audience.) So, which is it? HG | Talk 07:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in general these are real scientists who publish in real peer-reviewed journals, even if some of their conclusions go against the mainstream. --Itub 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complex. Yes, all of them are scientists and have published as such, altough for several that has been quite a while ago. Many of them are not climate scientists. Very few have published papers in climate science. Even if, their opposition often goes far beyond their published (in the scientific sense) work. The canonical example is Tim Ball, whose (meagre) scientific output is mostly an analysis of Hudson Bay Company weather reports. Some of the listed scientists are beyond the fringe, some are nearly within the mainstream. But they are not a "significant minority" in the Wikipedia sense, because they do not share a common position. See the classifiction (there is no wrming, it's natural, we don't know if its natural, its real, but good...). --Stephan Schulz 10:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep factual, well-sourced and useful list with clearly stated inclusion criteria. There is nothing POVish in it. It doesn't state that this is a mainstream position. Quite to the contrary. If it is a POV-fork, as stated by some participants of the discussion, then fork of what? The opinions are not fringe, as stated by some people here, they are all scientific. There is a mainstream opinion, but there is no scientific consensus on the reasons of global warming as of now, so deletion of this article would amount to censorship of perfectly sourced information. A single article on "Scientific opinions regarding global warming", as proposed by Arakunem, would be more rather than less POV-pushing because it would assign some undue and easily manipulated weight to the number of listed opinions pro and contra. Colchicum 01:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs to be improved not deleted. POV isn't a reason for deletion. Rocket000 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because this is a truly horrible article. Half of it is a list of quotes (but we are not Wikiquote), the balance is redundant to global warming controversy, which unlike this article puts both sides of the case - and that makes this a POV fork, I think. Should we have a list of scientists supportive of the consensus, with a quote from each? It would be absurd. This looks very much like an article created to "correct" the fact that global warming controversy does not promote the skeptical case strongly enough, or perhaps to compensate for the fact that those pesky NPOV warriors will insist on pointing out that this is a tiny minority view. Cruftbane 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the requirements for inclusion in this list are very strict. Without providing a quotation cited from a reliable source which outlines that scientist's position, they cannot be included. And no, the article makes it abundantly clear that these scientists are in the minority (just look at the title). Simply asserting that these scientists hold these point of view by providing a quotation does not make the list POV. Since its creation, this article has been heavily monitored by a number of Wikipedia administrators, and extensive guidelines must be met for a scientist to even be included. This article does not fit the definition of a POV fork, by virtue that it makes it clear this is a minority and provides adequate reference to the main topic at hand (see Fork). ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is pretty much the problem: The method of producing the list forces it to be POV, and forces it to get more unbalanced and POV over time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perfectly put. I see we have a category for global warming skeptics - that would seem to be a more neutral way of presenting this information; linking to that list from the article on global warming controversy, in which each distinct and significant argument and counter-argument can be discussed, would seem to me to be a more neutral approach than an article which by its own criteria includes only presentations of what amounts to a series of sound-bytes supporting only one side - and the minority side at that - of the dispute. I cannot see how its conception does not make it a POV fork. Perhaps I am missing something. Cruftbane 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list about people, not about global warming. The counter-arguments are no more needed here than arguments for the existence of God would be in a List of atheists. --Itub 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is no where near NPOV. Any information on scientists who don't agree with the "concensus" has been removed from darn near everywhere including opening paragraphs in wiki articles to limit what can be in it [64]. this is a great way to shut down any information that the environmentalist activist editors don't agree with. to shut down any listing of debate that is actually going on, you RealClimate.org people or supporters should be Asshamed to call your selves scientists. all the "Scientific opinion on climate change" should be included in the article Scientific opinion on climate change... but than again, we can't restrict what people read that way, can we?--207.250.84.10 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is interesting, well-sourced and useful list. I do not see any POV problems. If someting is missing, let's include it. It stands perfectly as an independent list that supplements other articles.Biophys 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there are zillions of controversies in the world. An encyclopedia must cover controversies and arguments. Not to say that the list is inherently NPOV: wnat "mainstream" today is "obsolete" tomorrrow. Mukadderat 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The deletion of internet pages, or removal of books from the public library is a step down a dangerous path. This entry seems very well written. I see no reason to delete it. People, the next deleted page could be yours. Duncanbrowne 06:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Jmlk17 as not asserting significance WP:CSD#A7Pedro : Chat 10:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Pineapple[edit]

Another band with a silly name. What gives? They have a self-released album from 2004 and a cute little website. Fails WP:MUSIC. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, I'm going to speedy it. Michaelbusch 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another PR site. Renee 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN band... Spawn Man 03:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BAND. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was convert to dab. Chaser - T 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game developer[edit]

This article is almost devoid of useful content, e.g. one should already know that "A board game developer designs board games". Unfortunately, I do not see any way that this article can be improved, anything that I could think of as worth saying on this topic is either coverable or covered by other more specific pages. After all a board game developer and a video game developer are very much not the same thing. Eldar 01:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-make as a disambiguation page. The article does link to Game Developer Magazine, and Video Game Developer, so that seems a good use for this title. Thus if "board game developer" ever warrants an article, the DAB page is there. Otherwise, delete due to lack of any meaningful content beyond simple restatement of the sub-headings. Arakunem 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a sub-standard dictionary using circular definitions. Renee 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Perhaps Wiktionary is the right place for this. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Make into DAB - I did get a game box for hide and seek one time and it had a game developer's name on it... ;) As per Arakunem, Game Developer should be made into a disambiguation page, because as it stands, it's a useless article... Spawn Man 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make DAB per the above. The article as it stands has got to. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: convert to DAB. Alba 14:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make into DAB. Concur. Not much can be said on this page that isn't covered in more detail in other pages that it could point to. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAB. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAB obviously is the right thing to do, as the entropy of X game developer designs X games indeed is not very high :) --Allefant 10:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Larissa lam[edit]

Result: Keep: Nominating user withdrawal. Now meets WP:BIO. Tiptoety 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:BIO Tiptoety 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely and utterly non-notable. Renee 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, unless reliable sources can be found to back up cdbaby's claim of her being a "former record label executive turned full-time singer/songwriter who tours the U.S. and abroad", if that's even the same person.--Sethacus 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN - Spawn Man 03:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I cleaned up the article some and have found a number of sources. She seems more notable than the article indicated when nominated. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Withdrawal: Page has been been cleaned up to meet WP:BIO. Tiptoety 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media institution[edit]

With all the other articles we have about the media, this one appears to be redundant in the whole scheme of things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary gibberish. Renee 02:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If someone got to it, it might have a chance at being an okay article, but at the moment, it is completely unreadable. There's probably also a better term for the concept too. Spawn Man 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply too vague a concept; and by the way, the URL embedded in the article is pr0n spam. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary term. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Service Center Library[edit]

Non-notable public library. Article appears to have been copied and pasted from an external source. Few sources provided and only one is relevant, and that single source is the library's own web site. Contested prod, removed without explanation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination. Renee 02:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, unless we can find a major news source mention the library. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, per nom. Spawn Man 03:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, per nom. Nothing has happend here. ff m 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN, but does not appear to be a copyvio. Bearian 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. This is a fork of the already running nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape combat. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Combat[edit]

Finished nomination - I have no opinion whether the article should stay or go, I'm just finishing the nomination. Although the article tagged for deletion by User:Miremare, this nomination page was created by User:Runescapehater with the comment "This article explains too much about a game's combat. It should be immediately moved or deleted." I think this might be a bad faith nomination, due to the nominator's name, but then again, it was tagged by Miremare. So JSYK, I'm Neutral. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a collection of game-guide information with no evidence of independent notability. While summary style is an important consideration, split-off content still needs to be independently referenced. An entire article based on the rules of a particular game simply isn't encyclopedic. --68.163.65.119 05:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transmisiones bahia del sur[edit]

Non-notable. Article is basically advertising an internet radio station BirgitteSB 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising for a nonnotable radio station ff m 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete can't see notability or verifiability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:02, 30 September 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.