Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 29

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< May 28 May 30 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ocatecir Talk 20:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National chtistian life college

edit
National chtistian life college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The title of this article itself was a TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, it should be Christian and not Chtistian. I had already made a page with the title corrected. Sorry but I am a newbie Wikipedian :) Chitetskoy 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Ismael

edit
J. C. Ismael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Stellatomailing 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person is a journalist and made several small contributions to newspapers in Brazil. Mostly of it were literary columns; they did not have major impact or followers. None of his books got awards or reviews by prominent media vehicles nor exceptional sales figures. Unsourced affirmations in the article (although understandable because of the age of contributions). 666 ghits brought 99% articles in small sites and blogs and links from bookstores. The article in the Portuguese Wikipedia was written by the subject and meaningful edits in the English version were done by IPs. I recommend deletion because he is not notable enough to get an article in Wikipedia.Stellatomailing 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery's on the Square

edit
Montgomery's on the Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been speedied once already, but contested. I don't see anything that makes this restaurant notable. Clarityfiend 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Di Iorio

edit
Elio Di Iorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently self-authored bio of local, minor-party Canadian politician. Stuffed full of peacock terms, name-dropping, and fame-by-association. PROD tag added, but removed by User:GrantNeufeld. Calton | Talk 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arifana

edit
Arifana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

seems very interesting but it has been orphaned for a long time and has one source... What do others think? Postcard Cathy 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning. If I find a Turkish town of 50 people whose sole claim to fame is that one of their residents can have people request various Turkish folk songs and he can either fart them in tune or burp them in tune and there was a story about it in Istanbul's major newspaper, does that mean it should stay based on the fact it is a stub wiht one source and is already above the curve?Postcard Cathy 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad analogy. Towns are notable, with or without folk-song farting citizens. If it received multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, then the person's article would probably not get deleted at AFD either. If you want to go after the veracity and/or the importance of the cited book, then, that's another matter. As it stands, "orphaned for a long time" is not a deletion criteria. Neier 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to imply orphan status is the sole criteria for deletion because I have seen orphaned articles that do indeed show wiki worthiness. But I disagree with you on your implication that a town of 50 who is most notable for a folk song farting contest is not notable.Postcard Cathy 14:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you wait a reasonable time for it to be expanded. I agree with waiting. But at some point you have to say we have waited long enough, it hasn't been expanded in x length of time and based on that, we have to wonder if it will be expanded. Postcard Cathy 14:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualand

edit
Aqualand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded last July but deprodded and left in stub condition; no changes since then. Prodded by another editor today, but not eligible for a second prod, so nominating here. Page is a one-paragraph intro with a list of parks. No reliable sources are provided about the parks nor any information to identify the nature of the parks. Accordingly, article fails verifiability and notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS I was the one that prod'd it. Sorry, I didn't notice the first prod. I agree with C. Fred and would like to add that it also has very few valid internal links. Postcard Cathy 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've just added a couple of sources, one a link to the web site of the group that operates these parks and one a link to a newspaper with a review of them. This is the largest chain of water parks in Europe, which I think makes it notable. JulesH 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to improve the article Jules. But I think the article has a long way to go to show notability. I am going with the idea you are telling the truth that it really is the largest chain but it doesn't say that in the article. Perhaps saying that in the article and not here would help and also indicate it's gross revenue and other indicators of how large a business it is? Postcard Cathy 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to the article. The reliable source confirming this is [1]: "Aspro es el operador en Europa con mayor número de parques y centros de ocio". JulesH 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I am still not seeing any notability here. Just a lot of claims with little or weak sources. I seem to remember all info must be verifiable. After all this time and no verification provided. Postcard Cathy 172.132.19.76 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMHO, this article (if you can call it that) is seriously lacking in any substance whatsoever. Give us something about the company. Even a simple paragraph of 3-5 sentences would be acceptable. I believe that the discussion here is actually longer than the article. I also think all the waterparks in the system could just be combined into one article. For a related American example (admittedly poorly referenced), see Schlitterbahn. — BQZip01 — talk 08:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deleting stubs is not how we make progress. 47,000 hits indicates this will be expanded over time. John Vandenberg 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep; this nomination is the result of a content dispute (whether the article should be centered on the IETF standard or the or the MagicISO format); the talk page is the place for content discussions. Tizio 16:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Image Format

edit
Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This "standard" is in fact a small part of a draft standard called IPP-Fax, which was abandoned in 2004. In addition, UIF was not in the latest draft (ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/QUALDOCS/wd-ifx10-latest.pdf) of the standard, having been replaced by PDFax and then PDF/is. It appears in only two sets of slides from prceedings of the PWG and does not occur in any of IETFs current proposed or accepted standards and is clearly not notable. Jamesmusik 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious and Political Conflicts Between Selim I and Shah Ismail

edit
Religious and Political Conflicts Between Selim I and Shah Ismail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR concerns. Lists one reliable source, but gives very little information, thus the rest of the article seems to be original research. (Encyclopædias should not be used as sources.) Cool Bluetalk to me 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at that. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Audio Books

edit
List of Star Wars Audio Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I really don't see the point to having a list of the audio books. I am not saying that audio books are lesser then standard books, but to a certain degree they are less notable. The fact is that these are just recordings of novels from the expanded universe, if it really needs to be mentioned then it can be done so in the novels corresponding page. The Filmaker 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistaa Badaam Lassi, PBL

edit
Pistaa Badaam Lassi, PBL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The summaries said it best--there is nothing that Google has heard of concerning this. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurosong Cup

edit
Eurosong Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references whatsoever: even a Google search here returns ZERO results. Maybe a hoax? Not sure... never heard of this thing before, might be completely made-up. EuroSong talk 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article is obviously a hoax. Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Giba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a hoax. No Lucas Giba plays for Inter Milan. the article Lucas giba is clearly written by a fan of Inter Milan. He doesn't play for the first team or youth team. No relevant google searches either. [2]. For any further proof, the number eight jersey is currently worn by Zlatan Ibrahimović. Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted. No, it technically isn't a speedy (certainly not an A7), so, Whstchy, for shame! But, really, chaps and chapettes, let's face it: it could be deleted by someone acidentally believing the speedy tag, or it could be deleted as a hoax, or it could be deleted by AfD saying "no evidence of notability", or ... whatever happens, though, by the end of the week it will not still be here. So why not save some poor fellow the trouble of deleting it in a few days, eh? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Carter Casamayor

edit
David Carter Casamayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Zero non-wiki ghits. No evidence of notability (or existence) offered in article. Previously prodded, but prod was contested. Kathy A. 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell oldschool danger bennett mallory III

edit
Mitchell oldschool danger bennett mallory III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No googel hits except for a myspace page, several non-working links added to the article by the creator (now on the article's talk page), looks like a hoax, or at least completely non-notable. DES (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dosco Educationalists

edit
Dosco Educationalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems pointless. Katharineamy 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Redirects don't need to be put under scrutiny at AfD. Sr13 05:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xandros File Manager

edit
Xandros File Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The topic is not notable and the article intentionally advertises Xandros. Xandros links to this article, but could contain relevant information about XFM, if there is some. This should not be actually deleted, but redirected to Xandros. Chealer 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was piledrive. Krimpet (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet wrestling community

edit
AfDs for this article:
Internet wrestling community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced for over half a year, fails notability, and is a combination of WP:OR and self-referential pats on the back SirFozzie 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per what the nom said. tomasz. 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is complete WP:OR and has multiple other problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs) at 22:08, May 29, 2007
  • Delete, Per Theophilus75. Complete original research. --Random Say it here! 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While the Internet did certainly have an effect on pro wrestling and there's the possibility that an encyclopedic article could be written about it, this article isn't it and is also full of WP:OR. EliminatorJR Talk 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing but original research with a low probability of verifiable sources. Nikki311 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above reasons. ~EdBoy[c] 00:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Merge to List of professional wrestling slang. It was my first attempt at an article in wikiland so I'll try one last fleeting attempt to keep it but do understand the arguments for delete. I'll start with OR since that's the major case. On WP:NOR it gives 7 themes of OR so I'll take them one by one.
    • 1. It introduces a theory or method of solution: Article does not introduce any theory or try to solve something.
    • 2. It introduces original ideas: No ideas being proposed by article.
    • 3. It defines new terms: The only example is the mention of "armchair booking" which probably should be removed.
    • 4. It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms: Does not redefine any terms used in article to something else.
    • 5. It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position: Article does not introduce any new argument.
    • 6. It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source: This is probably where the case of where OR applies to this article. OR generally means one person's opinion of something. People who follow wrestling on the internet would generally agree with what the article states. If there was disagreement the article may be subjected to edit wars.
    • 7. It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source: You could argue that "Internet wrestling community" is a neologism but the term has been used for quite a while as the label of a collective group.

That leads to if the term is notable or not. I contend it is a notable term among internet wrestling fans and the term is commonly used. One argument by the nom considers this a "self-referential pat on the back." Since I don't consider myself a member of this group I don't know how that can be the case. However, it may refer to not having sources outside it's genre. Well, the scientific community has many articles that do not get coverage outside of the science realm like Terraforming of Venus for instance. Well, there's my case. If still recommended for delete, I vouch for Merge. MrMurph101 05:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I'm not trying to be mean or nasty here, but the article should be deleted. Even if you merge the article, that doesn't fix the problem of referencing. The article can't be referenced (with the exception of self-referential sources)...it just transfers the problem to a new article. I'd love for you to prove me wrong, though. Nikki311 23:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not saying move all the content over there, just to redirect it. If the consensus is delete, which looks like the case. IWC is already in the list there, unless that article should be afd's also. Btw, no worries. :) I know all you guys are applying good faith. MrMurph101 01:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When you decide what is suitable material for an encyclopaedia you must consider all the terms of what encyclopaedia is all about. It asks you for solid evidence of the subject in question. Now when it comes down to it, Internet wrestling community is just a generic term. It isn't an organisation, I would also go as far as saying it isn't even a club. It's just a name given to the group that discuss wrestling on the internet. The article starts to describe what the IWC is with no citation and when you consider that citation is how we give evidence it becomes clear that there is no clear evidence other than this article. You go on to explain the evolution of IWC in fact the only impact I see is how you explained how news letters became wrestling online websites which provided the information. Those websites are more valid as the sources for the information than this IWC. I am sorry to say, I find this article extremely weak with no real back up citation (evidence) That's why I feel it should be deleted. Govvy 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - Not really that notable, the Original Research issues all over it put the final nail in the coffin. -凶 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per MrMurph and Eliminator comments. No improvement on article since last afd so redirect it and maybe start over some day. Arthur Fonzarelli 21:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely OR with horrible "sources" and not notable at all --Maestro25 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I don't think the IWC has any notability and is only a slang term anyway. The likes of Meltzer, Scherer and Keller are professional journalists and the remainder of the IWC is a motley bunch of fansite and discussion forum contributors, many of whom possess extremely inflated opinions of their own self worth (see notorious Wikipedia vandal and sock-puppeteer JB196 for a prime example). So the subject isn't worthy of an article and the article in existance is primarily WP:OR. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete and salt. Sarah 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua O'Brien

edit
Joshua O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable bit part television actor. The article is autobiographical and unsourced. While those problems can be fixed, I don't think he is notable enough for inclusion. Mattinbgn/ talk 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --ais523 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anoka Abeyrathne

edit
Anoka Abeyrathne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite winning contest, the contest is not on Wiki. Article is orphaned. Between the two, I suspect lack of wiki worthiness. Postcard Cathy 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete The contest is asserted to be national (Sri Lanka), and it is also asserted that she was participant in an international event. Neither are in WP but we can't demonstrate lack of notability from that--I doubt the notable contests from that country have been entered. But there are no actual sources for any of this. If there were, perhaps we could tell. DGG 23:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True DGG but the key here is asserted. If it was sourced and/or linked to an article on the subject, I would not have nominated the article. But how notable can the festival be if it doesn't have an article of it's own and as Carol says, nothing can be found on wiki? Postcard Cathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.243.196 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-30 16:21:16
      • It could be very notable. The non-existence of other articles is no guide. Wikipedia isn't complete. You are supposed to look for sources, outside of Wikipedia, to see how notable something is. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 11:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • True Uncle G but as Carolfrog said, it is not easy to find these outside sources. And why should we have to look for them? The author should have provided them at the time or soon after. Writing 101 - would you submit a term paper even in jr high school if you didn't have adequate footnotes? Postcard Cathy
            • Postcard Cathy, not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia has submitted a term paper; some are not old enough, and others live in third world countries where they will probably never have that option. Their contributions are still valuable. John Vandenberg 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also checked Google News Archives. Still nothing on the British Festival of Music. I'd be willing to consider that its notability could be established by offline sources, but I don't know where to look. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find her (apart from WP mirrors) on Google or Google News. Same for the British Festival of Music. Not that Google is the be-all and end-all of sources, but I'd think if sources existed in the mainstream media (i.e. were reliable sources such as should exist for an international event) there might be at least an indication of their existence on Google. So there's just nothing to confirm that she's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite searching offwiki, I have found little that could be used to verify this article. John Vandenberg 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem notable to me. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sri Lankan festival of music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamsterlives (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 July 2009 (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 keep. Band shown to be notable, and a lack of references is no reason to delete anything. --Stephanie talk 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deichkind

edit
Deichkind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to fail WP:MUSIC. It certainly offers no WP:RS so there is no way to verify notability JodyB talk 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no claim to notability and fails teh WP:BAND. tomasz. 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per WP:BAND. --Random Say it here! 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deichkind is, or at least was at the time of their best-known singles, a very famous band in Germany. Their songs were in the rotation of every major radio station as well as MTV Germany and VIVA. Komm schon, Limit and, most of all, Bon Voyage were hits in Germany. I can't find the charts positions (#34 in Switzerland, I'm sure it was higher in Germany), but ghits include reliable notability indicators like laut.de. Malc82 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If that's the case, then perhaps you will add the required reliable sources before this AfD completes. The article itself must be sourced; it's not sufficient for you to think it's notable. It must be sourced. That's an absolute. JodyB talk 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Please note that I didn't contribute anything to this article, maybe you should ask the editor for RS (especially English-language ones). I don't know why you didn't contact him/her in the first place. It is not mandatory to reference every argument in an AfD, as you should know. NB: A quick check of WP:EQ might be good, too. Malc82 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment All I am saying is that there must be some way to verify that this article is noteworthy. Our policy is at WP:V and says in part The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. I simply challenged the article as being notable and thought that if you were familiar with the subject you could source it. I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't done myself. Please be assured, I have no interest in this article one way or another. If it can be sourced and verified, then let's keep it. I'm not sure what you mean about referencing every argument in an AfD. I never asked for such and certainly don't expect it. Why don't we get on with editing the Wikipedia. If you can improve the article, please do. I cannot. Thanks JodyB talk 22:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. There are no WP:EQ issues here. tomasz. 22:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I found a source stating that Bon Voyage topped at #11 in Germany and their best album (Noch Fünf Minuten Mutti) was #17 [5] but it's not a RS by WP guidelines. The problem is that older German chart results aren't available for free. The (German) laut.de source already included is actually a pretty good one, but I couldn't find anything in English (which isn't that surprising, since the band is known for their satirical lyrics and thus all the good chart results were in German-speaking countries). On the other hand I'm not a hip hop fan and maybe just don't know where to search for the sources. Malc82 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has an article in two other Wikipedia's, and there are plenty of google hits. John Vandenberg 14:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John. It seems notable, google results are fine. Needs some verification though, not deletion G1ggy! Review me! 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. DES (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Salute

edit
AfDs for this article:
Aussie Salute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I propose this article for deletion on behalf of User:Postcard Cathy more details to follow Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dep. I was referred here after proding the article for the second time and the editor suggested if I feel the same, I nominate it a second time. OOOPS Forgot to check the history. Anywho, the article hasn't been improved to the point that shows me why it is wiki worthy. I don't know if it can be. There are no sources whatsoever and it is still a stub. Postcard Cathy 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a false permise Uncle G. I asked before looking at the new version of the article. Postcard Cathy 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me. Struth. Orderinchaos 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Benesz

edit
Adam Benesz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod was reverted; Article still does not show notablity. Stating one's occupation and where they worked does not show notability. Unless an editor is willing to SHOW why Mr. Benesz is notable, and so far that hasn't happened even with the prod, then this article should go. Postcard Cathy 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS The person who reverted the prod conveniently also deleted the orphan tag, the notability tag and the unreferenced tag. Postcard Cathy 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Meenakshipuram conversion

edit
1981 Meenakshipuram conversion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod'd article but author removed prod without addressing my concerns. I have no idea what a dalit is and I have no idea why this is notable. I think this article needs serious work before it can be considered wiki worthy. To someone like me who is ignorant on this subject, author has not shown why this is important. Writing 101 guys - assume your readers are as ignorant on the subject as I am and tell us everything. Postcard Cathy 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:It was an important event in history of the republic of India. There are over 1000 google hits for the event.[7].The inernel link to dalits now provided.It is a stub and I agree with the nominator that further work needs to be done to enhance it. I propose to improve and enhance it in near future.I request that the article may not be deleted.Shyamsunder 9:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have found some articles about it and a book by a notable author mentioning it, although the article needs expansion and context. I believe it's covered in A.M. Mujahid's well-known book. I think newspaper articles would be a more relevant source than the journal mentions I've found but I'm not terribly familiar with the area papers.Sci girl 21:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sources provided indicate it was important in modern Indian history. I gave it a rewrite to provide a little more context, but I would rather that someone more familiar with India add a line or two about its overall significance -- e.g. why the dalits were forced to convert, who did it, and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Notable historical event. Bradybd 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-hearing hearings

edit
No-hearing hearings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The report is non notable in and of itself, as it only garners 863 hits on Google, many of which are Wiki mirrors and therefore does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Several fo the supporting links in the article have nothing to do with the subject of the article, only things covered in the article, making it WP:SYNT and WP:NOR. Information in the article also exist nearly verbatim in several other articles. Suggest a Merge with the Mark P. Denbeaux article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- This is an important article, widely cited. Geo Swan 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — Several of the nominator's crticisms are issues that properly belong on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}.
    • Comment — This is, IMO, a malformed nomination, and, as such, it should be withdrawn.
    • Comment — The last time I looked this article fully complied with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. I think it is a mistake to argue that material that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER should be removed because it does not comply with some individuals perception of what is and isn't notable. Notability, in my experience, is a highly subjective and unreliable yardstick.
widely cited? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Denbeauxs are charlatans but they're notable in the "anti-war" camp. It doesn't belong in the CSRT article because their reports require too much clarification that would clutter up that article. I could see there being one big Denbeaux studies article but I think it's better to have several short ones. -- Randy2063 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have great trouble accepting this as a neutral nomination. It is sourced, absolutely notable (the NYT, WaPo, FT, Village Voice, MSNBC, et cetera have an article on it!!) and as such there is no reason to delete. However, certain editors consider any article that is vaguely critical of the Bush administration by defrinition POV. Maybe nominator has other thoughts than simply keeping up the encyclopeadic nature of WP.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, a quick recap of the notability of the No Hearings Hearings, and the sources used to validate this statement.
NYT, footnote 7: The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.
FT, footnote 8: Once again, The source article mentions neither the report nor Denbeaux, and as such violates SP:SYNT and WP:NOR as it is being used as supporting evidence for the article.
That leaves us with two sources directly mentioning, that coupled with the scarcity of hits on Google, and the fact that this report is not found in Google Scholarly Article search, means that this aint notable enough for its own article, and should be merged elsewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, your concerns about the footnotes is one you should have raised on Talk:No-hearing hearings, not in an {{afd}}. You are misusing the {{afd}} fora.
  • A note to other readers, the two footnotes that Mr or Ms Tortuous Devastating Cudgel is objecting to are footnotes to the caption of the image of the trailer where the Tribunals were held.
  • I dispute that adding a picture of the trailer where the hearings were held violates WP:SYN or WP:NOR. Agreed? If so, then this objection really boils down to a concern over that caption.
    • I didn't add the picture, or caption, to this particular article. But I added this picture, with a different caption, to another article, prior to the publication of the study. I was challenged to cite references that backed up that the captive spent the hearing bound hand and foot. I found some. I suspect that someone cut and pasted the image and caption I used, edited the caption, but kept the references.
    • I am going to repeat that your objection to this article, based on these two references, seems to me to be a serious misuse of wikipolicies. And I strongly recommend you review them.
    • FWIW, the study itself documents that shackling, hand and foot:

      "Each CSRT took place in a small room. Armed guards brought the detainee, shackled hand and foot, to the room, seated him in a chair against the wall and chained his shackled legs to the floor."

  • Cheers Geo Swan 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And of course we have had no response to the fact WaPo and Village Voice documented the report. One would think it is difficult to be not notable when discussed in main stream publications.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a response to that. It wasn't an actual WaPo reporter, and the Village Voice columnist can't be taken seriously. There are only a few liberal commentators parroting spin. They clearly bought the misleading "92%" number as well as the bogus bounty hunters line without giving it a close look. There is no serious nonpartisan analysis for these reports.
-- Randy2063 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Very weak Delete on the basis of the evidence so far. There is no question whatsoever that the hearings are notable. This article, however, is about the book. Let's look at the refs: Some are about the topic, some are written by the same group, but it looks the the 3rd and 5th are mainly about the book. The NYT article is not. The second VV one mentions the book down at the bottom. where are some books reviews? The tendency to get as many articles as possible for one very notable topic does not make sense. DGG 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many articles are there? What topic do you mean?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no provisions in Wikpedia's notability guidelines that require a certain number of G-hits. What it does say is "The number [of secondary sources] needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." MoodyGroove 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Response Maybe the logic behind this nomination may be more apparent when you realise nominator has gone to several articles I edit (why has he forgotten this article?) and is massively deleting adequately sourced information there also. For some reason it always results in removing uncomfortable, yet sourced, information about the Bush administration. Coincidence is really an interesting topic.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book itself is POV, so there will always be some difficulty in keeping the article about it NPOV, but that's a matter of how the article is written, not whether it should exist. JamesMLane t c 00:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other WP:RS that mentioned or make available this NN report: US Senate Commitee on Armed Services(report!!), HRW, CCR. To insist on lack of notability is proof of inadequate knowledge of who cites it, insufficient grasp of policy or more sinister motives.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi Ho Aston Villa"

edit
"Hi Ho Aston Villa" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I really don't think a football chant is notable enough for an article. (Don't redirect due to only one link.) Reywas92TalkReview me 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kynda

edit
Kynda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OK soooo.... no name band? disbanded? poorly sourced? defunct website? about 8 trillion bands are in these guys boat. and they claim an album cut on a label but really what it is is a live record, that they cut themselves, and released it themselves -- and the name of the studio they used is misleadingly called the label... well nice try... Brokethebank 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was still no consensus. --Coredesat 04:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

edit
AfDs for this article:
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

ok...hope I'm doin this correct... umm basically this person is one victim of many victims and she's not that notable -- all she did was get shot. then there was press coverage..... but it was only done because she got shot? hello?, I mean obvious violation of WP:NOT..... i think the consensus policy is that pages need to have something beyond for them to stand on their own -- the question is, "Would she have been notable by herself sans bullet." c'mon, the answer is obviously not. Also: 1) yea there are other victims that have their own pages but those guys were famous enough in their own fields so they can stay -- or what, because they get shot they can never be notable? i think not. 2)oh and I see that there's been a few discussions already and I've been watching but as long as they keep endin in "no consensus" I think we can re-post after a few weeks of 'timeout". ok peace Brokethebank 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the article's third AfD; please see the first AfD(delete), first DRV(overturned, relisted AfD), second AfD(no consensus), and second DRV(endorse no consensus) for more info.

  • A speedy closure on those grounds would be okay with me. The number of AfDs and DRVs this article has undergone since its creation is a bit much. --ElKevbo 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon my french, but ce raisonnement est risible. That's essentially saying that there's a limit to how much something should be discussed. And it implies that disagreements should only be settled when one side is obviously wrong. Whatever happened to a reasoned and balanced judge, who hears both sides and then explains fully a full decision? Pablosecca 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there is a practical limit to how much something should be discussed. It's entirely appropriate in most cases for an article to occasionally nominate an article for deletion but I don't care for this or any other article to be perpetually nominated for deletion until finally enough editors !vote delete. In this particular case, I don't see the harm in there being a period of cool down between AfDs. At a certain point, continually sending an article to AfD becomes disruptive. --ElKevbo 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:DP, "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." As the third AfD within 6 weeks, I don't see any new information or arguments being brought forward. The deletion policy guidance seems applicable to this case. BRMo 03:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, well, well. I see we're back at the chicken shack, yet again. Nice to see you all again. First, a point:
    The article should not be speedily closed because the recent decision was "No consensus" -- a finding that pleads for further argument, which this is. Opinions?
  • And truthfully -- here's my honest opinion -- these AfD debates should go on into infinity if necessary before we get an admin with enough spine to make a decision of either keep or delete. I would even accept a decision of "keep" (though I'm sure it's wrong), provided it subsequently passed a deletion review. It's these "no consensus" decisions that are just killing this Wikipedia.

    Back to the matter at hand. For all and sundry let me point out what I think is the gist of notability. Coverage of this woman is totally secondary to her involvement in the tragedy. That, in a nutshell, is why she is not notable. Pablosecca 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Redirect is fine with me too. Pablosecca 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The cause of no consensus is you, failing to achieve consensus, not the closing administrator. If you don't like a lack of consensus, then attempt to persuade other editors, by discussing the issue with them, and thereby form a consensus. Uncle G 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point, as I've argued elsewhere, is that not all disagreements are alike. I firmly believe that there is enough written Wikipedia policy to resolve these debates one way or another. It is mistaken to conflate consensus and agreement. When editors call a debate "no consensus" simply because there isn't vast agreement, we run the real risk of harpooning a rational decision; and it introduces opacity into the dialog of the community -- because, suddenly the inertia of disagreement, sham disagreement, results in a useless default "no decision" decision, which is what "no consensus" is.
        To put it another way: it is, I think, impossible for this particular article to be judged a "keep" because there is simply no basis for a victim to get her own page when she is not notable otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that the article is deleted -- it exists by virtue of the default to preserve articles if they aren't judged "delete." Understand? By virtue of a lack of decision, a decision is made; and that stifles argument, and is a classic tactic of repression of ideas.
        I say emphatically that it is wrong to adjudicate "no consensus" unless we find, by virtue of reasoned arguments, that current and accepted Wikipedia policy disagrees with itself, or is obviously internally inconsistent. Because what we are (supposed to be) doing in these AfDs is presenting detailed arguments based on policy -- or else we might as well just show up and settle things with one-word votes.
        Again: if we have 49 people voting "keep" an article, but their arguments are not based on policy, and we have one dissenter who clearly and logically explains his position based on Wikipedia rules, it is wrong to adjudicate "no consensus" and right to find for the lone editor. Otherwise there really is no difference between this and a sheer vote -- besides some bluster and pretense.
        So in conclusion: I see the role of the deciding admin as being one who, knowing the policy backwards and forwards (many admins fail that), is able to spot policy rationales, enlighten the ignorant, correct the misinformed, and most of all MAKE A LUCID DECISION! Pablosecca 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Virginia Tech massacre. She is well covered in that article and is nn otherwise. Clarityfiend 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as material already exists in other articles. Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is nothing indicating real notability for this person other than coverage of her murder. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do we mean that two substantial independent RSs establish notability for people, or do we mean that it is not enough without additional factors? It's time we decided, because we are deciding some articles one way and some the other. Oddly, the better known the subject is, the more WPedians are interested in the question, and are likely to come here and explain why it's not notable. Being killed in a tragedy so notable that the individual death results in substantial international media coverage is notable by any rational standard, and the more people protest that it isn't, the more they show that it is. DGG 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the subject was not notable enough to have an article in life, there is no reason to have an article after(and because of the circumstances) her death. Stellatomailing 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has reliable sources which are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain 03:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire article on this woman could very easily be accommodated in substance in a few lines on the page for the Victims of the VTech massacre. The question is does she deserve her own article. Pablosecca 09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP There is a concept called "abuse of process" where one party in a dispute does not accept the outcome and keeps coming back. PLease accepct that as there is some doubt if this person can be considered NOT notable, that the doubt requires that the article stand, potentaly unused and unloved, but there if it is needed by the users of the encyclopedia. Even if Madame Couture-Nowak is only 1/2 notable as a techer and 1/2 notable as the founder of a french language school, and even if the article was created by someone reading the Obits. That adds up to putting the notability total to more than one. Lets not waste our effort in arguing if that means she is at 98% notable or 105%. Please let's agree that her notability would have incressed over time if not for the VTM, and let's put the effort into writing more aticles (or even filling out this one)cmacd 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once again, the sources are entirely incidental, so what's the point in keeping around a non-notable biography? See my arguements at the previous deletion debates and DRV. Michaelas10 16:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:BIO and let's move on. Dustbowldiaspora 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:BIO and WP:N for her work in establishing the French public school in Nova Scotia, with significant impact to French-speakers in that area. Also -- per cmacd: this third AfD amounts to abuse of process by those who refuse to accept the outcome. --Yksin 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, though I'm beginning to feel like I'm in a bad version of Groundhog Day. Victimhood by itself is not notable per the sitewide precedent to move articles on 9/11 victims off Wikipedia. The only claim to notability is as co-founder of a school. As the school has been found to be not notable, founding it cannot be used to declare notability. (Oakshade, there is no need to reply to me here. We've already had our go around in previous debates.) - BanyanTree 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. Dying does not confer notability, and there is no real claim preceeding her death. Her mention in the main articles on the VaTech shootings are sufficient. Resolute 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has to be notable now, not at some time in the past. If there are

RSs devoted specifically to her, it meets the requirements. The reason we have standards for N is to prevent arguments of this sort; News sources write stories that they know people will want to read--because they know people will consider it notable. They are somewhat better at it than we are, overall. So we reasonably accept that if two different major new sources have chosen to write the story, she has become notable, and that really should be the end of it.

Now, I am not 100% sure that the above is the best rule. But we have to work by one rule or another, to stop every article from being a contest of ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT, or IKNOWINMYHEARTSHESNOTABLE vs the opposite. We could adopt a rule that the actual career has to be enough to qualify her by any one of a number of standards in addition to the sources. But we dont have that rule--and perhaps theres a good reason, because we might never agree: I'll accept one LP if you accept three books? We'll accept someone who kills 3 people, but not 2? (we do have shortcuts, like being an athlete in the Olympics, or being mayor of a large city, because we know there will be stories) We can't judge some articles by one standard and some by another, according to the feeling here that day.--and , even worse, keep doing it again and again to the same articles day after day. I think repeated nomination at this frequency is beginning to interfere with the operation of Wikipedia. DGG 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but I fear that your suggestion evidences a wish for security that is ill-placed. I think that this is the true nature of "consensus" -- when reasonable people gather and express an opinion, while respecting the overall policy. To say that anyone who is the subject of a news item whatever is automatically notable is too mechanical and knee-jerk. Official Wikipedia policy even enshrines this in the form of WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. There is a balance to be struck, and that is the hope that people place in "consensus". Pablosecca 08:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am willing to be swayed either way by good insights. There needs to be more of that and less emotion in this discussion. Since the last discussion, there has been one, just one, change of any substance to the article and just two posts (aside from "sham consensus") on the discussion page. If 10% of the people debating deletion (yes both sides) spent 5 minutes cautiously improving the article, we would get somewhere. And improving can mean reducing. If working at a non-notable daycare is non-notable, Deleters should discuss that on the article's discussion page. Yes, I appreciate it's more time-consuming than simply voting Delete for the 13th time (especially if you feel the whole article is non-notable)...but showing respect is an important of progress. Instead, we are back at this pointless, repetitive debate which verges on abuse of process. I'm siding with the view expressed in the Deletion Review: "repeated attempts to delete content are not in the spirit of of an open resource." Canuckle 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the author of the "sham consensus" post, I feel must make a quick point here regarding abuse of process. I am not willing to fight endless battles over articles. There have been a very small number of articles that I have been against; sometimes it's happened that the article gets brought to an AfD and the judgment is "keep". When that happens I respect that decision and do not raise the debate further.
    The reason that this is not abuse of process, in my opinion, is that this article has not been judged "keep" at all, ever, and was initially judged "delete". I for one refuse to agree that an article should exist on the basis of "no consensus". Let this article be judged "keep" (though of course I feel strongly that would be wrong) and pass a deletion review if need be, and let it stay at that. Or, likewise, let it be deleted, and let it stay at that, too. Pablosecca 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi Pablosecca. I hope I have not offended you by noting the title of the "sham consensus" topic on the article's discussion page. I noted it not to cast judgement on the merits of that argument, but to note that it was a discussion about process. It did not discuss the merits of the article. A definitive decision is indeed desirable. One that both sides can agree with would be even better and in the spirit of open collaboration. How do we get there? One way would be to remove the the threat of immindent deletion and discuss the merits of the article on the article's discussion page Canuckle 18:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I ask why? Michaelas10 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tons of press coverage, far more than the accepted minimum for inclusion as a subject. Everyking 01:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's incidental, not independent of her biography. As such, leaving this article around is useless and unnecessary. Why not just utilize the notability implied from those sources to merely mention her as a part of the tragedy timeline? Michaelas10 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The coverage is not incidental. Most of the coverage is about her life and work before the massacre, not just about "incidents". --Oakshade 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I meant she became widely covered due to an incident, not her personal notability. Michaelas10 18:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • According to WP:N and WP:BIO, notability can be demonstrated by coverage by "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; the guidelines do not make an exception for people who are covered by reliable sources primarily because of their death or murder. There are many examples in Wikipedia of articles about people who became notable when they were killed—a couple of especially prominent examples are J.D. Tippit and Ronald Goldman, but there are dozens of others—take a look at the articles in categories like Category:Murder victims by nationality and its subcategories, or Category:Murdered police officers and its subcategory. WP:BIO does say, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," but the examples of trivial coverage are things like "a simple directory entry or a mention in passing." Couture-Nowak has been the primary subject of several newspaper articles—this is not trivial coverage. BRMo 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- lucasbfr talk 11:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hume

edit
Tony Hume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability of subject not established. Article appears to be an autobiography of a non-notable person.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiscandal

edit
Wikiscandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dicdef, Neologism, self reference pgk 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ocatecir Talk 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesty beatz

edit
Jesty beatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only album appears to be self-released. Fails WP:BAND. Blueboy96 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 two PRODded actor articles have been deleted early. --Coredesat 04:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denied

edit
Denied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Future movie whose only claim to fame is that actor Hugo Speer will act in it. It is a short (less than an hour) movie by a new director, made for his own brand new company, with unknown actors otherwise. The movie has received some grants, apparently, but I'm unable to confirm this. In fact, I can find nothing about this movie apart from the IMDb page[9], which means it completely fails WP:NOTE, and also violates WP:CRYSTAL. Fram 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl S. Bell

edit
Earl S. Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Allthough the article is asthetically well done, it's little more than flashy self-promotion of a subject of questionable notability. None of the references make any mention of the subject, and most of the article is not about the person but about a proposed building design, an unnotable magazine, and a architectural style that was previously removed from wikipedia. 99DBSIMLR 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm going to leave it up to the editors of Strength training to merge this if they want to, I'll leave a note on the talk page. Mangojuicetalk 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest pause

edit
Rest pause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) Quartet 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - well, it HAS some sources, but they're so poorly formatted that there's no way to verify them, or even tell if they exist. The phrase "rest pause" gets zero GHits, outside Wikipedia, so I don't think the topic is notable. --Haemo 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crackelacking

edit
Crackelacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No relible sources. Fails WP:A. Even if sourced, it fails to assert how the subject meets WP:NOTE, and isn't simply neologism. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key blades

edit
Key blades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable trivial part of a game, no sources, doesn't qualify for a page on its own, through WP:NOT if nothing else. EliminatorJR Talk 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of emerging architects

edit
List of emerging architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another pointless list. Unsupported predetermined list of non-notable people. WP:NOT#CBALL + WP:BIO + etc 99DBSIMLR 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ocatecir Talk 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AlbumTown

edit
AlbumTown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete an advertisement disguised as an article. This has been previously prodded. Mindmatrix 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky "The Hammer" Sinz

edit
Ricky "The Hammer" Sinz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaw Family Band

edit
Outlaw Family Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Evidently this page was created by a band member or gropie given that it sounds like an advertisement. It seems that they might have been featured as a minor part on a minor television show, but they only have 900 google hits. There is a section filled with POV acclaim for the band, and it has links to there myspace, yada yada yada. Practically all of the article creator's edits are related to his band. Also see Ravenswood getaway AdamBiswanger1 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Since Slackjaw Records does not seem to qualify as a major label, the two albums with them are not sufficient to establish notability. I also found no hints that other criteria in WP:MUSIC would be fulfilled (national tours with secondary coverage, charted hits, etc.). --B. Wolterding 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswood getaway

edit
Ravenswood getaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A song by a band which I listed at AFD just now, Outlaw Family Band AdamBiswanger1 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. I'm hesitating about the band (production from someone from Wilco, couple of relevant possible non-trivial media mentions i need to look into), but in no way is the song notable, this just reads like an interesting anecdote. not for encyc. tomasz. 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per W guice. I'm not totally convinced the band is non-notable, but this song surely is. Closenplay 20:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Brunette

edit
Crazy Brunette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable singer-songwriter per WP:MUSIC, no relevant Google hits. Gimboid13 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 Salaskan 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page about an unreleased and apparently incomplete album by this artist:

Crazy Brunette: The Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gimboid13 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie quote

edit
Movie quote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear neologism; unsourced. Original author removed the recent {{prod}} notice without explanation Gwernol 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch alphabet

edit
Dutch alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Dutch alphabet is exactly the same as the Latin alphabet. The article says that some consider "ij" to be a letter, but "native Dutch speakers" always consider this to be 26. I think native Dutch speakers determine how the Dutch language is. Also, the Taalunie considers ij not to be a letter, and the Taalunie is the only official body for regulating the Dutch language. Nearly the entire article is about the letter ij, as the Dutch alphabet doesn't differ from the Latin alphabet. This is not necessary, as there is one very comprehensive article about this letter: IJ (digraph). If all text about the IJ be removed, then the article would have only a few sentences (which I will list here), and likely be too short for an entire article, so the sentences can get moved to Dutch language.


Would be the only text that remained if the redundant text about the IJ which is included at IJ (letter) would be removed. Salaskan 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, the IJ is the special thing about the Dutch way of writing things but it isn't a letter! C mon 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to section in Dutch language. I think everything important can be covered there. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have other alphabet articles on alphabets derived from Latin at Category:Latin-derived alphabets. Articles such as English alphabet and French alphabet provide meaningful context besides just a standard list, and the Dutch alphabet article also provides context. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Dutch alphabet (with its IJ) is similarly special as many alphabets in the Category:Latin-derived alphabets (e.g. the French, German, Italian, Portugese, Finnish, etc.). Either all of these have to be deleted as well, or the Dutch alphabet deserves an article as well. My suggestion would be to discuss this at a higher level; e.g. by mass-nominating all articles at once. Arnoutf 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - What about creating a section for this in Dutch language, and letting Dutch alphabet redirect there? As I pointed out above, when the duplicated information about the IJ is removed, the article consists of only a few sentences. Salaskan 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, contains no useful information, the Dutch alphabet is not remarkable compared to the Latin one. Furthermore, much of the information in the article is very questionable: oe, aa, ie, ... are not diphthongs at all (some of the others are), but some more remarkable three-vowel combinations (oei, eeu, ieu) are. Some of the combinations given a non-existing do exist in Dutch (ea = meander, realiteit, ... ia = piano, riant, ...: they form two syllables, but that is not discussed in the article). However, this has nothing to do with the alphabet of course. If kept, the article needs to be almost completely rewritten. Fram 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elkman, the Dutch alphabet is distinct from the Latin alphabet. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no editors looking at sources in the above. Perhaps that's because the article doesn't cite a single source and editors are performing original research, working out their own theories of human knowledge rather than what the sources actually document. Going and actually looking for sources, I find sources such as the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems (ISBN 063121481X), which document a distinct Dutch alphabet. Interestingly, the 1878 A new practical grammar of the Dutch language by Franz Ahn documents a Dutch alphabet of 24 letters, as does the 1908 Elements of Dutch by Jan Marius Hoogvliet. Clearly, if editors used some sources, there would be a good article here. That's a matter of cleanup, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep - the Dutch alphabet is almost the same as the standard Latin alphabet - almost being the operative word. Having a 'ij' instead of a 'y' makes all the difference. The fact that we use the 'y' in loanwords doesn't make it part of 'our' alphabet - just like ñ, ø and the like. That 'ij' is often treated as being 'i + j' is mostly because of practical reasons (electronic sorting for instance). Richard 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Are we to have articles on the alphabet in every language that uses a variation of the Latin alphabet? The only useful content in this article concerns the digraph IJ (digraph), which already has an article. The paragraph on ij should be merged with that and the rest deleted or merged with Dutch language. Peterkingiron 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elkman. Murcielago 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Merge, if desired, can be discussed on the relvant talk page, and carried out, if consensus forms, without an afd. DES (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech on Evolution

edit
Free Speech on Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unnotable Martialis 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one reference, which indicates only that the article is ridiculous. Martialis 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell hasn't this been deleted yet? There are now 2 more references, one is a science blog, and the other is a comment buried in a different science blog. (an unsigned comment from User:Martialis)

Because that's not how AFD works. There's no consensus for deletion. FeloniousMonk 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - db-spam, and so marked. In any case, WP:SOAPBOX applies here. The Evil Spartan 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete semi-scientific propaganda; disguised by multiple references to publications by a single institute with a clear mission. WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Arnoutf 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since when is neutrally and accurately describing a group's PR campaign proscribed? Better to accurately and neutrally cover it here than let them get away with claiming it is something it is not elsewhere. And if sources are missing, then add some.Odd nature 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arnoutf (but not speediable IMO, I removed that tag...there are refs and it seems possibly notable on its face). I agree with Odd nature that a NPOV description of this thing is certainly encyclopediac, but the article here needs more WP:RS than just self-published sources to in order to be more than just an extension of the PR campaign itself. The one non-self-source doesn't appear to mention the campaign directly, so its inclusion borders on WP:OR by synthesis. DMacks 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - the article's references are all from what WP:ATT defines as partisan & self-published souces. These sources are not reliable or notable. I would respectfully disagree with Odd nature, Wikipedia does not cover the PR campaigns of organizations unless those campaigns are notable in & of themselves (i.e mentioned in secondary sources)--Cailil talk 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional sources have since been added. Also, according to W:V and WP:RS, which are actual policy unlike WP:ATT, the sources you object to as partisan are being used exactly as policy dictates, as primary sources for what the partisan group (the Discovery Institute) says. Odd nature 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The three I just read are all a single quote of a Discovery Institute person stating that he feels that what Bush said is in keeping with their PR campaign. Actually no, they are just using the topic-title, not even explicit that this is related to the actual PR campaign. They are three cites of exactly the same quote in the same context, all with no further commentary on the quote or the campaign. That doesn't sounds like third-party support for notability of the campaign. DMacks 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote to merge (see below)--Cailil talk 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article describes an attempt by the Discovery Institute to place religious dogma into public school curriculum. It's the same as Intelligent Design, Teach the controversy, the Wedge document and numerous other articles on the same topic. Orangemarlin 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per OrangeMarlin; this is a notable DI campaign, and the article is supported by multiple independent sources. Guettarda 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per OM and Guettarda. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep I cannot imagine why on earth this article is not worthy of keeping. Basically the Discovery Institute has made itself prominent in the public sphere by its lobbying and public relations efforts. And all of its related activities are clearly of encyclopedic importance, including the campaign that is the subject of this article. I am certain that more material will be available to add to this article to flesh it out.--Filll 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Is this about a specific name campaign, or the general idea of "free speech on evolution," ? If the second, ID and related articles cover the ground very thoroughly. So it would have to be a specific campaign. Given that the discovery Institute is notable, not everything it does is. There is no reason to think a particular campaign notable unless it ha independently been the subject of notice.
Ref #1 is about ID, not this campaign in particular; so is #2, which uses the term in the generic sense only. #3 talks about many things, of which evolution under any wording is a minor part, #4 is generic "who don't believe in free speech on evolution," he explains." --that is not talking about any specific campaign. #5 is about ID in general and even says so. #6 doesn't even mention the phrase. #7 uses the title for the campaign, without in any way showing how it might differ from any of its other initiatives. In any case, it's an internal PR from the Institute and not an independent source. #8 doesn't mention the phrase. #9 doesn't mention the phrase. #10 is the 2nd part of #7, and in any case not independent. #11, again from the institute, doesn't mention the phrase. #12, also from the institute, uses the phrase .
so who considers this campaign a significant separate initiative-- First, even the institute itself doesn't seem to do so consistently. Second, there is no reference from a supporter of the Institute's position that uses the phrase--not even Bush. Third, there is no reference from an opponent of the position that uses the phrase.
I think that settles it--not a POV fork, exactly, but an attempt to use something not notable without a single independent reference to the phrase as a specific title of anything, to provide another place to discuss the controversy over the institute and ID. It's about as notable as calling it "Intelligent Design, argument continued into 2007" DGG 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the Discovery Institute itself calls it a campaign: "Join The Free Speech on Evolution Campaign" Does anyone actually bother to read the sources provided there? FeloniousMonk 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article on a notable branch of the Discovery Institute's well-documented PR campaign to foist ID off as science. I don't see any genuine issues with the sources provided; some of the most strentuous objections here appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the guidelines for the proper use of primary sources. FeloniousMonk 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read through them all, and , somewhat to my surprise, found that though they call it that twice, nobody else does. Nobody at all. Not their supporters, not their opponents. And they don't even do it consistently--see the other refs. There are zero independent refs to their use of the word. We will be the first. WP is not in the business of spreading the PR that nobody in the world has noticed.DGG 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Sure about that?"I'm on the Discovery Institute's enemies list now. They have this thing called "the free speech on evolution campaign"..." PZ Myers at Pharyngula (blog). "Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells instead presented a "compromise", talking about having teachers "teach the controversy". One may dredge the DI web site for any of sundry press releases and commentaries where they espouse other catchphrases as well. On their "evolutionnews" weblog, one can easily find the DI "free speech on evolution" campaign page." Wesley R. Elsberry at The Panda's Thumb (blog). These are sources from the leading ID critics made at some of the leading venues where ID is debated. And before everyone jumps on the fact that these are blogs, both Pharyngula and The Panda's Thumb have been both widely accepted as reliable sources at Wikipedia for several years now. Pharyngula because it is a credible member of ScienceBlogs, a project of Seed magazine, and Panda's Thumb because of the respect it has garned within the scientific community and the high percentage of participation of that same community there. FeloniousMonk 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Awful article, might be some content to merge to [[Discovery Institute; The campaign is... somewhat noteworthy, but made out as more notable than it is. Adam Cuerden talk 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FeloniousMonk. --Ian Pitchford 07:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really see a NPoV reason not to keep it now that more sources have been added (though I can understand Martialis' view when the AfD was opened). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per Odd nature and Orangemarlin. However, I would suggest considering merging into this article; it's not (yet?) obvious to me that this particular campaign is notable enough for its own article, but it certainly would fit into a larger, more general article on the Discovery Institute's disinformation campaigns. As an aside, this article was nominated for deletion only four days after its creation. Given this timescale, in future it might be more sensible to first encourage its creator/main editors to add sources for notability before nominating it for deletion on these grounds. The campaign the article describes stems from a notable organisation after all. --Plumbago 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. OK sourcing, not especially notable yet as a term. It does appear to be a strategy, though. Jokestress 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I've changed my position following the additional sources and the comments of FeloniousMonk. I still have serious concerns about the articles sourcing since if we accept FeloniousMonk's argument there are, perhaps, 2 reliable sources. However I think Adam Cuerden's suggestion to merge this article with Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns is very reasonable. The subject of this article is not particularly notable and can't be sourced well enough to justify having its own page, especially when a summary article about this organization's other campaigns already exists--Cailil talk 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While not a major campaign, it's sufficiently notable both on its own and as a link-to in the WP series on Intelligent design. I don't know of any other uses for "Free Speech on Evolution" other than this usage in the context of the Discovery Institute's campaign to argue that the "freedom of speech" clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution trumps the establishment clause of the First Amendment in the view of advocates of teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in the US public schools. So I wouldn't go by the Google standard of notability in this case--It's more notable than, say, Hickam's dictum. ... Kenosis 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 08:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2

edit
AfDs for this article:
In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Second nomination, first time kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Concert: New Rock 94-44, disc 2 of 2. However, as far as I can tell, this is a bootleg CD of a promotional radio concert they gave, it is not and has not been officially available, is not listed on Cranberries.com, gets only 11 Google hits apart from Wikipedia[10], ale of them just listing it in a discography (all presumably from the same source, but which one?). No actual verifiable sources about this album (notice the lack of info on "disc 1 of 2", which would be amazing for a real Cranberries (or Pretenders) album? Fails WP:MUSIC and fails in fact even WP:V currently (and I doubt anything reliable beyond a primary source exists currently). Fram 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergence phenomenon

edit
Emergence phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is poorly written and has remained so for a number of months without any editor touching it. The way in which it is written means that the article is not useful in any way, and until somebody comes along and completely starts again from scratch, I think we'd be better off without it. This is a contested prod. John24601 16:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirect - it is often inadvisable to redirect a sub-topic to its parent, especially in cases like this where the sub-topic is such a miniscule area which doesn't have its own section in the parent topic article. --John24601 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beef Wellington (wrestler)

edit
Beef Wellington (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Rintala

edit
Sami Rintala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Architect of somewhat lacking notability. No sources beyond subject's own web site. Article was edited as part of an astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande, but those edits have been reverted. Even in the reverted state, the article reads like spam for the man and his firm. DarkAudit 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aestheticization of violence

edit
Aestheticization of violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I struggled with this nomination as it is obvious that a lot of work has gone into this article, and all edits were made in good faith. However, the article is plagued with original research, and I doubt that this topic could ever satisfy the grounds of Wikipedia:No Original Research. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This actually looks like a well reseached and sourced article. In fact, I don't even see that much Orginial Research. If you allege orginial research, you should show at least a few examples. I see tons of things that say "____" said that: "________". The problems with sourcing that I see are a few sections under film and video, and even there, most are sourced.Fimbulwintr 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This is a difficult one, and I understand the struggle with the nomination. It's similar to its sister article Aestheticization as propaganda. Both articles have problems of borderline or overt violations of WP:OR (the film section in this article is particularly problematic) and both are somewhat confusing and/or seemingly off topic at points (also the topic as a whole is somewhat ill defined). They are too much like personal essays, and the basic core of both articles seems to have come from User:David91, apparently a respected editor who said he was going into the hospital for a few days over a year ago and has not been heard from since. Because this article, and its sister article, bear a strong imprint from an editor who is no longer active (we can only hope by his own choice) and because they are very esoteric, it is difficult to see how to go about fixing their weaknesses and turning them into good wikipedia articles. It seems like some people are trying, but I'm skeptical. Nonetheless I think the article should be kept for now as I think it is a legitimate topic worthy of wikipedia, it just needs a lot of work and it might ultimately have to be abandoned. I recommend an essay tag like the one at the top of Aestheticization as propaganda.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the concept is commonly bandied about, & there's certainly a lot of what it refers to out there. other problems (essay, wp:or etc) should be dealt with by editing the article, regardless of nominator's inability to conceive of this  ⇒ bsnowball  10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep basically it just needs a lot of work, but not scraping and re-starting. Whist there is a lot of OR in the article, the subject itself is well documented, and it's just a case of bringing more of that into the article. --Davémon 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future pavillion

edit
Future pavillion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Article is part of a massive astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande. As worst, it is spam. At best, it is riddled with conflict of interest. Best to burn it and start over. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool. Astroturfing is willfull abuse of Wikipedia. DarkAudit 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opting for deletion here due to arguments by single-purpose accounts, as well as the fact that the article does not assert any notability. --Coredesat 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggly Worm Productions

edit
Wiggly Worm Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Most of the few Google hits are for an unrelated company in the UK. Article creator has removed maintenance tags without improving the article. He had also created bio pages for the principals of the company, which were all A7 speedied. --Finngall talk 15:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wants the content to translate into English, I will userfy. W.marsh 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topoliana

edit
Topoliana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed on Pages Needing Translation for more than two weeks, so per guidelines there, sending to AfD. Essayic piece about a really small village. I'd asked a greek-speaker on Wikipedia to review it, and he said, "the article you aked me to translate refers to a tiny tiny village in central Greece. I don't know wether it deserves its place in the (current sized) wikipedia either. Check for example the size of the article about Karpenisi which is the capital of the whole prefecture the village belongs to." Given that, I hardly think that this is notable enough to keep, so besides listing it here, I'm advocating delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akradecki (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja (TV series)

edit
Ninja (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural AfD, prod tag removed by author. I can find NO sources reagrding this "show". IMDB does no list this or any of the actors/actress. Possible hoax? Wildthing61476 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Agnes Fitzgerald

edit
Mary Agnes Fitzgerald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Given the complaints about non notable Arbuthnots and their comparison to the Kennedys [11] it only seems fair to judge them all equally- so, Delete this Kennedy as non notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Being the relative of someone notable doesn't necessarily make that person notable as well. The only real thing that she became newsworthy for was dying at a relative young age which some people attribute to a "Kennedy curse", but even that's a huge stretch. Not much of else can be written about her. --† Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 16:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparently this one did not even die young, but was the 1882-1936 one rather than the 1936-1940 one. Notability does not automatically transfer to relatives. Already has a box in the Kennedy family tree in Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy which seems quite sufficient. Edison 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Coredesat 04:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casagrande & Rintala

edit
Casagrande & Rintala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is part of the massive astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande. No sources are provided to verify any claims. Astroturfing is spam and willful abuse of Wikipedia to further one's own ends. DarkAudit 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Procedural non-admin closure. YechielMan 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Azerbaijan

edit
Heroes of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced opinion. There may or may not be an award of a similar name awarded by the Azerbaijan government, but an article should focus on the fact that it's the government's opinion and on the official nature of the award. The link provided is not in English, so I can't tell whether it's just one more person's opinion. In general, the article hopelessly POV and a guaranteed source of edit wars. Imagine Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore preparing lists of "Heroes of America" and comparing them. Might be a recreation of deleted material, but I don't know what the old page name was. Richfife 15:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richfife, first of all, why are you rushing to nominate articles for deletion? You wrote a few hours ago: "OK then, if I don't get some evidence that this is an official award in the next day or two, I'm going to nominate the article for deletion as original research. - Richfife 18:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)". Note that day or two have not passed yet. Secondly, English-language sources have already been provided. As you see, this is not an unsourced opinion. See the article's Talk for more. ---Zondi 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom Zondi has provided the necessary backup for most of the article except the last entry (Babak). More on the talk page - Richfife 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr talk 11:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Albanian Brewing Company

edit
New Albanian Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is regarding a microbrewery in Indiana. Speedy was contested, so bringing to AfD. Unlike the Bluegrass Brewing Company, which has won awards for it's beer, I can't find where this establishment meets WP:CORP Wildthing61476 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twotone drumsticks

edit
Twotone drumsticks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is basically an advertisement as well as being a copy of this page. Speedy contested several times. ... discospinster talk 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Genesis covers

edit
List of Genesis covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - see for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs covered by Jimi Hendrix. That an artist sang another artist's song live is generally not notable and is likely not verifiable. Notable cover versions should be noted in an article for the song and/or a discography for the cover artist. Otto4711 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Prematurely closed per Mangojuice below, and also as a potentially dangerous hoax that might be used to support an investment scam (I've seen similar cases). The dyslexic puppets have all been blocked, too.

Any law enforcement personnel that need to view this article's contents can click here to contact me, or they can contact any other administrator. Sandstein 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rosner

edit
Robert Rosner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; listing here after prod tag was re-added by Oscarthecat. Prod reason was "No sources and unverifiable." I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not remove this artivle evidence has been put on this article anx it threfore is perfectly coherent. Trust me I know the person personally. Sincerley Yours —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Rosner Family (talk • contribs).
  • I think this article is perfectly adequate and the information is verifiable and the sources are presnet. Yet i trully beleive that this article should be kept just like Wikipedia does for millions of others . I am in perfec understanding with this article and I wish it stays

Lets give this article a try without any Warning and lets see how it does??? Oscarthecat i trully beleive this article is coherent. Give it a try take out the Warning......

I like this article reallyUser:Wkikfamilyboy

  • Merril Lynch is the worlds most powerful private bank with Capgimini..Sorry ot say but yes it is more reliable than forbes as it has a gvtmental aspect and number accesability

but hey if you want to delete it delete it but you know that we could keep this page whilst taking out the info that bothers people no? — 82.120.235.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I like this article, and for your personal info it happens that two people have the same name,the fact that robert rosner exist and is the founder of vestar is not debatable just go on the site he is right there,now the fact that merril lynch doesnt publish his name is normal because he is a private,for sure the info is valid!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.141.80 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment He does exist but... all the top hits on Google as well turn up the astrophysicist. Adding Vestar to the search field comes up with less than 500. Whsitchy 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since you admit the Merrill Lynch (interesting that you misspell it the same way as the article) reference doesn't mention him, why is it even included? Clarityfiend 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete as corrected by Whstchy. this is a variant on our problem with little known languages, where we can't evaluate the importance of publications unless they're in English. --we in general are not familiar with the standards and the sources and what makes for notability in the business world. As a working standard, I'd consider using something easy to determine and quantifiable, such as the $1 billion threshold. DGG 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he is not on the Forbes list referenced. He may be in the ML report, but we'd need a quote from it from someone who has access. DGG 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merril Lynch is spelt this way and it is correctly spelt in the article.. But how many times are we going to say it . Delete this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.235.67 (talk • contribs)
  • "Hello fellow webmasters, i hear there seems to be an issue with the Merril Lynch report. Well luckely for you , I work in the Merril Lynch paris office and I know as a fact the presence of Mr Rosner if you would like me too i could send a PDF page which we could post on this page which states his presence on the Merril Lynch report would that help. I dont personally know rosner but I know that he owns this private equity firm and that he is on this report and that he does live in Paris. All I know is that their is no lie on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BobyMerril (talk • contribs).
  • Note: as "BobyMerril" has recently recreated the page on the company Rosner works for, again copying most of the text from the Vestar website, and the above is patently unbelievable, I have blocked him as an abusive sockpuppet. I find it really odd that this guy is supposed to be a billionaire and yet his article is being supported almost exclusively by new accounts that can't spell. If there aren't any keep comments from established users by the end of today, I'm going to delete this as a hoax and per WP:SNOW. Mangojuicetalk 14:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin-headed deer

edit
Pumpkin-headed deer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deers with their heads in punpkins? Funny but a bit too much of a trivia thing to be encyclopedic, I think. Maybe there is something here to include in a artice about wild animals behaviour in a human environment - is there any out there? - but is not enough to stand on its own. - Nabla 14:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marky Mark (wrestler)

edit
Marky Mark (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable wrestler, no reliable references or citations Od Mishehu 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Battlefront III

edit
Star Wars Battlefront III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP is not a crystal ball. Unsourced speculative information. Speedied before, but recreated, so let's get an official AFD behind keeping it deleted until such a time as well sourced information is availible. TexasAndroid 13:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote. (User already expressed himself previously on this AFD.) - TexasAndroid 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm a little unclear. Is this permissable use of the imaging system? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All mentions about this game on the search engine are purely speculative forum topics. This implies crystalballing on the article's behalf.--Kylohk 09:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You Never Really Know if This Game will Really Come Out So I Myself will eventually keep the Image for Now. If it's Deleted, It's Deleted....I Won't Leave the Image on Wikipedia for Sure So... I'll Leave it on My Comp.. Sanchmarc

  • Well, here's the skinny, Sanchmarc. No, we don't know if the game is coming out - which is why it's brought here in the first place. Speculation of the release of the game is what I like to call "crystalballery", which I loosely define as dubious predictions of future events with no concrete information saying that this will definitely happen (such as, say, an article about the thirteenth sequel to the Police Academy series of films) - and one really important thing that WP is not is a crystal ball. I won't delete the image, it's up to someone else as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your understanding. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that contain U.S. city, state, or regional names in its title

edit
List of songs that contain U.S. city, state, or regional names in its title (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. These songs have nothing in common beyond happening to mention the name of a US geographical subdivision in the title and the inclusion criteria are far too broad. Otto4711 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal flatulence

edit
AfDs for this article:
Vaginal flatulence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Maybe a sourced encyclopaedic article can be written on this topic, but this is not it, and a ten minute Google search which left me wanting to wash my computer did not reveal anything credible on which to base it. The article has some sources which are dead external links, some which are about something else (fistula, a valid and well-covered topic), and at least one which is utterly risible (a link to the IMDB profile of a film which is asserted to include this). None of the supposed sources in this article actually supports the subject. None of the sources I could find is actually a valid, attributable source. Lots of forums, of course. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Another farcical article in which the references bear no relation whatsoever to the topic that is being discussed. Unreferenced articles get deleted. Moreschi Talk 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The humourous slang dictionary published by Viz is utterly risible, too, surely? Uncle G 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Garrigues (Henry Jacques Garrigues (1905). Gynecology, medical and surgical. Lippincott. p. 163.) documents "Garrulity of the vulva, or flatus vaginalis", as do Crossen (Harry Sturgeon Crossen (1922). Diseases of Women. C. V. Mosby. p. 372.) and Thomas (Theodore Gaillard Thomas (1891). A Practical treatise on the diseases of women. Lea Bros. p. 168.). Uncle G 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the promotional link to one porn movie. What remains, though there are a couple of broken links, seems like pretty decently written, encyclopedic material to me. There's no emergency of sourcing here, it will eventually improve. Mangojuicetalk 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And add more sources etc. But the article is encyclopaedic Lurker 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Somewhat marginal, and perhaps there is a satisfactory merge target for something like this, perhaps regarding other vaginal health issues. However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this article, it seems sourced and encyclopedic, could use a little more work but no reason to delete. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real phenomenon, so far sourced barely adequately. Needs continued serch for good sources, perhaps non-Google in medicval texts. Edison 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a real phenomenon. The article needs work but is not un-encyclopaedic in any particular way, especially if porn links have been removed. Mumun 無文 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The possible view than sexual topics are unlikely to have adequate sources has been defeated here by the existence of reliable medical articles. But I see no reason to remove working links to examples from pornography. (as distinct from dead links--these need checking even more frequently than other internet links.DGG 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it is sexual and somewhat out of the norm for discussion doesn't make it any less real. I agree that sources are important, but it can be very difficult to find sources on these types of topics. I also see no reason to remove valid links just because they are considered pornographic in nature if they are valid references, keep them.lbutler 46 19:34, 31 May 2007 UTC
  • Keep This does happen and a well rounded encyclopedia should include details on why and what can be done about it. Triddle 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep queefs are as much a biological occurance as sneezing is, i'm sure we've got an article on sneezing.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa's 1st congressional district election, 2006

edit
Iowa's 1st congressional district election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NPOV problems, unref'd, half the article is a little bio for the losing side. 99DBSIMLR 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to Merge and redirect per Davewild. I think the election article is the better merge target since both articles are strictly about the election and not the district as a whole. Otto4711 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was launch the WMDs. Krimpet (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs mentioning George W. Bush

edit
List of songs mentioning George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond sharing a word or two in their lyrics. Otto4711 13:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lon ton tui

edit
Lon ton tui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can find no evidence to verify this information, which seems a probable hoax. Prod removed by creator. FisherQueen (Talk) 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD something or other; deletion requested by page creator. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Witches

edit
Execution of Witches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

For background on this issue see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of witches executed. This is essentially the same sort of list as the previous one on Afd, just better formatted. I'm sympathetic to the author's argument that this is not a copyvio, given that it's a list based on objective criteria for inclusion, and thus not a creative work. Nevertheless, I think it should be deleted for all the reasons given in the previous nom. (namely that the people listed here are mostly not notable subjects and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). It also cannot be proved that any of these people were actually witches as the article title implies. Furthermore, some of these deaths seem not to be executions of witches (there are some peculiar inclusions like murders and juvenile suicides). Deranged bulbasaur 12:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that this was originally a PROD, but the template was removed by the author without comment. Deranged bulbasaur 13:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Balani

edit
Honey Balani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

single mention in a periodical does not warrant wiki entry Northfox 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, she was "in the right place at the right time" even for the article. It could have been any outsourced assistant whatsit and the article will likely never be more than a stub. tomasz. 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although I somewhat disagree about a single mention in a periodical not warranting inclusion in wikipedia (I believe it depends on what the person has been mentioned for), I do agree that this specific person is not notable enough to have an article on Wiki. The fact that it is a stub explains it all, there is simply not enough notable information to back up a full article. Hellswasteland 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- lucasbfr talk 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destination X Hawaii

edit
Destination X Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable production raised in a recent AfD debate. As it happens, a directed Google search for this show (leaving out this article, Myspace and Youtube) turns up only 54 unique hits, which is a cut beyond awful for a show actually airing where people can see it. None of those hits are from a reliable, published, third-party source per WP:V. Furthermore, this is both a WP:SPAM and a WP:COI violation, since User:MichelleWinkofer, the creator of the article, is a public relations staffer working for the program's producer, and her sole Wikipedia activity has been to promote himself and his works; see the previous AfD for details.  Ravenswing  12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Err, inaccurate. That's not in the top 25% of viewership. It's 61st out of 250 in airings. For all we know, those 30 airings could represent 4 AM paid advertisement showings on the Grass Hut Channel.  Ravenswing  19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be 20 million Dish Network subscribers, but Water Channel is an extremely obscure channel in their service. DarkAudit 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment:" I am a newbie to Wikipedia and did not intentionally want to create any violation in the creation of pages for Destination X Hawaii or its creator . I believe I can exercise the WP policy of correction of misinformation though, especially when its infers "disses". Just presenting facts here as is allowed especially if there is misinformation?. The TV series is in fact the most widely distributed travel and educational show ( its not American Idol, sorry) about Hawaii: Thats verified by a third party resource that tracks all shows including educational and travel shows in America.:[13].

The travel and educational series Destination X Hawaii is cast with primarily non caucassions and is about about a culture that seems to get "dissed" quite a bit; Hawaii. It took this culture decades to have the Grammy acknowledge this culture's contribution to media too. The travel and education TV series about Hawaii gets instead the typical "whitebread" perspective and a clear diss to the culture with a remark by an an editor about the suggestions of its airing on the "The Grass Hut" Channel. A listing of all stations that it airs on is listed at the referenced Back Channel Third party tracking site. What Wikipedia policy says an education and travel show has to have a certain Neilson rating? Ask most in the Hawaiin culture how they feel about such disses and suggestions when you put the words Hawaii from our TV series, you get a reply of "Grass Hut" and they will tell you they are typical. The Water Channel is hardly obscure, its two channels down from the Travel Channel on Dish TV. The TV series is also viewable online where editors can see its importantance in revealing the culture, and traditions and spirit of Aloha to viewers. The content and cultural context of the series is important content and often overlooked by the those not interested and those that think Hawaiians all live in grass huts. The show is published online by a third party site that has to approve content and broadcasts only premier programming including Destination X Hawaii and programs from A&E and The Discovery Channel in HD online [http://www.vuze.com/content/BucketBrowse.htm?sp=X&sp=X&sp=X&sp=1&sp=SNAME&sp=SALL&sp=l59&sp=X&sp=S&sp=X&sp=X&sp=1}. So viewers who cant view it like the editor who said he could not get it, can check its content out online and in HD. The site where its broadcast worldwide as well in ipTV and in HD has a strict policy of only accepting significant content there with many other major broadcasters and is not a site that like youtube.com that will take anyone's content as was referenced by another editor as the only site that they came upon with Destination X Hawaii. This is misinformation that simply needs the correction of. The editor also comments that the show is perhaps airing at 4Am, the airing times for each episode are typically 8:30 PM Wednesday in over 39 major markets in the USA every Wednesday night and that is referenced by data on Back Channel Media, a reliable third party resource. #1 Distributed education and travel show in Hawaii, I think it belongs on Wikipedia but let others decide that.--70.181.123.149 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)--MichelleWinkofer 22:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are an admitted PR flack for the people involved in this show. Your conflict of interest is showing. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, and you and your tactics need to go elsewhere. DarkAudit 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia doesn't require high Nielsen ratings. It does require reliable, independent, third-party, published sources which actually discuss the show. We're talking newspaper articles, books, interview transcripts from major news outlets, the like ... not advertising copy on the websites of the obscure channels airing the show. None have been provided.  Ravenswing  13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul C. Babin

edit
Paul C. Babin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure about this one, but I dont think just being on the crew of a bunch of movies satisfies notability. The subject hasn't pioneered any new techniques or did anything extraordinary. 99DBSIMLR 12:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skydive UL

edit
Skydive UL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a student organization that makes no assertion of notibility or has any third party references. 99DBSIMLR 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early: this article has been entirely rewritten and now only bears a passing resemblance to the nominated article. No delete votes other than the nominator's. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat of the brow

edit
Sweat of the brow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is little more than an unref'd definition. 99DBSIMLR 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, very weakly. No, it isn't very good at all. But this is not about the ordinary English meaning of the phrase "sweat of the brow"; it is about a concept existing in European (?) "intellectual property" (i.e. monopoly-franchise) law, whereunder pure effort in compiling unoriginal data may give rise to monopoly rights; it contrasts with U.S. copyright law, which requires at least a smidgen of originality. This text would not be wholly useless to someone who wanted to write a better article on the topic. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you see an unreferenced article such as this, go and find references, such as McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property page 428, yourself and make the article better. Deletion is not Cleanup, and is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G 14:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EOrganisation

edit
EOrganisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: The article is contrary to Wiki policy on neologisms. One or more organisations have put links to the page, but have done so for the same reason: they have put "e" in front Organisation. Leave a message here if you have any comments, or alternative call me on my ePhone. Gavin Collins 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was boldly redirected to the existing article at the correct name, per W guice. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice 12:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Stone

edit
Love Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This should be deleted as it should be caled LoveStoned, and that already has an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Izzy259 (talk • contribs) on May 29, 2007 (11:27 UTC).

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueIllusion OS

edit
BlueIllusion OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was put up for speedy as spam, not entirely convinced, so passing by here. Khukri 11:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prolog standards compliance

edit
Prolog standards compliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This collection of charts appears to me to be an indiscriminate collection of information. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article perhaps belongs in a sandbox at this stage of development. As yet there are no explanations of what the tables mean. But this is on its way. The Prolog programming language is governed by an ISO standard. At present there is no prolog implementations that meet the ISO standard - and this is important. When completed the article will describe how the Prolog programming languages fail in this respect and the implications of this failure. All information will be verifiable, mostly from peer-reviewed publications. I think FisherQueen is being a bit overzealous at this stage. ParkerJones2007 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those not familiar with Prolog, it's a programming language taught as part of computer science degrees at many (if not most) good universities. ParkerJones2007 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think FisherQueen was being overzealous, since as it is now, the article looks like someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia decided to post dozens of completely inscrutable charts for no reason. I don't mean any offense, but articles that are genuinely in progress towards becoming something acceptable don't usually look like that one does. Even if they were explained, that many charts seems highly excessive (to a layperson such as myself, anyway). I am torn about what to vote, since the AFD won't close for five days and I do believe this article may be significantly different then. But my instinct right now is Userfy, with no prejudice against the article being moved back after improvement. Propaniac 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this seems to be a somewhat indiscriminate collection of information. Propaniac can userfy anytime he wants. Someguy1221 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indiscriminate collection of information?
The information in the tables has almost a one-to-one correspondance with the ISO Prolog standard: ISO/IEC 13211-1[1]. Are you therefore also claiming that the standard is an indiscriminate collection of information? ParkerJones2007 09:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also note that Wikipedia is not a mirror for its sources. And I believe perhaps the below comments are the best option, moving this to Wikisource. Large tables of information should contribute to the understanding of a concept, but this is more of a reference. Someguy1221 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea: Keep article but Wikisource tables
If it is the large number of tables that are the main objection then would it be better to have them in Wikisource while the article summarises the results? From WP:NOT#IINFO, item 9:
"Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic." ParkerJones2007 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give the guy some credit: he made the largest article on Wikipedia! That takes some fortitude. Don't be too hasty about deleting this one: it's a monument to human endurance.  ;) Fifth Rider 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just citing WP:NOT is a bit vague. Could you explain which part you think is relevant? I'm glad you at least like the colours... ParkerJones2007 02:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmmm. It is kind of interesting for a specialist. It would be better to have an overview with historical information, how Prolog evolved and how/why it got divergent at the end. Visual Prolog, bad on standardizing but popular is not mentioned at all. Pavel Vozenilek 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far:

  • doesn't look like a usual article
  • looks like an indiscriminate collection of data
    • Inaccurate, the article has 1-1 correspondence with an ISO standard. This is apparent if you look at the standard.
  • The article is a mirror for its sources
    • Inaccurate, the article does not mirror its source - just look at the source.
  • The article is too long
    • it is long...

(Summary made by User:ParkerJones2007)

I guess people (at least me) expect a bit more narrative article which describes how Prolog had evolved from Edinburg implementation to ISO Prolog and what has happened since then. This is more like engineering table. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pavel, as I'm sure you know you're very welcome to contribute to the article and I think your suggestions about the standard's history would definitely improve it. The question being debated here is not whether the article is complete but whether it should exist in the first place. ParkerJones2007 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Speedy Delete as probable copyvio. See this .pdf document for a copyrighted version of essentially the same content. It would appear that someone copy and pasted from a similar publication, perhaps from an ISO specification or from course materials. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote (most of) the article. There was no copy and paste. The tables do not appear in the ISO standard (the document you refer to). The only thing they have in common are *some* section headings. The section headings are concepts of a programming language that existed prior to this document. Claiming copyright on them would be like claiming copyright on words like "sodium", "oxygen" and other chemical elements. ParkerJones2007 07:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing comments pending further study. Deepest Apologies to ParkerJones2007, with an urgent request to provide verifiability from reliable sources - otherwise it may appear to constitute original research which is also forbidden. I still feel it must either constitute a reorganized and reformatted version from unidentified expert sources, or constitute original research if ParkerJones2007 IS "the expert", in which case we may have other issues to deal with, such as a possible conflict of interest or self published sourcing. Nevertheless again I apologize for assuming an apparent copyright violation of someone else's published materials. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem T-dot, no offence taken. The data is neither original research nor am I the author. They were reported (in summarised form) in a peer-reviewed publication that is cited at the end of the WP article. The publication does not contain the individual results due to space limitations. However, the results are important, that's why I created an article here. I'm of course open to suggestions as to improve formatting and organisation. ParkerJones2007 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep and Improve, per above retraction of Speedy Delete. Recommend article improvements: Had to go "outside" to learn that this is related to Artificial Intelligence logic and coding, for example. It needs a 2-3 paragraph introductory explanation of what the article is about - to lay a foundation of what the tables mean. Then each table or section needs a paragraph explaining what it means to a lay person. There are plenty of examples that could be used as boilerplate models (not endorsing content, just showing examples of how to make the article useful to the lay person students of the subject): Table of logic symbols, Prolog, MATLAB, Production system. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yup. Utcursch is correct. The article needs work (e.g. tables with only green are excessive), but if we accept the Parker's assurances that this is neither plagiarism nor his own synthesis - and I see no reason not to - then I think it's pretty clear at this point that it is suitable for inclusion. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC China, etc.

edit
BBC China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
China's BBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BBC Chinese Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all hoaxes, surely? -- RHaworth 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 and A7. Sr13 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substance design

edit
Substance design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spam (?) for non-notable company. Website says "We need some money, will do a great deal for one of our first jobs", so hardly a notable company. Linked person is not relevant. Emeraude 11:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as a POV fork. The fact that the article creator has been POV pushing in this AFD discussion does not help his case, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Coredesat 05:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic English

edit

Looks like a heap of handwaving, or at best a "POV fork". I redirected to English people but that's been undone. The author says he created it due to "University studies" but it seems to contain little information and very little that is sourced. Perhaps it should just be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 10:ef02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • [assumed keep]. No - it starts to investigate the term Ethnic English and its position in UK Law and its grwoing relevance in the UK aurrounding Census and other matters. Tony Sidway simply does not understand the subject. It prossibly does noy conform to his POV - so he wants to delete it rather than discuss it properly. Toxteth34 10:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnicity is defined under UK law both in the race relation act and in other documentation. The English have been defined as a Ethnic Group since 1965. They are NOT a nation however - depending on what you define as a nation. But their ethnicity is English. hence a trial 2007 Census for the UK.Toxteth34 10:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ethnic classification in the UK, if not already covered. -- RHaworth 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tone and content appear to me as being one step removed from being labeled as Racist..--Gavin Collins 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to English people. I too have misgivings about the tone. Note that the author removed the AfD tag, which was reinstated by another editor. BTLizard 12:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepQuote Tone and content appear to me as being one step removed from being labeled as Racist. NO once again you do not know what you are talking about. The Ethnicity of English people has been recognised since 1965 (RR Act.) As is being furter recognised by changes in the 2007 Census. Try and look at your won predjudices if you think this way. The article is a matter of fact look at the term Ethnic English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxteth34 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-29 12:43:17
  • Delete per above. I'm not as worried about the (really rather non-existent) tone as some of the other editors, but this is a rambling, redundant mess that doesn't "investigate" much of anything at all and looks like a WP:OR violation. Editing and defending this article is the sole Wiki activity of Toxteth34, its creator.  RGTraynor  13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious to know where this idea of a "2007 census" comes from. Census in the United Kingdom occurs every 10 years, the next to occur in 2011. The idea of a "2007 census" appears to come solely from a picture hosted on a lobbyist web site — which also appears to be the origin of the particular idea of "ethnic english" being propounded in this article. Uncle G 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There we are - we have it - you do not truely know the subject matter - there is a change to the Census rules by the Government and introduced by the Government. The Term Ethnic English is now with us - having been dormant for about 30 years. Don't put a delet if you do not know what you are talking about. There is a change to the 2011 Census to better reflect the population mix of the UK. Ethnic English is a government term and has been is use by lawyers for some time. It is going through a trila Census in 2007. Way it is. the term is now being used/ Toxteh34 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The 2007 trial is a small voluntary survey to test the census mechanism in preparation for the 2011 census. You can find out about it here. It's of no particular relevance to this discussion, however. BTLizard 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had already found that. It makes it clear that the design of the 2011 U.K. census is still being developed. Both above and in the article, however, Toxteth34 (talk · contribs) writes of a "2007 census", pointing to a lobbyist web site. Given that as 89.243.63.240 (talk · contribs) — apparently the same person going by the edit history of this discussion — xe has also written about that very lobbyist web site at Steadfast, it appears that these particular ideas of "ethnic english" and a "2007 census" are all coming from a single source, and simply don't exist outside of it. Uncle G 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am reading it right the Steadfast site is a charity.Toxteth34 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Correction, they've got UK registered charity status but that means next to nothing. My school was a registered charity. tomasz. 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect it does have relevance as you are all going to be asked your ethnicity in coming years which means we ae all going to have to understand what the term means. So are you Ethnically English will be a question the gorvernment puts to you and really we should be having this debate on the discussion page of the article. Would make good reading as a debate. Took me a little time to get my head around it. But it is a term that has relevance. very much so.Toxteth34 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The above comment still doesn't make the 2007 trial have relevance to this article, though, and as Uncle G already pointed out, this article is irrelevant in the face of this and this. tomasz. 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - once again you do ot know what you are talking about - the way it is being looked at is changing. By 2011 the census questionnaire will chnage. That is why I put previous examples on the article. To show the change. It takes a vit of a thought leap but I am sure people will get there. Or what is going to happen is that by 2011 people will not understand what the Census is saying. Forget the 2001 Census - this is now 7 years on. Toxteth34 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can we have a lengthy debate on a relatively new term and it not be an article? Toxteth34 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote above Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, precisely - and this is a relatively new term - Ethnic English - just like Ethnic Irish etc etc. It is here to stay. Can Wikipedia cope with a new term?Toxteth34 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone understanding that whilst not exactly new it is a newly deployed term - so my reasearch is original? Once again see 2011 article Toxteth34
  • This is an encyclopedia so this is a term in use.Toxteth34 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not exactly new but newly deployed"? sorry, but that's self-contradictory. "This is an encyclopedia so this is a term in use." that's not a rule, actually. tomasz. 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK have a look at this page of the test census PDF os 2007 Trial Sample Toxteth34 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly shows the term Ethnic English by asking the question. Toxteth34 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To me it just says "English". is the word "ethnic" invisible or something? tomasz. 14:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or something - check out section 13 of PDF of 2007 Trial Sample it specifically asked for your Ethnicity - English / Irish etc etc. Way it is Toxteth34 15:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I see what he / she is saying - and looking at the term Ethnic English it is definitely real.TimberWeald 16:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete close to being a POV fork with the introduction looking like original research but certainly duplication of information from other articles. Anything about the English as an ethnic group should be on the English people article. Anything about the ethnic and census classifications should be in the Census 2001 Ethnic Codes and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom articles. An article on Census 2011 Ethnic Codes however could be created around the proposed classifcations for the next census. Davewild 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look at section 13 of PDF of 2007 Trial Sample it clearly asks you to tick if you are Ethnically English. The term means alot more in law than say 'English People'. And sort of whether people like it or not the Government says so. So like Ethnic Irish or whatever which I presume no one has a problem with it is the same. Some of you may not get it - but it exists in Law. Toxteth34 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To quote from the top of English people "This article is about the English as an ethnic group." I am not denying that the government uses and will use the term 'ethnically english'. However there is now need to have a seperate article from English people and Ethnic groups of the United Kingdom which can cover the topic fine. We do not need a seperate article with the same content but a different title. As per Scotland - Scottish ethnicity redirects to Scottish people, see no reason why English ethnicity cannot do the same. Davewild 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term English People or Scottish People is virtually menaingless nowadays. It simply does not rack up in terms of new terminology / the law / what is current thinking. Ethnicity is the official position. Toxteth34 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A google search just points to some bizarre looking Nationalist sites. As per "new terminology" - I have never heard of the term before. A few blogs and the insane rantings of a few far right groups does not coin a "new term".
    • The Editor Toxteth34 might want to consult his/her dictionary. In terms such as Ethnic Albanian or Ethnic German the definition is described as "denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nation." (Oxford Dictionary of English 2nd Ed 2005), thus used in the sense of a diaspora community. I can't see that the article has any value. Although some of the ethnic background lists were of limited interest. Mike33 02:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. There's no reason why we need separate English people and Ethnic English articles, the "English people" article is about the English ethnic group. At best this is a POV-fork. Any information regarding the census and ethnicity can surely be included int he English people article. Alun 04:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quote above - "denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present - nation." - that is correct - the English are NOT a nation under law but are an Ethnic Group under law. Their Ethnicity is defined by the RR Act - so as a term it has more relevance than something like 'English People which means virtually nothing.Toxteth34 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You've offered that reasoning umpteen times now. Might i suggest you try and prove it or at least offer a decent source for it? Don't offer me section 13 of the proposed 2011 census document again, we've already established that doesn't back up your claim. tomasz. 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and upteen times I have told you to look at section 13 of the government website test census and upteen times you fail to do so. So once again look at section 13 of PDF of 2007 Trial Sample and read in properly. It is government stuff and is their in light blue and white. So once agin it proves thid party bona fide what I am sayig. Like it or not the test has already happened and the term is out there in law and in use. Way it is.Toxteth34 08:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Stop ignoring the fact that Section 13 of that document does not in any way back up your argument. As i have already explained above, it does not contain the phrase "ethnic English" (the very title of this article!!). The form says "ethnic" and it says "English" in vaguely the same area, but to use that as a source to prove an independently existing concept of "ethnic English" is OR by synthesis and therefore the source does not back up the claim. Furthermore, this document does not support any of your other claims. "the test has already happened and the term is out there in law and in use" >>> then there should be ample journalistic and statute evidence to document this. "the English are NOT a nation under law but are an Ethnic Group under law" >>> again, proof from the law books for this, please. Offer the same disproved meanderings again if you want, but without actual decent sources you're on a hiding to nothing. tomasz. 08:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you have done is prove you do not know what you are talking about and are thus not able to counter argue. Plus you are not reading Sect 13. End of discussion. You simply do not know the subject matter and thus should not be in the debate. Like it or not the term is there and being used. I wanted to start an article to reflect this. Bye.Toxteth34 10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You've done it again. tell me WHY you think i don't know what i'm talking about. i've read all of Section 13 and explained to you precisly why it's an invalid reference. You're not going to do well as a lawyer if you consistently ignore the arguments that aren't yours and just bludgeoningly repeat the same disproven misconceptions again and again. Whether you or i "like it or not" is irrelevant, you're just not providing any proof. tomasz. 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More reference to English Ethnicity from the Commision for Racial equality. CRE Website

Commment. Again not mentioning the phrase "Ethnic English" anywhere (which you'd think would be crucial given that's the name of the article), this is just a web form version of the oft-referenced and still irrelevant Section 13. Read what original research means. Familiarise yourself with the difference between a primary and secondary source. Try a different tack. tomasz. 11:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate between myself and tomasz. is finished has he refuses to read government literature properly and is starting to re-edit my comments on this page to make it appear that I am debating with him. The comments on the cliassfications on the CRE website are for general consumption see: CRE Website The term Ethnic English is here and is being used. Toxteth34 13:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, Toxteth34, you were the one who moved my comment, as a cursory glance at the edit history will show. i don't care what your reason was, but in any case i actually was debating you, insofar as you can have a debate when one side refuses to answer all the reasons the other has given as to why the sources they provide are bunk. Anyway. You're right, the debate between me and you is over. You seem to be an editor who loves to have the last word but seems more reluctant to have the first clue. This is for the community now. tomasz. 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - more reluctant to have the first clue - personal slight = indicates POV behind argument from tomasz. Toxteth34 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, not POV. you're thinking of incivility, stupid. tomasz. 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (shrugs) I don't know ... while a technical WP:CIVIL violation -- and I strongly suggest reining in the invective -- I would be frustrated myself if I'd asked repeatedly to see sources for the term "Ethnic English," only to be shown PDFs or websites that hold the words "ethnic" or "ethnicity" and "English" somewhere (but never together) within the same document. This article seeks to establish "Ethnic English" as a valid term. So far there has been a great deal of chatter, but zero actual documentation backing that assertion up.  RGTraynor  14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have found no use whatever of the phrase. The article will not be judged by the intensity of the arguments. Its not a question of primary or secondary references, or how many references, or the quality of the references. There is scope for an article on "English " as an ethnic group, if it isn't covered adequately elsewhere. But this particular phrase simply does not exist. Its not a neologism--this WP article seems to be the first and only use. Not OR--just imagination. I notice the evidence for Ethnic English was that there exists the term Ethnic German. DGG 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My use of Ethnic German, was in the sense that Ethnicity is essentialy how people are categorised (or categorize themselves) outside of ones (or ones grandparents) homeland. In real terms (not weasling) it means more about language. Essentially, articles like this and edits to English people represent a seige mentally over a much disputed "anglo" people living in the UK. The Editor can argue forever about Wikieditors not understanding law, but the law uses the term Ethnic broadly; Certainly, not in the same way the editor wants us to beleive. Mike33 05:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, not POV. you're thinking of incivility, stupid. tomasz. 14:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) and I was thinking of 'intellectual peanut.' We have a few in law. Signing off. Toxteth34 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've been thinking about this term "Ethnic English" for a day or two now. As I have said in my delete proposal. The concept is POV in its whole essence and just a con-joining of two mismatched words. Wikidictionary does consider some very new phrases, (i think the rule of thumb here is that if a phrase appears 40,000 times on google it maybe notable) so there could be a cause for a definition in wikidictionary. The Steadfast Trust might be an area the editor might consider writing about and discuss the use of the term Ethnic English there. Afd is not a place for POV, and I hope that the reviewing admin won't be swayed one way or another by a few careless grande mots'. Mike33 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and Cleanup. utcursch | talk 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Plata (musician)

edit
Puerto Plata (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It is not written from a neutral point of view (uses words like "legendary", "immensely popular", and "finest musicians" without providing sources like polls to prove how popular he is). It also fails to include a reliable source. The only cited source in the article is an entry on the article in the IASO Records website (I suspect the musician is somehow involved with the company), which does not qualify as a reliable source. I originally requested it be speedily deleted, but this request was denied after the author blanked the page, removing the request. After a while, I used {{prod}}, but the author removed the request, saying that an addition made by an unregistered IP editor was enough to make the article acceptable. If you oppose the article's deletion, please remember to explain why: this is not a vote. If you think you can improve the article, be bold and edit it. Please examine the article carefully before participating in this AfD discussion. Finally, please remember to remain civil and assume good faith. Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The article does not merit deletion on the strength of IASO records as a notable source. The consideration is whether the band satisfies WP:MUSIC 5 & 7, in order to be deemed worth keeping, and whether this is verifiable, in order to be kept. As indie labels go, IASO appears marginal at best, even cosidering the geographical context, and seems to be a remix outfit - it has no other major artists. Other IASO related entries could bear a little scrutiny. - Tiswas(t) 09:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time and energy researching traditional music from the Dominican Republic I can attest to the importance of this artist. His career is distinguished and spans many decades. This style of music receives very little coverage on the web. Try finding out anything about bachata, or Dominican guitar music before 1990 and one of the only places you'll find any info is the IASO Records website. That's not because this music is not significant - it was very significant and continues to be for millions of Dominicans. It deserves to receive more online coverage and just because it hasn't so far is not a good reason to enforce some kind of censorship on it. FYI, the artist does satisfy criteria for significance: besides his history and upcoming internationally distributed album release, he is scheduled to perform among others at The Chicago World Music Festival and The Madison World Music Festival - two of the most prestigious music festivals in the USA - in September 2007. He will also be a main act at Quisqueya on the Hudson - the largest Dominican music festival in New York City. If you have specific recommendations for how the article can be improved, I welcome them. Michael Sarian 12:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Comment- As stated by User:Princess Tiswas, you must include citations for your claims. Also, the notability guidelines say that the sources do not have to be from the internet only: sources can come from newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries. I would like to add that I don't think the IASO Records website should be used as a source, since the record label is advertising his new album. Finally, I still have a problem with certain words like "legendary", "immensely popular","finest musicians", and many others, since they lead me to think that the article is not written from a neutral point of view (these claims of greatness are not sourced). Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 15:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ditto on the peacock words and purple prose - Tiswas(t) 16:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually none of those adjectives are being used to describe Puerto Plata - the subject of this article. Immensely popular describes the island's guitar music. This many would view as fact. If you want to change the wording or put an alternative point of view feel free. Legendary describes the guitarist Edilio Paredes, and that he most certainly is in many people's opinion. It's hard to debate the point though with someone who is not either a Dominican from that generation or a lover of that style of music. PS - what's the correct way to post here - I'm editing by hand.. is there an easier way? Michael Sarian 2:00, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 09:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is about a notable musician. This reference [14] which was added to the article yesterday confirms that the musician will star in an international music festival in Alberqueque later this year. This reference proves notability under WP:MUSIC criteria #4 for musicians. It shows that this musician: "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." This clearly satisfies the criteria for notability. The fact that this reference was removed by the AfD nominator, while the AfD was running, [15] is also a concern. Paxse 10:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the strength of that link - performance at ¡Globalquerque! would appear to partly satisfy WP:MUSIC#4 (in that a concert is not a tour, although it does appear to be a largish event). More sources would be nice though - it's still a weak article without them - Tiswas(t) 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- As explained on the article's talk page, I removed the reference because it was added by an unregistered IP editor and not an editor who added any content. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who added content, not by a random editor who found a site. This said I think the reference should not be included as a reference, but as an external link, since neither the author nor another editor who added content to the article used that reference. Thank you. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 16:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nine keep votes would VERY obviously indicate a WP:SNOWballing. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjela

edit
Bonjela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Though the product might be notable, the current article is clearly written like an advertisement, and as far as I can see, the editors of this article aren't going to expand this stubbish article to something Wikipedia-worthy. --Tinctorius 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consultantese

edit

Contested prod. This is a list of jargon terms, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term "Consultantese" itself is a neologism, as judged by its lack of sources and google hits. Several of the terms on this list appear to be made-up words; Wikipedia is not for things made up at work one day. Delete. >Radiant< 09:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. >Radiant< 09:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Falcon (musician)

edit
Joe Falcon (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, moving to AFD. There are some notability issues with the article, but a comment left on the article's talk page suggests that this may be a notable person. Procedural listing, no opinion at the moment. AecisBrievenbus 23:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that, as of May 24, there are now two comments on the article's talk page and some facts and references have been added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.240.84 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There are some sources in the article and beyond, [16] is another, which convince me of the noatability of Joe Falcon. Nuttah68 08:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hughes (actor)

edit
Charles Hughes (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sigh. Unfortunately, some anon decided to remove the prod tag on this one, so we have to clog Afd with it. This child has never appeared in a single move other than the small role he will have in the upcoming Harry Potter film and miserably fails WP:BIO. Note that a page containing a large number of similarly situated actors was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor actors and actresses in Harry Potter 2nd Nomination. Indrian 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What has crystalballery got to do with this AfD? The HP movie which Hughes appears is scheduled for release on July 13, and it has been so for many many months, and WP allows discussion of verifiably scheduled events without crossing the crystalball line. Or do you think his role could be cut at the last minute? Just wondering what you meant by that. Also I thought we were supposed to avoid calling things that we don't like as "cruft"? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. i don't really care about the semantics of "cruft", you can avoid the word to prevent ruffling feathers or distressing fans, but it doesn't change the nature of what it is. Anyway. The crystal ball comes from the fact that this minor actor is not famous other than for one minor part in an unreleased film which i doubt is notable in itself; and that therefore we shouldn't keep it on the basis of "he might be famous in future". exactly the points, in fact, that you make in your ultimate paragraph. tomasz. 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, and I do happen to agree. By coincidence, I got yelled at some time ago for being "uncivil" by daring to refer to something as "fancruft", so I thought I would do my part to spread the word, as a reasonably non-rude gesture. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least for the time being. His Entry at IMDB.com list only the upcoming HP movie, where he has a relatively small role that (as far as we know) would be non-repeating in future HP movies. The criteria for entertainers such as screen actors includes:
  1. With significant roles in notable films... (most likely fails)
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (currently fails)
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (currently fails)
So - while the film is certainly notable, his role may not be considered particularly significant, relative to the returning veteran actors in the HP series. He does not currently have a large fan base, although he may have one after the movie comes out (pretty doubtful), and he has not yet made unique contributions. Therefore he does not appear to be currently notable, but he might be some day (to assume so would be crystalballing). If and when when he is, then he can have an article. BTW I linked the IMDB entry at his article, just in case. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as only appearing in a minor role in one film. IMDb.com is useful for the list of every actor and actress; if he gets more roles, though, then nothing against recreation. The Evil Spartan 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Begonia

edit
Anthony Begonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was originally created on December 20, 2005. A nomination for deletion is being made due to the inability of a single editor (using a different account on a daily basis, see talk page and page history), thought to be Anthony Begonia himself, to prove that the subject is covered in reliable secondary sources on more than just a trivial basis, and independent of the subject. The article has, for the most part, been composed of original research since 2005. Multiple editors have attempted to fix the problem, tag the article for improvement, request notability to be established, and in the latest move, the article has been reduced to a stub. The primary editor continues to remove the tags and add OR. As of this nomination, the current account being used by this editor is repeatedly removing the AfD tag from the article. —Viriditas | Talk 08:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snowy keep. —Gaff ταλκ 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedley, Saskatchewan

edit
Sedley, Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable town, with very little information in evidence with which to build a decent stub.

  • Delete - I've never really nominated something for deletion before, but this article isn't really up to standards. I tried doing a bit of research, and other than the fact that Sedley, Saskatchewan exists, and was named after a lawyer, I couldn't really find anything noteworthy. I tried cleaning it up a bit, but it's still in need of either a lot of work or a deletion. Although I do support the fact that Sedley is like....totally radical. =) Banpei 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Neutral - Frankly, I have nothing against the town, or with keeping it, but if you looked at the page back when i put the AFD nomination up, there wasn't much to go on. It was not accurate *or* referenced. Banpei 10:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree entirely -- without more information, it is unclear that this town is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't find a relevant Wikipedia policy/guideline on inclusion of towns, but I assume that there must be something of interest in order for the article to be included, however "totally radical" the town might be... -- Sjb90 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote keep towns, just as I vote keep stars and keep schools (at least public schools). I'm not sure what the WP guidelines are for notability on places, but this would be the place to go...—Gaff ταλκ 07:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wikipedia precedent, all communities are notable. --Charlene 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps the nominator should have done 'a bit of research' into the very clear Wikipedia policy and precedent concerning communities. There's nothing wrong with a short article if it's accurate and referenced and I don't see the problem with this one. Nick mallory 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point us towards this Wikipedia policy please, Nick? I also tried to find a policy on places, but failed miserably: the common outcomes page isn't policy so much as a summary, the Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest article was deleted as being covered by existing notability guidelines, and WP:NOTE states that there must be 'significant coverage' of a subject. If people believe that this article should be kept, that's clearly fine, but if there's a specific policy that states that all communities are notable, it'd be useful to have this bookmarked for future reference -- thanks! -- Sjb90 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was cut. Krimpet (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of re-cut trailers

edit
List of re-cut trailers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a collection of links to YouTube videos with descriptions. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Kusunose 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was terminate. Krimpet (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware terminator

edit
AfDs for this article:
Spyware terminator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spam. —Cryptic 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Under G11. The article has been AfD'd, proposed speedy, blanked, re-CSD, deleted, restored (in good faith?), and is now back to its blatant advertising. I think this article is spyware itself! Can it be deleted then protected? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 07:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working on rewriting it, please consider keeping Rajeshontheweb 08:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your rewrites still read like an advertisement. It describes all about the software just as the back of a software box might (features, system requirements, etc.). Your references appear to be press releases and download links, not reliable secondary sources. What makes this notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 13:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling me that this reads like an advertisement? Boy, wizzard2k, you really need to concern yourself over other articles. Why not, instead of deleting it, you take it upon yourself to edit it so that it complies with whatever ridiculuos standards you have? Oh, but that is right, you don't want to put in the work for an article that reads like an advertisement, I forgot. So why don't you just leave the article alone to the people who actually care about spreading the awareness of a perfectly legitimate software title, which is NOT spyware, mind you... (this is something you should know if you were well read on your citation procedures here on Wikipedia (notice the citation in the introduction). Please, stop running a blatantly negative campaign against a perfectly legitimate application and go back to using your trusty combination of Ad-Aware+SpyBot. Thanks. Cableguytk 00:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly Noted >/dev/null -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, u guys. Just noticed the article had been edited again to look like an advert and had lost its notability last night but i have tried to restore it . please review and post the deviations noted in Spyware terminator's talk page or here (if it is gonna stay here long!) but i assure u, this is not an effort to promote the product or advertise it, it is purely a pilot effort to create a wikipedia article on spyware terminator . Please tolerate the newbie mistakes and give us some more time to adjust it. As i had mentioned to the earlier admin / senior wiki editors, i repeat, we will strive to adapt this article to wikipedia norms and the cleanup tag was added to clarify this interest. Afterall, i wouldnt have expected wikipedia to delete an article which might be good looking just because some one edited it to look bad. we are ready to take advise from seniors out there and any body is welcome blatantly delete those parts of the article which sound like advert rather than deleting the article, please. PS: Upon required, we are interested to leave the cleanup tag till some admin removes it when he is convinced with the article meeting wikipedia requirements. Rajeshontheweb 06:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to minimise non-notable stuff as much as possible. In fact, i have tried to source all the material based on the reviews available online elsewhere. (It can be noted for all articles i have included references) as i mentioned before, please specify the areas i need to work more on. being a new bie, i am still interested in learning and making this a proper article rather than post some unworthy stuff pls advise (A couple of lines have been added by other unknown contributors and i am trying to source the notability of those stuff - i have posted in the article's talk page too. also, if u look at the history of the page, there is quite a few statements we have removed due to its advertising nature / non notability. Rajeshontheweb 04:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanianisation (computers)

edit
Romanianisation (computers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than a dictionary definition and an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is almost identical to recently deleted articles Russification (computers) and Ukrainization (computers). --Fibonacci 06:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7(Bio). PeaceNT 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D. Welser Carroll

edit
D. Welser Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Biography falls within the "non-notable" category. Wikipedia is not a MySpace page. Banpei 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 22:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Coburg Cricket Club

edit
West Coburg Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local cricket club. Has been frequent target of vandalism/non-notable additions. Recurring dreams 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I want to find a reason to keep this article but there is just isn't anything to save. The one sentence of content that isn't stating the obvious is unsourced.-- Mattinbgn/ talk 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, notability not asserted (success in junior ranks is not an assertion of notability).Garrie 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google News Archives contains 4 Google News Archives returns from the local paper [17] showing that it is 24 years old and has a commendable mix of ethnicities but nothing indicating wider notability. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The club's history page on their website states that it was "Formed in 1903 and playing in the Essendon, Broadmeadows Churches Cricket Association the club went on to win 33 premierships" .. and "Originally the club played under the name of Christchurch Cricket Club". I've tried googling combinations of the two club names with "Pascoe Vale" (the name of the Melbourne suburb this is in) and/or Melbourne, and I'm not coming up with any real results. Unless a cricket-person or Melbournite can provide something else, this doesn't seem to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). ColtsScore 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellus Hartley Dodge, Jr.

edit
Marcellus Hartley Dodge, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I see nothing notable about this person except

  1. He was a niece grandnephew to John D. Rockefeller
  2. He died in a car accident in France.

I'm really sure that the accident thing does not guarentee notability, which is basically what half the article is about, and many relatives of famous people have no articles. This one didn't even say what his profession was. Google check -=Elfin=-341 06:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the sum total of the information this article provides is duplicated in the one on his mother. tomasz. 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple independent, non trivial references. His death was the front page of the New York Times --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NY Times, Time, but nothing he did at all notable whatsoever; he had no profession, he was an undergraduate. Interesting case-study. Would it have been front p. news today?--probably not, but the NYT covered society figures in much greater detail in the 1930s. If the newspapers publish articles about selected rich people, and their children, does that make the children N? I argued above that people who were rich enough might be considered notable, with the presumption of having done something, but that would only apply to adults who made their own fortune. I think the two references and you're in theory of notability is simultaneously being proven both absurd in cases like this, and not followed, in others, such as Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Surely being involved in the largest US campus mass-murder is more notable than dying in an automobile accident. We have contradictory practices, which can be used at will to keep or not keep according to some unspecifiable reason for consensus. There is one advantage of the automatic-in theory, which is that it eliminates the need for discussions like the present one. DGG 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people are notable by birth, or by events occurring to them. Notability is determined by the amount of coverage a person gets. Wikipedians deciding what is notable is subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, one can be noteworthy for being noteworthy. Unfortunate truth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreed. Some people are noteworth for being noteworthy. See Paris Hilton. Bradybd 05:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Woods 2

edit
Dark Woods 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was tagged as needing evidence of notability, but there was none forthcoming. There are no references to reliable sources and no external links. I see nothing indicating that this passes WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS. Deranged bulbasaur 06:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staircycle

edit
Staircycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was tagged as needing evidence of notability, but there was none forthcoming. There are no references to reliable sources, and the only external link is a youtube video. I see nothing indicating that this passes WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS. Deranged bulbasaur 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of recipients of Honorary Doctorates at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

edit
List of recipients of Honorary Doctorates at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There does not seem to be anything unique about the honorary doctorates granted by Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Nearly every university provides honorary doctorates and degrees for various reasons. To my knowledge, no others have a comprehensive list here. While I recognize that is, by itself, inadequate a reason for deletion, I believe it speaks to the fundamentally trivial nature of this information. Serpent's Choice 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I was able to find just one other matching article at List of University of Alberta honorary degree recipients, and was a bit surprised there weren't more to be honest. Seems like it could be useful information to somebody. —Moondyne 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubts that its useful. I'm just not sure it belongs here. Could we be better served by an external link to these lists where they are hosted on the universities' sites? Serpent's Choice 05:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could say the same about thousands of List articles here. I'm not sure either by the way, which is why I said weak keep. —Moondyne 06:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I think the University of Alberta list should go. There's no way even a third of those people will ever have articles on wikipedia that don't just boil down to semi-notable professors. I think it should be nominated too. Bulldog123 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent a showing of some significance of this place's awarding of degrees. While covering the subject of honorary degrees is reasonable, as is listing the degrees a person has been honored with (to a certain extent anyway) and in the case of some universities, their process of awarding them might be notable enough to discuss in their article, I think this list is a problem as it is. It's just listing the names of people, and that's not a good reason to keep an article. Maybe a category, but even that I'm dubious about. Not to say this isn't bad information, but let the respective colleges have it on their website. FrozenPurpleCube 06:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is an old and prestigious university that appears to be reasonably selective in their awarding of honorary doctorates. An honorary degree from such an institution is an important indication of notability and, in the case the link is red, of an article that should be written. Pharamond 15:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Define reasonably selective, there's plenty of names on the list that aren't even described, so I can't tell if there's anything important about them at all, let alone whether they merit an article. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't more than a handful of people for each year in the list. I trust a well-known university to have the ability to make decisions like these for good reasons and in a way that does not put their reputation on the line, and find it unlikely that the people in the list would have been awarded honorary doctorates if there wasn't "anything important about them at all". There is more information on the people at the website from which the list is sourced, probably enough to identify the persons in order to look for better sources elsewhere. Wikipedia does have lists of recipients for many other awards, medals etc. I don't see how this is different. Pharamond 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the lack of numbers means is there aren't large numbers of awards. It tells us nothing about the selectivity of the process, let alone the merit of actually having an honorary degree from this institution. It's not like they're the only college that does it. Therefore, I can't ascribe any actual value to this award to make it distinct from every other institution that does it. Should all of those institutions have articles listing their honorary degrees? I don't feel I can support that. Some line has to be drawn, and no, I don't believe your intuitive logic is enough of one. FrozenPurpleCube 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I at first thought not, but Mr. Manticore convinced me. Every university awards these. In most US institutions, there are about 6 to 15 each year. Depending on the university, it means a good deal. The major universities try for a mix: public figures in politics or business or international affairs or writers or media personalities -- even the academic world --sometime an effort at one otherwise unheralded figure; normally it recognizes established notability rather than makes for the notability of otherwise unimportant people--in this case, from the King of Spain to an eminent Belgian violinist; the list is more academic oriented than most US universities. Might be thought of as a checklist of whom we need articles on.
If kept, I will start a project to add the 100 or so universities of equivalent standing that I can find lists for. Assuming we agree on universities, that will be about 700 people a year. The practice increased sharply in 20th century, but was present earlier, though there were fewer universities then. Lets say we have 50 years of data: 35,000 people. Probably about 1/3 will have WP articles. I think its a good idea. DGG 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, I think it's a sincerely bad idea. Why my words convinced you to do this, I don't know, but I strongly suggest you consider otherwise. This isn't going to be an easy process, and will likely lead to some major trouble. Cambridge and Oxford have been awarding these degrees for about 500 years. That's a long list, even if you assume that the numbers were fewer in earlier years. And I'm not even sure the limitation to roughly 100 universities is a valid limit. What criteria will you use to measure universities? FrozenPurpleCube 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't see any really good reason to duplicate the info on the university website. I'm also not sure if the list can be considered of encyclopedic interest even though I admit it's pretty close. Pax:Vobiscum 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per a projection of the Overcategorization by awards onto lists. Really, the same points apply. Bulldog123 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment are you suggesting that because we have too many categories for awards, we should delete lists? The list is an important option in the cases where many of the clearly encyclopedia-worthy people on it--heads of state as well as scholars-- do not yet have articles. If we had similar lists here from other European universities, we could fill in many of our anglocentric gaps. DGG 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest for that usage, it'd be best do it out of article-space. FrozenPurpleCube 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep/nom withdrawn. W.marsh 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kate OS

edit
Kate OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Low-quality article. Notability to come. Chealer 05:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping my request for deletion now that JulesH pointed that the correct spelling is "KateOS", for which Google finds over 400 000 hits. Sorry. Administrators, rather than deleting the article, please rename it to "KateOS".--Chealer 12:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article reads like the product description on the side of the box, has no reference citations, and only links to vendors website. Say no to spam - Kiss Kate goodbye! --Gavin Collins 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a reasonably popular distribution. "About" 433,000 ghits. Reliable sources: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Clearly passes WP:SOFT. JulesH 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get the 433 000 hits? That's a lot, but I get only about 50 000 on google.com. Note that the software notability criteria were rejected. I looked at the links you provide anyway. [1] contains "David Johnson continues our look at every Linux distribution in existence." so doesn't establish notability. [2] is in German, so I can't comment. [4] is a review from a Polish site, so it doesn't mean much. That leaves [3] and [5]. Both of these have a certain content, but not much, and they date from 2005.--Chealer 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
German and Polish count as much as English around here--there are people who know each who can help. 2005 merely means it has already been notable for two years. If ghits mean anything, 50,000 is enough. DGG 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[24] Now shows only 427,000. You might have the google preference for "show only English language results" switched on, which would explain the smaller number: this distribution seems to be particularly popular in Poland, so a large proportion of the results are in Polish. JulesH 10:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Well, gah, this is stupid, you searched "KateOS" while I searched "Kate OS", as the article title reads. I'm dropping my request on the basis that Google hits confirm sufficient notability.--Chealer 12:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And while the Micromart article might say it looks at every linux distribution in existence, it clearly doesn't, so it is selective. Besides, selectivity isn't really a requirement: only the fact that reliable, secondary sources exist, and this is a reliable secondary source. JulesH 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied per G5. -- John Reaves (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Hill

edit
Treasure Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is part of a massive astroturfing campaign centered around Marco Casagrande. At worst, it is spam. At best it is riddled with conflict of interest. Better to burn this one and start over without the meatpuppets. DarkAudit 05:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients

edit
List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well it seems the creator of this list as been doing a little bit of WP:CANVASSing. Such as here: [25], [26], [27]. It's probably not a big deal but it should be mentioned. Bulldog123 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to leave something clear I had already commented when Tony contacted me, so he notified three users that is hardly canvassing, I see this is just another way Bulldog is trying to prove his point. This AfD should be closed now not even all the canvassing in the world will change the consensus here. -凶 16:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're using WP:POINT out of context. Bulldog123 16:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit -- I "canvassed" Tony when I saw this page up for deletion. He "canvassed" User:ERCheck, who put a lot of work into the list. The vast majority of the people voting to keep, however, were not "canvassed." Just my $0.02. Murcielago 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony made a comment to me. (Though I already knew about it and had already made my comments prior to his note.) As noted by Murcielago, I did work on the article. It is common courtesy to let the creator and major contributors to the article know about an AFD for an article they have worked on. Editors work on articles that they feel are worth being in Wikipedia and should express their thoughts on it. Some editors who have written/contributed to many articles, cannot possibly watch all of their contributions. So, a simple note from Tony in this case does not qualify as canvassing. — ERcheck (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia's Guide to deletion - Nomination section: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." — ERcheck (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand there's a difference between politely informing main contributors and writing "lets do everything in our power to keep it, hombre." as was done Bulldog123 16:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said. That was me. To Tony. We go back a ways. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. I've also explained my reasoning for keep herein -- and on the Italian-American Medal of Honor page, where no alleged "canvassing" seems to have taken place. Murcielago 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. Implying that I don't understand what I'm saying — you "do" understand — is commenting on the editor, not the concept. — ERcheck (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty funny. "You do " is a personal attack because it is commenting on the editor but "Bulldog, is all you do nominate lists for deletion" is not a personal attack because somehow it doesn't comment on the editor? For lack of better words: please cut the crap. Bulldog123 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you are trying to prove your unilateral view by looking for confrontation with other users, most particulary Tony (acussing someone of Personal Attacks and Canvassing when it does't apply), it may not be a policy discussion but it's still the same principle. -凶 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was WP:CANVASSing and he did throw a personal attack at me. Anyone can see that for themselves. Also, please stop behaving as if there is a unanimous consensus for keep. Bulldog123 01:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, let's be civil here. Life is good, no? There are allegations of WP:CANVASSing and perhaps hints of personal attacks abounding here. Bulldog is right -- there is no unanimus consensus to keep. So far, it looks like 2 for Merge, 1 weak Delete, and 14 Keeps. Now let's all play nice. Murcielago 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal. As it states at WP:CANVASS#Campaigning, The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki."1 Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc. Tony contacted four or five editors about this, which is hardly "aggressive cross-posting" per the above guideline. As with your comments about Overcategorization, you are misreading Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I am also concerned about how aggressive you are being with your responses to people and with placing that !vote template at the top of the page. My suggestion is to not take this AfD personally. People are expressing their opinions on the issue. Let's not turn this into a shouting match. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Aggressive" is subjective, especially if its a small CfD. What qualifies as "mass" in WP:CANVASS#Votestacking is determined by the number of people in the CfD. At any rate, it's always discouraged. So four people SHOULD be mentioned. If you haven't had anyone respond to comments in an AfD before, then you haven't participated in a real AfD. And WHO is expressing their opinion should be known. A good deal of !votes on here could come from a sect that have tendencies to keep anything Hispanic-oriented. In the same way, I wouldn't want anyone WP:CANVASSing to deletionist wikipedians using some excuse like "This may interest you." Bulldog123 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to check my ID; nobody's canvassed me, and I haven't contributed to a single Hispanic-related article. I just found this because I was actually looking for a list like this to post on my blog. I found the article very informative and precisely what I was looking for. Hence my "strong keep" vote. This is the kind of article that should be in Wikipedia, IMHO. --Beth C. 07:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Suggest that we put an end to this discussion since this is "not" the proper forum. I want to make one thing clear, when I asked User: Bulldog what contributions has he made to wikipedia besides nominating "Lists" and "Cats" for deletion, it was not a personal attack, I just wondered, but when a person tells another user to "Stop the crap", that is a personal attack. Please be civil as required by Wiki policy. Thank you Tony the Marine 20:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Medal of Honor recipients. Typically wikipedia does not subdivide award-winners by their ethnicity, religion, or anything of the like. Intersections such as this are almost entirely trivia-based, of little encyclopedic value, or possibly purporting some type of agenda. A listing equivalent to WP:Overcategorization for narrow intersection, overlapping, and nn intersections by ethnicity. Divisions of award winners like this open up a can of worms that may become unmaintainable in the future. Bulldog123 04:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it applies to categories, not articles. Even if the Overcategorization guideline applied to this article, it would come under the ethnicity section of the guidelines. Even by that section of the guidelines, this list would be valid. But again, Overcategorization applies to categories, not articles.--Alabamaboy 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trivial intersections or intersections with revisionist tendencies apply equally to lists and categories. This borders that, and no I do not see it as "passing" the Overcategorization guideline and no one has substantiated that except through their own opinion. So what, now we're going to subdivide every military award by race just because some soldiers may have been discriminated in the past? The same exact thing would apply to immigrants in the military, such as the Irish, or people of a certain sexual-orientation. List of Gay Medal of Honor recipients is ok by your standards? And then why stop there? Does EVERY award get subdivide like this because there is a chance Hispanics were discriminated against in that field? Bulldog123 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a well-made article yes, but I don't want to delete it. I want to merge it into a bigger list that's split into several articles of alphabetical order. That makes the most sense, passes guidelines, and doesn't purport any original research propaganda, misplaced ethnic awareness, or revisionism. Bulldog123 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how "original research, misplaced ethnic awareness", and "revisionism" apply to this article. — ERcheck (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually glad you asked because I was hoping to explain for anyone who might be confused. The arguments for retention really say it all. Revisionism is when an article is created purely to "reverse some wrong" without substantial evidence to suggest that that wrong needs reversing or how that wrong will be reversed via that article. It borderlines on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX because is is propagandist by nature. This can be best seen by Tony's argument for retention which is "Hispanic contributions to the United States have been omitted from history books and it is time to put and end to this." Wikipedia is not a vehicle for intents like that. The information in the article is not original research but the claim that there is some special notability connecting Hispanic-Americans to the Medal of Honor that is not present by the Ukrainian-Canadian/Victoria Cross example IS original research if there is no proof of it. I haven't seen any yet. It is "misplaced ethnic awareness" because it aims to highlight differences when not necessary. A list of African-Americans with an high IQ is in itself a very offensive but very similar-intented type of list because it makes a suggestion that African-Americans with a high IQ is somehow rare. In the same way this list seems to be kept because it somehow suggests it is "strange" or "unusual" for a Hispanic-American to win such a medal. That is "misplaced ethnic awareness" and gets very very racy. Anyway, I don't want to delete or hide that these people are Hispanics but as a separate list it doesnt work. How about just mentioning they are Hispanic when/if it gets merged into a list of lists? Bulldog123 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Why haven't you also nominated List of African American Medal of Honor recipients? You don't seem to understand that Hispanic people are very proud of their heritage and that they would like to know specifically who are the Hispanics who have own the Medal of Honor, since for centuries their contributions to American history has been omitted. Tony the Marine 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't see how this list *as is* would be any more notable than, say, List of Ukrainian-Canadian Victoria Cross recipients. I also don't see how this works better as a list than as a category, since all the information in this list comes from the individual articles. If there was encyclopedic information related to being a Hispanic MOH recipient, I'd say keep, but I don't see any here. --Charlene 08:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Historically appropriate, and preserves a uniqueness that would be lost in a merge. Particularly notable given PBS's documentary about World War II that omitted the contributions made by Hispanics. See [28][29] It is unlikely that "divisions of award winners like this open up a can of worms that may become unmaintainable in the future." Keep. Murcielago 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Specific contributions of members of various ethnic groups are not de facto disallowed. Per Murcielago's comments, this is particularly notable. As for maintainability, this list is complete as of today. Medal of Honor recipients are rare. Only two servicemen have been awarded the Medal of Honor during the current Iraq War. The last Hispanic recipient received the Medal of Honor for valor during the Vietnam War. — ERcheck (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Hispanic contributions to the United States have been omitted from history books and it is time to put and end to this. Hispanics need to know that yes, there are those who have been awarded the nations highest honor. Tony the Marine 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This seems to be a bad faith nomination in tone with the anti-Hispanic fever going on. Antonio Martin 06:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I understand the nominator's argument, but I don't agree with his suggestion that this info is just trivial, since this sub-topic may be of some use to people researching on a specific ethnicity (believe it or not, it happens). Second, there are many sub-articles and sub-lists by ethnicity or national origin, and I see no reason why this list is any less encyclopedic, or more trivial, or more unmaintainable than any of those articles. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list as with any list where notables of many countries are listed is helpful. It helps provide recognition to the contributions of Hispanic-Americans to the U.S. Military for centuries. In these times, where the hatred of people who speak Spanish or who are from south of the border is ever too common, lists like this one have helped many understand the hispanics have provided their share of repsonsibility in defending the country and its values. Please keep!--162.83.132.164 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I read this article a few weeks ago and found it extremely useful and encyclopedic. The article details a vital aspect of U.S. military history. Merging the article is also not an option as doing so would remove useful context and information. As for the comment "I don't see how this list *as is* would be any more notable than, say, List of Ukrainian-Canadian Victoria Cross recipients," Ukrainian-Canadians haven't had a history of being discriminated against by the Canadian military even as they formed a vital part of that military's history. --Alabamaboy 11:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Useful to a small minority is not a valid argument for keeping. I know my entire faculty would find lists of job prestige scores very useful. We don't, and won't, have them on wikipedia because they don't meet guidelines, precedent etc. And if Hispanic discrimination in the military is such a widely-known phenomena as you make it seem (much more than say, Irish discrimination or Ukrainian-Canadian zenophobia) why can I not find any academic articles on it? No one has proven that this is anything more than an subdivision promoting misplaced ethnic pride or revisionism. Bulldog123 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bulldog, have you really looked for academic articles on the subject? The GI Forum was founded as a result of discrimination against Hispanic veterans. This page hardly promotes "misplaced ethnic pride or revisionism" Murcielago 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You cannot justify every intersection with an ethnic group just because at some point in time they were discriminated against. That would justify an intersection with nearly every immigrant peoples at some point in time. Since "addressing" discrimination in the military with a List of Medal of Honor recipients flat out doesn't make sense, you need well-documented articles that directly suggest Hispanics were so discriminated against that it was much "harder" or "rarer" for them to receive a Medal of Honor or some kind of acknowledgment. That is the argument everyone is purporting, because otherwise "just being discriminated against" does not merit a list of award or honor recipients. Bulldog123 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Re all of the above. This seems bad faith and I would like an admin to review this AfD. --David Shankbone 12:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: People interested in this AfD might also want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian American Medal of Honor recipients. --Alabamaboy 12:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Strongest Keep Ever This is definitely helpful and notable, can't believe there is people AfDing articles like these when ninenty percent of the article in Wikipedia are several times less notable, but why don't they get AfDs? because they don't involve Latinos, how typical... -凶 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can pull the race card some other time. Every article gets identical treatment on wikipedia, regardless of it if is "politically correct" or not. If you feel there are much worse intersections that should be deleted, please do tell me and I'll be glad to nominate them too. I have not seen any as of yet. Bulldog123 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you feel that raging need to defend your original statement so much when the other users are aganist it? let the AfD go as it should and see what the final outcome is, it's becoming annoying your tendency of trying to prove a point -凶 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would I not defend my original statement? Mob mentality is not necessarily the right mentality and you're acting as if there is a unanimous consensus against my argument, which there isn't. CFD is a discuss, not a !vote. If you're annoyed, then don't comment. Bulldog123 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And yet you do it again, there is more than 75% percent aganist what you propose, with 75% you pass a RfA there is a clear consensus, your argumments are weak a Medal of Honor is not an award it's the highest recognition in the United States Military, you don't win it in a pageant. -凶 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Award is a synonym for honor. Whatever connotation you take from the word "award" is not my doing. Even if 90% of the !votes disagreed with I would still expand upon my point because, yet again, this is a discussion not a poll. RFAs on the other hand work more like a poll. Unless of course, I found an argument for retention stronger than the one for deletion, which I have yet to find. Bulldog123 21:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to the comment " Typically wikipedia does not subdivide award-winners by their ethnicity, religion, or anything of the like" I would like to post links to List of African American Medal of Honor recipients, List of Native American Medal of Honor recipients and Puerto Rican recipients of the Medal of Honor. As for keeping this (and others of its ilk) due to the extensive, and documented, history of discrimination against Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans in the armed forces, thus lists of people of these ethnic backgrounds whose ethnicity was overlooked in order to award them the MoH would be very useful to someone researching the relationships between ethnic groups in the US military, or something similar. Furthermore, these lists are extensive so merging them all together would be against wikipedia's size guidelines, (I know, IAR and all that, but still)... and finally, if the US military keeps it's own list of Hispanic winners of the Medal of Honor then such a ethnic specific list must have some significance. SGGH speak! 15:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are not helpful. People don't take favorably to mass nominations. Also, the census bureau has statistics for every ethnic/religious subdivision. Yet, 99% of those subdivisions would not last on wikipedia. Page on trivia do not pass Overcategorization/Overlisting guidelines. Bulldog123 15:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, Bulldog, the arguments other people make on here are far stronger than the ones you make for deletion, such as "OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST" - just because something is missing from Wikipedia does not mean anything in a constantly evolving, very new, encyclopedia. That's pretty obvious.--David Shankbone 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, "keep because I say its notable" and "keep because we need to show revise history" are not stronger arguments that "delete because it is a non-notable generally unprecedented intersection with possible WP:NOT#SOAPBOX intents." Sorry. And accusations of bad faith are not going to strengthen your arguments. Apparently it's bad faith when I nominate the hispanic article but not when I nominate the Italian-American article. Typical. Bulldog123 20:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, to state that Medal of Honor recipients are "award Winners" is not only an insult to those who have, in some cases, sacrificed their lives and have been decorated with the military's highest honor, but it is an insult to all those who wear the uniform. The Medal of Honor is not something that you win in a contest or in a box cracker jacks. Second of all Wikipedia is an education tool in which people expect to find information that cannot be found eslewhere. These list are not uncyclopedic as you claim, instead they make Wikipedia a more reliable source of information. Third, let me tell you something, yes people have pride of their heritage and if these lists were cramped into one, then it would be almost imposible to determine which of them were Hispanics because believe it or not there are many thousands of Hispanics who do not have what some consider typical Hispanic surnames. With this list list Wikipedia is providing not only the Hispanic youth with positive role models, but it is also serving its educational purpose by informing the public in general that many Hispanics have given their lives for their country. Tony the Marine 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep At a time when our nation is at war and recent immigrants are under attack by some Americans, it is important to provide tools for people to determine the level of sacrifice that Hispanics have made for our nation's defense.Pr4ever 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect Bulldog, but is nominating "lists" (See:for Contributions) deletion the only thing that you do in Wikipedia? Tony the Marine 23:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please no personal attacks. Judging from your contributions I would say all you do is write about Hispanics in the military, but we both know thats not true. Recently though I've noticed there are only a few really poor lists left on wikipedia, and so I thought it might be best to try to improve them all at once. Also, Tony, please don't WP:CANVASS. Bulldog123 07:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gee, I wonder why Canvassing is such a capital sin in Wikipedia. If a user is invited into taking part in a discussion, he or she is free to intervene or not. Tony, don't point that gun on me. ;-)Demf 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there's a difference between leaving messages on just anyone's talk page, and leaving messages on people who you already know are going to "keep" or "delete" an article. Bulldog123 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I can't believe this is even nominated for deletion. Keep, keep, keep, for all the reasons listed in the "keep" votes above. --Beth C. 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per above, I don't understand why this was even nominated. If you ever study the Medal of Honor, categorizations are abound on who received the Medal. Aside from Wikipedia there are lists on the internet and testimonials to Jewish recipients, Asian-American recipients, Irish-American recipients etc. It offers a broad spectrum into the background of the recipients. This list extremely useful and very informative. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suggest a rather different angle here: the CIRCUMSTANCES under which a Latino Medal of Honor recipient (or any ethnic/racial/even geographical category, for that matter) merely becomes a part of the military may deserve the categorization alone; usually the act for which the award is conferred is somehow influenced by these circumstances. Case in point: Puerto Ricans (like Tony and myself) were considered "mercenaries" (and good ones at that) by the Vietcong in the Vietnam War. The truth is they weren't; the Draft applied to Puerto Ricans as well as in the United States proper, but the misconception is still popular in current day Vietnam. A Vietnamese military history researcher, for example, searches Wikipedia (hey, because the English version is the most complete of them all, remember), finds this category and may want to treat the group, or the individuals within it, differently for research purposes. Why not have the group, then? Who is hurt by it existing? I know that there are Americans who abhor what they consider a "balkanization" of their country into race, ethnic and geographical subtexts, but the point is that they ARE THERE, they exist, and from a research standpoint, the categorizations are useful. I personally share other philosophical aspects of this with Tony, but I'm trying to be as objective as I can. Somehow there are many editors in Wikipedia that think that, since this is an English language reference, it should reflect the political and sociological biases of its authors. It is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, for crying out loud! A good deal of its readers speak poor or little English. Categorizations like these are welcome elsewhere, why not here? Demf 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is an addendum to my earlier "keep". I am placing it here as it is "new" information to add to the discussion. The focus of the discussion is whether or not this group — intersection of people of Hispanic heritage with those who have been awarded the Medal of Honor — is notable. Notability on Wikipedia focuses on whether it is worth of notice. I've put a list, in no particular order of importance, on the articles's talk page. It shows that this particular listing has been noticed. All four General notability criteria are met. See that the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Army find this listing notable enough to mention, as well as a site that focuses on Medal of Honor recipients. Analogous to academia, we ask if the person has contributed notably to his field. These citation show that these "fields" — Hispanics and the military — find this notable. — ERcheck (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have proven the existence of the combination but not the notability of the INTERSECTION. Had the combination of these two not existed at least, we'd have to assume it was entirely original research. Your links provide substantiation for the existence of Category:Italian-Americans and Category:Medal of Honor recipients but not Category:Italian-American Medal of Honor recipients. To give you an example, the combination of African-American and mathematicians is found all over the internet, 20 times more prevalent then this intersection, but Category:African-American mathematicians was deemed a non-notable intersection. It's the notability of the intersection that counts, not the existence of the combination. Further, ANY ethnic pride/awareness festival (as it held in many US states of a certain diaspora) have combinations like this. Religious events also do. However religion and many other intersections do not pass WP:Overcategorization and neither does this. Bulldog123 21:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem with your argument is that WP:Overcategorization applies to categories, not articles. The whole guideline deals with categories. As said before, even if the Overcategorization guideline applied to this article, it would come under the ethnicity section of the guidelines. Even by that section of the guidelines, this article list would be valid. But again, Overcategorization applies to categories, not articles. On a further note, when the U.S. Defense Department categorizes medal of honor winners by ethnicity[30] and when there is a movement to create a memorial for Hispanic Medal of Honor winners [[31]], then this is obviously a notable article.--Alabamaboy 01:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Peacent 06:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DARKSTAR Linux

edit
DARKSTAR Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Stub tagged cleanup since over a year. Yet Another Dead Linux Distribution. Only reached very small notability, so no historical importance. Chealer 04:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Oval, Aquinas College

edit
Memorial Oval, Aquinas College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college oval —Moondyne 04:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as spam. Spike Wilbury 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micro urbanism

edit
Micro urbanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is part of the massive Marco Casagrande astroturfing campaign. Contested speedy as spam. Also a neologism with no reliable sources. DarkAudit 04:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian American Medal of Honor recipients

edit
List of Italian American Medal of Honor recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Merge into List of Medal of Honor recipients. Typically wikipedia does not subdivide award-winners by their ethnicity, religion, or anything of the like. Intersections such as this are almost entirely trivia-based, of little encyclopedic value, or possibly purporting some type of agenda. A listing equivalent to WP:Overcategorization for narrow intersection, overlapping, and nn intersections by ethnicity. Divisions of award winners like this open up a can of worms that may become unmaintainable in the future. Bulldog123 04:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your argument is that it applies to categories, not articles. Even if the Overcategorization guideline applied to this article, it would come under the ethnicity section of the guidelines. Even by that section of the guidelines, this list would be valid. But again, Overcategorization applies to categories, not articles.--Alabamaboy 16:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, for the reasons listed above--importance, historical, educational, and what SGGH wrote. --Beth C. 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hopefully some admin discretion will follow at closing here. Despite all these "strong keeps" no one has yet to veryif this as a notable intersection in the same way that these users put much greater effort into showing List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients as possibly verifiable, where most of the keepers have originated from. Also absolutely no substantiation for statements such as "Italian-Americans were discriminated against in the military and this qualifies the list as notable." Bulldog123 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the article's talk page for citations that show that this is a notable intersection. — ERcheck (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately all you have given us is likely the source of this list, which should be expected because otherwise we would have to assume original research, and a mirror of the original list. The strongest suit you have is the Exhibit but this is at best what I mentioned 20 times before: exhibitions for ethnic-pride or ethnic-awareness gatherings. Such exist for any diaspora, and a frequent thing to do would have exhibition such as this. IE: Black History Month we talk about irrelevant intersections between African-American and some occupation all the time. Even permanent pages exist online African-American mathematicians. However, Category:African-American mathematicians did not pass notability of the intersection on wikipedia. Your arguments for discrimination work loosely with Hispanics but there is absolutely no notability of intersection with Italian-Americans. And applying it here ends up in a faulty cross-over. Bulldog123 21:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: During World War II, Italians Americans were taken into custody and interned b/c of their ethnicity[32][[33]]. In addition, as it states at Italian_American#History_2, In the 1890-1920 period Italian Americans were often stereotyped as being "violent" and "controlled by the Mafia". [3] In the 1920s, many Americans used the Sacco and Vanzetti trial, in which two Italian anarchists were sentenced to death, to denounce Italian immigrants as anarchists and criminals. During the 1800s and early 20th century, Italian Americans were the one of the most likely groups to be lynched. In 1891, eleven Italian immigrants in New Orleans were lynched due to their ethnicity and the suspicion of Italians being involved in the Mafia. This was the largest mass lynching in US history. Sounds like Italian Americans were discriminated against, to say the least.--Alabamaboy 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, your argument is again very faulty. First your long italicized comment has absolutely nothing to do with the military and applies similarly to Irish and many other European immigrants (Eastern Europeans, Jews, etc...). And most importantly, why on earth do you think the first comment HAPPENED in World War II....hmm...maybe Fascist Italy being at war with the US? And so list of Japanese American Medal of Honor recipients is good because of Manzanar? Sorry, but I'm getting tired of pointing out how these arguments are being used to confuse the issue instead of actually reply to it. The question wasn't "were Italian-Americans every discriminated? it was were Italian-Americans every discriminated against in the military to merit at list like this? Bulldog123 02:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Italian Americans experienced some discrimination in the military, as evidenced in the book Italian Americans in World War II [34]. No, they were not discriminated against the same as Hispanics or African Americans. But considering how Italian American were treated in the US during the war[35] and before, their military history is therefore notable and of interest. But being discriminated against isn't the only reason to keep a list like this. The larger problem with your argument is, as stated before, that WP:Overcategorization doesn't apply to articles. That entire guidelines focuses on categories. By your argument, African American literature shouldn't exist as an article because it's merely a subset of American literature. But the truth is both articles are valid and notable because the greater culture has created the entity of Black literature being a unique subset of American literature. The same with this article list. The list focuses on Italian American medal of honor winners, a subset of American medal of honor winners that the greater culture has created. If you want to delete this article, first convince historians, authors, and the rest of the world that Italian American medal of honor winners isn't a valid subset.--Alabamaboy 12:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete. Common sense, people. Non-notable crystalballery. Sr13 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suit Day

edit
Suit Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Somewhere buried in all the sound and fury I think I finally found what this article was about, which is an unreleased and thus unverifiable student film and thus not notable. (Closest guideline would be WP:NFT.) Crystallina 03:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lobbied to have no asserted notability films speediable, but there was no motion on that front. --Haemo 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both, notability not asserted, self-promotion. NawlinWiki 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human (newspaper)

edit
Human (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Including Ihminen (newspaper) in this nomination. Articles are part of the Marco Casagrande astroturfing campaign. As such, they are spam. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. DarkAudit 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen School of Architecture

edit
Bergen School of Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is part of the Marco Casagrande astroturfing campaign. The school may or may not be notable, but the article was created for the express purpose of spam. DarkAudit 03:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The school is notable, even if the article was created for dubious purposes. There is an article about the school in the Norwegian-language Wiki. The school is a real one, and I think that most architecture schools are notable enough to be worth writing about. --Eastmain 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puppetry confirmed Because of the spam and conflict of interest issues, it's best to burn this one and start over. DarkAudit 18:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's the subject that has to be notable, not the author of the article. WP has more to gain from getting spammy articles about notable things and rewriting them, than from keeping them out and losing the coverage. At least that's what I think. I know there's more than one opinion about this. DGG 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability of the school has been established. The status of its creator is irrelevant to this article, which stands on its own. Any issues with its creator should be dealt with elsewhere. It's amazing that you "know" that "the article was created for the express purpose of spam". Care to guess how many fingers I'm holding up? Alansohn 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I "know" because I checked the edit history of the people involved in this incident and the articles they created. There were at least a dozen articles speedy deleted as spam relating to the people listed in the above link. The sockpuppetry has been confirmed by admins, and the users involved have been blocked. This is not an isolated article. This was a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia to promote one architect and his firm. They went so far as to insert a spam link into Ross Martin because the name of one of the persons who had another article (since deleted) was Marty Ross. I was informed of all these shenanigans by another user. I conversed with multiple admins both here and on IRC during the process. At best, this article is riddled with conflict of interest. Nothing submitted by the original author of the article can be taken as reliable. DarkAudit 05:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And actually the status of the author is relevant here, because they have been blocked indefinitely for their behavior. Said behavior was the creation of this article. As a contribution from a banned user, it may be eligible for a G5 speedy. DarkAudit 06:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or not. The G5 tag says the contribution has to be after the user was banned. The creation of this article was part of the behavior that got the author banned. DarkAudit 06:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I applaud your holy war against the individual or individuals who have edited this article. But, the article stands on its own and establishes its notability. I understand the urge to throw out the bathwater and the baby too, but this article should be recreated immediately if its is deleted for any reason other than a consensus of non-notability. Deal with the article as an article. I am. Alansohn 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The current version of the article is too riddled with conflict of interest to be trustworthy. There's really nothing reliable that can be left except that the school exists. DarkAudit 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm having a great deal of trouble finding the spam that has been cleverly hidden inside this article. If you still feel that the article is "too riddled" with WP:COI issues, they can be addressed quite easily by clicking on the "edit this page" tab and taking appropriate action. Your nomination admits that the "school may or may not be notable", which is a rather clear (if tacit) acknowledgment that you don't have issues with notability, per se. If the article were deleted and recreated as is by a different individual, would you still insist it be deleted, or is your exclusive issue related to the circumstances of its creation, rather than its content? Alansohn 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Notability was never an issue. The article was created as a willful abuse of Wikipedia by people associated with Marco Casagrande to promote him and his firm. The notable alumni were all associated with Casagrande Labs, which had it's article deleted as spam. The alumni also had their articles deleted as self-promotion and spam. Every mention of other people involved with the school were not to promote the school, but to promote Casagrande. The unspammed article would be just:

"Bergen School of Architecture BAS (in the Norwegian language: Bergen Arkitekt Skole) is a private Norwegian architecture university located in Bergen. BAS offers international masters degree education in architecture and urban planning.

It receives financial support from the Norwegian government."

With the outside links. DarkAudit 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that you have edited the article to your satisfaction, and with the addition of an English language source, is tehre any reason not to withdraw your nomination. Alansohn 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despamification complete (I was going to say something witty about keeping the astroturfers away here, but now I've got writer's block). It's in a keepable form now, but keep an eye out for another spam attempt. DarkAudit 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at a sample from history, I wonder whether the recent despamification has not gone too far, by removing details of the School's history. The articel appears always to have been brief and should be tagged as a stub. Peterkingiron 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Peacent 18:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Knoll High School

edit
White Knoll High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is useless, so it is being considered for deletion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultimately the delete arguments that this is an inherently subjective list must prevail. -Docg 14:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in biology

edit
Unsolved problems in biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The mere concept of "unsolved problems" does not apply for biology. Famous single unsolved problems exist in the formal_sciences like mathematics (see unsolved problems in_mathematics) and in the applied sciences. For natural science, and especially for biology, the "unsolved problems" are hidden in -and dictated by- the respective objects of study.

The resulting lack of criteria for inclusion has resulted in an accumulation of randomly selected and often minor biological topics, vague questions, non-biology topics, already or partly solved problems, pseudoscientific problems, and problems that could never be solved by scientific methods (for examples see the revision before the last big clean-up [36] or check the history).

An introduction into biology topics and an impression about research in this field is already given by our biology article, by our list of biology disciplines (with currently more than 100 entries!), and by the respective biological sub-disciplines linked from there. A complete list of all existing biological topics would not be useful and is beyond an encyclopedic article. A random selection of topics would be inherently biased and would thereby violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and, perhaps, Wikipedia:No original research. It is also immanently impossible to find reliable sources for a certain selection or inclusion, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

For the given reasons (and judging from the contents on this page during the past two years since the last deletion discussion), this article can never become an encyclopedic article and should be deleted (the only alternative to deletion would be a precise definition of what belongs into this article and what not, but after thinking about this for a long time now, I could not come up with one). Cacycle 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As I mentioned in the AFD discussion for the medical version of this page, in both physics and mathematics "unsolved problems" can be easily made finite and non-arbitrary. This is since most important issues not explained can be traced back to the limitation of some theory, as well as a few undeniably famous observations and conjectures with no clear explanation or proof. For biology, nearly every unexplained observation and uncured disease could be considered an unsolved problem. Unless someone can provide a non-arbitrary set of criteria to classify something as an "unsolved problem in biology," I must suggest deletion. Someguy1221 04:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biologists appear to have come up with one.

    Young (Robert Thompson Young (1922). Biology in America. R.G. Badger.) devoted the whole of chapter XVII to unsolved problems in biology. There's a note in Science that the American Association for the Advancement of Science held symposiums entitled "Some Unsolved Problems in Biology" from 1956 onwards. There's a paper on unsolved problems in biology in Chrysalis, the journal of the Swedenborg Foundation. Ridley, from the University of Oxford, lists the existence of sex as one of the great unsolved problems in biology, in ISBN 1405103450. Harub and Thomson say the same in ISBN 0932859585. Then there are the biologists who wrote this paper on 20 unsolved problems in biology, and the several biologists who, like these two, think that he relationship between protein sequence and structure is one of the great unsolved problems in biology. Allen and Baker discuss unsolved problems in biology in chapter 1 of ISBN 978-1-891786-09-9.

    And all of those are to discount this discussion of the great unsolved problems in biology and this statement by the department of biophysics at the University of Idaho, which clearly thinks that the concept of unsolved problems does apply to biology. Uncle G 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't deny that this is a widely discussed topic. Now, if you could just mention a set of criteria...Someguy1221 04:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you are simply suggesting that we only list items that are mentioned as an unsolved problem by a reputable scientific source, that would be fine too. Someguy1221 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, every second scientific publication contains the phrase "unsolved problem" in its introduction and it clearly makes a good title for a book or symposia. But this is just a rhetorical phrase and does not help at all in finding sound criteria for inclusion as well as exclusion for this Wikipedia article (including the problems of notability and verifiability).

Cacycle 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If a reputable recent scientific journal says a problem is unsolved, it is unsolved for Wikipedian purposes -- to impose stricter standards is to engage in original research. As for notability, the issue of notability is a hybrid one -- does the field consider it notable, and does the lay public consider it notable. If multiple scientists are devoting their careers to pursuing an issue, then, it is fair to say that the field considers it notable (cf. Wikipedia notability standards). If a lay person can understand what the heck the issue is and care, then the general public probably considers it notable too.Ohwilleke 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And what it does prove is that "Unsolved problems in..." articles are not, contrary to the nomination, limited to the formal sciences and the applied sciences. Biology, Chemistry, and Physics together make up the Natural Sciences; and stepping back from the specific difficulties this article has encountered, if Chemistry and Physics can manage to put a "finite and non-arbitrary" list of unsolved problems (to borrow someguy112's words) I see no a priori reason why Biology cannot. It is true that "nearly every unexplained observation... could be considered an unsolved problem"; but if we limit that to repeatable and verified unexplained observations, would this not give us a reasonable framework (or at least a benchmark) in which to work? -- Simxp 05:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a general problem: Readers (including voters in the current and the previous deletion discussions) who are not that experienced in the respective fields see a collection of very interesting and stimulating questions and topics in a "developed article". However, for biologists or chemists it is obvious that those lists are a random collection of minor or specialized topics, of which most are no longer considered unsolved or are formulated in a vague, broad, or unscientific fashion. It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to keep purely entertaining articles (beside those eye-catchers on the main page). The chemistry page very obviously suffers from exactly the same problems as the biology page. Cacycle 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without committing myself to a vote, surely if the problem is lack of content then the solution is not deletion but rather an {{expand}} tag? You can't add content to an article that doesn't exist, and deleting an article due to a lack of content seems a bit of a Catch 22... -- Simxp 05:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On second thoughts, I think I will vote after all; on the grounds of this and my comment to Yechi above. -- Simxp 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The gutting of the article that already has occurred, and the AFD call, both smack of censorship of unpopular viewpoints. Articles like this are needed to keep us on our toes. Pollinator 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & per my comments on the medical problems afd. Carlossuarez46 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (restating from Talk page): This category is basically synonomous with the major areas on ongoing research by credible scientists in the field to find new knowledge (as are Wikipedia's parallel pages in other scientific disciplines). An unsolved problem is simply a question that science has not provided a full answer for. Most questions biology are partially solved. We know some species extant, but not all. We know dark matter exists but not all the details of its operation and mechanism. One can be close minded to the extent that there are only two unsolved problems in biology, but that leaves as a mystery what biologists at the cutting edge of the field spend their time pondering. Because biology is largely descriptive and cumulative, these problems have a different character than say, an unsolved code, or an unsolved physics question, but assertions of "vagueness" and insoulable problems are overkill. The edits you made so far seem to be very focused on biochemistry and seem to deny other areas of research. Put another way, you seem to have read into the topic a narrowing to an implicit "unsolved fundamental problems in biology" that is unwarranted. For example, discovering the basis of allometric laws is not vague, insolulable, non-biological, or pseudo-scientific. Neither is an examination of the extent to which genetic change is horizontal (e.g. germ line viruses and hybridization) v. vertical (inheritance of random mutations and sexual selection). Nor, for that matter, is the grand project of biology of creating a definitive phylogenic tree of life. As noted above, biologists certainly don't agree that their field has no unsolved problems. Ohwilleke 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surely this would then become a list of research projects carried out by biologists... There are no criteria for choosing what is a "problem", nor what is "unsolved": either is open to PoV. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is so bad about a list of research projects being carried out by biologists. It is an unsolved problem if it presents a question that science doesn't have an answer for. The only PoV issue is notability, but that is true of every Wikipedia entry -- is a person, place, thing or idea notable enough to say anything about. If it is the subject of major debate in a scientific field or the focus of considerable scientific effort about something the informed layman can understand and care about, then that is a good thin to write about in my view. Unsolved may be ambiguous in some cases, but usually the question is rather easy to apply (what triggers parthenogenic reproduction in vertebrates?) -- either we know in which case someone can point to an answer, or we don't.Ohwilleke 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are about 100,000 research projects being pursued by biologists. Essentially every article in WP dealing with biology is about a not yet totally solved problem in biology. We have a category for that. DGG 02:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not sure if you can imagine (after being here for only 14 days and 36 edits mainly in edit wars and policy discussion), how difficult it is to keep articles manageable if there is not the slightest agreement on what belongs there and what not. Cacycle 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is a misnomer. The problem isn't that biology doesn't have "unsolved problems" (one might waggishly claim that the field itself is a problem), but rather that having such a list suggests that biological "problems" can be solved in the same way that mathematical proofs are constructed or, in a more limited sense, in the study of physics. In other words, the list implies that biology is akin to the fields of math and physics in a way that it is not.
  • Not especially useful. If the article were constructed in a useful way - as, say, an encyclopedic discussion of how the limits of biological science illustrated a semantically-useful guide to those new to the field - I might argue differently. As it stands, the entry is a unreferenced mis-mash of half-questions (I refer here to the pre-cleaned-up version), hopelessly POV questions ("Is it safe and feasible to produce drugs and other substances through genetically engineered organisms (biopharming)?), unanswerable-by-science questions ("What species of plants and animals remain undiscovered?") and expansive-to-the-point-of-silliness questions (see "What functions does each known gene serve in the body?"). I bring-up these examples not because they are isolated problems, but rather because I think they point out the the problems inherent in trying to maintain a unmaintainable list.
  • Unmaintainable list. Wait, I already covered that....
In summary (finally!), this article is a problem not because of what it does or doesn't have listed, but because it falsely projects an entire field in a way it shouldn't be. Any list generated - by any set of criteria I can think of - is missing the boat at best and misidentifying the inherent basis of the field at worst. -- MarcoTolo 02:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per the [first deletion debate]. -Interested2 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost all problems in biology are partly solved, some to greater or lesser degrees. Whether something is unsolved enough to belong on this list is inherently POV. ike9898 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Biology questions are problematic because the ones we study today are complex and emergent in nature and, because of this, the understanding of an issue always exists on some point on a continuum. Inclusion on the list becomes a POV issue. These questions do not have the character of questions like "what is dark matter", I do not see them snapping into focus with some critical understanding. "What is the molecular basis for inheritance" had this character to it, but I can't think of modern questions that have this quality (although this could by my lack of imagination). Current problems are solved on a fragmentary basis because they have no single answer. --Madeleine 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I am further convinced the list should be deleted after following and reading this link; I haven't seen any reasonable criteria for inclusion suggested, Madeleine 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This will never be anything other than horrible. It's still not clear whether it's supposed to be A. biological questions whose answers are not known and that some biologists have expressed interest in or B. something like "major" or "fundamental" or "important" unsolved problems. Either way it's problematic. Option A would contain literally thousands of entries, most of them of little general interest (much of the historical contents of this article has consisted of arbitrarily chosen items from this list of thousands). It is also unmaintainable. Perhaps somebody, somewhere, could write a B that was worth reading, but it wouldn't belong in an encyclopedia; it would be something like an opinion piece. In any case, Wikipedia is not going to produce anything decent, and would often be outright wrong, and usually amateurish, as the historical contents suggest. Josh Cherry 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and stubbify. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Casagrande

edit
Marco Casagrande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is part of a massive astroturfing campaign relating to Casagrande Labs. Numerous SPAs have been creating articles citing nothing but their own web site, or seeding others. Wikipedia is not here to promote your business. DarkAudit 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the spammy stuff has been removed now. The "sockpuppet" is apparently a fast learner. Stammer 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't learn fast enough to keep from getting blocked. Most of the red links in the article are a result of the cleanup effort to remove the other spam articles and spam links. DarkAudit 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, book he wrote is very known in Finland, he has also been in the public as an architect. --Tbonefin 10:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the book is very notable. I'm not sure about the architecture merits, but at least as a writer he is absolutely notable enough. --Jannex 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article and its notability stand on their own, regardless of the circumstances of their creation. Given the sources provided, the article stays; its creator can be dealt with in a different court of action. Alansohn 10:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per DarkAudit Modernist 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't everything, especially when it comes to willful abuse of Wikipedia for one's own ends. Because of the behavior of the (now blocked) authors, everything in the article is suspect. Every word is tainted with conflict of interest and is no longer reliable. There are those who have said 'don't throw out the baby with the bathwater' during this incident. Well, this baby was the one who willfully, and with malice aforethought, tainted the bathwater. DarkAudit 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes content should be edited to be more objective and instructive. Notable work useful to begin discussing crossover architecture (possible new topic). Pitouflette 3:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) — Pitouflette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment This was never a case about notability. This was a case about willful abuse of Wikipedia solely to promote a man and his firm, perpetrated by an army of puppets. The only edits to this article unrelated to this AfD nomination have been by these puppets. As such, they are completely without merit. Not one word of this article is reliable due to conflict of interest. Not. One. Word. It needs to be stripped down to it's barest of bones and started over. Deletion and recreation would insure that no record of the puppet's contribution would be acknowledged as worthy of inclusion. They have abused Wikipedia, and should not be rewarded. DarkAudit 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable and all erasure votes are better reasons for editing really yuckfoo 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Was notable as an writer/war crimes suspect even before career as artchitect. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was to redirect it to Unhinged. Some explanation is perhaps in order: considering this and the article talk page as well, it seems pretty clear to either delete or redirect; as the original nominator seems to agree with the redirect, let us go with that. If Gleemax is removed from the parent article due to SPAM/COI concerns, it would be appropriate to submit the redirect to RfD at that point, but the redirect hardly adds any publicity as long as the mention in the parent article still exists. Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gleemax

edit
Gleemax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article's subject is a fictional object which has been spoken of on articles from Wizards of the Coast. It would also seem that an employee of the company created the article. It is suspected that the article may have been created as a part of a viral campaign. Regardless, when assuming good faith, it should still be clear that this article is needing of deletion. If has no encyclopedic value and does not assert notability as defined by WP:N. SorryGuy 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Unhinged page where it can be appropriately discussed. Also, since the COI concerns have been brought up, they probably do need to be addressed. However, I don't think that this single article represents a significant campaign. Besides, the set itself came out over 2 years ago. What's the point of a campaign now? FrozenPurpleCube 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is currently unknown what exactly the aims of the campaign are, but we should know soon. Wizards has been playing plastic brains to players over the last week. www.gleemax.com has also been registered in the last week. On MTGO there has also bee found a card called Gleemox in the promotions section. Also note that emailing gleemax@wizards.com will produce reply. At any rate, redirecting the article does seem appropriate, and some of the more relatively informational parts could be used in the Unhinged article. SorryGuy 05:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, I wonder what's up. But if it's just the one article, it's not a problem. Redirect and hope that Wizards respect the concerns. If anything else happens, deal with it later. FrozenPurpleCube 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WotC authors have been mentioning Gleemax many times in articles for years now. It probably doesn't merit an article of its own, but it's not something they just came up with as a marketing stunt. It's more like a long-standing running joke. I am ambivalent as to what should be done with the article, I just thought I'd give a little background. --Ashenai 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Gleemax is more than a single card, but rather a long running in-joke within WotC. The card was most likely made because of the joke, and not the other way around. Furthermore, Mark Rosewater mentioned Gleemax in 2002 - if not earlier -, some two years prior the release of Unhinged. Perhaps a redirect is necessary, but I do not think the information on the page is lost. Perhaps a merge?--Zooba 08:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wizards of the Coast Article Bradybd 05:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can't see why this page should be deleted if I love bees is acceptable?
Good question. I love bees was a fully orchestrated ARG, while Gleemax is an inside joke turned playing card. Perhaps they both should be merged into a related article? Bradybd 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love bees was--as far as I know--mentioned in many independent sources (Tycho of Penny Arcade couldn't shut up about it for a while). Gleemax, not so much. --Ashenai 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gleemax is a fictional character with a lot of history in the Magic: the Gathering community, and an article for people who haven't heard of Gleemax seems as useful as other somewhat-obscure articles that are Magic: the Gathering related, such as Birds of Paradise (card), Judge (Magic: the Gathering), and other articles about particular Magic sets or people famous in the Magic community. The article could certainly be expanded, and the reference to the recently-given-out toys seems a little tacked-on and perhaps not needed, but I think there's a core that's useful here. --PeterCooperJr 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't know an article for Birds of Paradise or MTG judges existed. I don't think they should (this doesn't mean they can't be covered elsewhere mind you). The sets and people, however, are a different matter, and easily meet notability concerns (at least in principle, I don't know that all of the people there do. Several of them were nominated for deletion last year if you want to review the discussions) FrozenPurpleCube 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little hypocritical to say that the Gleemax page should be taken down, while it is obviously turning into a Marketing scheme just like I Love Bees, which has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.45.168.113 (talk • contribs)

Not at all, the key point is that the other article was noted by other sources. This so far, hasn't. If you can provide sources to back up the information, I'm sure most people would change their position. FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele I would say that there is an issue with notiriety. Gleemax is such a new phonomonon, the card (which this article is not wholly about) not withstanding. The rubber brain promotion is not mentioned, which it probabally should be. Really there is not enough sitable sources and other published media to make this article non original work by the author. That There is some kind of publisity exersise that is currently in operation where Wizards of the coast are sending people rubber brains with the legend MOCTODSDRZIWTAXAMEELG which is a email address backwards (gleemax@wizards.com) that leads to the website address http://www.gleemax.com which is redirected to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=gleemax. What purpose all this is intended to serve, an in house company joke or an invitation to an exclusive community board I don't know. Finally, the intent seems just to be humorous and really doesn't merit an inclusion on wikipedia, as it dilutes the serious nature of the encyclopedia. At the most it should be a stub, or a subheading on an article to do with Magic the Gathering. It seems an original or poster created article, as really the article does not cite any primary printed sorces. E-mails on message boards don't really count. It's intresting, but really should be confined to it's source the Wizards of the coast own website and shouldn't populate wikipedia. If and when Gleemax become part of the popular conscuousness and more is written about it in inderpendant medium, then it is worthy of imclusion. As it is, it falls short when compeared to many other Wizards of the Coast creations that don't deserve their own entry, such as all the monsters in the monster manuals. At most it should be a stub and be merged with another article, but that would require it to be referenced in that main article and be sufficently rewritten to follow the theme of that article. In other words if someone wants to edit the Magic the gathering article to include a reference to Gleemax and create a stub about Gleemax to it I wouldn't object. As this article stands it should be deleted. Frrostie 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gleemax has been given a website by Wizards of the Coast at http://gleemax.com, and all official instances of the word Gleemax now have a TM symbol attached. Gleemax is thus officially a new product of WotC and therefore should not be linked under Unhinged or Magic. Also, it should be noted that the promotions for the new product (rubber brains) were sent to players of various WotC games, not just Magic. ~riddle198.178.147.1 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, http://gleemax.com is redirected to the Wizards own site at this address http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=gleemax. Yes they have trademarked it, but that comes from the card and is likely not a new thing or anything significant to this discussion. Frrostie 22:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Chess Club

edit
Melbourne Chess Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am concerned that this club is not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only claim to notability is its age and I'm not sure that that is sufficiently notability on its own right for an article. Does this page meet the standards of WP:ORG or should it be removed? FrozenPurpleCube 02:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the problem is that's not supported by any other sources that I could find. Perhaps that can be fixed, and I'm not really worried about it on its own. (Though besides the 1886 number on their website, I found dates going back to 1851, so who knows what is accurate??) The primary issue I have is that that doesn't really make for notability on its own right. While Wikipedia isn't paper, it's also not the Book of Every Record in the Whole World. Besides its age and owning a building, what *else* can anyone say about it? You'd think there'd be more coverage of it if it's had over a hundred years to be important. If not, maybe just mentioning in Australian Chess Federation would be appropriate. (That article is sadly lacking in content). FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not unlimited bandwidth or server space. GreenJoe 05:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell none of those articles are about the chess club though. Passing mention doesn't establish notability. Even when it's hosting a chess tournament. FrozenPurpleCube 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but change my opinion to "Keep" if a reliable secondary source can be found to assert that it's the oldest chess club in Australia. If verified, that would make it notable, to my mind. Lankiveil 08:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Peacent 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Wefaq Sabratah

edit

author removed my prod and said why on the article's talk page but article still shows no honors and only two notable players. To me, that means not notable. If the article is rewritten to show why it is notable, I would have no problem if it was to stay on wiki but as it is now, nothing shows it as wiki worthy Postcard Cathy 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7. PeaceNT 07:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcalica

edit
Alcalica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm thinking orphan+no sources other than their website and MySpace=goodbye Postcard Cathy 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Camara

edit
Kiwi Camara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was deleted once already. Here is the page for the original deletion debate. The original reason for nomination is as follows:

AfDs for this article:

The notability of the person in this article is suspect. As of the most current edit, this article does not fit Wikipedia notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)).

There are only three unique points in the article:

  • He graduated early from Harvard Law School with a fellowship.
  • He wrote an arguably offensive article.
  • He coaches high school debate at Mountain View High School.

Many people coach high school debate, some graduate early, and others let the word nigger slip out on accident. More than half of the article has to do with how Camara pissed people off. Not only is this article uncited, but one of its important external links are "humorous video at debate practice."

Crzrussian suggested that Camara's status as a former John M. Olin fellow in law and economics at Harvard is grounds for notability as a fellow is basically a junior professor; however, this is a misunderstanding. As evidenced by Wikipedia's article on the John_M._Olin_Foundation, the foundation gives a grant to fellows at universities, including Harvard. Now that the confusion regarding the "John M. Olin" moniker is out of the way, let us examine what a fellow really is.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [38], a fellow at a university would be a graduate student appointed to a position granting financial aid and providing for further study. This means that a fellow can hardly be equated to a college professor of any sort- they are just not the same thing.

Furthermore, Jahiegel has argued that the publicity surrounding the racial conflict at Harvard and Yale would be grounds for notability and would merit an evolution of the article into that incident. However, I contend that publicity is not enough to substantiate importance of subject based on two premises:

  • Anyone can be subjected to publicity for any reason, good or bad. To set a precedent of writing articles based on the subject's publicity would be writing millions of articles about people who are potentially not notable. So, if there was any way for us to assume that publicity is a notability factor here, we would also have to assume that:
  • The reason why Camara's publicity would be notable is because he himself is already important. However, I have already disproven this assertion in the first half of this nomination.

Camara himself is not notable enough, which logically means that the publicity surrounding him is not notable either. Consequently, this article should be deleted. Big.P (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

All that has changed with this article since the deletion is the addition of sources/references. The problems regarding the notability of the article subject have not be addressed at all. The remake of this article is a blatant violation of precedent decided by a fair vote. This article ought to be deleted quickly. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I repeat what I wrote in the previous AfD:"Here's what we know about the Olin Fellowship on Law and Economics at Harvard:'..during the first eleven years of the Program, thirty-two John M. Olin Student Research Fellowships have been awarded to advanced graduate students for the general support of their training in law and economics.In addition, 104 Student Research Fellowships have been awarded to students to support specific research projects during the summer.' Also, we dont have articles on everyone who published a comment in the Yale Law Review. (If we did, I would have had a lot of fun writing some of them.) Fails WP:Proftest completely. Also, Prodigy-Schomidigy.
However: the controversy was certainly notable. At the time, there was a long article in the New Yorker that discussed both this and the Ward Churchill affair, treating them as if they were of equal importance. It has also been brought up time and again in the past year when people were discussing Larry Summers and his comments on women in the sciences. Ideally, I would support moving this to a page specifically dealing with the controversy.'"
In particular, I supported a delete of the page and a creation of a controversy page. I would not be outraged by a keep close as long as it is clearly specified that the consensus is that it must be a redirect to a controversy page. This is in keeping with policy. I don't think the Yale kerfuffle is notable at all, incidentally, except as a footnote to the Harvard thing. (Which is appropriate to the relative standing of the two... all right, petty, but irresistible.) Hornplease 04:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep though possibly not under his name. The incident was notable, he was perhaps the instigator, but he's less important than the overall events.DGG 05:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments a fellow at a university, and likewise a fellowship, can mean a whole range of things, depending on the situation. In this case he held it for the entire 3 yrs, so it wasnt a summer research award, and by the arithmetic above, it puts him as one of the 3 best students in the class. I think it possible that the best 3 a year at Yale law might be Notable -- even if it might be more at Harvard. :)
"the reason why Camara's publicity would be notable is because he himself is already important." That logic will exclude almost 100% of the bios. Except for hereditary monarchs, people become notable through the publicity they get for the things they do. DGG 05:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, being a very good student or teacher doesn't make one notable since these activities have a very small spear of influence. Similarly many child prodigies have very little impact on the world. A researcher with many publications is notable because their writings & talks influence their peers, who collectively have an enormous impact on human knowledge. Now lists of Harvard valedictorians or child prodigies are fine since Harvard is *very* notable, but membership doesn't confer notability on the people. So here we're really talking about the notability of the incident itself. JeffBurdges 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to mention that wikinews has a lower bar for notability of controversies, assuming they're still news, i.e. recent. In general, if you'd like to push a minor controversy, you should write an article there first, as it's less likely to be deleted one day. JeffBurdges 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. As I stated in the orginal debate, I'm not over impressed with this entry but I feel it *just* tips the balance. Markb 11:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep from me as well. Following the previous AfD, I gutted much of the biographical information (which rambled about his being a debate coach and ballroom dancing), rewrote most of the Harvard incident (which was quite POV and unsourced), and ensured every assertion was backed by a reliable secondary source. I think given the non-trivial coverage Camara has received, most of which is now in the article, he passes WP:N, but it may not be appropriate to hang all of the Harvard incident in this article. I would be happy with a refactoring of that out to another article, or even a redirect to one, as others have suggested above. Although, at least one recent source focuses on the impact it has had on him personally, five years later: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201537.html. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It's very nice that he graduated law school young. It's nice that he overcame his childhood arthritis. Are these wonderful personal achievements? It doesn't matter. The point is that this person *himself* is not WP:Notable. The Olin fellowship, as discussed above, is simply a funding mechanism, targeting conservative law grad students (at several schools, not just at Harvard). I am very familiar with it, and it is no more prestigious than other named grad fellowships for aspiring law teachers that are handed out annually to more than a hundred students in the LLM/JSD programs of good law schools.
Assuming arguendo that the Harvard incident is notable, (which, very frankly, was bruited about by conservative author Jeffrey Toobin purely because Camara claimed, when his actions were first made known throughout the school, that he was being attacked by the "black kids" because he was an easy Asian target -- race-baiting always plays in the national press,) then this article is not what should be up to present the incident. If one retitled the article 2005 Harvard Race Controversy and let the rest remain, it would immediately fail WP:NPOV. Why? because to highlight one player results in a biased report of the incident. Compare the article's description of the incident with the evenhanded report from the Harvard student newspaper at the time of the incident. [40]
Can the Camara article in any way be considered a neutral recounting of the incident? And *without* the incident, this material is simply a vanity posting. Further, it mentions other live persons by name and describes their behavior quite negatively; this turns the article, which certainly will be consulted, into a weapon for Camara. And note: after this discussion, any decision to retain an article about Camara can be cited as proof that he is notable. It becomes circular. Dupuy78 09:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.- I think that graduating from law at such a young age is impressive and notable.--Jondel 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with 16 graduated from Harvard. The youngest graduate in the history of the school. Unless Harvard will be deleted because it does not meet WP:N, I would say that this fact alone makes the person notable. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, he didn't graduate from Harvard at sixteen. Check the article: he was born in 1984 and graduated with the class of 2004. That is younger than the usual graduate, but not by much -- a person who enters law school directly from undergraduate will finish at age 24. Dupuy78 09:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After writing the above, I went back to the article to see why people thought Camara had been graduated at sixteen. I saw that it did not state his age at graduation (as a casual reader would expect), but his age when he "matriculated," or enrolled.[41] I was thinking, "geez, that phraseology is pretty misleading," and then realized that the statement could not be true. The date of birth listed is June, 1984. But Harvard Law starts its fall semester in August. Therefore, Camara was not sixteen when he matriculated in 2001. I am pointing this out, not because seventeen is so much older, but because it further underlines the self-promotion that characterizes this article; a little corner-cutting on the truth here, a little sleight-of-hand with vocabulary there, and all to aggrandize the subject. Dupuy78 10:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please assume good faith. I evidently made a off-by-one mistake with his age. I phrased it that way because that is, strictly speaking, what the source tells us: "He was the youngest when he entered his law class so it’s not unreasonable to believe he’s the youngest to graduate,” Harvard spokesman Michael Rodman told Philippine News." If you feel there is a POV problem, that's a quality issue, not a keep or delete one, and I'd welcome you to improve the article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dupuy78 is just citing POV as only of the many problems of this article, including the lack of notability of Camara, which is why this article was nominated in the first place. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ßίζ·קּ‼. SpuriousQ, you mistake my argument on several points:
  1. I did not question whether Camara is the youngest person to graduate. I said that the statement that he was 16 when he matriculated is mathematically impossible, and cannot be true. This comment was no attack on you. You stated in your "Weak Keep" vote above that you had gutted the biographical information, and I made no assumption that you had yourself written any of the bio.
  2. In explaining my "Speedy Delete," I did not base my rationale on a claim that the article was POV. I stated that if the article were retitled 2005 Harvard Race Controversy and were otherwise left unchanged, it would immediately fail NPOV, as it focuses on only one player in one of the numerous, separate events that constituted the controversy.
  3. In other words, the controversy itself does not support the retention of an entry for Camara, any more than it would support an entry for the fellow student who initially discovered the racist terms in the material he posted. WP:Living: If the reliable sources only cover the person in the context of something else, then a separate biography is probably unwarranted. ...Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual.
  4. The fact that actions of named live persons are negatively presented is also a problem, as it makes the article a weapon against those people, some of whom are in no way public persons. WP:NPF
  5. As I discussed above, the receipt of a grad fellowship is common for aspiring law professors. His age at graduation makes him some four years younger than the average straight-from-undergrad law student. This is simply not sufficient. Also, as Hornplease stated, he fails WP:PROF. The article should be speedily deleted because Camara is not WP:Notable. -Dupuy78 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my AGF remark was meant more in response to your characterization of the article as "self-promotion" and aggrandizement, and I just wanted to clarify why the phrasing was done in terms of when he enrolled rather than graduated.
I see three living people named in the article, counting Camara himself. I don't see how their actions are negatively presented, but I'd be interested in improving that. But that's an issue for cleanup, not AfD.
I still think Camara satisfies WP:N. There are at least two sources (Phillippine News, Honolulu Advertiser) exclusively about him with no mention of the Harvard incident (one of which was published after the incident), there are several sources dealing with the incident with more than a passing mention of him (see the references in the article), and there are at least three sources dealing directly with the impact the incident has had on him years later (Yale Daily News, New York Times, Washington Post). Not that it's particularly relevant, but the first incarnation of this article had no mention of the incident [42] (it was my "fault" for adding it a month later, when I came across the article). -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Controversy isn't notable if the person involved isn't notable. Person's notability is not established simply by a couple of newspaper articles. There are newspaper articles all the time about people as ordinary as high school students (ie. HS athletes). -- Filabusta 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are well more than "a couple of newspaper articles" about this person, including several in state and national papers as well as at least one non-U.S. He's been featured or mentioned non-trivially in prominent publications such as the The New York Times, Washington Post, The New Yorker, and The Boston Globe. The ordinary high school athlete does not get that type of coverage. -SpuriousQ (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is a highly suspicious comment, for several reasons. I suspect that Filabusta is actually Big.P. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Big.P (2nd) -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too young to be notable. --Vlad|-> 15:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember reading about Camera when he graduated from Harvard as well as hearing about the 'controversy' surrounding those postings of his - and I'm Canadian, so his notability (notoriety?) has crossed international boundaries and, as such, merits an article here as much as some (if not most) of the biographic Wikipedia articles I've stumbled upon. If the main problem is apparently due to POV, then request an NPOV overhaul but I don't agree with total deletion. CanadianMist 16:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem is the lack of notability. That was the rationale for the first deletion decision, and the references added since then only emphasize the validity of the first AfD. For example, when you say you heard about Camara in Canada, what was it you heard? If it was information concerning his role in the controversy, then it is notoriety to which the WP:Living guideline applies, as I discussed above. -Dupuy78 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn (heading to a snow keep), non admin closure Whsitchy 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin L. Manheim Award For Significant Contributions in the Field of Workflow

edit
Marvin L. Manheim Award For Significant Contributions in the Field of Workflow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, non-notable award Whsitchy 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep workflow awards or awards related to innovation in the IT sector maybe inherently boring, but this award is among the most significant and/or noteworthy of the genre. I would rather see the article improved than deleted. Input on improving it would be helpful. --User:Nathanielpalmer 2:17 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Another point of consideration is that there are now two awards in honor of the same individual and both are know as the "Marvin L. Manheim Award" -- this article is needed to clarify this matter, and as the original award (created immediately after his passing, in recognition of his most recent work) it makes sense the "Marvin L. Manheim Award For Significant Contributions in the Field of Workflow" take precedent User:Nathanielpalmer 29 May 2007
  • Keep The notability is to a considerable dependent upon the stature of the organization awarding it, and tracing back the links this is a major computer manufacturers consortium; also shown by who gets awarded the prizes. DGG 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOM WITHDRAWN Heading to a snow keep. I'm not an IT guy (though ironically, I'm going to study to become one in the fall), and to me, the award didn't present any notability to me. Whsitchy 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 snowy close. There is clear consensus to delete (with a very small chance of consensus changing); the only opposer being disruptive and may lack understanding of the notability and verifiability policies. Sr13 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter laake

edit
Winter laake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete nn per WP:Bio. —Gaff ταλκ 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it possible to speedy this along per WP:SNOW if nothing else? I grow tired of having to take care of bizarre formatting and unsigned comments below. It would be best for wikipedia to close this discussion. —Gaff ταλκ 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above comments. Saying "Winter Laake's written and vocal work is steeped in the occult, magic and satanic ideals" could be a violation of WP:BLP (the satanic part mainly) and I removed the content from WRITERS & DISCOGRAPHY PROFILE as it was a copyvio of [43]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a writer or an author of some sort, are we going to censor all authors? Are we deleting the similar musicians and authors at this time. What have the above created or accomplished? They have created nothing, Stop this censorship, DO NOT DELETE.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs) 06:09, May 29, 2007.

This wikepedia is no different than boyd rice or death in june, winter laake falls into the same genre, do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk)

  • This page appears to be in the works, I am glad that you acknowledge that winter laake obviously falls in the same arena. NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THAT WINTER LAAKE IS A PUBLISHED WRITER AND DESERVES TO BE ENTERED INTO WIKEPEDIA> Do Not Delete. CAN ANYONE DISPUTE THE KNOWN FACTS WITHIN THE ARTICLE WITH EVIDENCE? NO THEY CANNOT> DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs) 9 May 2007 07:02 (UTC)
    • Please add your comments at the bottom of the discussion, instead of putting them inside other people's comments, and sign using four tildes ~~~~. Regards, cab 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is BOYD RICE not notable, he is a groundbreaking artist similar to Winter Laake, what have the above critics done to be notable? DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. Boyd Rice is notable, silly rabbit! Try reading harder as nobody suggested otherwise. Winter Laake, however, is Some Random™ with no sources or anything to suggest his noteworthiness. tomasz. 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU STATE THAT WINTER LAAKE HAS NO SOURCES< WHAT EVIDENCE TO YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR ARGUEMENT> YOU HAVE NONE< YES< THANK YOU FOR AGREEING THAT BOYD RICE IS NOTABLE> THUS MY POINT. MANY LINKS EXIST ON THE WINTER LAAKE PAGE SHOWING NOTABILITY>CAN YOU PROVE A LACK OF NOTABILITY OTHER THAN JUST BY SAYING IT>NO YOU CANNOT> YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED>DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. no. there are not notable links. what there is is:
1. a link to a minor record label;
2. a writers' organisation that the subject is a member of; and
3. a MySpace group.

1 is not notable as all it proves is that the subject has an album which has been released and sold on teh intarweb. big wow. 2 is irrelevant since the link is just the writers' organisation's homepage and makes no mention of the subject; thus, it proves the organisation exists but does nothing to substantiate the existence or notability of Laaake. 3 is irrelvant because MySpace is not a credible source.

"THANK YOU FOR AGREEING THAT BOYD RICE IS NOTABLE> THUS MY POINT" uhhh... no. is it so hard for you to grasp that doing the same activity as your hero does not confer on you the same rights to notability/fame/anything else that your hero has? Boyd got there first, deal with it. "CAN YOU PROVE A LACK OF NOTABILITY OTHER THAN JUST BY SAYING IT>NO YOU CANNOT> YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED" i can and i just did. my argument eats you. tomasz. 14:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED, QUITE OBVIOUSLY WINTER LAAKE IS MORE NOTABLE THAN YOU ARE, BY THE VERY WEBSITES YOU POINT OUT< THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THE SAME OBVIOUS POINT, WINTER LAAKE IS KNOWN TO MANY WHILE YOU ARE KNOWN TO NONE, WINTER LAAKE DESERVES TO BE ON WIKEPEDIA WHERE AS YOU ARE NOT AND NOR WILL EVER BE>DO NOT DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

*Comment. You seem to be confusing Winter Laaaake's non-notability (the subject of this discussion) as having anything to do with me. Just to clarify for you: my notability or lack of is irrelevant, while Laaaaaake's is relevant but completely lacking. Dunno what you're banging on about but you could at least make an effort to say something relevant in your future posts. Perhaps you could start by giving a sensible reason why my argument is "flawed" or why Laaaaaaaaaake is notable. tomasz. 15:53, 29

HENCE THE CRUX OF MY POINT, YOU HAVE NO NOTABILITY YOURSELF WHERE AS WINTER LAAKE IS A KNOWN AWARD WINNING POET. YOUR ARGUEMENT IS FLAWED B/C YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THE WEBSITES OR AWARDS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE, YOU HAVE TO DIS-PROVE THE NOTABILITY STATED ON THE WIKEPEDIA PAGE, NOT JUST SAY SO> THIS IS A COMMON STANDARD. DO NOT DELETE 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

*Comment. Actually, you don't have to be notable yourself to take part in a Wikipedia deletion discussion. I have already disputed the websites mentioned in the article as none of them are good sources, and you haven't managed to find a shred of argument to suggest that they are good sources. Furthermore, it's actually the other way round: if you want the article to stay, you have to prove the notability of the subject, not just say so. And lastly please stop typing in capitals, it makes you look stupid. tomasz. 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SHOW NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE DISPROVING ANY MERITS OF THE DLETION POLICY IN REGARDS TO NOTABILITY, YOU HAVE NOT DISPROVED WINTER LAAKE'S NOTABILITY. DO NOT DELETE, IF PARIS HILTON TO BOYD RICE ARE ON WIKEPEDIA WHO CARES IF THE POET WINTER LAAKE IS, I AM NOT THE WRITER, JUST A FAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

*"1 is not notable as all it proves is that the subject has an album which has been released and sold on teh intarweb. big wow. 2 is irrelevant since the link is just the writers' organisation's homepage and makes no mention of the subject; thus, it proves the organisation exists but does nothing to substantiate the existence or notability of Laaake. 3 is irrelvant because MySpace is not a credible source." <<< there is my evidence, you have ignored it before, doubtless you will ignore it again and come up with a load of irrelevant toss about Paris Hilton. as far as i can see, the only person in favour of keeping this article is either unable or unwilling to argue its case. Agree with Gaff below, let's just get rid of this now. tomasz. 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Can we close this AfD per WP:Snow?—Gaff ταλκ 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone knows, this page is under construction. Pictures and Winter Laake's photography portfolio will be added. If the page for Winter Laake is deleted it will not be on the merits of Winter Laake's notability but in regards, to censorship. The creator of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

no, it will be on the merits of Winter Laake's notability, regardless of what conspiracy of censorship you perceive against you or your article. Why not leave out the photographic portfolio and try putting in something with any bearing on why this man is supposed to matter. tomasz. 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will add anything necesary to the page that wikepedia requires, underground poets are to few and far between in North America. The page is under construction. I do not feel there are any conspiracies against me. Censorship comes in many forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

Actually, your constant insistence that you're being censored is a prime example of you decrying a perceived conspiracy against you. However, Wikipedia is not censored. tomasz. 18:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tomaz, you appear to be discussing conspiracy I am not. I have no desire to argue over this point. I will state again that I do not feel there is a conspiracy against me. Wikepedia has already acknowledged that the page is going forward by allowing me to write on the subject matter of this north american poet. Winter Laake's page is under construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk • contribs)

I would also like to say that I hold no ill will towards anyone and I wish no personal attacks on anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfloki (talk • contribs)

Then stop yelling. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate someones work on the page, I lack the skill. Some of the information has been deleted. I will attempt to retrieve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk) Thanks again for the assistance on this page! The creator— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfloki (talk • contribs) I retrieved the information from the vandalism, any help would be apreciated— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.230.111 (talk)

If you are referring to the information that was in the WRITERS & DISCOGRAPHY PROFILE section. It's removal was not vandalism. It was almost a direct copy of [44], making it a copyright violation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information under the "Timeline" section is all taken from this page which appears to be a written by Laake, or at least on his behalf. As far as his book Enter the Vampire, I can't even find evidence of publication, a Google, Amazon, and Ebay search turned up nothing at all. Same for The Pestilence Revisited. The only one that can actually be proven to exist is Endeavors to Oblivion, for sale on Amazon and other sites. However, that only proves existence, it is barely a source In fact, Amazon contradicts the article, claiming it was released June 2000, not 1999. Most of the article is in violation of the verifiability policy. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ashida Kim

edit
The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article has already been speedily deleted. Metropolitan90 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle christian school

edit
AfDs for this article:
    Circle christian school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Article was not actually nominated for deletion; this AfD page was created by the article creator User:Ashcatash5. Metropolitan90 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please do not delete my article on Circle Christian School. I have written many articles for Wikipedia, and have done my best, but they are always getting deleted for reasons I do not understand. It's very frustrating. I am beginning to think there is no point to contribute anything at all, since all anyone does is criticize me and delete my articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashcatash5 (talk • contribs)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Neil ╦ 08:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Crecente

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    Brian Crecente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Resume-esque 69.158.170.135 03:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, maybe speedy G4. I'm suspicious because an anon IP had posted the AfD, but the article doesn't show much notability here. G4 because of the first nomination - though it's probably a bit far out for that kind of a speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Non-notable person. PRs and some articles do not assert notability Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:N. Not every writer deserves an encyclopedia article. hmwithtalk 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article definitely needs a re-write but notability isn't a question. In addition to being editor of one of the largest gaming blogs, Crecente was also one of the judges for the 2006 Video Gaming Awards. The non-user AfD is definitely suspect. Drew30319 21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It appears that a couple of non-users have been making changes to this article as well as the Kotaku article. Most edits have been reverted as bad faith edits. Some of the reverts were referring to a bias against Sony. It's likely that the recent "Sony ban" may have prompted this AfD. On the Game Critics Awards page the involvement of Kotaku as a judge for the competition was removed by one of these non-users (since reverted). This article needs some work but should be kept. I'd work on it but shouldn't - he's my brother. Drew30319 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - many of these users may have been the same person using a dynamic I.P., as per discussion on my talk page with the nominator. --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that I, an anon user posted this afd should not matter. The article is in need of a serious clean up, which seems impossible noting that all of the google and yahoo results are from non-notable sources, or simply deletion. If I was really trolling or trying to edit the articles in bad faith, I wouldn't have responded to Dreaded Walrus so many times whilst my ip was changing. Although I should note that their seems to be another range close to mine that has taken an interest in these articles as well, they actually duplicated 2 of my ips already. 64.231.248.87 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh and Drew30319 for someone who is acting so noble by saying ""I'd work on it but shouldn't - he's my brother. "" that certainly didn't stop you from making all of the previous edits to his article or Kotakus, or going to various user talk pages and other users claiming all of the google search results make it notable, and asking them to change their vote. As well as complaining that an anon user made the afd in the first place, it's as if you're trying to get this thrown out? But wait you wouldn't, because he's your brother, right? 64.231.248.87 05:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete Keep. Although tricky to navitage through all those embedded external links, at least the next-gen article is reliable. The other 'articles' listed are blog entries with no editorial control, so don't satisfy WP:Reliable sources. I feel that another reliable article about Brian is needed to satisfy WP:N. In either case, the article is horrible and would require a re-write. After reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (people), I see that the subject satisfies notability. Marasmusine 20:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep: The article requires revision and clean up. It can be substantially improved, if given time and research to it. The article is a bit cluttered with information, and my suggestion is to keep working on it to make it a good article. I hope that helps.Breathe200 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Tony and hmwith G1ggy! Review me! 05:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was snow delete as a self-promotional, non-notable, unsourced, unverifiable film. Sr13 02:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Unfortunate Journey of Unfortunate Phil (2007 Film)

    edit
    The Unfortunate Journey of Unfortunate Phil (2007 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable student film. No reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the target page suggested by the nominator. Sr13 02:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Head Men's Basketball Coaches at Saint Louis University

    edit

    Indiscriminate list of information which, more importantly, has been merged into the artiel Saint Louis Billikens men's basketball. fuzzy510 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete and redirect to Thud. Sr13 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    THUD

    edit
    THUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not a notable video game character. 650l2520 03:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Winnipeg Collegiate

    edit

    Prod tag was removed with no explanation. No real claim to notability. fuzzy510 04:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will redirect, editors of these articles can merge as appropriate. W.marsh 16:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Types of Pokémon moves

    edit

    Completely unnecessary fork of Pokémon moves. Game guide-ish information that the average reader is uninterested in. Not the subject of multiple, non-trivial works independent of the subject of the article. hbdragon88 06:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was I decided to be bold and do the redirect (it was heading to that or delete anyway), non-admin closure. --Whsitchy 15:45, 29 May 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.

    List of countries by military power

    edit

    I decided to be bold and do the redirect (it was heading to that or delete anyway), non-admin closure. --Whsitchy 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of countries by military power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Little more than an international penis measuring contest. Original research in any case. Even if a source could be found for such a ridiculous list, what would that even mean? How do they know? Such lists should be based on objective criteria (# of active troops, etc.) not subjective garbage. Savidan 06:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete on grounds of Wikipedia:POV, and not citing any sources. --Gavin Collins 12:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Starfleet officers by rank

    edit
    List of Starfleet officers by rank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    List with not-very-useful means of sorting: characters' rank. I doubt anyone comes looking for a list of all the Star Trek characters who were ensigns or admirals. Additionally, most of the list is repetition, i.e. the same names showing up under each rank they hold -- seems like some unnecessary redundancy stemming from, again, not-very-useful sorting. Five-month-old prompt for editors to explain list's usefulness has garnered no response. All together, it looks like tabulated trivia with no real-world useful purpose. --EEMeltonIV 06:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil ╦ 12:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Peruvian People

    edit
    Peruvian People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Months later, the author has adduced no sources to indicate that Peruvians are an ethnic group, but rather an indiscriminate collection of other groups. Biruitorul 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete & Redirect. This article has indeed many faults, but worst of all the title is wrong; I would suggest redirecting the content to a new article "Ethnic groups in Peru", in line with the category of the same name. I agree with the proposer that it lacks sources, but the article has NPOV and Incomplete tags already, so hopefully the content will improve over time. --Gavin Collins 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Demographics of Peru. After all, Peru consists of a mixture of peoples, some from Spain and some indigenous descendents of the Incas and such. Hence you can call them Peruvian citizens, but not necessarily Peruvian people.--Kylohk 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete No references, potentially controversial...this needs to go. G1ggy! Review me! 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Srikeit 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmed al-Khatib

    edit
    Ahmed al-Khatib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Nor is it a record of things that appeared briefly in the newspapers. Unless the is a record of ongoing noteworthiness, then please delete this. -Docg 14:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, have you?--Docg 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Policy says Wikipedia is not a memorial. If Danny Katz doesn't stay in, how can this? Nick mallory 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This has nothing to do with being a memorial. Rather, this was an extremely notable case where a Palestinian boy was shot by Israeli soldiers and his organs were donated to Israelis. That got a lot of attention at the time, as shown by the references. In long, ongoing conflicts marked by faceless killings, body counts, and passing mentions on the nightly news, some individual deaths stand out. Ahmed al-Khatib is one of those. --JJay 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Srikeit 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder of Joe Geeling

    edit
    Murder of Joe Geeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    per WP:NOT a newspaper. All this is is a report of a murder - sad, newsworthy at the time, not encyclopaedic in the slightest. -Docg 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment There is not a section called: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What specifically at Wikipedia:NOT are you referring to? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. News reports show it was newsworthy at the time. That does not show it is encyclopedic WP:NOTNEWS. Is there any evidence of ongoing notability? If not, let's delete, if we find that changes we can create an article then. Working out what belongs in an encyclopedia is not just a matter of counting sources.--Docg 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Tragic, transwiki to wikinews if they want it, but we should not have articles on all murder victims/cases. Davewild 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep it has been said in afd's that notability doesn't "expire" or go away. If that's true, the multiple sources make this meet WP:N. I tend to think that notability doesn't go away, or we'd lose thousands of articles on historical figures that don't show up in the news much, if ever, - and certainly less than every Survivor or Idol contestant. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per nom. We are not a newspaper, and notability is an ongoing process, just as Doc said. Will anyone want to read about this in 100 years? No. Simple question, simple answer. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Most murders will gain multiple non-trivial sources, however most murders are forgotten days after they occur. Newsworthy is not the same as noteworthy. Resolute 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment do we have standards or not? The general N standard is 2 independent substantial RSs--this has 4. There's no need to discuss anything else, unless you think that the principle is wrong. Personally, I think a good case could be made that it is wrong, based on this article among others. But from what I understand , it's still the basic principle that we use. If the 100 year test were the principle, Calossuarez is right about who would get eliminated. That might make sense also, at least to me, but I don't think the majority would agree at all to the elimination of all video game figures and game show contestants. DGG 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Doc G, you would be correct, if there were only one person who could decide everything. But your qualifications by common sense will not match mine (though they might come fairly close), and of the tens of thousands of people actively writing WP articles, we will have that many views of common sense, and they will not agree. So, unless we are to have a dictator as editor in chief of the encyclopedia to make the decisions, we need some way of finding rational agreement. IKNOWITINMYHEART one way or another is not the sort of thing which can lead to consensus or stability. The proof of that is quite simple: look at the different opinions in this day's worth of AfDs. For about the one-half of them where I know enough to have even an opinion, I could go through and sort them into two classes; and you could as well. and so could everyone else. DGG 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep on principle. I agree that the notability guidelines are not clear here. I echo DGG's sentiments. Bradybd 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete We're not a compendium of every murder ever committed in the world each year. This is a sad occurrence, but it's not demonstrably encyclopedic. FCYTravis 09:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete on principle. The principle being: WP:NOT#Indiscriminate. Not everything that made the papers is encyclopaedic; this has no apparent lasting cultural or historical significance, it belongs in WikiNews if anywhere. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete per nom. Most murders inherently make the news; if we documented them all because of that "notability", we'd end up with something far from an encyclopedia. - Tangotango (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per nom. I see no lasting notability here, and no need to sensationalise the plight of a victim. And there is specifically a section in WP:NOT that says, in effect, we are not a newspaper. Do the ethical thing, not do the "source counting" thing. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per my well-explained reasoning on the talk page of WP:NOTNEWS. This has no lasting historical significance, which is what encyclopedias are for. However it is a once-off newsworthy event, which is what newspapers are for. Zunaid©® 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please take a fresh look at WP:NOT under "[edit] Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" where it now says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article..." This was added to WP:NOT on May 28 by Jimbo Wales. Also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons where it now says "Articles about living people notable only for one event: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry. ..." Edison 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep, clean up and refrence in new styleThis article is not sensationalist and the guidlines on notability ae that articles do not diminish in notability over time. This isarticle is not a biograph it is an account of the murder there were originally two seperate articles on the murdere and the victim which have been merged. The article retains notability due to the nature of the crime being a minor killing a minor. The article should be expanded and should remain as wikipedia is not a paper based encyclopedia and there is no limit to thwe number of artilces. This artilce does need some work doing to is and does require a better rtefrencing but overall must remain.--Lucy-marie 16:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was KEEP withdrawn -Docg 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nyjah Huston

    edit
    Nyjah Huston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Just looks like vanity - brilliant cool skateboarding dud. But what would I know. Please consider. Feel free to mark as a speedy if it is. -Docg 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete born in 1994? Vanity page Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Youngest X-Games competitor alone shows some significant importance in their sport of choice, and plenty of info to expand with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Unless I'm Nyjah Huston (I'm not) this is not a vanity. Yes, he is young and the article has been the target of vandals, but he is one of the hottest things in skateboarding right now, and by all accounts is a prodigy. A google search gets 38,000 hits for his name. Also, Nyjah has endorsements and sponsorships from many reputahble, notable companies in and out of the skateboarding world, and is featured in Tony Hawk's latest video game. I might add that I am a very experience Wikipedia editor with roughly 13,000 edits, so I definitely respect Wikipedia too much to make vanity articles.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Unequivocally the primary subject of multiple independent sources, as Jeff shows. Wouldn't it have taken less time to do a Google News search than to apply the AFD tag? The arguments for deletion are some of the most ridiculous I've ever seen. Zagalejo 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yonatan talk 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    "A Prelude To Tragedy"

    edit
    "A Prelude To Tragedy" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    non-notable band, possible WP:CSD#A7 but I wasn't sure... Yonatan talk 15:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was let it snow--redirected to British Isles. Non-admin closure.Blueboy96 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The British Isles and Ireland

    edit
    The British Isles and Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    POV fork of British Isles created by an editor who appears to not like the name British Isles, as evidenced on Talk:British Isles and has reacted hostilely to any suggestions of other editors editing it [45].. Ben W Bell talk 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did it on Google.com and got 1.5m [48], don't know where you are getting your 35m from. A random pick, Google of Rashaida people = 10. And Google of The British Isles and Ireland = 25,200 . Now nobody is trying to delete Rashaida people and I certainly hope that will never happen. Can you see my interpretation. Gold♣heart 19:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that there is a more common term for "Rashaida people"? --sony-youthpléigh 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument that you are referring to is about Google numbers, and it's on that basis my reply was given. Maybe start another thread. Gold♣heart 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that reply was to me, it made a much sense as having a seperate article for "British Isles and Ireland" - whatever that is! --sony-youthpléigh 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm sorry ... I thought we were debating whether an independent article by this name was necessary. I don't recall seeing anything requiring Wikipedia to abolish all references to the term, or deleting the British Isles naming dispute article, where this is properly placed. Furthermore, WP:NPOV does not require equal time given to viewpoints in the vast minority. To quote from WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."  RGTraynor  18:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • hmm... perhaps. Seems to me that although those terms will occasionally be put side by side she is nevertheless promoting an alternative name, which has never, as far as I can tell, been defined as a single entity or explicitly stated as an equivalent to the term she dislikes, in other words she's neologising.--Lo2u (T • C) 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Natalie 18:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Muitab Bonga

    edit
    Muitab Bonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Clearly seems to be non-notable by google search. Would qualify for speedy, except that it actually asserts notability. The Evil Spartan 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'm not a big fan of WP:SNOW I'm going to save us all a lot of grief and close this one right now. There is no reason to coddle a single purpose account trying to self-promote and honestly given the utter lack of sourcing this could easily be justified as a speedy under page creation vandalism.--Isotope23 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lauro Roger

    edit
    Lauro Roger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, appears to be an auto-biography. The Evil Spartan 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete as G12-spam and A3-"attempt to contact". Xoloz 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Institute of medical education

    edit
    Institute of medical education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Advert, and a pisspoor one at that. Emeraude 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Docg 10:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason A. Miller

    edit
    Jason A. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    The Jewish Jason Gastrich, it seems. An autobiography form a user who created numerous such articles. The claim to notability is tenuous and unsubstatiated, I would say. Plus it's an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No assertion of notability. A shameless self-promoter. He's been editing his bio to delete the only thing about him that HAS ever been noteworthy -- that he's a known plagiarizer. Plus, the main source for the content of his bio is his own personal website. The claim to notability is unsubstantiated. — Yk2500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:57, May 29, 2007 (UTC).
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merged to Fetus in fetu and redirected. AKRadecki 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alamjan Nematilaev

    edit
    Alamjan Nematilaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    OK, this is a clear case of WP:NOT an archive for expired newspaper stories. Google shows very little ongoing interest [53]. There simply is no way we can write a biography here - all we've got is a report of childhood misfortune. And there seems no reason why we should perpetuate this story into the child's future life. -Docg 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete or merge to an appropriate medical article. The individual is nonnotable so far except for this medical abnormality. Seems as good a candidate for an IN PROCESS deletion as the article about the fat kid Q Z which produced so much drama a few days ago. There seem to be only a couple of source stories after all this time. (Wonder how the parents' plan to keep it a secret from him has worked out?)Edison 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the article but merge content to Parasitic twin as an extreme example of the condition. Davewild 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. Not a news article but instead a unique example of a rare phenomena that can be expanded beyond this as time progresses. Worth noting that a search for his name turns up non-WP links first, showing continued interest and demonstrating a lack of any perceived harm we could cause (not that there's any harm here whatsoever). --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. See below Evidently notable from the two good references provided, an interesting story, and very relevent to an awful lot of people. Very encyclopedic- this isn't just some tabloid rubbish, and so is not a violation of WP:NOT. J Milburn 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give me any evidence of ongoing discussion of this beyond the reporting of it in 2003.--Docg 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Now, maybe I have completely missed some policy somewhere, but do we actually need any? My logic is thus- we allow articles on bands which will die out in a couple of years, and then never be heard from again, because they are only just notable now, and will never really get anywhere. So, should we, in a few years, when people stop reporting them, delete these articles? I repeat, this is NOT tabloid news, this is a relevent story which I suspect will be written about in journals (and no, I can't cite any) for a long time. If something was once notable and encyclopedic, it always is. J Milburn 21:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After discussing this with Doc, I now see that this should be deleted, due to lack of continued reporting of the case. The single isolated incident does not confer notability, and, despite this being an unusual condition, there was nothing particuarly noteworthy about this particular case. Should someone write about the case again, perhaps due to the individual in question doing something in later life, then an article would be required. As it stands, this is an article about a single incident of little lasting relevence or value, masquerading as a biography that will never be anything more than a stub. Alternatively, merging the information somewhere would be good, but we would need to find somewhere relevent first. J Milburn 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not necessarily JUST a once-shot news event. It might be significant as an example of a rare medical condition. However, perhaps it IS just AN example and not THE most outstanding example? someone with a medical background can perhaps answer this. Smerge a brief mention (as an example case) into parasitic twin, with one of the news references. However if more medically significant case is available then delete, since our aim is not to list hundreds of example cases. Zunaid©® 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is the relevent section of the relevent article; it would appear that Sanju Bhagat is more relevent and groundbreaking, and appears to show more of a lasting interest. J Milburn 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Peacent 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 7 elements of power.

    edit
    The 7 elements of power. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Weird article which appears to be original research about pseudophysics, although possibly about fiction. Borderline nonsense, prod removed by a username matching the real name of the creator. Delete. J Milburn 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FTK

    edit
    FTK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Not notable. Only a semi-notable song by a non-notable band. — Moe ε 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closing this early. The nom was for the article in its first state and has now been withdrawn after the article has been revised. Deletes were for the earlier version. Since the revision, there's unanimous keep. Tyrenius 07:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plains Art Museum

    edit
    Plains Art Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Have tagged for speedy twice and creator refuses to discuss and will not follow the standard {{hangon}} procedure for contesting speedy deletion, and feel they'd just remove a prod. So we'll do it with an AFD to smooth matters out. Article reads like an advert, stressing the various features (in specific numbers) and does not make any assertion of real notability. Furthermore (as I just noticed) there is quite the conflict of interest as the creating users username is identical to the article's name. DoomsDay349 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Postscript: Cleanup begun, {{db-spam}} removed. — Athaenara ✉ 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    Comment. I'm actually liking the cleanup performed on this article. Given the current status, I think I may withdraw the nomination. Is saying so sufficient or is there another avenue I must go down? DoomsDay349 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, DoomsDay349. I was amazed again at how little I know until I start trying to track down references for something I've never heard of! — Athaenara ✉ 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My original problem was spammishness and it's definitely beyond that now, so I'm all for keeping and expanding. DoomsDay349 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Roc La Familia Pt.2

    edit
    Roc La Familia Pt.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-existent album, nothing really to say about it — "no details are available". Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sell Me Candy

    edit
    Sell Me Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Another Rihanna single that is nothing but blatant crystal-ballism. The article has absolutely no sources whatsoever, and is full of rumors and speculation. I did some research and this song is not any more notable than any other songs from Good Girl Gone Bad apart from the currently released singles. Acalamari 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    List of Mario series species

    edit
    List of Mario series species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    This lists documents pretty much every single unverifiable and non-notable enemy of the series. Nothing can be written about them, and any notable enemies are covered on a separate list. This is essentially game guide material as the only information that can be written includes what they look like and how they attack. There is absolutely no need for this. TTN 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Don't Delete: Next time this thing is revived, I'm never mentioning it. Ever. because whenever I do, some deletion-hungry person goes and tries to delete it. >.> Anyways, this needs to be saved, BECAUSE Not only is the list of Mario series enemies HORRIBLY incomplete (something that our friendly TTN is trying to NOT rectify by not allowing any enemies not deemed "major" enough), but this is a list of Mario species CHARACTERS. This includes FRIENDLY species like Toad and Bub-ulb and others, which would never have any mention otherwise.
    • Not to mention this page is MUCH better and MUCH more complete than the list of enemies. It includes species that TTN won't even allow on that list-- A list, mind you, that is supposed to be a COMPLETE list of enemies in the Mario universe, in which the page FAILS miserably. Why make a list if all the enemies there have their own pages anyways? Then TTN throws out some guidelines made by Wikipedia, but when I read them, I see nothing against letting those enemies in. I don't see where he gets that stuff.
    • In conclusion, it is not thsi list that should be deleted, but the list of Mario series enemies. This list includes both good and bad species, not just bad. TTN seems to be so determined allowing the least amount of specific information possible be put into anything, so I don't understand why he favors a list of merely enemies over a list of both enemies AND good species, like Toad and Yoshi. General Banzai 22:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Also, after reviewing the WP:FICT further, I realized that it actually goes AGAINST TTN. In it, there are only two categories: Major and Minor. There is no "too minor to not be included". It just says "Minor". And you know what it say under "minor"? That ALL minor characters should be put in a list of characters. Thusly, what this article is doing is actually FOLLOWING the guidelines of Wikipedia, whereas the Enemy List IS NOT. General Banzai 22:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Respectfully, I disagree. Some of the species in Mario are certainly notable, this is true. Creatures like the citizens of Mushroom Kingdom, the Goombas, Koopas, etc... They're all worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, some are not. For example...
        • Stone Chomp—an ancient Chomp made of stone that guards the Dry Dry Ruins in Paper Mario. How is this enemy notable? It's essentially just a Chomp-Chomp made of stone.
        • Strawhead—a ghastly pumpkin-like creature that haunts the Sunken Ship in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars; palette swap of Hobgoblin. Again, what notability is there to this foe? He appears in one game, in one level.
        • Blue Koopa Troopa—A Koopa with a blue shell that appears in various games, starting with Super Mario World. It is seemingly more intelligent than the Red Koopa Troopa. Does this need an entry seperate from the Koopa Troopa listing? Why?
      • I hate using words like cruft, but it does fit in the case of this list right here. I'm sure it'd be a fantastic addition to Egamia or some other gaming or Mario oriented Wiki, but I don't think it has a place here. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information, after all. Cheers, Lanky TALK 14:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete as a bio failing notability guidlines. Sr13 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed Rosa

    edit
    Ed Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable individual per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete per A7. Sr13 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John lazear

    edit
    AfDs for this article:
    John lazear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I nominate this article for deletion. This is a WP:AUTO, there is a genuine question of whether this passes WP:BIO, and it cites no references. AubreyEllenShomo 23:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Telerex

    edit
    Telerex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    Most of article is about another company whose product Telerex distributes. Despite the fine words on the Talk page, this is no more than an advert from a nn-notable company and appears to blatantly violate G12-spam and A3-"attempt to contact". Emeraude 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking of the sentence: "More information on distribution of Wonderware in the Benelux countries can be found at..." Emeraude 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content could be merged but you should be mindful of WP:NOR W.marsh 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Parliamentary unstability

    edit
    Parliamentary unstability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

    I'm not too sure what to make of this (and I'm a political scientist!) For a start, the page has a strange edit history - it STARTED as a redirect. I have never heard the phrase 'parliamentary unstability' - Instability might make some sense. Regardless, the whole is confused and confusing, not helped by some strange vocabulary (favorized). In addition, no references or sources; possible OR? Emeraude 00:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ ISO/IEC 13211: Information technology — Programming languages — Prolog. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_29&oldid=1116721699"