Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

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 semi-speedy delete. – Steel 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Over the Hedge 2 characters

[edit]
List of Over the Hedge 2 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DreamWorks has not announced anything about a sequel to Over the Hedge yet. FMAFan1990 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 list. There has been some dissent that a category would be too hard to define; this discussion, if someone wants to follow it through, should take place in the appropriate venue, which isn't AfD.

Noting the large amount of support in turning this listed into a category, I will be happy to restore this article temporarily in userspace for any user (in good standing, ie. who will not simply move it back to mainspace) who wishes to go through the list and add an appropriate category. Please contact me on my user talk page, linking to this discussion, or if I'm busy to any other administrator (and point to this comment). This is especially directed at TonyTheTiger (who noted below a request to do this); please ask when you're absolutely ready to categorise it immediately, to avoid a deleted article hanging around in userspace forever. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of diss songs

[edit]
List of diss songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I feel it may have been too soon for another AfD (the first one was at the end of February), but the article was recently prod'ed and while I don't care much either way about the topic, I didn't think a prod was the way to go. I'm Neutral on this discussion. JuJube 00:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, weak delete. There is so much information on the page detailing numerous songs that I can't simply say "get rid of it." Of course there's no ignoring the fact that it violates policy.--NPswimdude500 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing per WP:DPR as the nominator has decided to withdrawn the AfD.--TBCΦtalk? 22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cronos (Robot)

[edit]
Cronos (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WITHDRAW AFD Given the emerging consensus here, I will be WP:BOLD and start merging and redirecting the articles together. The new page can be seen here List of minor Robot Wars contestants (UK) (in progress) EliminatorJR Talk 17:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, an AfD tried to delete a number of articles about individual robots from the UK series of Robot Wars. Result was No Consensus, as it was thought some had notability (i.e. winners of series). Another AfD was suggested with a smaller batch of more obviously less notable robots. Today, many more articles have been created by a new user; these articles are often unsourced, have no context, or need rewriting. Some are about robots which fought one single bout and lost, never to be seen again. I would've thought using the 'reality show contestant' theory, these are therefore non-notable. This is a small batch to begin with, more (there are a lot) will be nominated if this AfD decides on deletion. (Or alternatively, if the decision is Redirect I will redirect all the non-notable ones in one go).

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Rick (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IG-88 (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dome (Robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EliminatorJR Talk 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mesut Kurtis

[edit]
Mesut Kurtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert any criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. He appears to only have one album and there is no reference to any songs charting or references for significant media coverage or national tours. Nv8200p talk 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as non-notable organization. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Twain Productions

[edit]
Mark Twain Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sources, this group appears to be a high school club that makes films. I suggest that we delete it unless cited, verifiable content can be added. Right now, I can't tell the jokes from the real content - they list Chuck Norris as a cast member, for example. GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously. If the article is really bad but on a valid topic, we don't delete it we just remove the crud. User:Reywas92 has volunteered to clean it up. Although I participated in the debate, consensus is as clear as day here and there's no point keeping the debate open any longer. Any further comments should be addressed at improving the article, on Talk:23 (numerology) kingboyk 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23 (numerology)

[edit]
23 (numerology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Horribly unreferenced pseudoscience, a similar list of occurrences could probably just as easily be tied to any other number. The WP:LEAD is rambling and speculative, however removing the problem parts would leave it meaningless. Previous attempts to solve the issues with this have either been ineffective or were little more than sweeping it under the carpet (e.g. forking it from 23 (number)). In summary, with the OR and V issues, not to mention the use of weasel terms, this article is now beyond help. Chris cheese whine 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone that may be considering "Keep and cleanup" recommendations shoud check the article and talk history, also read this. It has been to cleanup already, to no avail. Chris cheese whine 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable number in numerology which has been referenced in numerous literary works (the writings of William Burroughs and Robert Anton Wilson, for a start), not to mention inspiring a major film only a few weeks ago. The article needs to be expanded and sources added, etc., but I feel the topic is notable enough to be kept. Content issues can be addressed at the article level. PS I have read the above noted and have discounted it. That's still a content issue, and not an issue as to whether this article has a place in Wikipedia. I say it does. All the note above did was make me change my opinion from "keep" to "strong keep". 23skidoo 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are in effect saying "I don't believe this article is in a fit state, but we should keep it anyway"? Chris cheese whine 01:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, yes, the rule is, even if an article is in abysmally poor condition, if there's something of merit to the subject, it's better to keep and improve it. Now it might be worthwhile to blank it in this case, but I don't know that I see a problem with the edit history being kept. Something like libel or copyvio would be grounds for deletion, but I don't know that that's true. FrozenPurpleCube 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all the useless trivia from both the 23 (numerology) and 23 (number) articles, then merge the two together.--TBCΦtalk? 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But I would suggest in-line citations for this to keep out original research. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but continue to clean with a firehose. I took out the pop culture references that didn't make explicit reference to the numerological significance of 23 and encourage others to plug away at directly sourcing unsourced content remaining in the article. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe, as I stated on the talk page, that the occurances on 23 (number) and this (including some good which has been deleted and is in history) should be merged onto this article with major trimming of unimportant occurances. Reywas92Talk 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They've made two movies about this number, so it's clearly notable. It doesn't matter if an article is hard to keep clean, and thinking an article should be kept implies no responsibility beyond truly believing an article should be kept. - Peregrine Fisher 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No article about a reasonable subject is beyond help. Since this subject has received some attention, it needs to be covered. I wouldn't mind merging it somewhere, but this seems like a content dispute, not a reason to delete. Lots of articles on Wikipedia are difficult to write, some attract the attention of some less than reasonable folks. It's the nature of Wikipedia, which will not be written in a day. FrozenPurpleCube 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may be poor, but the subject is not. It can be verified. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourceable, notable enough. - Denny 09:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The number 23 is notable due to it's presence in movies, several secret societies and other notable areas. It may well be a pseudoscience as mentioned, but this does not mean it isn't notable. Poeloq 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It might not be a great article but it's a valid topic. Somebody speedy close this please? --kingboyk 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the article is garbage, and sympathize with the plea of the nominator, but frustration over cleaning up an article is not a reason to delete it. At the very least, it can be turned into a stub with whatever information can be verified, and then started over. --Mus Musculus 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. All hail Eris. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 18:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as obvious hoax. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Picker

[edit]
David Picker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tried prod, it was removed. Unfortunately it doesn't meet any CSD requirements as notability is claimed, etc and obvious hoaxes don't meet CSD requirements. 1) The Stig in 2002 has previously been revealed as Perry McCarthy. 2) A world class 13 year old race driver would be easily verifiable. As I can't find anything to verify this [1]. 3) The article was started by User:Picker34, probably just some kid making a joke. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kill Switch...Klick. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:36Z

Go-Kustom Films

[edit]
Go-Kustom Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was created by the owner of the Go-Kustom Films. Notability is not established and sources are not provided. No Opinion at this time. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

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

The result was - Speedy deleted by me as a near-verbatim copy of a webpage that asserts copyright. - Richard Cavell 02:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Teuber

[edit]
Andreas Teuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page has copyright violation issues which need to be addressed if the page is to survive (see talk page for further discussion). There are also questions as to whether this individual is sufficiently notable. Because the latter question is potentially nuanced, I am moving it from speedy deletion to AfD for community review. I take no stance on the issue. Closing admin: please make sure that copyvio issues are fully dealt with if the article is to be kept; right now it's in a sort of copyright twilight zone with permission from the orginal author but no explicit GFDL release from the original source material. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as nn-bio. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David 'Rat' Pitsock

[edit]
David 'Rat' Pitsock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable person. John254 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. Majorly (o rly?) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League

[edit]
Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These organizations seem rather non notable. AniMate 01:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League as it is part of this non notable organization. AniMate 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I know Google hits aren't the only yardstick we measure notability by, but I found a total of 18 hits for Metropolitan Yeshiva High School League and a total of 1,740 hits when adding in the Hockey League. AniMate 06:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've notified all three people who have contributed to the articles. AniMate 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nuke. DS 21:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan D. Schwartz

[edit]

After some serious searching, I can't find anything about this person. He wrote books but I can't find any reference to them. He was a PHD in nuclear engineering but I can't find any papers written by him. He is alleged to have committed suicide in 1973 as a result of Three Mile Island accident but that didn't occur until 1979. Article was written by anonymous author. I suggest hoax or some sort of error. Glendoremus 02:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Lexicon (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of communists

[edit]
List of communists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete We already have categories that are more suited to listing things like this. There is not a single cited source. The page is just begging to be vandalised (see the edit by User:66.131.228.205, "huh huh let's list our teacher"). AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Because I wasn't clear before, there is already a category to cover this Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already a very well developed category: Category:Communists. AlistairMcMillan 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; along with the other lists of the type of people of the day categories, this should be made into a category. --Mhking 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, better served by a category. --Dennisthe2 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Dhartung's excellent points. Noroton 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Dhartung - a list lends itself much better to potentially controversial inclusions. A category is by no means the same as a list, nor can it serve the same purpose. --Mus Musculus 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having a category is not a reason to delete a list, both are useful. The category has no context, making it difficult to find the person your looking for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Stebbins. Someone show me a definition of "communist" that will pass consensus, then show me how it applies to everyone on that list. These lists gather names like piers gather barnacles. RGTraynor 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list with unqualified inclusion criteria AlfPhotoman 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This "article" is an excellent example of why I gave up on the Wikipedia project months ago. How is this supposed to be useful? It is redundant to the category. Certainly, one could claim that the list could include information which a category could not convey--but it isn't being used like that, so it makes no difference. This is just more pointless listcruft. People like to contribute to these lists because doing so requires very little time or effort, but I have yet to see evidence that people actually find such lists useful. And, really, how useful can a list where Brecht and Brezhnev are lumped together possibly be? Heather 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable AND superfluoous. --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by Swatjester (Peripitus (Talk) 10:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

GEWar

[edit]
GEWar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable entery. Fails WP:WEB Cman 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7. kingboyk 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hippie Jihad

[edit]
The Hippie Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I could find no mention of this band in any reliable internet sources (only ~120 Google hits). According to the article itself, they were formed only last year and are only performing around Knoxville, Tennessee. It therefore seems highly doubtful that they meet WP:MUSIC. Stebbins 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo (swahili)

[edit]
Mambo (swahili) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

del Non-english dicdef. Although I am inclined to believe it is a hoax (you know mambo/jambo, mumbo-jumbo...) Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 03:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how it would be used for disambiguation purposes? This could affect my (as yet ungiven) vote. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia

[edit]
Wikia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Notability insufficient.Rainbowwarrior1976 03:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — Rainbowwarrior1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was Delete Gnangarra 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by Westpac

[edit]
Advertising by Westpac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing notable about the advertising campaign of a bank MrMonroe 03:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogenes

[edit]

Original research Alex Bakharev 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)d[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mep Report

[edit]
The Mep Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a vanity page for someone's audio blog -- does it even matter? --awh (Talk) 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 ZsinjTalk 16:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Cow Entertainment

[edit]
Wicked Cow Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreated speedily deleted page, this time with a claim of notability and "sources". Problem is that most of the sources are self-published; the one reference from a reliable source contains only one brief quote from the company's owner in an article primarily about Jenna Jameson. Delete as non-notable per WP:CORP. RJASE1 Talk 03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wäntage USA

[edit]
Wäntage USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization per WP:CORP, no evidence of notability. Contested prod. RJASE1 Talk 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shark in love

[edit]
Shark in love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. An article about a hoax; unfortunately most web search results for "Arnold Pointer" are not English. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 04:01Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 Opabinia regalis 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Malone

[edit]
Jo Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't know what this is. An advertisement? For what? Anyway, this is not an encyclopedic article. Even if the subject (whatever it is) is notable, I don't believe the article in the current state can be salvaged. A new article on the subject may be started, but the current article, as it stands, is completely useless. Delete. Henrik Ebeltoft 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of AMC couples

[edit]
List of AMC couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 04:19Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 Opabinia regalis 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing With The Sith

[edit]
Dancing With The Sith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This doesn't seem notable to me. Mearnhardtfan 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warren P. McGuirk

[edit]
Warren P. McGuirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am listing this article for deletion as I feel the subject of the article is Non-notable - the only thing Warren P. McGuirk is suggested to be notable for is being the dean of a university & having a local stadium named after him. Smells of OR & seems like it was written by someone close to him. If this article can't be deleted, I'd also suggest that maybe it could be merged into a relevant article, such as the stadium or the university. Spawn Man 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Spawn Man 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note

Barbara Schwarz

[edit]
Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nomination statement

[edit]

Introduction: Barbara Schwarz has already been the subject of three AfD discussions and I do not lightly nor frivolously bring this 4th AfD. I reviewed the previous three AfDs and feel that they were all presented on the dubious false premise argument that the article was written as an “attack piece”. The first two AfDs were brought by Ms. Schwarz herself and the third was brought by User:Steve Dufour at the express request of Ms. Schwarz. (Please see 1st, 2nd, 3rd.) I say "dubious" "false premise" not because I am doubting the nature of the piece in its various versions but because that is a very dubious argument for deletion. An attack piece would be corrected, not deleted, and various actions in that direction have been taken. No, I am bringing this AfD because I believe, in good faith, that this article does not meet Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability standards for inclusion. I make arguments for my position below that, I think, were previously either not made or, if touched upon, overshadowed by the nature of the previous discussions; both their focus on a improper argument and the presence of Barbara herself. Prior to bringing this AfD I canvassed queried the interested editors at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination) and found more than adequate interest, in my opinion, to take this to the community for consideration. Thank you for considering my arguments.

Not Notable: Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable. Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press to a very limited extent but is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. (edited - ja) Her private search for records for her private reasons gained her mention in a couple of news outlets. That is all. Below is my comment when I solicited comments at Talk:Barbara Schwarz#AfD (4th Nomination):

I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable. For instance, I can Google "most parking tickets" most+"parking tickets"[2] and learn a lot about "McMillan Electric Co." reasons for racking up 1,497 ticket worth $74,375 in San Francisco, as covered in some depth by the San Francisco Chronicle (correct & add - ja). Certainly that does not make the firm notable enough for an article here. I could then Google them a bit more and maybe find out that they had some OSHA violations or filed a lawsuit or two. Still does not make them notable. But if a few editors here had a non-notable feud and dislike against "McMillan Electric Co." then they might be able to make an article that almost (but not quite) seems like it belongs here.

Some claim that her Usenet activity somehow contributes to her notability. Her Usenet postings are not notable for either their volume nor their content. There are lots of heavy posters on Usenet and lots of “interesting” material posted. That is not notable in itself and adds little, if anything, to any other notability. In my opinion, the only reason her Usenet activity has any “audience” here is because her postings were in vocal opposition to a small group of “anti-Scientologists” that also happen to be editors here. In my opinion, that very small group has carried their Usenet feud to these pages.

Non-public figure: Ms. Schwarz’ FOIA requests, the basis of any notability claim, were brought as a private person for private reasons. That she got mention in the newspaper for their volume does not automatically make her sufficiently notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. This is clearly and, at best, a “borderline case”. And Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-public figures states:

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

Ms. Schwarz clearly feels that she is harmed by the existence of this article and has asked for its removal. In a case of a non-public person such as this one, that carries weight for deletion. Thank you --Justanother 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent corrections and additions shown in strikeout and italics.)[reply]

Section 1

[edit]
  • Comment on newsworthiness vs. encyclopedic-ness - Being persistent in petitioning public agencies for private reasons does not a public person make, nor a particularly notable one. I am sure that most school boards, condominium boards, town meetings, etc. etc. in America, for instance, have one or more people that show up to every meeting to make the same point over and over and over again. Sometimes those people are written up in the paper to fill up a slow news day. It is called a human interest story. Not encyclopedic. Not even particularly newsworthy but news outlets have to fill their papers or their airtime. The important thing to note is that these little human interest write-ups are ephemera; if someone that knows the person sees it it is forgotten quickly. Not so an encyclopedia. Articles here should stand some "test of time". Barbara Schwarz does not meet notability standards for an encyclopedia. and she did not even meet the much lower newsworthiness standards for more that a few local outlets despite one story apparently going out on the Associated Press (AP) wire, a cooperative tool for filling up newspapers and airtime. Were she truly noteworthy, the AP story would have been picked by perhaps hundreds of member and non-member news organizations. There is no evidence that her story showed up as more than local filler in a small handful of outlets. --Justanother 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (subsequent addition shown in italics.)[reply]
  • Comment on the recent expansion of the article - While Smee's efforts to improve the article are appreciated, to the degree that such improvement consists of referencing public records documenting Ms. Schwarz' private efforts to uncover information for her own private reasons; to that degree such expansion does not speak to the notability of the subject. We know that she filed lots of requests with governement agencies. Such agencies are usually required to make records of such available to the public and many agencies are making to effort to make that material available on the internet. The existence of these records says nothing about notability. And actually, IMO, they add little to the article other than to make it appear more substantial than it has any right to be. --Justanother 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Notable In the interest of providing both POVs, this is why I think she is notable. Her FOIA activity should not be looked upon as some sort of Guiness Book of World Records title, it is far more notable than that. Filing a FOIA request costs the government money, unlike the usual attempt to set a record. It costs even more money when the person filing asks the government to cover the costs. Moreover the the scope of her requests includes dozens of agencies. Below is a sample of references, it doesn't even scratch the surface of her activity.

She has also been the victim of a deprogrammimg attempt by Cyril Vosper, and as such is relevant to discussions about Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues.

The Barbara Schwarz article directly relates to these articles: FOIA Deprograming#Controversy_and_related_issues Cyril Vosper related to Taxation in the United States possibly related to USENET Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Overstays

references

  1. Barbara Schwarz, Case No. VFA-0679 07/19/2001
  2. " " " " VFA-0701 11/05/2001
  3. " " " " VFA-0700 11/08/2001
  4. " " " " VFA-0641 01/24/2001
  5. " " " " TFA-0001 12/19/2002
  6. Postal Regulatory Commision FOIA requests 2003
  7. PRC requests 1999
  8. National Credit Union Association 07/11/2000 response to barbara Schwarz's 04/20/2000 request
  9. " 05/10/2000 earlier response to 04/20/2000 request
  10. Department of Energy WIPP FOIA request log
  11. pdf file of Ms. Schwarz's appeal to the Utah Attorney General's Office
  12. Kentuky state Attorney General's office response to Ms Schwarzs 06/22/04 request
  13. Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board minutes 6/23/2004
  14. Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General letter to Ms. Schwarz 6/21/2004
  15. US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 98-1685

Thank you for your attention, Anynobody 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Anynobody. However, as court records and so forth these are primary sources. As far as I know no published secondary source has ever said that Barbara was important. Steve Dufour 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically sources don't say "X is important". We are allowed to use primary sources as well as secondary sources as long as the article is not predominantly sourced from primary sources. When Person B is mentioned as holding the record for Y, we don't need anyone else to say "Person B is important." It's obvious to the casual reader that the world's record holder for Y is a notable person. Wjhonson 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious to me that the world record holder for filing the most Freedom of Information Act requests for information is an important person. Steve Dufour 23:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is not important. Important is a value judgement that we shouldn't be making. However that she is notable is attested by her 35 thousand plus google hits. Wjhonson 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Steve Dufour" will get you lots of Google hits too, but I don't have a WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 04:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

[edit]
  • Delete - As nominator Stricken as per below remarks. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the nominator is assumed to be arguing for deletion unless they state otherwise (e.g. a procedural listing without prejudice). AfD is truly not a vote, so adding your vote does not affect the determination of consensus as it relates to policy in the slightest. Your nomination statement is all that's required. —Doug Bell talk 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This was the longest AfD comment I had ever read... until I read the archived discussions from the first 3 AfDs. With all due respect to you argument, Justanother, might I advise that you try to be a bit more concise in future AfDs. Also, you don't need to vote on your own AfD (although I would recommend signing your comments). Stebbins 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your input. Yes it is long. However, since one user, User:Anynobody, started an RfC on me for thinking about this AfD (see WP:ANI#Admin help needed on User RfC please) and another, User:Tilman, suggested I be blocked and was seconded by User:Orsini, just for talking about it (see the link in the COI section above and subsequent comment), I figured I had better. Sorry if it is a lot to read. --Justanother 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Justanother writes "...User:Tilman, suggested I be blocked and was seconded by User:Orsini, just for talking about it..." Once again Justanother, you are wrong and make false a accusation of impropietry. My support of Tilman's suggestion was based on your repeated uncivil and disruptive behavior; your repeated personal attacks, both of the thinly veiled and overt variety; your collusion with a clearly disruptive editor on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, whom you fully supported in that behavior and whom has since been blocked for same; your repeated false accusations of impropietry; your repeated making of comments to incite and provoke people; and your repeated initiation of disruptive discussions in which your stated premises are inherently flawed. This RfD is yet another example of the latter, as the numerous strikethroughs in the RfD comments can attest, before even going into the specifics of numerous flawed premises within. My comments are soley based on observing your behavior, not on the flawed pretext of bigotry which you repeatadly cite by reason you are a scientologist for this basis. Orsini 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep - NOTE, there were Three prior unsuccesfull AFDs. Other editors have stated that a 4th ADF nomination would simply be disruptive. Article has 12 reputable citations, including documents from court cases, the Associated Press, Salt Lake Tribune, the United States Supreme Court, and other reputable sources. Smee 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC). Update: - I'm changing my sentiment from "Speedy Keep", to "Strong Keep", I see no reason not to let this intriguing AFD discussion run its course, much as I still agree with other editors that the continued nominations are disruptive. Smee 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Court case documents are archived on government and legal websites for probably millions of cases and do not speak to notability. --Justanother 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Court case documents are also considered primary sources (and yes, primary sources exist on every person, notable or not), as are usenet posts. The use of primary sources are generally restricted to specific situations, or to bolster a secondary source which references the primary. I'll have to take a closer look at whether or not the primary sources are being used properly. Also, the fact that this is a fourth AfD is irrelevant. Consensus changes, as does the criteria and arguments used in a nomination. Crockspot 19:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should also point out Jimbo's comments regarding Newsgroup postings, original research, and BLPs, which is directly relatable to this article. - Crockspot 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wrong. BLP policy has been followed for this article. The Newsgroup postings are referenced and identified only as self-published sources, and no reasonable doubt exists she posted them. Any OR in the article was removed long ago. Jimbo's comments and concerns were noted and acted upon. Orsini 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. I don't see what could possibly be said that was not said in the past 3 nominations. The article is extensively referenced; notability doesn't really seem to be an issue. Stebbins 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though I'm—as of now—undecided, I'm strongly opposed to speedily keeping it. Please remember that consensus is not immutable, and that it can change amongst the community.--TBCΦtalk? 05:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:CCC is not immutable, when the community is divided more or less evenly on several AfDs i could see whre WP:CCC is probably of no help. In this case, the previous three AfDs were kept by a pretty solid majority. Please take a moment to look them over before deciding your vote at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Thanks for your time in participating and commenting. Anynobody 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but Justanother seems to have presented new arguments—albeit most are invalid or faulty—in this AfD--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, his arguments have been...what you described. It's actually his insistence on pursuing this based on those arguments that has prompted an unsuccessful effort to explain that to him. It is also why I think this boils down to "asking the other parent" as mentioned in WP:CCC, if he had made convincing arguments not brought up in the previous requests I would agree to delete the article. Anynobody 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because an article is well sourced doesn't mean that the article in question is notable. Filling out thousands of FOIA requests is far from notable. WP doesn't host a bio of every person who is the worlds most pierced man, or the person who threw the most messages in a bottle into the ocean, or the laywer who has won the most cases. Cman 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep per Zahakiel, Antaeus Feldspar, V, and Tilman. Orsini 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is anybody going to care in 5 years to read this article? Requesting a ton of documents does not make her noteworthy in its own. Newsworthy != noteworthy, and also per Cman --Auto(talk / contribs) 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This meets all the policy requirements. The nomination says that although Babs is noted in the press, she is not notable. However, WP:N states that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources", as well as "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. Notability is generally permanent." Babs has been the subject of numerous secondary sources. As for the "do no harm" clause... I think that would really be a stretch to apply it to this case. There are numerous people who have articles here that haven't been deleted for that reason. In fact, as I recall, the Daniel Brandt article was kept many times by an overwhelming majority, with the impetus for deletion being rooted in that "do no harm" clause. I'm not sure there's any policy here that supports deletion. .V. [Talk|Email] 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Keep - Justanother you are violating the policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Anynobody 06:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I actually commented under your comment) Because the three previous AfD votes in this case were strongly rejected. This falls under this part of CCC Anynobody 06:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the AfD contains no new arguments, and suggest a block for Justanother, who is wasting time by raising issues that have been discussed so many times already, and for rewarming th CoI allegation. --Tilman 06:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is requiring you to waste your time with it. Steve Dufour 07:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Justanother is requiring Tilman to be here to support an article he feels notable. Since he feels that way about it, I can appreciate why he might feel this is a waste of his time since he has voted in past nominations. Just as I imagine you must look at the previous AfDs as a waste of time Steve Dufour, since the article was not deleted. Anynobody 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider my efforts to defend someone from unfair attacks and to try to improve WP a waste of time no matter how the vote on this nomination goes. Thanks for thinking of me. Steve Dufour 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Dufour, can you please explain how a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources, can be construed as an unfair attack? Thank you. Orsini 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If partly because of my input Barbara's article is now a "a well referenced article, excised of personal opinions and POV, based on reliable, factual, and verifiable sources" I consider my time working on it well spent. Steve Dufour 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barbara is not the kind of notable person that Wikipedia's policies say should be the subject of an article. Steve Dufour 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator states, "Barbara Schwarz has been noted in the press but is not notable." I contend that this is the definition of notability, the first words of said policy being, "Notable is defined as 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' I do not see the COI issue having any bearing on the current state of the article, nor do I believe that a subject's wishes should have any bearing on whether or not an encyclopedia contains verifiable information on the subject; for a detailed discussion of this issue, see this page. In any event, the article is fully policy-compliant, and there is therefore no reason to remove an article that a number of editors have taken the time to create, update and improve. ◄Zahakiel► 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but just filing a ton of FOIA requests and unsucessful lawsuits is not notable. Also, this AFD does not qualify for a speedy keep. TJ Spyke 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zahakiel's well-stated reasoning and per the fact that no new reasoning (besides the allegations of COI) has been presented in this AfD that wasn't already examined by the previous three AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there does not seem to be anything really encyclopedic to say about the subject. Most of the article seems to be just "heh, heh, heh, lookit all the quaint delusions this lady harbors", which is not the main content any respectable encyclopedia ought to have in a biographical article. This might be relevant background material if there were any real encyclopedic content in the foreground, but I see none - as others have commented, the record for most FOIA requests filed just doesn't cut it. As for those who want the article to be kept simply because it is sourced, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something can be sourced as fact does not automatically make it belong in an encyclopedia. –Henning Makholm 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the "Keep" points outlined above, the subject remains a byword within U.S. government information circles (and in the field of information-handling more generally) in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. The aspects of the article that have proved the most contentious over time (e.g., content on her personal beliefs and her relationship to Scientology) seem to me appropriate for inclusion (provided that they are, as they seem to be currently, appropriately sourced and NPOV), if for no other reason than that they are useful in fully understanding the FOIA issues raised by her actions. The subject has chosen to become, to whatever extent, a public figure, through involvement in public official processes, the press, and the Internet; a byproduct of doing so, in this day and age, is the possibility of being the subject of a WP article. Robertissimo 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article seems to fulfil WP:BIO (albeit not easily) and has no obvious issues with respect to policy. The autobiographical material could be trimmed a bit, but other than that, I find the nomination and especially the part on WP:BLP problems very unconvincing. —xyzzyn 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An embarrassment to Wikipedia. It has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately. Whatever her supposed notability, Barbara Schwarz is not a public figure. Her privacy should be be respected. Fred Bauder 15:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fred, would you mind explain the difference between the article as it now stands and the article as it was recreated from scratch under your own guidance after your unilateral decision to delete the article and its edit history as well as the talk page and its edit history? I am unsure how the two versions differ in any significant way so I really have no idea what you mean that "it has proved impossible to maintain the article appropriately." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only reason for existence is to denigrate Scientologists and other living people. Non-notable. --Tbeatty 15:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes our thresholds for notability, and shouldn't be deleted just for being controversial to some (is every apparently once-controversial article going to be afd'd now in some COI manner...? Brandt, essjay, this?). passes WP:BIO, WP:N, etc., and is about someone involved in Supreme Court action. Keep. - Denny 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable person deserving an article. --MZMcBride 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and salt page - Per nomination. The subject is not particularly notable, she feels she is harmed by the article (and I agree), and the article has been a trouble spot since day one. The spirit of WP:BLP calls for us to delete the article. - Crockspot 17:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete plainly...not notable...price of admission isn't worth it.--MONGO 18:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A record number of FOIA requests = a record amount of tax money wasted on fruitless FOIA requests. Scientology or no Scientology, delusions or no delusions, a record abuse of the FOIA and waste of tax dollars is notable. There are also plenty of sources. She has no say in the matter; she has made her beliefs extremely public and now wants Wikipedia not to refer to them, which is not her decision.--Parsleyjones 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment she is not a celebrity. She is not a politician. She is not royalty. She is not an accomplished author. She is not a mass murderer. She is not an athlete. She is a citizen of the United States that had her 15 minutes of fame filling out those FOIA back in the 80's. Cman 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment She is not a citizen of the United States. She is citizen of Germany that is illegally living in the United States. I agree that Ms. Schwarz is not the most famous person on Wikipedia, but neither is Star Wars Kid. We cover lots of minor characters on Earth that we deem notable. It is also important to note that non-notable people don't typically attract hundreds of editors to research and write about them. Vivaldi (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There are dozens of examples of non-public figures who are notable. This woman may not consider herself public, but the claims she filed are, and the processing of them was paid for by the public. She filed a lawsuit against the CIA! That is pretty public in my book.--Parsleyjones 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response - Under the logic in your first point, it would then seem that every parent that sends their child to a public school is a public person? And every such child, too? After all, their schooling is "paid for by the public". And filing a lawsuit as a private person against a public agency does not, ipso facto, make the private individual a "public figure". Schwarz is a non-public figure.
  • Keep Vote changed, see below. Notariety alone makes her notable, and it's well covered. No autobiographical edits at the beginning. If she's doing this sort of thing, well, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment have you ever heard of the term, "15 minutes of fame"? That's all she equates to. If I were to go out and pay all my speeding tickets in 2 dollar bills, would that make me notable for WP? No, it wouldn't. Sure, I will get my 15 minutes of fame, but that would be my only notable accomplishment. This is the same thing. The only thing she is notable is for her FOIA requests. Cman 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm quite clear on the concept of "fifteen minutes of fame". The problem remains though that she is well covered - but on the other hand, the synopsis makes her sound like she's a paranoid-delusional woman, or suffers from some other mental disorder. Whether this is the case is left to a psychiatrist, though. Strike that, and she's some woman who sued the CIA and made a s***load of FOIA requests. That said, in consideration of the way the article sounds (i.e., rather harmful), and that WP:LIVING makes a point on doing no harm (other comments above), I'm striking my previous vote. Yes, she's notable in being a record holder for FOIA requests, but this strikes me as a case of a woman who needs her privacy given any perceived mental disorders. Weak delete, per the "Do No Harm" clause in WP:LIVING. --Dennisthe2 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dennisthe2, "Do no harm" is a two way street. Barbara Schwarz is known to file frivolous and false reports to law enforcement about her perceived enemies, and spam vast amounts of defamatory libel on the Usenet about those whom she does not like which is any person who cannot accept her delusions as fact. While in Germany, her smear campaigns she ran for scientology as an operative in its notorious Guardian's Office caused much harm to the reputations of the perceived enemies of scientology. I believe this reliable, well sourced, and well enforced by community action factual biography on Wikipedia has the potential to cause her far less harm than a similar biography published on a web page or web site, which is a likely and inevitable result of being established in the wake of the vacuum left by deletion of this article. Such sites never have such the rigorous built-in protection and insistence upon verifiable data from reliable sources that any Wikipedia BLP article demands. Regards, Orsini 00:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As tempting as it is to abstain in protest of the tug of war here, you do have a point. Cman, he's right, and the notations below also have it. Strong keep. Like I said earlier, she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comments on Orsini's arguments - 1) Orsini makes some claims that not only cannot be backed up in RS but which are really off-topic to the issue of the suitability of this subject for this encyclopedia. Even if Ms. Schwarz was "mean" to some (and I by no means take that for granted), that is hardly a reason for this project to be "mean" to her. "Do no harm" means just that; not "figure out if the subject deserves that harm be done to her", which seems to be Orsini's premise. 2) The concept that the existence of an article here will somehow forestall more vindictive mention on web pages is just silly. I mean, it hasn't exactly helped Tom Cruise, has it? --Justanother 03:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comments on Justanother's arguments - (1) The claims I have made can be backed up by simple observation and searches on Google. Are RS required for comments in AfD discussions, or does AGF prevail here? The project is not being "mean" to Schwarz in any way by insisting her article has reliable and well-sourced citations; in fact, it has been far more kind to her than she has been to those whom she has defamed and smeared by spamming the libel propaganda from the scientologist's "dead agenting" website. The hate site's front man even appears on video admitting they have no obligation to correct their mistakes. Further, the suitability of this subject for Wikipedia has already been answered by results of three previous AfDs, which favored keeping the article. (2) By comparing Barbara Schwarz to Tom Cruise: is this an admission by Justanother that Barbara Schwarz is, in fact, a public figure? As User:ChrisO observed below, persons who wish to remain private figures do not publish a 90-plus part autobiography under their own name in a public medium accessible word-wide. Orsini 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Reply - "By comparing Barbara Schwarz to Tom Cruise: is this an admission by Justanother that Barbara Schwarz is, in fact, a public figure?" No, absolutely not. It is an observation that they are both figures hated by "anti-Scientologists", especially that insular group that frequents alt.religion.scientology. The only difference is that since Cruise is a public figure, there has been an incredible amount of "pile-on" criticism that is absent in the obscure Ms. Schwarz' case. --Justanother 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Response -Justanother, you do not address the contradiction in your AfD statement, stating how the subject remains "a non-public person", after the subject published a 90-plus part autobiography, under her own name, in a public medium accessible word-wide. You also imply the interest in the article is solely from "that insular group that frequents alt.religion.scientology," which is false; the subject is of interest in the internet abuse prevention community. Orsini 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I guess I find it hard to believe that anyone would take an "attack" from Barbara seriously. So seriously that a WP article is needed to defend against her. Steve Dufour 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. I suppose Scott Peterson's article should be removed. And Anita Hill's. Budd Dwyer's, Oliver North's, Squeaky Fromme's. None of these deserve to be famous, or probably want to be. But notability isn't based on someone's value.--Parsleyjones 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability is plenty established. Former cult leader, FOIA record setter, USENET celebrity, frivolous lawsuit filer. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has considered her and made her one of the only people permanently barred from the certiorari process. She is not a private figure. She voluntarily gave up that status when she became president of Church of Scientology in Germany and then again when she volunteered to be interviewed by the Salt Lake City Tribune. Her story was put on the AP Wire and spread through newspapers across the country. People that talk to reporters knowing their story will be published in a paper do not subsequently have the right to claim the details in that story are a private affair. The FOIA requests were not "in the late 80's" as user Cman suggests above. She has been making numerous FOIA requests even in this decade. Also it is inappropriate for Cman to threaten to add articles to Wikipedia that he deems unworthy just to make a WP:POINT. Vivaldi (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned over this posting, on Jimbo's talk page:
Hello Jimbo. I thought you might want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). I have already invoked your comments about newsgroup postings, OR, etc. related to your own article, but I thought you would want to comment directly. This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia, IMHO. - Crockspot 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are so many users with Jimbo's page on their watchlist, a comment like this could be seen as canvassing. Especially "This article has been troublesome from inception, and isn't something that belongs on Wikipedia". Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You left off the "IMHO" from my quote. Since I had already invoked a diff of Jimbo's comments in a reply above, I thought he should be afforded the opportunity to speak directly to this situation. It was my opinion that his previous comments related directly to this article, but I didn't want to speak for him. I suspect he would agree with me, but I could be wrong. And what is wrong with getting as many opinions as possible? The outcome of this AfD does not affect me one bit, as long as the decision is made by a truly broad consensus. - Crockspot 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Crockspot, please consider revising your comment on Jimbo's page to change it to a simple invitation to take a look without including any opinion or characterization of the article or this AfD. Thanks. Stricken, see my comments below. --Justanother 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, albeit reluctantly. - Crockspot 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the comment, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any problem with letting Jimbo know about it. If people are watching his talk page they should be mature enough to make up their own minds about it and not believe something just because Crockspot said it. On the other hand, Cman's threat was out of line. Steve Dufour 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apollogize for my harsh words. I think that I should have said something a little bit different. I am fixing it right now to make it less harsh. Cman 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. Your threat would not have been very effective anyway. No one would notice the difference from the normal WP situation. :-) Steve Dufour 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many reasons, but I think Vivaldi summed them up for me the best. (Oh, and I came here because I saw the post on Jimbo's page, so maybe the canvassing aspect is true, but maybe it's not having the intended effect.) —Doug Bell talk 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Jimbo is interested in BLP issues and it is appropriate that a mention be made on his talk page. I have asked Crockspot above to modify the message. Thank you for your input. --Justanother 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Upon further reflection, Crockspot's communication to another single editor, be it Jimbo or whomever, is his own business, and, as you say, there in no guarantee of what the net effect might be. So Crockspot, I apologize if I was meddlesome, please do as you see fit. --Justanother 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure - I should probably disclose that before I left Jimbo a note, I also left a note on Morton Devonshire's talk page, stating specifically that I was doing so because I knew that a lot of people watch Morty's page. If you want to call that canvassing, then fair enough. I happen to think that the reason this article was kept in the previous three AfD's is because the "votes" were overwhelmed by a minority opinion specifically interested in keeping this article. More/wider opinions are better, whatever they may be. I don't see anything wrong with letting a wider audience know about an AfD, nor do I see anything wrong with including my opinion about in in user talk space. If this is a violation, please let me know and I will modify my behavior in the future. - Crockspot 20:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Clarification - Just to clarify, I did not leave Jimbo the note for the same reason I left Morty one. I truly wanted Jimbo's thoughts on this directly. - Crockspot 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think canvassing is WP:CANVASSING and you cannot worry about who watches whose talk pages. That would make any communication at all subject to a charge of canvassing and that is ridiculous. So I see no problem with you communicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy. --Justanother 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speey Keep I too came here via Jimbo's page. My main concern is that to bring fourth AfD there should be weighty and substantial reasons given. I don't see those presented here. Notability is a often a judgement call. Previous AfDs have made that call in the affirmative here. Those decisions should be allowed to stand.--agr 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close as a result of prior consensus and outstanding canvassing issues with this nomination. RFerreira 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about the gray header - I am curious about this header as the link on it, Wikipedia:Survey notification, goes to an "inactive" page. Please comment on talk. Thanks --Justanother 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete making numerous FOIA requests does not make one notable. In the name of WP:BIO and WP:BLP], this article should not exist.-- danntm T C 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the numerous citations and references in the article that clearly verify the notability of the subject. Also, as with the Daniel Brandt article, "the subject doesn't like it" is never a valid reason for deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The article is not fair to her. Nobody knows her truly. They try to figure her out via third parties who also never met her. This Wikipedia article is used by others to harass Barbara Schwarz. A bot named Babblestop NOCEM spammed the Wikipedia article within a short time period approx. 600 times and counting to harass her and deny her free speech on Usenet. If the article would be fair, he would not use it as harassment tool. -- Stranger Note: This is StrangerInTown (talk · contribs)'s second edit. — StrangerInTown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC). (UTC).[reply]

If Barbara was really an important person her comments would be welcome here, or so it seems to me. Steve Dufour 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that she does not know how to use sockpuppets well is a clue that she is not an important person. Especially when a big part of her so-called notability is her Internet activity. Steve Dufour 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted keep, but I am uncomfortable with the notion of excluding the subject of the article from this discussion. If we have an article about a living person, they should be allowed to comment on its talk page as well, even if they are permanently banned from the rest of the encyclopedia. --agr 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable. I sought out and read this article long ago, before this controversy erupted. As others have noted, this is the fourth AfD. At what point can these things be called vexatious -- the fifth, ninth, seventeenth AfD? Raymond Arritt 04:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Thank you for your input. I am sorry if you find this AfD annoying but I feel that this is the first true AfD the subject has had; the first one that was premised on a valid argument for deletion. I think that my feeling is borne out by the responses we are receiving. For my part, I fully intend to abide by the outcome of this AfD and will not bring one at any future date. All I ask is that this AfD be allowed to run its full course. Thank you. --Justanother 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Might be a bit off topic, but the GNAA article wasn't deleted until the 18th nomination, so being nominated for the fourth time doesn't seem as strange in comparison.--TBCΦtalk? 04:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable. Thirty-eight thousand Google hits. I knew about her before I knew there was an article on Wikipedia. Definitely not just some random "private person". Wjhonson 05:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Vivladi's reasoning. Being picked up by the AP definately gives the article relevance, and it's pretty heavily sourced all-round. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And the fact that practically no-one apparently picked it up off the wire speaks to its lack of relevance. --Justanother 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to Comment by Justanother - Not necessarily, it depends on what else was going on when the AP ran stories that weren't picked up. For example, I imagine several AP stories weren't picked up on September 11 2001 because of other events. The fact that it is worthy of AP attention speaks to notability in general. On a scale of media relevance, a person the subject of an AP item that wasn't picked up is more notable than someone who is not. It's also important to remember that media coverage alone does not determine notability. Anynobody 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, having cases in appeals court and SCOTUS may not make you tremendously notable... but, I think it's just as notable as many internet memes we have articles for... Now if there is a violation of WP:BLP or this is too much of an attack page (I didn't read it) then I have no problem with imposing a size limit based on information that we can get from only reliable sources. gren グレン 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Justanother you enjoy responding to anyone who wants to keep. What is your COI in trying to delete? Something is fishy here. Wjhonson 06:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Maybe I do it just for the halibut. Maybe I think the only thing fishy is this article. --Justanother 07:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Maybe it is because the subject, being a former president of scientology in Germany, attracts pro-scientology editors to delete this article. Maybe it is because as the antics of the subject, one of their former leaders, have been quite bizarre. As is well known, scientologists have a history of trying to remove or truncate any material which do not represent a pro-scientology POV, or which may be seen as unfavorable to scientology. Maybe it's for those reasons. Or maybe not. Orsini 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply to Orsini - Or maybe it is because a small group of (what I term) anti-Scientologists wants to keep this article here for their own purposes and I oppose that mis-use of this encyclopedia. You know who some of those "anti-Scientologists" are Orsini, you canvassed at least six of them earlier. Here is your history; check the postings starting at 05:53, 11 March 2007. I do not know User:Johntex as an "anti-Scn", just someone that supported your position on Schwarz. I do not know the User:Bruns, I assume that you do. The other six I know well. And there are at least seven "Keep" votes already placed here from "anti-Scientologists" that I have had dealings with before (here are a few of them getting their props from Touretzky) but I, the sole Scientologist here, have the "conflict of interest". Not. --Justanother 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response - So Justanother, now you make accusations of inappropriate canvassing? Whatever happened to "...I see no problem with you commnuicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy" - does this statement of yours only apply to those with whom you agree? And here you are citing the Usenet as a source too? Oh my, what egregious double standards. I left a link to this AfD on the Talk pages of a few editors who may have been interested in this article, as they had contributed to it in the past, and in one case because it may have interested him. I note also your "us and them" approach with who is pro-scientology and who is not; did it occur to you there are those who support the article being in Wikipedia who don't care about scientology, but more about the principle of retaining a reliably sourced article about a notable person in FOIA, internet abuse, and scientology? As User:Dave420 observed, "The article lists how her internet activity brought her to light in anti-spam circles. They're STILL interested in her, as her spamming continues to this day." Your cries of religious persecution and "poor little me, the lone scientologist" rhetotric is becoming tiresome when it seems clear to me that you push for the deletion of articles and material which is unfavorable to scientology, no matter how well or otherwise such material is referenced or sourced. WP:COI policy is clear on this point. A similar observation was also noted below by FOo, with whom I don't believe I have seen or interacted with before. So my observation is not unique; it appears to me you have a COI of your own in creating this AfD, without my need to cite scientology doctrine about the duty of all scientologists to supress unfavorable material here as this response is long enough already. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and disqualify nominator from future AfD. This is a badly misjudged disruption. Nominator has been strongly encouraged in the past to focus on improving articles rather than trying to have things he doesn't like deleted. --FOo 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Really don't know what this one means. I have no history of trouble over my editing style other than objections to my trying to enforce some rules as far as NPOV and RS, etc. Those objections coming from parties that often think IAR means do what you like. And I would not have to reply so much if so much silly personal crap did not show up. So if you are tired of hearing me then don't make this about me. Simple, right? --Justanother 08:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith here. Justanother has a right to defend his opinion of this AfD, just like anyone else here. I may not agree with him, but that is no reason to even think of suggesting barring him from nominating articles for AfD. --Dennisthe2 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I must be missing somethign here (entirely possible given the length fo the previous AfDs and this one:) She's clearly notable and the article has survived three previous AfDs. Consensus can change but as the article has been improved since the previous AfD and no startlingly new 'evidence' has been raised in this one, I really don't understand why this has been raied again, to be honest. StuartDouglas 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - clearly notable... good grief Glen 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not this shit again. Passes all criteria for articlehood. If the woman didn't want to be in the news she shouldn't have set a world record. Nardman1 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Notable subject covered in a NPOV manner, and backed up with many strong references. Why this has been nominated for deletion 4 times is beyond me. Is there no way to stop this abuse of process? Jeffpw 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nardman1, she is banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS. :-) This sanction is notable as only a handful of people share this status. Jeffpw, if there is a way to stop the abuse of process with this article, please enlighten me how we can do it? The pattern is becoming familiar: pro-scientologist POV pusher removes WP:RS cited material; then begins an edit war on the article and Talk page; then makes false accusations of impropriety to whoever restored the cited material; then frivolous complaints are made to the WP:BLPN; then same on Jimbo Wales' Talk page, and then the inevitable AfD. Tedious, isn't it? Orsini 11:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Orsini, if it is so notable, where are the articles on the others "banned from filing noncriminal petitions with the SCOTUS"? Wow, Orsini, that sounds like a great way for you to contribute to this project. Because with your grand total of 12 Mainspace edits in 9 months here, you certainly are overdue. Just what is your function here, Orsini? 'Cause it looks to me like it is disruption and attack. And here you are attacking me with no proof other than your dubious word against my good record here. But I am used to it. So let's just stop the attacks on me and let this AfD run its course, shall we? This is not about me. And I am done boring these good people with responses to attacks by, mainly, you. At least User:Tilman had the good grace to make his vote and bow out (albeit not without the obligatory request that I be blocked for even thinking about an AfD on his Usenet nemesis). You, the other hand, continue to disrupt this process with ill-considered attacks on me. I apologize to everyone here but it is tough to leave these attacks unanswered. I will limit my future responses to attacks to the simple mention that this is not about me, and not even that if possible. I will not further contribute to Orsini's (or anyone's) disruption of this AfD. Thank you. --Justanother 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - --Justanother, the fact so few people have been similarly dealt with by the SCOTUS does make the subject of the article notable. Sorry; I cannot answer where articles appear for the others banned in a similar way by theSCOTUS; it may be a worthy project for me to embark upon at a future date. Back to topic: Am I disrupting this process? It appears to me this AfD itself is disruptive, as observed by several comments on this page, and my input here is certainly no more disruptive than your own and BabyDweezil's behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. This AfD is flawed and based on many faulty premises, not least your misleading claims of User:Tilman having a COI after he provided reliable citations for sources that displeased you and User:BabyDweezil when you had both demanded them. I will continue to point out its flaws and faulty premises in spite of yet another of your personal attacks. If my "dubious word" on commenting and pointing out these flaws is inappropriate, any admin is free to warn me if this is the case. Orsini 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a bad faith nomination, an attempt to censor Wikipedia, by somebody close to the subject who dislikes the article. Sorry your don't like the article, but the subject apparently did these things and they are in the public record. Having all this information neatly wrapped in a concise article is probably helpful to the legal system and good for society. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that the shots come from a different direction, see whom she criticizes AlfPhotoman 01:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

[edit]
  • NOTE/UPDATE: - Article significantly expanded since (4th) AFD submission. From approx 871 words to 1,197 words, and from 12 citations to 21 citations. Also, now an extensive "Further reading" section, with additional court cases from high courts including United States Court of Appeals. Smee 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The article is now almost unreadable so less harm is done, thanks. :-) Steve Dufour 18:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment in my nomination area on the expansion. --Justanother 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Zahakiel and Vivaldi. This is an overwhelmingly sourced article (there are a lot of FAs more poorly sourced) about a notorious, not merely a notable, person. She would not remotely be the only Wikipedia article about a person whose notoriety is based on the world believing her to be a nutcase. I'd like to finish with taking Angus and others to task for their startling revisionist view on WP:OR. To quote from that policy, "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." Court papers and news reports constitute the very bloody definition of "reliable source." I have no idea when Wikipedians got the notion that the only way information could be compiled was to pick up a book from someone who'd already done it and reword his verbiage, but that's dead wrong. Ravenswing 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I think the issue is not that they aren't reliable, but that they are primary sources. Stringing together primary sources to tell a story is original research. An encyclopedia reports what others have already reported. We aren't doing investigative journalism here. - Crockspot 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You're misreading WP:OR and WP:SYN. Citing primary sources as backing up an assertion isn't original research. Using those primary sources to draw a conclusion is original research. Citing court papers to do nothing more than certify factual statements such as whether or not Schwarz has won a case and identifying the defendants in her suits, or to attribute direct quotes, is absolutely permissible. Beyond that, there are twenty-four cites to newspaper articles in this article. The investigative journalism's already been done, and those waving the OR! banner are not merely being needlessly officious, they're out of line. Ravenswing 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Wikinews is about news". Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not. If you'd like to play investigative reporter, here's not the place. Wikiversity wants original research, cobbled up from primary sources. Again, this isn't the place. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anybody who says that court papers are not a reliable source must live in a universe very distant from the one the rest of us live in, I have said it in several similar AfD's: The reasons for deletion are:
  1. failing WP:A
  2. failing WP:N
  3. failing WP:V
after taking a day to check, as far as possible from a rock in the middle of the Aegean, this article, unless I missed something, had the wrong glasses on or had a too deep look into my rum bottle this article, does neither AlfPhotoman 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
scuse me, could you explain? I sees something like former member of .... AlfPhotoman 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, scuse me. Alf, we could do without the ad hominem bit. Thanks --Justanother 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for assuming good faith, I was talking about the second paragraph of the Barbara Schwartz article, and in this light it is ...? AlfPhotoman 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize, I thought you were referring to the voter in which case my comment would have been appropriate, I think. In answer to your question, "anti-Scientologists" feel that Ms. Schwarz reflects badly on Scientology (I do not feel that way for my own private reasons) so inclusion here is part of their attack on Scientology via Wikipedia that I reference in my "Reply to Orsini" above and in the COI sidebar. That they also get to strike back at their Usenet nemesis is thick icing and ice cream on the cake, IMO. Thank you for your interest. --Justanother 13:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the info box on the page Barbara's article "forms part of a series on Scientology." Steve Dufour 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and nobody has contested that i.a.w. WP:ATT yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I protested about it on the article's talk page. Steve Dufour 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so much for guidelines AlfPhotoman 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that there are different guidelines for Scientology related articles. Steve Dufour 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind you, Justanother, and I will remind Jpierreg whose comments failed to provoke any chiding from you, that ad hominem circumstantial arguments are ad hominem arguments. It amazes me that when you don't even know what point Alf is making but you think Scientologists might not be flattered by it you leap in and chastise him for supposed ad hominem and yet you have no hesitation about accusing "anti-Scientologists" of the worst possible faith, speaking as confidently about their purported malign motivations as if you thought you were a reliable source on the matter. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote: "Deliberate misuse of process is a favourite troll game."—Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process. — Æ. ✉ 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Well, if I see any misuse of process, I will be sure to let you know. --Justanother 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found one Here. Quote: "baseless listing of users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment"—Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process. What do I do now? --Justanother 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - You didn't need to leave this page to find an egregious abuse of process. Please clarify how the subject became non-notable for inclusion in Wikipedia for the purpose of this AfD, when you had previously agreed the subject met the notability threshold. [4] Orsini 15:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um - Because, after looking at the article for 10 days after I posted that, I changed my mind: "I am sorry but the more I look at this article, the less it seems to belong here. Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. Sorry, but lots of people are mentioned in the papers. They are not notable."[5] Changing one's mind is allowed, isn't it? It is not an egregious abuse of process, is it? Egregious? Laff. --Justanother 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response - Her sole "claim" to notability is that she had an article or two written about her as filler for a local paper. This statement has proven to be false, as an examination of the Talk page and the article itself will reveal. There are four, not "a couple," of print media articles written primarily about the subject's FOIA abuses cited; there are 2 additional WP:RS online newsletters; there is also a secondary mention of the subject in the print media primarily concerning Cyril Vosper, and these are only the English language articles. The exact number of appearances the subject made in the German print media while the subject was the president of scientology in Germany is undetermined, although the subject’s self-published autobiography on a world-wide medium under her own name – this non public person according to you – states media articles appeared about her there. Justanother, this AfD is based on faulty and misleading premises, and has been brought only to remove an article unfavorable to the image of scientology. This AfD is a clear abuse of the Wikipedia article deletion process. Orsini 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - good article, interesting, even loons are notable. There are many other articles more worthy of deletion. --Otheus 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thank you for your input. All due respect, but the grain pattern in the wood of my coffee table is interesting, too. "Interesting" is not the standard for an article in Wikipedia. I want to be sure that we are not confusing interesting with notable. I agree, there is a lot in Ms. Schwarz' story that is interesting. I could probably tell you a lot about me that would be interesting and I would be interested to know about you, too. Interesting, yes. But that is about it. But it does speak to why she got the little bit of press that she did. News outlets have to fill their papers and their airtime. So they write stories about things that they feel might be interesting. In this case a private person pursuing her private interests for private reasons with "interesting" motivation and to an "interesting" extent. A few local news outlets thought it interesting enough to spend a few paragraphs or a few minutes on. Not even 15 minutes of fame. Two minutes of limited mention, not fame, and a lifetime of exposure here. Seems a bit unbalanced, doesn't it (no pun intended)? --Justanother 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: - I have personally refrained from commenting with questions below the "delete" votes, and affirmation below the "keep" votes. I hope that the closing Admin and other Admins watching this will note that some other disruptive editors have not, and that posting commentary by a single editor below each of the votes is making this AFD very long and confusing to read. Smee 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Or agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology. Paulhorner 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wikipedia and how it all works. All I know is that almost every Scientology page I've seen on here has you fighting to the death to keep any negative aspect off it. Not only are you the one debating it till the end, but you are usually the first one to delete the Entheta. How does Admin on Wiki let you get away with this one sided nonsense? Paulhorner 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Paul. I am sure that you will get the hang of it. The first thing to know is that this is not Usenet, this is not your personal web site; you will have to stop lying. Good luck. --Justanother 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the friendly welcome JA! I hope to pick this Wiki thing up soon because it's pretty fun. I do appreciate positive criticism but don't appreciate being called a liar. Please explain to me how I am lying or revert your statement. Paulhorner 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your lies, Paul? I don't have to look far: "agree with Justanother to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology" --Justanother 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a lie? I believe that statement and so do a lot of others here. I think you also know it to be true, you just can't openly admit it because it would disserve your purpose here. That purpose being, is to remove anything negative about Scientology. Paulhorner 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, when someone thinks that they know all that there is to know about a second person that they just met based on the second person's race, religion, sex, etc., and what they "know" is just negative stereotyping, then that is called bigotry. Instead of bigotry, I suggest that you try WP:AGF. --Justanother 03:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for Justanother - Can you please indicate the articles in the past for which you have initiated AfD discussions, and can you please indicate where you have voted to Keep any scientology-related article which was past nominated for AfD? Thanks. Orsini 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? As a show of good faith, I held the mistaken belief you might like to proudly exhibit your good editing and neutral POV towards the AfD process of controversial scientology-related materials and thought you would welcome that opportunity, rather than insisting I wade through a flood of edits like the 500 edits made by you since 12:37, 2007 March 5. I do apologize. You have nothing to hide, of course, in the same way needles cannot be hidden in hay stacks. Orsini 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If JA has been doing that he has done a very poor job. :-) Steve Dufour 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have nothing to prove to you, Orsini. If you want to know then you pay the tab. You have paid for little of your disruption here with your 14 mainspace edits in 9 months. --Justanother 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! A Scientologist pulling the "Bigotry card" when cornerned. Next I bet you'll talk about your rights to religious freedom or something of that nature. As a new user, I'm saying that all I've seen you do is delete things critical of Scientology. Am I wrong? Do you not delete items critical of Scientology? Do you delete anything in Wikipedia besides articles related to Scientology? I'm curious. Paulhorner 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that damned religious freedom thing. Whose idea was that anyway? My edit history is available to you; just go to my user page and click "User contributions " on the lower left navbar. And if want to discuss this further, have the courtesy to take it to talk. --Justanother 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Must focus on keeping this article available to the public. Paulhorner 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - Justanother, I'm curious. I said all you were here for was getting negative aspects about the "church" deleted. You said check your "edit history". Was that a bluff? I'm confused. Orsini just mentioned that you've had over 500 edits since March 5th, and to me it all looks Scientology related - nothing in favor of only delete. When I accuse you of "Justanother is only here to delete everything on Wikipedia that is remotely negative to Scientology", you shouldn't get angry. You should just nod your head and agree. It's not a big deal if you're that one sided, I think other people should just be aware of what you're main intention here is. It's the same deal with Barbara Schwarz. People need to be aware of crazy Scientologists. Paulhorner 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can't help but ask whether your "religious feedom" is a typo or intentional... Raymond Arritt 04:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is funny. Thanks for spotting that. Freudian slip, I guess (laff). --Justanother 04:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved from nomination statement - ja) LOL! That's a classic statement. Saying that Barbara Schwarz feels that she is being harmed by anything, especially this article. In Mrs Schwarz's head, she is being harmed by the blades of grass outside watching and plotting against her. Thanks for the laugh, Justanother! Paulhorner 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're lucky L Ron Hubbard doesn't speak of any "Daisy Empire" in any secret doctrines or Justanother would delete what you just said. Actually, I've read most of Hubbard's work, and there probably is a "Daisy Empire" somewhere in all that gibberish. Watch what you just said, it could be up for deletion soon.Paulhorner 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure - Edits by sockpuppet User:KadyOHalley of a banned user have been removed again per WP:HARASS (posting of personal information about editors), after being restored by User:Justanother. Orsini 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I do not keep up with the Barbara Schwarz Usenet trivia and did not realize that anything had been revealed. You should still take it to AN/I instead of making a sockpuppet determination all by your lonesone and deleting posts, though. If you were worried about personal info, you should just remove that, not the whole post, IMO. --Justanother 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - Justanother, the Wikipedia policy is very clear about attempts of privacy violation of Wikipedia editors who choose to remain anonymous, and admins are not the only editors who may immediately remove such material. Your show of bad faith in restoring the edit of a banned user's sockpuppets is noted. The matter has been reported on ANI. Orsini 03:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate is not about what having an article like this in Wikipedia is about. It's about public knowledge and awareness. Barbara Schwarz is currently threatening to sue me over my website religiousfreedomwatch.info and because she says I receive money from a Mr Griffin in Australia for webhosting. If I had no idea who this lady was, I would be worried. Because of this Wiki page and Google it is very easy to find out the lawsuit has no merit.Paulhorner 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely such an extreme behavior pattern makes Ms Schwarz notable? Furthermore, the article offers useful information to anyone who may become the object of her unusual attention.

Pentilius 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4

[edit]
Actuallly, the point being made was that the last Brandt AFD was longer than this. It had nothing to do with the number of nominations that Brandt's article had. --65.95.18.143 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. On my computer 85 pages scrolls for Brandt and only 30 here. Not even close. --Justanother 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for the disruption she causes eveywhere she touches down. Well-documented person in numerous media courses. She doesn't like it? Maybe she should stop drawing attention to herself then. The Kinslayer 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment must be what she has in common with some supporters (smirk) AlfPhotoman 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recomment - And most (hard-core) detractors (grimace). --Justanother 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I fail to see why this should be deleted. The basis for the nominator's arguments seem to center upon a faulty understanding of WP:N and that the subject of the article doesn't want to be on wikipedia. Which is certainly not a good enough reason. What if the Devil is upset about the negative coverage we have of him here, does that mean we shouldn't have that article either? Rather than substantial weight as the nominator suggests, we should give the wishes of subject of the article very little weight unless what the wish is supported by the policies we follow. Either which way, at the very worst I feel this is a matter of the discussion on the talk page of the article and not for deletion. Mathmo Talk 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the devil also seems to fail NPOV. :-) Steve Dufour 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
especially in the devil's opinion, 'cause he claims he does not exist (grin) AlfPhotoman 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who are very (rather than borderline) notable don't complain that wikipedia has an article about them. But let me know if we get a complaint from the Devil's advocate. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I came across this from Devonshire's talk page, and read the article. If she were successful in her litigation, or set a major legal precedent (even in a failed attempt to get information), or if she caused so much trouble that major reforms of the legal system were made, then there'd be a strong case for notability. As it is, however, it borders on exposing the craziness of scientology nuttiness for public ridicule. In general, don't write articles about paranoid living people unless they are truly notable. Andjam 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Her FOIA abuse quest has resulted in the call for law reform of the FOIA process to prevent similar quests. User:Vivaldi outlined her existing notability. A legal precedent was set here. [6] Orsini 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The ironic thing is that the only people who will ever see this article have already made up their minds on Scientology, so all the efforts of the creators of it are wasted. They would have done much better working on some other project. Steve Dufour 05:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources satisfy our increasingly stringent "notability" guildelines like WP:BIO and WP:N. Public figure. --Oakshade 05:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep based solely on her notable litigation history. This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it. But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input, and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. -- TedFrank 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is sourced and is notable for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with Usenet. AndroidCat 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctant Keep. Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious, and made the contrarian in me want to say delete. On reading the article, however, what struck me was the very notable illustration of abuse of process, of what is a beneficial option for citizens. And which makes me amazed that there is nothing on FOIA about the potential for abuse of process. Which makes the link from there to Barbara Schwarz necessary, unfortunately. Shenme 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the large number of references establishes verifiability and notability as well. TheQuandry 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for her massive, well documented and verifiable abuse of the FOIA, her outrageous public claims, and her massive litigation history make her notable. --Wingsandsword 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should not be a place for us to work on axe-grinding for off-Wiki disputes. Pursuant to WP:BLP regarding Non-Public Figures: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”[7] Subject of the article is mostly non-notable, except for a flurry of discussion on the pro or anti-Scientology blogosphere. Article seems to be created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject -- its inclusion here is sensationalist and tabloidic, not encyclopedic. Leave sensationalism to The National Enquirer. Wikipedia is not a battleground  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9fans

[edit]
9fans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mailing list. There is a complete lack of secondary sources on the subject. Googling brings up a total of only 33 unique google hits. This has never been written about by a reliable secondary source. Just because several notable people have supposedly posted messages to a mailing list does not make it notable/encyclopedic by any stretch. Delete as lacking any secondary sources. Wickethewok 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Weak Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and evolutionary psychology

[edit]
Ethics and evolutionary psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article isn't about anything. Or, its title is an unencyclopedic intersection of two things, and its content is mostly something else entirely. It's like having an article titled potatoes and cheese that talks about whether or not cows will eat yams.

The article describes, briefly, several evolutionary phenomena that are almost entirely unrelated to ethics. The single sentence that does attempt to make a connection has a {{fact}} tag. Arguments like what this article is trying to advance - that kin selection and reciprocal altruism are relevant as formative processes in the evolution of human psychology - have been made in the literature, but aren't covered at all here, and belong in the evolutionary psychology article in any case. This is an AfD instead of a merge tag because there's really nothing here worth preserving, and the title's worthless as a redirect. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research between two mildly related articles. The article has sources on ethics and sources on evolutionary psychology, but—as of now—none on the relationships between the two.--TBCΦtalk? 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep The title is wrong: it should be "Evolutionary ethics" but I do not want to move it during the AfD. (There is a name problem, because of an article "Evolutionary Ethic", meaning something altogether different.) Under the right title, there are 80,000 ghits, most of them real, starting off with the article "Evolutionary ethics" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as R an S as it is possible to get. There is many books, and I haven't even started looking for journal articles--There's one back in 1895! They are in journals of philosophy mainly, but also psychology religion, and biology. (It is in fact so well known that the creationists have been writing articles against it. I'll add one for NPOV) , This is an elementary but still encyclopedic article, well sourced. and the books in the reference list are exactly on point. Evolutionary psychology is a very much broader topic. It would be good to have a much more detailed explanation, of course, but the article can and should be improved. If it is notable and sourced, there is no basis for deletion. I added a landmark article. I'll add Stanford and a few dozen books or so tomorrow., DGG 06:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article can use improvement, but the subject of evolutionary ethics and the question of why ethical behavior has evolved are, as the article's Further reading section shows, encyclopedic topics and not original research. As DGG has suggested, it would not be at all difficult to find and add additional sources. — Elembis (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of turning up sources, but of using sources to write an article. Remove the irrelevant cruft from this article and what's left might be enough to qualify as a stub called "Evolutionary ethics". The references are nice, but renaming this article to "List of sources that could be useful in writing an article about Evolutionary ethics" just doesn't seem to be a real option. Pete.Hurd 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but I'm not claiming that this is original research; I mentioned above that the evolution of ethics in human psychology has been discussed is a legitimate subject. (Maybe the potatoes and cheese was too cutesy to make the intended point ;) I am, however, claiming that a) such content belongs in evolutionary psychology (which is a total mess, but that's beside the point), and b) this article is so devoid of content that it's useless as a seed of the appropriate coverage. Sometimes nothing is better than something, and this article so thoroughly fails to document its intended subject - from the title to the reading list - that it's not worth keeping 'until someone expands it'. Do you not agree that an article on the evolution of ethics that basically consists of 'kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and group selection might exist' is useless? It's as if protein contained 'Protein is a chemical found in meat. Amino acids are small molecules that are zwitterions.' (Is that a better analogy?) Opabinia regalis 07:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I liked about the article at first glance was the careful effort at sourcing it. Most of the vague subject articles we tend to see here don't have good sourcing--if they have any at all; here, the ed. got most of the classics. The article can be expanded--there are a lot of details to talk about. Kin selection is obvious once you understand it, but not otherwise. And the balance been altruism with respect to different size units (band/population/species) can create some interesting dilemmas--both with apes and with people. . The problem in writing an article is picking out which examples to present. I think we have a usable outline. If the general art. is as bad as you say, it might be better to keep new content separate---but this is an editing question we dont have to bother everybody with. I've been doing AfDs too long--I may try some writing for a change. DGG 08:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't find the sources particularly compelling - nothing from Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, for example, who largely initiated and popularized the field. Selfish Gene and most of Trivers' early work really have nothing to do with this, except that they informed later hypotheses about the evolution of ethics. Shermer's book is pop-science, good for a further reading list but not much good as a source. It'd be great if you want to write a good article on the topic, but it's hard to imagine that this material would be useful to work from. Opabinia regalis 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And rename as suggested. - Denny 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Opabinia has it right, the topic is not unencyclopedic, but the article is exceptionally poor. Contra DGG it is very poorly sourced, there is only one sourced statement in the whole article. That the Further reading section contains all the classics (could also do with Lee Dugatkin's Cheating Monkeys and Citizen Bees IMHO) does not equal a well referenced article. As TBC points out, there is no reference linking the two aspects, and therefore the article qualifies as OR by synthesis. The lead section could form the core of a proper article, were it properly referenced (at least the first sentence absolutely must be supported by a reliable source). The rest of the article is a really poor collection of thumbnail sketches of other "main" articles on related topics which together do nothing to support the claims made in the lead section. It would be a very good thing if DGG wrote a decent article to replace this, but it's current state is unacceptably poor. Pete.Hurd 17:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Opabinia regalis - this article does not document its subject at all. There is nothing to merge and its useless as a redirect anywhere - so it should be deleted until a real article can be written. If anything, it almost seems like a POV fork from Evolutionary psychology, because the author writes about about the ethical question and then tries to make connections for which there are no citations. --Mus Musculus 14:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep/Merge. This article (apparently) is a discussion of "evolutionary ethics" and should be merged with the existant (but stubby) article of the same name. Evolutionary ethics is a significant area of research - I count at least a dozen textbooks from notable university presses on the subject including Farber (1994) The Temptations of Evolutionary Ethics and Bradie (1994)The Secret Chain: Evolution and Ethics. A merge tag and cleanup tag are more appropriate. Irene Ringworm 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Evolutionary ethics redirects to evolutionary ethic, which is another page of unacceptably poor quality containing nothing to do with the (totally encyclopedic) topic of "Evolutionary ethics" after the first sentence. Pete.Hurd 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment As Pete Hurd points out, to get the result intended, it would be by keeping & renaming the page. As for "Evolutionary ethic", I will AfD it immediately upon finishing discussion of this page; just waiting to avoid confusion. DGG 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced POV fork--Sefringle 04:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR POV essay.--ZayZayEM 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Hacks

[edit]
Google Earth Hacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, fails WP:WEB Cman 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WP page has been removed before this discussion has closed. I add the references,:

The book is about the topic in general; the others are pages where use of this program use is recommended or described. DGG 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a program though. It's a website.--TBCΦtalk? 08:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lot's of thanks to Codex Sinaiticus who actually did the merge. Selket Talk 16:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria

[edit]
Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod deleted; article has had a merge template for about a year. The talk page says that all content is redundant, but I have not investigated this claim. No opinion. Selket Talk 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems more appropriate for Wiktionary. Although a reference to a 1911 encyclopedia is made, no specific volume or page number is provided. I believe it fails WP:A and WP:NOT. Alan.ca 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not an instruction manual on how to properly read and write the names of Babylonia or Assyria.--TBCΦtalk? 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The talk page states, "Trust me, this is straight up from the 1911 EB. In Wikipedia's infancy days, long before I got here, there was apparently this mammoth-sized 1911 article entitled 'Babylonia and Assyria' that was way out of date... Anyway, in I think approximately 2002, someone came up with the idea of splitting this behemoth up into component parts. This chunk received the title it has now: Proper names of Babylonia and Assyria. The original version was produced with scanning equipment, meaning some words were misread or appeared as jumbled symbols. Many of the vestiges of that original break-up have been more appropriately dealth with since then, but this one still has not. That is why the best proposals so far seem to be to carefully merge anything that isn't outdated, with the abovementioned articles." This suggests to me that there are parts of this article that have not yet been merged into the other articles on this subject. LastChanceToBe 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article on a linguistic topic is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. A merge might be better, but it looks like no-one is eager to do it. Spacepotato 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I made the above-quoted comment on the talkpage yesterday, and have been in favor of merging for the last year, but this is a neglected, obscure corner of the wikipedia, and there are many more urgent priorities... Now with this sort of 'push' (wiktionary certainly is not the answer!) I will make every attempt to complete the merge myself over the next few days, before any actual info disappears down the memory hole. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, lads -- I've just gone ahead and done the merge as requested a year ago. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Sylvia Anderson and Gerry Anderson. KrakatoaKatie 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia and Gerry Anderson

[edit]
Sylvia and Gerry Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - redundant to the articles on the individual people, the production company and the various projects. There was a decision made to split the contents between the articles for Gerry and Sylvia but it does not appear that any work's been done on that since June 2006 and information is being added back to this article. In the face of the many other articles that cover this territory, this article should be deleted. Otto4711 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 04:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux kernel mailing list

[edit]
Linux kernel mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Internet mailing list with no useful information available from reliable sources. There was a VFD back in 2004 apparently (see the article talk page). Nothing really can be said about this except a rephrasing of the title. Delete as such. (new note: a merge would also be ok i think, this just doesn't need its own article) Wickethewok 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've expanded the article with references. It's the main mailing list for Linux kernel development. All the patches/releases are announced on LKML; it's the main place for all discussions/arguments . Many media sources quote messages and posts from LKML[8][9]. Every single kernel maintainer (and probably every developer) subscribes to the list. utcursch | talk 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the articles just mention the mailing list and really don't say much about it. The article's only content is really that the subscribers are people who work on Linux and the fact that it is about Linux stuff. The list is probably notable, but I don't really see this article ever being substantial enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps this could be merged somewhere like into an article about linux kernel development? Wickethewok 06:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it being merged with Linux kernel, but it's already oversized. Also, many other articles link to this article and its redirect page (LKML). utcursch | talk 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, no attributable information to merge. The keep arguments were largely based on flawed reasoning, making redirect - especially when official policy is cited - a more strong argument in forming consensus. - Daniel Bryant 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletor vs Beastman

[edit]
Skeletor vs Beastman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fan homage to song by novelty band Gnarkill. Redir to band article was reverted. Deiz talk 06:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "A exists, so why not B?" argument is never valid, articles must stand on their own merits. It's also not about volume of information, rather whether such information is a) sourced and b) enyclopedic. The closing admin may well disregard your opinion if you fail to address policy and guideline concerns. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't redirect it, leave it as its own article. It's a well-known song and probably Gnar Kill's most famous, so just leave it be. There thousands of articles about hit singles and songs that have developed a cult status, so why not let this one have its own page? I'll trim it down and make it look a little more professional, but just leave it be.ElCapitanKyle 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElCapitanKyle created the article in question, and has made very few other contributions to Wikipedia. Deiz talk 15:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deiz, if you would specifically inform us of the "policy and guideline concerns" we are violating, the authors of the article in question (myself and Blitz Tiger) would be more than happy to make the necessary changes...
I'd say put WP:ATT (includes verifiability, original research and reliable sources) and WP:N at the top of your reading list. Deiz talk 15:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you, a little clarification was all I wanted. I will make those changes as soon as I get home from work later tonight. ElCapitanKyle 16:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of their notability stems from their famous members (Bam Margera et al) and appearances in their projects. Its not exactly a serious band. The song certainly exists, and is one of their more infamous moments among fans, but practically everything in the article is OR from watching videos and fan/forum CKY memes. Deiz talk 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up. Surely sources are available? Was it released as a single and did it chart? All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) (obscure UK indie pressing) is an FA so any notable song ought to be able to achieve the same. --kingboyk 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you realize what level this is all on, we're talking seriously obscure bedroom production. Afaik there's no single, certainly no charting and apparently no sources for any of this. Were this brought in line with policy I couldn't see any sensible option other than to redirect the sub-stub to the band article, but as that was contested I really had to send it here. Deiz talk 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. --kingboyk 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- My question, Deiz, is why are you are making such an enormous issue out of this? Just drop it. I don't mean this as a personal attack, I'm just puzzled as to why you so adamantly insist this subject does not deserve its own article. So what if it wasn't a hit single or ever made it to the charts? It's an extremely funny song that has become the quintessential Bam Margera/CKY crew work- hilarious, creative, and totally tasteless. Not to mention that it is a pretty well written article. --Der Kapitän 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, well written? How about well sourced? Well verified? Not original research? Read WP:ATT and explain how this article fits any of our content policies. And, just to reiterate, I founded WP:CKY and am well aware of how this fits into the CKY universe. It just doesn't fit into Wikipedia. Deiz talk 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles that have the things you site are often tagged as such, and given time to improve. I'm not sure why you immediately went to just get rid of it. Blitz Tiger 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD lasts 5 days, plenty of time to load "Skeletor vs Beastman" into google and see how many reliable sources you can come up with. Deiz talk 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, Deiz, but it's pretty much unsourcable. It is what it is; you can't find many in-depth analyses on it, considering it isn't exactly "high art" (although some would disagree). I can see why you dont think this topic should have a full length article, but what about a stub? 146.186.128.233 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a "stub" as opposed to an "article" in the sense of an article of lower notability or importance, articles can be temporarily "stubbified" to remove damaging or controversial statements, or where a great deal of unsourced material is removed but some sources do indicate notability (Chris Raab being a recent example), neither of which applies here. Redirection does not necessarily mean deletion, and if reliable sources establishing the notability of the song were discovered in the future the page could theoretically be recreated if substantially improved. Deiz talk 12:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Keeps everyone happy :) - no applicable content, nor consensus, to merge. Daniel Bryant 10:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Dillinger

[edit]
Doug Dillinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - non-notable performer on pro wretling shows, non-notable video game character. Do not appear to be sources attestign to his notability. Otto4711 06:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton County Democratic Party

[edit]
Hamilton County Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable county political organization per WP:ORG rogerd 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete the damn article. You people obviously have nothing better to do. It's no wonder people vandalize this site. User:Kaclock
  • Keep. I am the author of this article. I fail to see how an article on a major political party is not notable. Any newspaper in Central Indiana or TV news media in Indianapolis, Indiana could be an outside reference. If this particular article on a political party isn't notable, what makes any of the political party articles notable? There are over 100 articles on each of the state party organizations. Will those be deleted as well? I don't think so. I have been thanked many times for this article. It would be a disservice to delete it. There are plenty of wasteful articles on Wikipedia to be concentrating on. User:Kaclock 15:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)
    Comment - Huh? "over 100 articles on each of the state party organizations" - 50 states X 2 parties (unless you include other parties) X 100 articles on each = 10,000 articles on state party organizations. I am not sure what you mean. --rogerd 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine to pick my grammar apart, but you know what I mean. Stick to the issue at hand here. How are the 100+ articles on other political party organizations any different from this article? User:Kaclock 21:43, 11 March 2007 (EST)
    I wasn't picking your grammar apart. I was trying to read what you said and understand what you meant. It would be easier for all concerned if you simply said what you meant. As far as I know, there are no articles about any party organizations below the state level, except for Tammany Hall, which was an historic political machine that no longer exists. --rogerd 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A county political party organization is not per se notable. There are certainly exceptions: Tammany Hall and the Cook County machine are both clearly notable, but this one doesn't qualify. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a county political organization not a state organization. This is not one of the major counties in Indiana from what I can tell (Is Indianapolis in this county?). I don't even think the Cook County Democratic Party has an article. I may create one though. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes a difference between an article on a state organization and a county organization? In the same breath you want to delete this article, you say you may create an article on your county's Democratic Party. That's certainly hypocritical. To answer your question, Hamilton County is the fourth largest county by population in Indiana. It is a suburb of Indianapolis. Hamilton County is one of the fastest growing counties in the Midwest. User:Kaclock 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EST)
      • Delete as WP:V (no sources other than their own website) and NN. If you can't figure out the difference between the notability of a state and a county organization, we're unlikely to be able to help you. As far as your charge of hypocrisy, there's a world of difference between a suburban county with a population of 240,000 and the county with the 2nd highest population in the United States, with a decades-old nationally known reputation as a byword for Democratic machine politics. RGTraynor 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. As TonyTheTiger stated, county parties do not need articles unless they are notable (or infamous) by independent media coverage. A scholarly search reveals no evidence of this particular organization doing anything notable. --Mus Musculus 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Reggae Sauce

[edit]
Reggae Reggae Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable product. The sauce is only on sale in one country, in one chain of stores, which does not reflect an accurate world-view. Indeed, that store has only stocked it in limited amounts, and only for less than 4 days now. A single mention by the BBC does not make a product notable. This article was speedily deleted by myself earlier, and this is a recreation that is unfortunately no better than the previous version because exactly Zero notablilty has been established. There's not notability for the company, for the sauce, hell even the singer it's named after wouldn't meet WP:BAND. Until this article achieves some REAL notability worldwide, or even significant notability in the UK (which it hasn't), it should remain off wikipedia. Perhaps on "wikicondiments" if there were such a thing. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 06:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Dragons' Den along with Levi Roots, the creator of the sauce.--TBCΦtalk? 07:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note It would contribute nothing to the Dragons' Den article. No other product is discussed on that page. Why this non-notable one?⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • From what I've read, it seems that Levi Roots was one of the contestants on Dragon's Den, and it was the sauce which won him his award (an investment by a group of business experts referred to as the "Dragons") as well as all the media coverage mentioned below.--TBCΦtalk? 22:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - notable product. There are multiple references from reliable sources. The article contains more than just "a single mention by the BBC" and google news currently has 24 references to news articles about the product [10].Should have creator's article merged in though (Levi Roots). --J2thawiki 11:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Levi Roots, who is also a musician. There is a fair bit of coverage.--Conjoiner 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with Levi Roots article. —Ocatecir Talk 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live in a cave and even I have heard of it. --kingboyk 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why the nominator is saying that the article should be deleted because the product "is only on sale in one country.....which does not reflect an accurate world-view". I didn't realise we could only have articles on products which are available worldwide. White Castle hamburger restaurants only exist in the USA, does that mean their article should go too.....? ChrisTheDude 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also dispute the assertion that it has not gained notability in the UK - the story has been featured in the news on every major television channel and in most newspapers, and Mr Roots has appeared on multiple talk shows discussing the whole episode..... ChrisTheDude 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is on sale in a major supermarket in the UK. It has had extensive recent media coverage in a variety of places. The musician who created it is notable for having been nominated for MOBO award, which justifies his own page separate to the product. I have never heard of White Castle hamburgers mentioned above but that doesn't mean I'd want the page deleted.Tilefish 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are multiple independent sources where the sauce in question is the focus of the article: Croydon Guardian, Daily Record, and Metro News are a sample. -- Whpq 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - another bit of evidence for "notable" - an interview with Roots on LBC - [12] Doctorbob 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yeah... you can't really ask for a hot sauce to be any more notable. Jono (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - National media coverage is pretty darn notable. Article could do with improving, though, but you could say that of any article. Markusdragon 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - National Media coverage.. and it's one of the fastest product launches i've ever seen to boot. --ACE Spark 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - loads of media interest, its been selling out in supermarkets, and may take over the world(!) Starguitar 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Someone from Tallahassee, Florida says that a product isn't notable enough in the UK... right. I think British people know better. I don't see why he wants to delete it despite the media coverage and nationwide launch... surely there are many people who will hear about it on the radio or see it on TV and want to find out what the product is, which is exactly where Wikipedia comes in, for neutral information. It's not a 'pop knowledge' site, for popular items only. It's a knowledge resource - all knowledge for all who want to know. Saying that, this product is not obscure. MathiasFox 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ah yes, you must be well aware of the many times I've been to the UK, or the several colleagues and collaborators I have from the UK who have never heard of this product? When did this become Britopedia? People from the UK are constantly complaining that American-centric articles "do not represent a world view"....well guess what, neither does this. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 02:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Jennifer Aniston nude err... I mean Speedy Delete - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vodei Multimedia Processor

[edit]
Vodei Multimedia Processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, no reliable sources available, non-notable software J. M. 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it comes down to three possibilities: An accurate article, an article that serves to direct traffic to the software creator, or deletion. After carefully weighing these possibilities, I'd prefer the first choice, however, as it has been explained to me that Wikipedia is not about accuracy, that is not a possibility. Option number two is in conflict with Wikipedia standards according to this page. It is then my alternative choice that the article be removed and blocked from being recreated until reputable sources can be found. Until then, if someone wants accurate information, they can frequent MultimediaWiki for Their article. Posting an article that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines appears to be incompatable with posting a truthful article in this case. With that in mind, this subject can do nothing but damage the reputation of Wikipedia.Qabala 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vodei Multimedia Processor is not a company. —J. M. 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does having 557,000 results in Google and a bunch of forum discussions count? —Kn0wItAll 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Jennifer Aniston nude" has 2,130,000 results in Google. Does that mean we need an article about it? Now excuse me while I go review the results. --Mus Musculus 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, could even have been considered a G7. Protection not required. - Daniel Bryant 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku's Dream Mix

[edit]
Otaku's Dream Mix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fan-made Stepmania mix which has no reliable sources written about it, failing WP:ATT's source requirements. The only references are to the group's website. Delete. Wickethewok 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the primary writer of this article. Wikipedia does allow primary sources per WP:ATT. No specialist knowledge is needed to check these facts: one need only download the pack and see the names of all members included in the project. One need only click the external link to otakusdream.com to see that, in fact, Jubo is the leader because it's his site and he says so ^_^ . One need only click the WhoIs.net reference to prove the registration date as true. I believe this article passes WP:ATT's criterion for primary sources. Neither does the article violate WP:OR as it does not make any attempts to assert a claim. Keep. --Naruttebayo 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it is verifiable, it is definitely non-notable. --Mus Musculus 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It doesn't at all pass the primary source test, which is reliable sources written about it, not the mere fact that it exists. Beyond that, "[e]dits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." RGTraynor 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Leet, Hong Kong Leet

[edit]

Interesting, but completely unsupported by reliable, third party sources. Fails verifiability standards. RFerreira 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am certain that these are legitimate topics, however, a result of googling them returns many foreign-language pages that could probably be resources. I would be more comfortable getting the input of an Internet-savvy person who can read a decent amount of Japanese or Cantonese, and having them validate the respective subjects. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It is as Ikiroid points out a legitimate topic. Under my years of living in Japan I was introduced to this topic and quite amazed of its existence. I see no legitimate reason for deleting the article as it is a very real concept and used in the same way as western leet which an article exists for. The article doesn't need a deletion it needs to an improvement drive. Lord Metroid 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as non-notable biography; redirected to The_Impressions (Australian_band). That the individual who nominated this for deletion did so from a single-purpose account does not decrease the merit of the argument that the individual is not notable outside the notability of the band. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Broderick

[edit]
Daniel_Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no reason why someone as insignificant as this needs to be in Wikipedia. It looks as if he made the page himself. Dan broders 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no consensus to merge. Any further merge discussions should take place on the talk page of the article. - Daniel Bryant 10:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Roots

[edit]
Levi Roots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Along with Reggae Reggae Sauce. I've speedily deleted before for CSD A7 no assertion of notabiltiy. Even as it exists now it is still highly non-notable. Does not meet WP:BAND as far as I can tell, nor does his business meet notability guidelines. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volapuk encoding

[edit]
Volapuk encoding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been marked as lacking reliable sources since December 2005. Suggest deletion per our policy on verifiability unless this can be remedied within the week. RFerreira 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:A AlfPhotoman 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This assault of militant and lazy ignorance, probably coupled with lack of respect to cultures other than American, is simply outrageous. Don't you have enough trolls and vandals to fight? `'mikka 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing outrageous about trying to uphold our verifiability standards, and citing an e-mail message isn't really providing a reliable source. Please adjust your tone. RFerreira 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is a reliable source. It is not a private email or blog entry. It is an official document of a e-mail provider about its own real, existing and verifiable service it took money for. I am not asking to adjust yoiur deletionist attitude, since it is obviously useless: your effort here is not to add information, but to find excuses to delete it, and in my understanding this borders with vandalism. `'mikka 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary keep for now there is a Russian source which I cannot read. We should ask someone who can read the source to tell us whether it is reliable or not. Wooyi 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I verified with an Russian-literate editor, NYC JD, that the citation given is just a service announcement for botik.ru. It has nothing to do with the topic of the article. No reliable sources, nothing verifiable here. --Mus Musculus 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yes it has to do with the topic. Ant it is reliable source: it is from Russian e-mail provider not some blog. This "just service announcement" contains certain information that validates several statements from the article where it is quoted. This aggression of ignorance is appalling. `'mikka 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. It's certainly real and IMO "verifiable", though it's currently not "verified" from reliable sources and is more than a little bit original research. I think Mikkalai is taking this one a little too close to heart. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am taking this close to the heart, because it is not the first time Russia-relaed articles are placed for deletion. A number of them were started in early wikipedia days of 2003-2004, when there was no such zeal of referring every line of text, especiall if the subject was valid and non-controversial. And running amok today deleting everything that does not fit todays's standard on a short notice is not fair. Some wikipedians became too obsessed with the role of a broom forgetting about due diligence of checking facts. The article in question is easily convertible into a verifiable stub: the topic is clearly not a hoax and its existence is verifiable. It is not surprizing that the term left little trace in 'net: its "active life" was about 15 years, and Soviet Union was not exactly internet giant. `'mikka 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In point of fact, it is the responsibility of the authors and editors involved in the creation of an article to properly source it, and complaining that we can't delete an article just because there's no proof of its assertions is flat out wrong: that's what AfD is for in the first place. If you're so certain the article is valid, I'm sure you would have no problem finding verifiable sources for our review. RGTraynor 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "per nom" my ass. Did you happen to notice that I started the addition of references with proofs of assertions already? Or you only read nominations and article titles only? And someone wants me to tone down. `'mikka 00:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tend to your own knitting, sir. We are well within our rights to decide for ourselves whether the single reference this article contains is credible and represents suitable verification. Until it is in a language we can read -- this being the English-language Wikipedia, last time I checked -- I don't find it to be, and given the extreme and unwarranted hostility of your tone, you'll perhaps forgive us if we ask for translators who are a bit less heavily biased. RGTraynor 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • <shrug> . It is not my fault that Russian wikipedians don't give a slightest damn about the history of their own internet. Probably a national peculiarity, similar to the American one, who don't know the origin of the word O.K.. Anyway, I added several more references, including one published book. And these "a bit less heavily biased" translators, as well as quite heavily biased deletionists may as well learn to use google to ckeck basic facts. Once again, we are not talking about a hoax or vandalism. We are talking about inherent laziness, when it is much easier to delete a quite interesting fact from internet history than to help colleagues out. `'mikka 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I left a message at the Russian wikipedians' notice board. And this is my last involvement in this page. If they will not respond, I cannot care less. `'mikka 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems to be properly sourced to me. The source is in Russian, but not all sources are in English. Wikiolap 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Duk 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the multiple sources added since the AFD began. I agree with RGTraynore about the bias of interpreters, but the fact that NYC JD has suggested the topic is real and verifiable motivates me to suggest keeping. In the end, I was swayed by the fact that a significant portion of the argument to "delete" the article even now that it's been referenced stems from the notion that non-English sources somehow contribute less toward verification. Knowledge of a foreign language is equivalent to possessing technical expertise in a subject. I'm sure I lack the knowledge to understand the content of some of the sources noted at quantum physics, but I will certainly not try to discredit these sources based on that. I maintain that this was a valid AFD nomination, but believe its concerns have been sufficiently addressed to warrant keeping the article for further/future improvement. -- Black Falcon 21:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Black Falcon -- xompanthy 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of samples used by Boards of Canada

[edit]
List of samples used by Boards of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I absolutely love BoC, but this article is a painful amount of trivial information and original research. The last AFD was here (which was apparently when it was a list of lyrics or something?). Barely anything is sourced, and the parts that are are just links to the possible original source material. Removing all of the unsourced material, you're left with a microstub at best. Delete as trivia and original research. Wickethewok 07:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 23:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo NSider Forums

[edit]

This page needs to be revived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.9.108 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Nintendo NSider Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Has been tagged as needing sources since November 2006. No sources have been forthcoming. Fails WP:ATT. Carolfrog 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, possible Merge into main Nintendo article. Rambling, unsourced article going into gigantic and excruciating detail describing, well, that it's a gaming forum, and my, it has categories and topics and ranks users per number of posts they've made. My uncertainty about a Merge comes from that the main Nintendo article, either as a "See also" or an external link, doesn't acknowledge this forum at all; possibly it isn't as important as all of that even in the eyes of Nintendo itself? RGTraynor 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, the NSider is notable given it has received recognition from Nintendo Power, but the article itself lacks resources and references to back up claims; See WP:Verify and WP:original research. Unless users can turn up some reliable references, I'd say its best redirect the article to Nintendo, under some GCN section - as the NSider was originally created to promote Nintendo products around that time - or so NP claimed --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. All it needs is more refs. It is too big of an article to merge with Nintendo. To RGTraynor: You're forgetting that Wikipedia isUSER EDITED. The only reason that the Nintendo article doesn't link to Nsider is because nobody added it, not necessarily because Nintendo doesn't think it's important. Joiz A. Shmo 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Companies routinely have people monitoring Wikipedia nowadays; I doubt a computer corporation Nintendo's size fails to do so. I agree that an article that size shouldn't be merged with the main article. Where I disagree is that the exhaustive list of features (much like those of every other forum) is worth including. RGTraynor 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page needs to be deleted because it is a blatant attempt at advertising. If smaller boards can't advertise, neither should NSider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.141.253 (talk • contribs)
This isn't advertising, it's an article about a real forum. If it said "Please join" or anything like that, then it would be advertising. Joiz A. Shmo 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created an article about my personal forum. Nowhere in the article did it say 'Please join' but it was deleted for advertising. I don't see how that example differs from NSider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Corsair (talk • contribs)
Because it was your PERSONAL forum. I would be surprised if you got half as many hits in a week as NSider gets in a day. Also, by making an article about your own forum, you were, in fact, advertising. Joiz A. Shmo 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are now saying that articles should be deleted or kept on basis of hits, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles that should go right now, such as the article on The List of UN resolutions concerning Israel. Now I'm sure that gets a lot of hits. Or how about The Original Soul Seekers? Many hits per day, right? Otherwise, according to you, they shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Corsair (talk • contribs)
Comment, Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web). Long story short, Official websites that feature verifiable and substantial information are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they meet Wikipedia's policies towards WP:Attribution to WP:reliable sources. This article was not nominated for deletion because it seems like an advertisement, but rather because it fails to meet the aforementioned policies --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (web) - There's not much, if anything, that can be merged at this point. The reason why proper sources haven't been found is that there probably aren't any, at least that would support the article's content in its current state. I'm trying to think of an appropriate concept to describe my concern, without rehashing the same "what is notability" debate that often takes place with "keepers", and the closest analog I can think of at the moment is the "in-universe" perspective for writing about fiction. This isn't exactly fiction, but the article does cater to a narrow "inside" viewpoint, and it seems there is nothing available to balance it. The fact is that this is probably a topic that can't be covered properly by Wikipedia. It best belongs in some other gaming wiki. Dancter 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Where does wikipedia draw the line between what is advertising and what is not? Just because this forum has more recognition than some forum a kid can create because he was bored, doesn't make it any more fair that they can't have a wiki and NSider can. I say delete it. Or at least merge it with the Nintendo wiki. Last Living Soul 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Notability (web). That is where the line is drawn. --SubSeven 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you trimmed all the useless stuff out of this article there would pretty much be nothing left. Merging it into the Nintendo article is no good either because, as someone else has already stated, it would be entirely out of place there. NuncAutNunquam Talk 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be out of place based on the current article's structure, but that doesn't mean a place cannot be created. The main Nintendo article mentions little to nothing about Nintendo's marketing of its products, so why not simply create a section on marketing (or, an entirely different article?) Obviously the entire creation section shouldn't be merged, but there's no denying that an online community that dates back 10 years (if you count Loudhouse and HTS, Nsider's forerunners) has some significance and should not be ignored. -PsychoYoshi 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grand war

[edit]
The grand war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a neologism and a dictionary definition. Furthermore, it defines a satirical term as though it were meant to be taken literally. Wikipedia is not for things made up on TV one day. Deranged bulbasaur 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Foster (nonduality)

[edit]
Jeff Foster (nonduality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed Prod, other articles on similar non-notable people were deleted via Prod, Tony Parsons (nonduality) and Nathan Gill. EnsRedShirt 08:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Betts

[edit]
Naomi Betts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just being a bank robber hardly makes this person "notable" at all - in fact, I have yet to find any substantial reliable sources documenting this person's case (and her name gives only a few hundred Google hits) TML 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The woman was on America's Most Wanted and Indianapolis police were breaking state records trying to catch her. I've added the following references and expanded the article:
    • ""America's Most Wanted" leads to arrest of Missouri woman". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 2004-06-06. Retrieved 2007-03-11. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check |first= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "'Most Wanted' show leads police to Sikeston woman". Columbia Daily Tribune. 2004-06-03. Retrieved 2007-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "Unknown Indy Female Bank Robber". America's Most Wanted. 2004-05-22. Retrieved 2007-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • "Female Robbed a Bank, Was Caught On Tape". America's Most Wanted. 2004-06-19. Retrieved 2007-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 09:21Z
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Gemin

[edit]
Pamela Gemin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:71.210.212.187, who stated that Gemin has asked him/her to delete it for personal reasons. The article survived a previous AfD. Spacepotato 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article does not, I feel, satisfy WP:PROF. But in any case, if the subject of the article has requested its deletion, I feel that we should respect her wishes. There is clearly no issue of public safety or public awareness which demands its retention.--Anthony.bradbury 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in view of the heated debate re. Daniel Brandt I feel that we should remain consequent for at least a week. So reasons for deletion are failing WP:A WP:N and/or WP:V. If the nominator could show us where this article fails any of the above I'll happily go along, if not I'll have to go for a Speedy Keep AlfPhotoman 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University College London Conservative Society

[edit]
University College London Conservative Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although some past members of the society are clearly notable, they were not notable when they were members. Even had they been notability might have been contentious, but as it is there is no notability associated with the society. Delete, therefore.--Anthony.bradbury 13:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As suggested, the student society has no special claim to notability at this time... - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Each of your statements is wrong:
1) Every sentence in the article has a reference. Thus, it is not "totally unsourced", but totally sourced.
2) You have cited no precedent. There are precedents to support keeping the article at in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats. Note that these include university political societies.Hence, to claim that there is precedent is laughable.
3) Your cookie-cutter, cut+paste assertion that the claim to notability is the fame of its alumni is false. The 'Alumni' section comes at the end of the article. The actual claim to notability is mainfold:
3a) The society is the oldest and largest (by current student members) student Conservative society in the country.
3b) The society is not a chapter of the Conservative Party, but an independent organisation unaffiliated to the party. The relevant chapter of the Conservative Party is the Holborn and St Pancras Conservative Future.
3c) The society is one of the largest student societies, of any sort, in London. Look at Category:British student societies and tell me that there's any sort of policy or precedent.
3d) The society has a seat on the National Convention of the Conservative Party. It is, therefore, important by this ex officio status afforded to its President.
3e) The society has received a lot of attention in the blogosphere and the mainstream media. Most recently, Hugo Rifkind wrote a mini-article on the society in his column in the Times on 2nd March 2007.
3f) The society hosts innumerable Members of Parliament, Lords, and the Shadow Cabinet. In the last two weeks alone, the society has hosted Lord Strathclyde (27/2), John Whittingdale (2/3), and Richard Ottaway (6/3).
Given the above, I suggest that you, and the two people that have been misguided by your comment, reconsider your position. Bastin 18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the solution is to make that point on the talk page, use {{Fact}} and {{Notability}}, and to allow a short period in which the editors can then diversify the sources. The solution is NOT to inappropriately PROD the article, and immediately AfD it when that PROD is objected to. I have begun the process of introducing other sources, and intend to make at least half of the sources published by other individuals or organisations in the next couple of days. Bastin 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- not notable Astrotrain 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Astrotrain. You can't claim an article is "totally sourced" when all the references are from the organisation in question. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 20:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Orig., author is right. Major institution in contemporary and 20th c UK politics. The alumni make it N. Just undocumented, not undocumentable. Rather odd argument above: "though some past members of the society are clearly notable, they were not notable when they were members" This being a student society, that is by definition impossible--perhaps set as a deliberately absurd criterion. The reason schools, college, societies, are notable is because of their alumni--everything they might do in the organization would be irrelevant if there hadn't been alums whose real-life work made it worth thinking about in the first place--otherwise they would have been failures altogether.
There are still a few more days, and the supporters better get the refs in--to save WP from the embarrassment of having deleted these 3 articles. DGG 05:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are many articles on left wing political associations on wikipedia. If you delete one article on political associations, then you have to delete all; and no one will want that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimdawg (talk • contribs)
  • Delete no reliable sources, all are from subject of article. Derex 07:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, NN, fails WP:ATT. Amidst the indignation, I'm waiting for some sourcing which indicates that this organization is notable as a society, not that a bunch of its alums have made good (something which could be said of a great many otherwise non-notable college societies). Great, so they get to send a delegate to Tory national conventions. No doubt the St-Brixley-In-The-Moor Conservative Party caucus does too, but we don't have articles on similar local Tory councils. RGTraynor 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion or evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King's College London Conservative Society

[edit]
King's College London Conservative Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member. Delete per the precedcents set before. Nuttah68 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more than one is necessary, and there are. Perhaps I should clarify it as alums relevant to the society or organization. This is a political asociation, and the alums are the ones N as conservative politicians. DGG 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --Mus Musculus 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The claim to notability is not solely alumni, as clearly indicated by the positioning of the alumni list at the bottom of the page (and the fact that I've threatened to delete that section for being unsourced; unlike the rest of the article, which is entirely sourced). Instead, its claim to notability is being the second-largest Conservative society in London and one of the largest societies at KCL, and hosting events with innumerable high-profile politicians (two weeks ago, Lord King; tomorrow night, Nicholas Soames; next week, Francis Maude). There is very good precedent for keeping the article, in the form of Cambridge Universities Labour Club and Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats. I will try to diversify the sources, but the lack of diverse sources is clearly not the problem, as proven by the precedent of the Cambridge societies. Bastin 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the problem is diversification of sources, which needs improving. Note though, that there is little rule of precedence on Wikipedia per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; and if the Cambridge Society articles don't measure up, they should go as well. EliminatorJR Talk 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't WAX, because those articles have survived AFDs. The argument against using precedence (outlined in WAX) is two-fold, but neither of them applies in this case. First, it suggests that the other article may not have been put forward for nomination; this is not the case, as both of those articles have been nominated and found to be notable. Second, it suggests that there may not be direct parallels across which to apply the precedent; this is not the case, as they are all large British university societies affiliated to major political parties. Since neither rationale applies, it is sensible to take into consideration precedent, which is clearly in favour of keeping the article.Bastin 14:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This article may not have excellent secondary citations but it is a work in progress and as the eociety grows then the number and breadth of these will grow. The President-elect for 2007/08 is already making plans to investigate the history of the society which is suspected to be at least of equal age as UCLCS if not older. This article should be allowed to remain so that further work may be done to improve the flaws which have been recognised above. Cm kcl
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Conservative Association

[edit]
Oxford University Conservative Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by original author with reason of 'Remove frivolous and unsupported PROD'. This is another totally unsourced article on a university society who's claim to notability is someone famous was once a member and the has been some internal controversy. Delete per the precedcents set before Nuttah68 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph palazzo

[edit]
Joseph palazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This author is not notable. A google search returns comparatively few hits, and his books are published by "1st Books" which is known to be a vanity publisher. There is no reference made to coverage by third party, reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 12:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabiat

[edit]
Tabiat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable street. Nothing much from Google. Anas Talk? 12:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Michael Jenkins

[edit]
Brian Michael Jenkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced, full of random thoughts like "he works for Kroll", and is apparently just a clever ad for his book. Nardman1 12:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconquerable_Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) his book, also including in the nomination. Nardman1 12:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 re-redirect, nothing really to merge. - Daniel Bryant 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getpid

[edit]
Getpid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notability. Wikipedia is not a Unix or Linux manual. Freely-licensed Linux manual pages for such topics as this already exist, and can be contributed to, so there is no point in moving the article to Wikibooks either. greenrd 13:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 12:47Z

Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1

[edit]
Jerome's De viris illustribus Chapter 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, and the other articles created for individual chapters of the book, contain cut-and-pasted translations of the chapters of Jerome's books, not articles about them. The main article, De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), has ample space for anything that needs to be said about Jerome's book, and it duly links to the external website where the entire translation can be read, sans typos even. Any content could also be considered for the Wikipedia articles on the various persons covered, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing that would pass muster for any articles actually monitored by Wikipedia editors. Note that the editor admits that he's adding these biographies from Jerome because "each biography has a very special meaning (if you study it very close)." Original research theories about "very special meanings," and the public-domain sources a user wants to offer the public in support of his original theories, should be offered on his own website, not in the Wikipedia article space. No idea what original theories are at stake for the user exactly, but it seems to involve decoding Jerome's text with the "Petrarch Code"; known agendas include the claim that the New Testament was written by Petrarch in the 14th century (see further User:Doug Coldwell/Revealing the Code for the claimed codes hiding in the letters of words in English translations of Petrarch, etc.). Wareh 13:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my Defense, here are my counter-points:

  • 1. Since the point is that these links to these particular Chapters (i.e. Simon Peter) are basically a "cut and Past" or a "dumping" of text then it shouldn't be there. Apparently then the proper procedure is that a link should be provided to a website that has the English translation of this text. Sounds like the same thing to me. Apparently it is proper to link to the outside world to the text, however it is not proper to link to a Wikipedia English translation that is similar text. That doesn't seem to make sense. If one is allowed, then why isn't the other allowed, which is basically the same thing? Basically the ONLY difference is that one is an "External Link" while the other is an "Internal Link" to basically the same translation.
  • 2. If there is some sort of "original research" in my English translations of these Chapters (which is supposedly just a "cut & paste" and just a "dumping" of text); then wouldn't a reference to a website that has an English translation of basically the same thing be then "original research" material - since it is basically the same translation off the Latin of Jerome's authors that he wrote up as short biographies? How is it then that it is implied that mine is "original research" while basically the same text when linked "externally" is NOT?
  • 3. The wording in the beginning of my article describing De Viris Illustribus and on top in small print on each of these Chapters was taken from the last item in the article on Jerome of "Historical writings". This wording and information has been in Jerome's article since March of 2002 (5 years) and has been allowed with no objection. I am just using the same wording and information. There is nothing "mysterious" here and it is not "original research". I am just working from another Wikipedia article (which is something that is allowed)= Jerome.
  • 4. This article of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) is almost identical in wording, format, style, and general concept to De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) that I wrote up some time ago, that has never had any objections to it. It has been edited by some other editors (very familiar with the subject) and basically all they edited was of minor edits (i.e. change of a category, spelling, typo's, minor word additions). There is nothing of "original research" here nor is there anything that is a "mystery". Simply following what has been previously allowed in other articles that have been around for a long time, even to the point of making a list of biographies. Another example of that is Giovanni Boccaccio's biographies On Famous Women which happens to link to approximately 30 - 40 articles that are "stubs" that have no references or sources even where the material came from. That article itself doesn't even have a reference or source; but has been around for years. Where did that list of "Famous Women" come from? Is it a list that someone just made up? What is its accuracy? Can anyone check to be sure this is the true list of "famous women"? No! It is just a list of names someone made up, however it is allowed. Why? The quality of my articles are far better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Coldwell (talk • contribs)
Comment. Both De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) and On Famous Women link to biographical articles that do not consist of primary texts, but are in the form of encyclopedia articles, so that I don't see that they are questionable by the same criteria that have been applied here. I'm not sure whether I know how to help resolve the confusion between an encyclopedia and a primary source, except to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that primary sources are not encyclopedic content, so that, yes, there are very different standards for articles and for linkable primary texts. The translation of Jerome's book is probably public domain but is not accompanied by any bibliographic information, so someone would have to find the same translation in a library (or get better information from newadvent.org) to confirm the text's copyright status, if it is to be brought to Wikisource (not Wikipedia). And a point of clarification: I am not calling WP:OR on anything, although I have pointed out that the article author's original research seems be driving the selection of content that goes beyond the normal bounds for other reasons. Wareh 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the key words here are "primary texts" verses just plain "biographical". Didn't realize there was a difference and that they should be handled different, however technically apparently there is. I have therefore taken out the links to the biographies that I did and put it back to just a list of the names (with no links). After you confirm what you need to confirm, then perhaps you will put Jerome's individual biographies on Wikipedia source (from whichever translation you think is appropriate). Meanwhile, did you look into the Reference source On Famous Women. There doesn't seem to be one, should there be? Also these link to approximately 30 - 40 "stubs" that do not have references or sources of any types (apparently this way for up to 5 years now for many of them). The quality of these "stubs" that are years old are very poor. The quality of my articles are of a very high standard. Now of course I am biased, however you might want to check them out. They are all listed on my User Page under "Articles I started". Now this article of "De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)" is just like De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch) which has never had any objections from the onstart. This should now pass as an acceptable quality Wikipedia article.--Doug talk 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro Mosquea

[edit]
Isidro Mosquea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable boxer merely participating in events does not warrant its own article PrincessBrat 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kloze

[edit]
Józef Kloze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being the father of a current footballer does not warrant an article. non notable player. Probably more suitable for wikibios where non notable people can be listed if this is at all necessary PrincessBrat 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why has this article not been suitbly expanded with info? Also the link you gave for AJ Auxerre does not even mention him in the notable players list! --PrincessBrat 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be in some kind of "best sportsmen ever" list to be notable. WP:BIO clearly states:

Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis. And that's enough for inclusion. MaxSem 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BIO also says that it is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits. Also note The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.
  1. There is very little interest in this article, as can be seen from the amount of info on it. Why should there be articles in this site that are nothign more than one liners?
  2. Also you ignored my point about the club you linked in your first reply not having this player mentioned once in it.
  3. A google search on this player doesnt throw much up either.
  4. Also can you tell me what would you learn from reading the article currently up for deletion - which is what an encyclopedia is all about? --PrincessBrat 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) If an article is short - it should be expanded, not deleted. 2) Why article on club must be turned into list of its notable players? 3) Amount of Google hits IS NOT indicator of notabilty. 4) You shouldn't think that only people worth including are G8 leaders and superstars who get $20M for film/sports season. MaxSem 13:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the fourth point you fail to argue well, what eduaction do we get from this article? Nothing at all! --PrincessBrat 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' -- that is an essay, the opinion of its author. In reality, the precedent of what WP does contain is relevant--it represents the prior decisions of a general topic and prevents us from erratic inclusion. WP:BIo gives the standard that has been and remains accepted for athletes. We can of course change the standard, and that can be argued there. DGG 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has played professional football at elite level in two countries - how is that not notable? It is not as if we are dealing with someone who was a squad player. The fact that it is a short article does not reflect a lack of notability.--Hack 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right in the article: "Kloze played professionally for AJ Auxerre [1] in France and Odra Opole in Poland" that is son is N in the same sport is interesting but not relevant for notability. He qualifies in his own right (I assume from the discussion that the teams mentioned qualify--I admit i do not know this myself--if they dont, then he is not notable).DGG 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that nobody has yet seen fit to expand an article on a notable person is not a reason to delete their article.... ChrisTheDude 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given that this is a player who meets WP:BIO - he has had a notable career and an article carrying details of that career is useful, even if at present this is only a stub. Robotforaday 12:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone else. He is certainly a noteable footballer according to that briefest of biographies. All stubs need expanding. Generally I find it easier to do that than create an AfD. aLii 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the moment per nominator's implied withdrawal. Yuser31415 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Magsamen

[edit]
Sandra Magsamen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is hagiography. The notability is meager, and no references are provided for the claim of being "award-winning." Deranged bulbasaur 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Her book was reviewed in the Washington Post here. A Google search reveals many instances where she is called "award-winning". She was "chosen from thousands of artists to create Saks Fifth Avenue's Christmas book, ... and was selected to create the theme for their 2003 holiday events across the country. Saks' flagship windows were the second most visited tourist site in Manhattan during the holidays" Link. - PoliticalJunkie 14:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the language is rather fluffy (e.g. "vibrant and expressive works", "express ourselves in our own authentic and unique ways"). Still, if someone incorporates the links from above and rewrites the entire article before the end of this discussion, the article is worthy. - PoliticalJunkie 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her cloth book series from LB Kids, an imprint of Little, Brown Books for Young Readers, debuted in September with two books, Baby Love and My Blanket, which were awarded the Platinum Book Award, the highest honor bestowed by The Oppenheim Toy Portfolio. My Blanket won a Gold Award in the book category of the 2006 National Parenting Publications Awards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markart55 (talk • contribs)

The revisions look good. - PoliticalJunkie 22:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Use of the term "hagiography" in the nomination seems a bit rude. --EarthPerson 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why. It's bandied about rather freely here, and some works (e.g. the lives of the saints) are commonly described as hagiography with no depricatory intention. As far as I know, the literal meaning is "writings about greatness" or something similar, which doesn't seem very condemnatory. In any case, I'm leaning toward thinking the present version of the article is worth keeping. I might've withdrawn my nomination if it were a younger AfD, but since it's about to run its course anyway, I'll let the closing admin have his say. Congratulations to User:Mus Musculus for turning the article into something worthwhile. Deranged bulbasaur 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Handcock

[edit]
Ronan Handcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think the consensus is that being a failed game show contestant is not sufficient for notability. Merely being the heir to a barony, without otherwise doing anything remarkable, is not notable either. Deranged bulbasaur 14:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, only 73 Google hits. - PoliticalJunkie 15:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. This is entirely non-notable, this AfD does not even need to exist. It should be {{db-bio}}. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, if you know its consensus, you should use CSD or {{prod}}. AfD is only for controversial debates. Too many people nom for AfD when it could be deleted elsewise. AfD is only for controversy, or if {{prod}} is contested.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prod is a waste of time on very new articles, because they're still getting attention and will almost inevitably be de-prodded. I didn't use speedy deletion here because it has generated local press, and local interest topics are a contentious issue. Also, there's no consensus on whether people with hereditary titles have any sort of inherent notability. In any case, I don't know why you're upbraiding me about it when you could just mark the article for speedy deletion if you think it fits the criteria and be done with it. There's no reason that this AfD should prevent you from doing that. Deranged bulbasaur 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being the heir or child of someone notable does not mean one automatically piggybacks onto that notability. Separately, the claims of x-factor treatment are not enough to meet WP:BIO. I disagree that this is uncontroversial enough for prod and it certainly isn't a speedy candidate; the claim of notability is evident with sources. That having been said, it is a myth that prodding new articles is fruitless. On the contrary I almost exclusively prod new articles when I use it and am often successful.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cheesecake Factory locations

[edit]
List of Cheesecake Factory locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm AFD'ing this rather than prod'ing it because I'm waffling a bit on this article, and thought it could use some discussion. I'm uncomfortable with this article because it smacks of advertising. Is a list of restaurant locations really encyclopedic? I can't really think of much use for this page. There's not enough detail to give directions to a particular restaurant, so it's just a list of cities that have a Cheesecake Factory. Heaven forbid someone would start a List of Mcdonald's article. I'm not aware of any paper encyclopedia (and yes, WP is not paper) that would have such a list. It seems to me the encyclopedic thing to do would be to say on the Cheesecake Factory page that there are X number of restaurants, and if anyone wants the complete list, they can go to the main corporate site. eaolson 15:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 19:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Joseph Phillips

[edit]
Mark Joseph Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find an ISBN for any book by this author. I suspect he is someone who has self-published or had stories printed in minor pulp magazines; it seems to me he fails WP:NOTE Stephen Burnett 15:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasion Mura

[edit]
Pasion Mura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. There are no ghits for Pasion Mura, nor his works. I initially marked it for speedy deletion, but the author contested the deletion. Then, the only defense he provided was "This page is for information. I created it to increase the wikipedia resources." Furthermore, he did not respond to my requests to verify his claims on Pasion Mura's fame. Sue H. Ping (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deranged bulbasaur 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fane

[edit]
Julian Fane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a musician with one album published by a label of his own creation. There's no indication of notability beyond that. Deranged bulbasaur 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Fane has recently (in February) released another album which I aim to add info about as well. Both albums have been reviewed at allmusic.com which gets linked to by many album entries. Two record reviews except the short reviews at allmusic.com has been located: one in English [48] and one in Danish [49]. I do indeed fail to see why Julian Fane has any less notability than Jega with whom he is sharing record label (Planet Mu). Could you please elaborate on why this is not a proper indication of notability? Sebras 16:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what you say, it seems I misunderstood the text of the article. When you called it "Julian's record label" I thought you were implying self-publication and that it was one of the dozens of non-notable band articles that are created every day. Those references, and the article on the label itself, indicate otherwise. Deranged bulbasaur 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squacketball

[edit]
Squacketball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notability. A Google search returns 3 hits: 2 which are duplicates of the wiki racquetball article which once listed squacketball, and the other to my talk page. "what links here" returns no hits. The originator of the article said that a few people invented this game at his workplace. Also check the history of Racquetball and my talk page. Archer3 15:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Daily Show correspondent titles

[edit]
List of The Daily Show correspondent titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is the third AFD for this article. The first closed with a delete but got overturned because people who didn't feel like they got a chance to participate wanted their say, and was kept the second time with no consensus. The previous AFDs are linked on the talk page. This article amounts to "collection of trivial one-liners used once on a popular show." It is not encyclopedic. The topic is covered, including examples, in The Daily Show so there is no need to merge this content anywhere. Otto4711 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Irishguy[50]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Phillips

[edit]
Natalie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This person is non-notable as per WP:NOTE Stephen Burnett 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a companion unsourced article on an editor's wife to his article on himself, which implies authorship of multiple published books which cannot be found. A Google search of her name and the city and state she is a politician of returns three hits total [51], only one of which appears to be her and is a statistical mention of her vote in an election and nothing else ([52]). Nothing on Google News or book searches. Thus, nothing here meeting the general requirements of WP:BIO, nor its subsection for politicians, and no attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:A AlfPhotoman 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as CSD A7. Precinct delegate is in no way an assertion of notability. (Well, it's a step above block captain.) So tagged. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of concept albums (narrative)

[edit]
List of concept albums (narrative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As noted on the talkpage, this list is extremely crufty and on top of that, it's entirely original research. Not a single verifiable source is cited and the prose reads like 5th-rate fansite material. Incomplete and sometimes wholly made-up (the "concept album" category is at best arguable anyway). On top of that, it serves no purpose beyond what a simple wiki category could do. Get rid of it! BotleySmith 17:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ZsinjTalk 03:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails advertising

[edit]

The things cited by these articles are mainly web sites where one can download files, or web sites that are clearly themselves parts of the promotional campaign described at Year Zero (album)#Promotion. Reading the sources cited by the latter, I see that we do not have a single reliable source amongst them to confirm such basic facts as the very existence of any of these mysterious USB drives, or the identity of "Elizabeth". The only things cited are pseudonymous postings on web discussion fora that link to other pseudonymous postings on other web discussion fora, in a self-referential nest of fan frenzy. This has all of the trappings of a publicity stunt and is unverifiable from sources that (a) are named and identifiable people (rather than possible pseudonymous astroturfing), (b) are fact checked and peer reviewed, and (c) have reputations to defend at all, let alone reputations for honesty and accuracy. Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. There's also strong evidence that this is a hoax. Notice the claims that spectrographs can reveal fingerprints and telephone numbers, and compare them with what spectrograms actually are. Furthermore, several of the articles contain original research into the domain names and telephone numbers, being performed directly by Wikipedia editors firsthand in Wikipedia itself. Uncle G 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete both. Chaser - T 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine radio and television stations

[edit]
List of Philippine radio and television stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list. There are existing separate lists of radio and television stations. Danngarcia 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because with the same reason:

List of Philippine broadcast stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X and king

[edit]
X and king (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Personal essay; not suitable or notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Mhking 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion victim

[edit]
Fashion victim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is half dictionary definition, half personal essay. Calliopejen 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Palliative Medicine

[edit]
Institute of Palliative Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable see google search [53], poorly written, and reads like an add. Masterpedia 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the clean-up I change my vote to Weak keep. HagenUK 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folowing edit by Mus Musculus, this is possibly now a Weak keep. Nevertheless the article should be moved to Institute of Palliative Medicine, Kozhikode, and needs expansion to indicate more as to what is special about it and hence distinctive. Perhaps a little of its hisotry might be useful. Peterkingiron 23:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I cleaned it up and added a couple references. I get the sense that this is an important organization in India, and the information there, while a stub, is verified. I think it could be expanded usefully. --Mus Musculus 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogenetics

[edit]
Psychogenetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

mostly OR babble, merge any material supported by RS to Behavioural genetics, else redirect there per Wim Crusio's comment on Talk:Psychogenetics Pete.Hurd 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , the possibility of using this term clearly occurred to a number of people, but it did not become established as a discipline under that name.DGG 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Teuber (second nomination)

[edit]
Andreas Teuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied for copyvio (see above, was done today), but resuscitated in a different form that is no longer copyvio. However, notability is still questionable. Dennisthe2 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC) NOMINATION WITHDRAWN, see the commentary below. Didn't realize the motive. =^^=;; --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD IS STILL ACTIVE - nomination cannot be withdrawn after delete votes have been cast. If you think that I am wrong about this, then I nominate the article pro forma myself. - Richard Cavell 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nomination can be withdrawn, it's just that the AFD cannot be speedily closed. -- Black Falcon 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Speedy Delete this article looks like a no-brainer for deletion. Don't think it passess WP:Bio in any shape or form. HagenUK 21:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would have thought that it would be recognized immediately that a Member of the IAS and an associate professor at Brandeis. Obviously publications and so on can be listed properly, as well as info about his earlier career which I think is N by itself, though it isn't as easy for me to judge; but there is at least one newspaper article on his work there. Speedy for copyvio was justified, speedy for N would not be, as it should have been clear others might have thought him N even from the stub. I'll rewrite the article, as I seem to be frequently doing. I wish these faculty guys & their friends were less lazy about it. DGG 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, remember, just being a member of a group and a prof at a university does not automagically give notability. It's like being a member of MENSA and an employee at Google - it's cool, but not a qualifier. --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it depends on the group. IAS is a very limited circle indeed. And a major development or research position in Google is notable, and we have a number of articles on such people. It depends on the position. (just for the record) :)DGG 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The speedy was because the professor simply reprinted his faculty biography page, and there was a questionable claim of copyvio. I created a stub because the speedy delete created a red-link. Put a notability tag on it, and give the article some time. I don't understand the notion that a Wikipedia article has to be perfect within 48 hours of creation. -- TedFrank 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this has me convinced to withdraw my nomination. NOMINATION WITHDRAWN, somebody close this? --Dennisthe2 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...withdrawn withdrawal. --Dennisthe2 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable academic. Does not meet WP:PROF. Also, you can't withdraw a nomination when there are already advocates to delete. --Mus Musculus 03:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - I speedy deleted the first article that was written under this name because the text of the article was originally published under a copyright message on a University's website. It was also written by the subject of the article. A new article now exists on the same topic, written by a different author. The present problem for this AfD, on the new article, is notability under WP:BIO. If the nominator' attempt to withdraw is valid, then I nominate this new article myself pro forma in order to allow the AfD to run its course on notability concerns. I reserve my judgment on it. - Richard Cavell 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 4 references provided establish notability in the technical sense and his being a fellow at IAS establishes notability in the more general sense. In response to Mus Musculus, a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University is not a run-of-the-mill, generic, no-different-from-my-neighbour's-husband's-uncle, "non-notable academic". -- Black Falcon 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, coupled with the various rewrites, makes most of this AfD discussion moot. Relist if you feel like it, immediately even. - Daniel Bryant 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Kai-shek Statue

[edit]
Chiang Kai-shek Statue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete or Merge with Chiang Kai-shek per above. Stebbins 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As Hong Qi Gong points out, the article has been expanded significantally. There is now worthwhile content, verified by several in-text citations. I have no particularly strong feelings about the notability of the current event. A reference to an additional news service (besides BBC) should be added to solidify the notability claim. Stebbins 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for expanding the article Qi Gong. There can no longer be any grounds for deleting this article due to poor content or references. This article seems at least as notable as many others on Wikipedia. Stebbins 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unencyclopedic, no references, appears to create an article out of a common pair of words simply to declare that they are "everywhere". --Ideogram 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see what you mean, but we shouldn't turn Wikipedia into a news service. That information can be included in the death and legacy section in the article on Chiang Kai-shek, I think that is where people would look for information about the statues.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This information is moderately interesting, but doesn't deserve its own article. --Ideogram 08:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I don't think that's criteria for deletion. And even before the controversy, I would argue that these statues are notable enough for an article, as they are placed all over Taiwan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So are snakemeat kiosks. You think those warrant an article of their own? --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You feel like nominating Betel nut beauty for deletion? Article's been around since 2003. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it. --Nlu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should have articles for George Washington Statue or Mao Tse-tung Poster? --Ideogram 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have any articles about these statues either, even though I think that statues of Mao Zedong or Lenin were even more pervasive than Chiang statues have ever been. As far as I know, the controversy that this article is about was not spawned by the statues themseleves, but about the legacy of Chiang. No one is discussing the artistic value of the statues, who made them, when they were erected, or provided any statue-specific information.--Niohe 14:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These statues have been the subject of coverage that is independent of coverage of Chiang Kai-shek. What is the reason grounded in policy that they shouldn't have their own article? I agree that the article isn't complete because it lacks "statue-specific information", but incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. The article was AFD'd 5 minutes after its creation, has been improved significantly over the past 5 days, and is on a topic that meets our notability guideline. The article does need further improvement, but that cannot occur if it's deleted. -- Black Falcon 03:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Rousseau

[edit]
Danielle Rousseau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously, it had been decided that only Lost characters who were credited as "starring" (i.e. Jack, Eko) or had flashback episodes devoted to them (i.e. Rose, Bernard) would be given an article. Numerous attempts were made to create a page for Danielle Rousseau, who has appeared in over 10 out of over 60 episodes of Lost. Recently the page has been created again without discussion. I propose that the information on the page be merged into Characters of Lost, the article be deleted and then turned into a redirect to Characters of Lost (for easier navigation through Lost articles on Wikipedia). If this AfD fails, then pages should be created for a few other recurring characters, most notably Tom, who has been in more episodes than Rousseau, Rose or Bernard. See also these current and previous discussions: Talk:Characters_of_Lost#Danielle_Rousseau, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Rousseau (Lost), Talk:Characters_of_Lost/Archive02#.22Main.22_Characters, Talk:Danielle Rousseau, Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive 4 and Talk:Characters of Lost/Archive05. Vote and discuss now! --thedemonhog 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I created the Tom page after I saw how this "debate" was going. Nikki and Paulo are credited as main cast on-screen. Also, I should have suggested a merge instead of a delete, but this was my first deletion nomination so now I know. --thedemonhog 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator of this deletion, created some of those pages after I saw how this was going. --thedemonhog 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Want Your Soul

[edit]
We Want Your Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We've had this issue before with Class of 3000 songs: they should be covered in the article of the episode they appear in. Further, lyrics do not belong on Wikipedia, especially ones that infringe copyrights (obviously) - see WP:NOT#IINFO. Tozoku 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snookerpool

[edit]
Snookerpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'd Speedy delete this, but I can't find the correct reason (the original reason no longer applies.) Sigma 7 20:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo

[edit]
Jambo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

del. This is English language encyclopedia. Shall we have articles about words in all languages of the world? Guten Tag, Konnichi wa, Privetik, Witam panstwo, Zdravstvuyte, Zdorovenki buly, Labas rytas, Terve, Bon giorno, Buna ziua,.... `'mikka 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Someone tagged the article with {{advertisement}}, which is just what it needs. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aveda

[edit]
Aveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I posted a {{db-spam}} on this article, that deletion was contested and some improvements have since been made to the article. In my opinion the article still fails Wikipedia:Spam all the "references" are links to primary sources and as such the article fails WP:A. Additionally the article would appear to have conflict of interest issues and does not appear to meet WP:NPOV expectations I leave it to the Wikipedia community to consider. Jeepday 21:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some references. If a company is sold for US$300 million, then it is almost certainly notable, and references should be easy to find. --Eastmain 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aveda is clearly a notable company. Article needs work, not deletion. --NMChico24 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Definitely notable. AfD isn't cleanup. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was surprised to see the emphasis on the salons and spas in the articles. I would have expected more emphasis on the products the company manufactures and sells, especially because they are sold in nearly every salon in the United States and not just the Aveda salons. I'm not a beautician or an industry insider, but I expect that there may be someone on wikipedia who is more knowledgeable than me who can improve this article? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so someone left this comment on my talk page: I'm not sure why you were surprised to see information about the Salons, and no, you cannot sell Aveda products LEGALLY without being affiliated with them. You must be an Experience, Concept, or Lifestyle salon in order to LEGALLY carry Aveda products. I am a representative for the company, and happen to know this firsthand. Aveda is not sold in every salon in the United States, to say so is an exaggeration. Maybe it would be best if you let the beauticians/Salon owners like us make the facts known, since you obviously did no research to come to your conclusion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.204.177.104 (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC). I had called my esthetician sister (who promptly made fun of how I pronounced "Aveda") before making the comment to see if other salons could sell the products, since I've seen Aveda products but I've never been into one of their stores, and I guess I misunderstood. Anyway, the article still looks like an ad and still needs cleanup. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 03:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep This particular product line is probably noteworthy enough for an article, judging by the newspaper references, which are sufficient for ATT. The previous comments are a magnificent warning against doing our own OR.DGG 06:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that this article should be kept...if someone could please help me to figure out how it is written like an advertisement, I would appreciate it. I had originally added alot of information about the company/partnerships/guidlines, but another salon changed the page to the advertising form. I know that it isn't perfect, but I can't do it alone. This company had done alot for the environment and has been highly successful; please help improve it, don't just delete it. Thank you.
  • Keep and nuke all of the advert copy.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 10:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context

[edit]
List of mythical and religious beings appearing in fictional context (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ill-conceived, impossible to complete attempt to list all appearances of deities/mythical figures in fiction. The list is relatively short but that's just because it has received relatively little attention: in theory, this list should contain every myth ever written (and many times, cross-referenced under every character that appears in them). Even just having the monotheistic God on the list would make for a list that's too long: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of God in fiction. As one comment said in the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of real people appearing in fictional context, this concept practically needs its own wiki to do properly. Mangojuicetalk 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at some of the links on the list, and there are whole articles devoted to "----- in popular culture" for some of the items on this list and long sections in some of the Wikipedia articles for many of the others. This list hasn't been maintained well, and if it were, as has been said, it would be too long. For those few items that don't have "---- in popular culture" sections, I'm moving some of the information from here to those articles. Noroton 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sameh Abdallah El Alaily

[edit]
Sameh Abdallah El Alaily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dense, unwikified article but don't let that put you off actually reading it, please. Skirts CSD-A7 - some assertions of notability, but they amount to very little. Most of article is a copy of a speech the guy made. Author says the article is his father's birthday present. The talk page carries a long list of external links that show a degree of notability or at least enough to make this an AfD matter. On that basis, we might need an article on this guy... but this isn't it, sadly.〈REDVEЯS〉 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, it is one of this cases were I am tempted to say delete and some day it will be re-created. Needs lots of work though AlfPhotoman 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is "Urban Rehabilitation Professor at Cairo University. ..and former Dean of the faculty of Urban Planning (2000-2002)." there. This is sufficient for N. The sources listed in talk are probably enough. I have just moved them to the article. DGG 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - I can see VEЯS point for nominating this article for deletion. However, I also think notability is established. Obviously, the article needs a good clean-up and wikification. HagenUK 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added descriptions of the links that I could figure out (most are in other languages) or access. Still needs more cleanup, but I think it meets WP:ATT. —Carolfrog 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFTAGFFR

[edit]
FFTAGFFR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Yo-yo, with no restrictions on rewriting the article "YOYO" with sources if it's possible. - Daniel Bryant 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOYO

[edit]
YOYO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Rebuttal: YOYO is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is now part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on "YOYO you're on your own" and found 20,500 entries. Thus, this acronym does NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0658 PST, 12 March, 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sligh

[edit]
Chris Sligh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable John Foxe 22:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to American Idol (Season 6).--TBCΦtalk? 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sligh is, at this point at least, only a contestant on a TV show. Are the other eleven remaining contestants Wiki-notable even after they've been eliminated?--John Foxe 22:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of the season 5 finalists have pages. All of the season 3 finalists have pages. And I believe all of the season 4 finalists have pages. According to the guidelines set forth by the WikiProject on the subject, finalists get pages. And yes, the pages stay even after elimination. The proof is here, here, here and here and here. Those are links to the "What links here" section of the templates for each season of Idol. This is the #1 show in the United States and it's highly rated elsewhere. Almost all of the contestants have had careers beyond Idol be it Broadway, CDs, fansites, etc. They are all notable if they've made the finals. I know that many people don't care for the show and many don't like that we have this many articles on the show, but I think it's necessary. And if we delete this one, then we need to delete 12 participant articles or make them all redirects...and then decided on a one-by-one basis who gets recreated after the show is on for awhile. At some point, it's easiest to keep things as they are. And the thing is, we don't know who will be successful and who won't be at this point. I mean the arguably 2 most successful acts from season 5 finished 6th (Kellie Pickler) and 4th (Chris Daughtry). I think it's just too early to ditch these. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So I suppose you're willing to let American Idol determine how many "finalists" there are--in this case, twelve. When I think of the word "finalists," I think of the number two.--John Foxe 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Yes because that's what the show calls them. Those who make the top 24 are semi-finalists. Those who makes the top 12 are finalists (and it's been 12 for several years now). They've been referred to as finalists since season 1. Even the earliest Wikipedia articles on these folks called them finalists. Here is the first version of the article on Tamyra Gray from May 2004. And it calls her a finalist. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would you delete a current finalist on American Idol? This is getting annoying that American Idol finalist articles are being deleted. Nadia Turner's page got merged when she was a was in the Top 8, and is going to star in a new movie!!! It makes no sense 216.54.173.184 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is starting to get rediculous. At this point he passes WP:N. If he's eliminated quickly and falls off the face of the earth that's one thing, but that hasn't happened.--Wizardman 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with that. I don't understand the rush. The second articles get created, they show up here. Give it some time. If it's next January and these guys aren't doing much, then we can delete. But look at someone like Elliott Yamin. He's just now getting his debut CD out and it's been almost a year since he was eliminated. Right now, all 12 finalists are notable because they are on the #1 show on television in the US. It's just like how we have articles on stars of a current, hit tv show. It's the exact same thing. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seriously, Chris is far more famous and notable than many others who already have wiki bios. His national recognition deserves this. 5 of the other American Idol Finalists have their own pages; why not Chris? (Barang 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. As per many of the above, specifically Woohookitty. — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Idol finalists, they meet WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting Chris Sligh's is like voting him off the top 12.

Derrty2033 talk Derrty2033 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Keep it. I needed to find out which song he sang last week (dc Talk's Wanna Be Loved), and thanks to Wikipedia, I was able to find it very quickly and easily. (dfaber
  • Keep. Sligh is notable by Wikipedia standards as well as by Wikipedia consensus. This page provides useful information and should be retained.—Emote Talk Page 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an argument that Chris is not a "finalist" - irregarding the fact that AI itself has determined that nomenclature for contestants in Chris' situation - cannot pass muster if other contestants like Kevin Covais (who came in 11th in Season 5) have their own free-standing bio.--Loving CA 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If John Foxe is consistent, he will also mark the pages for other final 12 contestants for deletions, as several others have one. He has not done this, and if they are allowed to stay Chris Sligh's page should be as well. He is only marking this one because of the BJU connection, and thus doesn't care about the others in my opinion. --Elvanya 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Although Elvanya is correct in assuming that I tagged Sligh's article because of his BJU connection, I don't believe any of the 12 current contestants on American Idol are Wiki-notable unless for something other than appearing on this TV show. But then, mine is a minority opinion to say the least.--John Foxe 21:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Foxe exhibits no regard for the overwhelming consensus (everybody except him) that Sligh is notable and should have his own page.—Emote Talk Page 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. No I don't think you are right, Emote. He has a right to his opinion. Foxe, I think what you are forgetting is the scope of the show. It's seen by more people weekly than any other show in the United States. It is just like regulars on a hit sitcom or drama. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like it or not, this guy is now a celebrity. Effer 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is such a one-sided debate, it makes me wonder why we are debating this at all. Let's keep the article. Pober157 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. John Foxe seems to enjoy wasting the time of as many people as possible on silly things like this. Perhaps he will someday decide to become the type of editor who makes useful contributions to the encyclopedia rather than clogging up the system with arguments like this.—Emote Talk Page 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely a notable person. - Richard Cavell 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think there is any reason to delete? Is Wikipedia running out of space that we can't leave up an article of Chris Sligh? Liore 00:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As one other Wikimember pointed out, having an article about Chris here on Wikipedia makes it easy for the masses to find information, such as what song he sang last week and who it was from. Informaton is the very point of Wikipedea; anything that promotes or falls within the category of information should be kept on Wikipedia, hands down. Mhgood 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Woohookitty. Amphytrite 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chris Sligh, already in top 12, already a celebrity, would be a shame to delete such a notable artist.
  • Keep any contestant who makes it into the top 12, although some contestants who don't even make it that far are still notable. Everyking 07:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't get why this would be deleted, like it or not, this guy is a celebrity -- there are plenty of musicians in wikipedia who are far less famous than Sligh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.254.50 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Keeping with the precedent that the top 12 of American Idol, THE most popular show in America, each get their own wikipedia article. It makes perfect sense because of the show's popularity and deleting one without deleting the others is absolutely silly. THe user who suggested deletion clearly isn't thinking logically. --Mystalic 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep American Idol is the number #1 show on US television at present, and this (and all other Idol-related Wiki articles on the contestants who made the finals, the show's equivalent of the "playoffs") should be considered in the vein of other top shows when describing the "cast of characters", as it were. Sligh is a participant on this show, and therefore in the interest of the admittedly relative "historical accuracy" of the series' participants of the past, deleting the article wouldn't make much sense. Is the proposed deletion honestly based on qualitative reasons, or "political" ones of one stripe or other? And wouldn't a mere recommendation of expanding the article be sufficient enough for meeting Wiki's quality needs? 24.117.250.51 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now He's still a finalist, which is reason enough to keep him for the time being. Even if he does manage to be eliminated, some Idol finalists have secured recording contracts, and there's no telling if he will. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. All other finalists of current season of country's #1 show have pages. Deletionism! Moncrief 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus points out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to reliable published sources.

There is no consensus here to move the article to Wikitionary. However, that does not mean that an entry couldn't be started on Wikitionary independant to this. - Daniel Bryant 10:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTSHTF

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
WTSHTF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable acronym that fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Avoid neologisms. Prod removed by only author. Also added by same author: YOYO and FFTAGFFR. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WTSHTF is NOT a "idiotic neologisms made up on the internet one day" Rather, it is an acronym that is part of the public lexicon. I just did a Google search on WTSHTF and got 6,490 entries. Then I searched on SHTF. It had 88,600 entries! Thus, these acronyms do NOT fall in the category of "...things made up in school one day." Unless you can cite another reason, then I believe that this entry should stand. - Jeff Trasel, 0651 PST, 12 march, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
  • The "reliable source" factor is not what is at issue here, Arichnad! The meaning of this acronym is undisputable, so sourcing would only be an issue if the entry delved into the origin of the acronym. I cited the sheer number of Google hits on WTSHTF andSHTF to illustrate the POPULARITY of the acronym. If those numbers don't constitute common use, then you had better go through the Wiktionary on safari and start posting PRODs on several hundred *existing* wiki acronym entries for acronyms that are downright obscure, compared to WTSHTF and SHTF.
  • I still vote to RETAIN this entry. - Jeff Trasel, 1557 PST, 12 March, 2007


  • IMO, the key issue here is notability. I brought up the Google count as a useful data point in that regard. Clearly, those of you that have chimed in with "delete" votes would not have done so if you believed that the acronym was indeed notable. In some circles, such as survivalism and libertarian politics, WTSHTF and SHTF are widely known and regularly used without a second thought. Both the root phrases and their respective acronyms also seem to be more popular with certain age groups. I mean absolutely no disrespect by this--and please don't take it the wrong way--I'm merely making statement of fact. In essence, people that went to college in different decades are immersed in a distinctly different mix of popular culture icons, cliches, pet phrases, slang and so forth. This doesn't mean that any particular decade was/is better or worse than any other decade--it just means that the collective experience for each decade was different. As a data point, I went to college in the early 1980s. That was shortly after the comedy movie "Airplane" was released. (In 1980.) One of the most memorable jokes in the film included the phrase "shit hit the fan." Pardon my rambling, but I'm trying to relate--in a polite way--that there are generational differences that color perceptions and evalutaion of terms vis-a-vis relevance, popularity, and notability. Perhaps some other wiki editors would like to chime in on the notability of SHTF and WTSHTF, so that we can reach a wider consensus. I look forward to hearing from you, and will accept the consensus view with all due humility. I appreciate your input, folks!
- Jeff Trasel, 1938 PST, 12 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trasel (talk • contribs).
  • I vote to retain. These are common terms used in groups to include firefighters, LE, other emergency response and by disaster planners. I saw the phrase used post 9/11 and Katrina to describe devastation and overwhelming loss. Deleting this because individual(s) are unfamiliar with its use appears narrow and arrogant. I consider this project a tool to expand knowledge and common understanding, not to limit it. — EJayB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I vote to retain, its a WELL KNOWN acronym all across the USA, Europe, Australia and S. America. were about information and knowledge here aren't we? dont be PC. wally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.25.86 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 March 2007
  • Comment: Trasel and the recent two contributors may want to read Wikipedia's policy on original research. We need actual sources for an encyclopedic article. If the article creator means this entry to be no more than a dictionary definition, as his comments above (regarding usage being the issue, not sources) seem to indicate, then this entry belongs on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. —Carolfrog 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Cualoping

[edit]
Irene Cualoping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to assert some notability now, maybe as photojournalist for Asian Week, but I'm not convinced that there's more than very sparse sources to write a neutral article from. Borderline delete although it may be possible to improve adequately. — coelacan — 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello we were not done posting at time deletion note made...hangon thanks! 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's horrid, but I think it outlines a picture of notability through her various community leadership positions and journalistic work. AfD is not a place to push for hurried cleanup on a notable subject. --Mus Musculus 04:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um.. never mind. I just combed through the article, removed all the unverifiable text, then removed all of the irrelevant resume text, and I'm not left with a notable person. Delete. --Mus Musculus 05:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Universe

[edit]
Chaotic Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't find evidence that this book even exists, let alone any third-party sources. Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Original 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Genesis Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kris Wilson(fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Daraun Givens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anna Vest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brandi Blas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tonya Muse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drasil Universe Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elemental Masters Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angela Haynes(fictional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chaotic Universe 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates

[edit]
List of films with similar themes and release dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of trivia based on original research. —тяеɢощетн (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does this article contain 37 footnotes and an external link to an article on precisely the topic in question? Did you even bother to look at the article? This article is incredibly well sourced. --JayHenry 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: Most of the sources in the article link to movie reviews. In other words, opinions on movies, thus a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--TBCΦtalk? 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:POV are you referring to? I don't see what section of the guideline you think is being violated. --JayHenry 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. WP:POV used to be a shortcut to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. --TBCΦtalk? 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TBC, you might want to look at WP:POV, especially where it says:
"Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy."
Movie reviewers are generally good sources for something like "this film has a very similar theme to that film which was just released a little while ago", and statements like that are hardly ever disputed in real life. And if movie reviewers can't be used, then there are news articles on movies with similar themes and release dates, and there's no doubt at all that those can be used in footnotes, if the source is responsible. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the question is over whether something can be sourced, not whether or not it has or hasn't been. So there really shouldn't be a probelm with that. Noroton 01:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments below: "Opinions can be cited with facts, but facts should never be cited with opinions". For example, it's valid to state that numerous authors feel that Shakespeare was one of history's greatest authors, but not so if one were to state that Shakespeare is the greatest author ever born. --TBCΦtalk? 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second discussion, it was pointed out that this isn't some made up concept, but that the concept itself of films with similar themes and release dates was covered in a Washington Post article, as well as mentioned in dozens of reviews of these films. Claims of WP:OR are not valid here. --JayHenry 03:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's kind of pointless to have a "list of x" before we have an article on x itself. I wouldn't mind seeing an article about competing cinema trends, considering this list is aribitrarily defined, especially with sentences like "Sometimes, this may be coincidental as the result of two studios independently hoping to capitalize on a current trend." I don't think the idea of a "list of things coincidentally or otherwise competing against each other" should have its own article. Also, the fact that this is the third nomination shouldn't be precedent to end this discussion- a lot of good points were brought up last time. --Wafulz 03:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought that it was supposed to be mentioned for procedural reasons if an article has been nominated before. I wasn't offering it as a reason to keep. My reason for keep is that a lot of editors have put a tremendous amount of work into fixing this article, and it's now a good article, with good sources. Also, I disagree with your logic that list of x is invalid if there's no article on x itself. Lists are often a far superior way to present information. Would you argue that List of baseball nicknames is inappropriate because baseball nicknames is not an article? --JayHenry 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is so clearly not a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or a WP:OR issue, as demonstrated by JayHenry's arguments. Movie reviews are not only notable sources of information, they are also one of the only notable sources of information on films. Opinion problems arise only when Wikipedia editors are imposing their own opinions without any WP:ATT sources to back them up, not when a notable reviewer or author has an opinion that can be cited. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree that something can be considered fact if a single notable person "has an opinion that can be cited". Otherwise, liberalism would be a "church of godlessness" as according to citations from Ann Coulter's books and Republicans and NRA members would all be racist and part of the KKK, as according to citations from Michael Moore's films.--TBCΦtalk? 08:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - there is no possible objective definition as to what constitutes a "similar theme." How many points of commonality constitute "a similar theme" and how is that determined without resorting to impermissible POV judgment calls? How much of a stretch is allowed? The list notes such films as "Lord of War," "The Last King of Scotland" and "Blood Diamond" as having similar themes based on their supposedly all being about "ambitious white protagonist[s] becoming involved in the violence of African politics" despite the films being about an arms dealer with clients around the world, a Scots doctor's relationship with Idi Amin and the Sierra Leone civil war, respectively. The films have similar themes only in a broad interpretation and that interpretation constitutes unacceptable POV. It describes "Flushed Away" and "Ratatouille" as being similar because they both have animated rats in them, despite one being set in a British sewer and the other in a Parisian restaurant. So many of the other items on the list suffer from similar problems that to simply remove them would result in a gutting of the list regardless. Additionally, there is no possible objective definition as to what constitutes "similar release dates." Most of the film pairings indicate that the films were released in different years. Some go so far as to capture films spanning from 2001 to 2006 and include remakes of earlier films as "similar." Given the incestuous nature of Hollywood it is unsurprising to find films with superficial similarities or minor thematic points in common, but that doesn't mean that such superficial similarities constitute encyclopedic information. Otto4711 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why we're letting movie reviewers point these things out. Considering how frequently the media points out these things, sourcing should not be a problem. If it gets discussed in a movie review as being a similar theme and release date to another film, then it's not an original research issue, regardless of whether the films are two months apart or seven years, and there's no need for Wikipedia editors to invent their own criteria for exactly what "similarity" entails. Including all remakes, even ones decades apart, is an editing issue rather than any kind of deletion criteria, and such things can easily be pruned out by normal editing processes. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the entire article as a concept suffers from irreparable NPOV issues. One reviewer might look at "Film with white cats released in January 2005" and "Film with black cats released in December 2006" and state in his review that they share "similar" themes and a "similar" release date while another reviewer looks at the same two films and states in her review "It's been too long since we've had a movie about cats!" or "White Cat Movie explored themes of mouse catching while Black Cat Movie takes a totally different approach by delving deep into the world of playing with yarn." and by putting the films in this list we are giving undue weight to the first review. Otto4711 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JayHenry's reasoning. All that is needed is a few more source citations, but this is a very good list that documents the 'competing cinema trend', and the trend seems to only be getting more more common. --Eptin 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not appear to support the notion that there is a "trend" in Hollywood to release films with similar themes deliberately to compete with each other. Indeed, the article seems to indicate that studios don't like the idea of being the second to release a film with a similar theme, that it is an aberration for films to be marketed as the second similar film and that the conventional wisdom is that it's a bad idea. Otto4711 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your concern is Eptin's statement that the "trend seems to only be getting more common" then I agree we should leave that out. But the WashPost article clearly delineates "a recurring phenomenon," if you're uncomfortable with the word "trend." When I read the list here, I think it already deals with your POV concerns pretty well. When a movie has significant differences as well as similarities, they are noted in the entry. But this sort of thing is really for the talk page, not for a deletion review. Theoretically, there might be a lot of POV concerns on a list like this; in actuality, it's not a significant problem. The list isn't flawed beyond the ability of a talk page to sort it out. --JayHenry 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What WaPo calls a "recurring phenomenon" I call a coincidence. And noting the differences IMHO exacerbates the POV problem rather than relieving it, since it requires editors to make subjective judgments as to what the differences and similarities are and whether the similarities outweigh the differences to a degree that allows or forbids exclusion. And I've already explained why appealing to movie reviewers or other external sources is problematic. Babe, Charlotte's Web and Animal Farm are all films about talking pigs. The Royal Tenenbaums and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are both about dysfunctional families. I Spit on Your Grave and The Accused are both about women dealing with being raped. Yes these are extreme examples (and they're from different years, which for purposes of these examples is not the point) but some of the items currently on the list are also pretty big stretches to tie them together. Otto4711 05:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you believe the problem is so compelling that the article must be deleted entirely I find it odd that you're not siting examples from the list. Actually, i don't find it odd. The problems are theoretical -- in actuality, this list isn't causing the kind of problems you're worried about.
  • WP:NPOV is about neutral presentation. It doesn't say you hide differing viewpoints or delete articles that contain differing viewpoints, it says you present them neutrally. This article does a very good job of doing that. --JayHenry 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I see above in your initial post that you do site examples you find problematic. I guess it just seems to me that the POV issues you're concerned with are adequately dealt with by including the rebuttal, i.e. "Both films are about rats but one is set in a Parisian restaurant and the other in a sewer system." or whatever. That's neutral presentation. --JayHenry 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's exactly the point. The very existence of this list is predicated on the notion that the similarities of the films are greater than their differences and that is inherently and fatally POV-pushing. If critic 1 says Films A and B are similar and critic 2 says they aren't then listing Films A and B on a "List of similar films" at all is giving undue weight to critic 1, even if the objections of critic 2 are noted. Otto4711 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me the list just says the similarities are noteworthy. I don't think it suggests the similarities are greater than the differences. I mean, the differences are always greater than the similarities. But that's not what the list -- or this AfD discussion -- is about. --JayHenry 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just because you can cite an essay WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL (not policy, not guidelines) doesn't mean the list isn't nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Usedup 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the phenomenon described is nontrivial, encyclopedic and a contribution that improves Wikipedia, and the article is verifiable and not inherently POV. Noroton 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While an interesting idea, there are no secondary sources in this entire article. It is completely WP:OR. You can't have a list like this without each item having a citation for a secondary source that calls out those two films as being similarly themed and released. --Mus Musculus 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if you look more closely, you will see that (almost) each entry is indeed supported by a secondary source that identifies that the movies are similar themed. -- Black Falcon 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable phenomenon [56] [57] [58] [59]. The movie industry went 64 years without an animated movie from the point of view of ants, and then two rival CGI studios each release their own ant movie the same year? That's notable, and it's not my POV; it was written about in every major newspaper and magazine in the country. It happens with other movies, and this article is a list of those notable similar films. If someone's OR has snuck into this article without references, feel free to remove it or ask for a citation.Cas510 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the 40+ sources in the article and dozens more readily available and/or noted in this AFD. When articles have titles such as "Two Films, One Subject", it's a pretty good sign that the topic is real and receives real-world coverage. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the notion that movie reviews cannot be used as sources for movies. Yes, they're opinions, but so's almost everything else in the world! Should we delete the Lebanese Civil War article because the classification of violence from 1975-90 in Lebanon as a "civil war" was an opinion? The fact is that the English language includes words, concepts, and classifications that are delibaretly vague. There is nothing wrong with using movie reviews as a source for movies. -- Black Falcon 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ability to attribute sources demonstrated; consensus is to keep despite claim of non-notability. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Hicks

[edit]
Esther Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced since December. All sources appear to be self-published. Tone has been improved somewhat, but still seems more of an advertisement than encyclopedic. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N, WP:A AlfPhotoman 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourcable. All potential sources self-published.DGG 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Esther is an important individual. She is truly one of kind in metaphysics. Her name is all over the web. She deserves a definition, not recognition. Deleting her is a mistake and will be a mass confusion for those that wish to know exactly who was the person that was paid a huge sum of money from the phenomenal show "The Secret." BillZimmerman 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Esther Hicks is an important person, notable if you will, in the New Age world. She gets 1,150,000 hits on google, which is one of wikipedia's tests for notability. If the tone of the article seems wrong then the wikipedian way is to change it, not delete the article.

Carptrash 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but improve significantly She passes WP:N because of her recent appearance in The Secret. Personally, I think her "teachings" are BS, but she's popular and notable among New Agey types. As for WP:A, I think these can be rectified with time. My biggest problem with this article is the glaring POV problems, but these too are not beyond fixing. --~Ça Suffit~ 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. It just needs to be tweaked to be in compliance. It would be foolish to delete the whole topic just because of some technicalities that can be addressed...
  • Keep it. Don't see any problem. This entry could have been written by anyone with any knowledge of this person. The fact that they cite publications by her is irrelevant. To write an article on Jane Austen without referencing her novels would be insane. Ditto Esther Hicks.PhiltheBear 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The books of Jane Austen are not useful as sources of factual information about Jane Austen herself. All a person's own literary output is useful for is in regarding the views of that individual – not as an independent, reliable source of information about them. — BillC talk 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Esther Hicks is a significant media figure of the moment. This article is a mess. I will add two references from the NY Times to the article so it will meet the outside, reliable sources criterion. JazzyGroove 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is perfectly salvageable and relevant as per above.Eaglizard 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Who is Esther Hicks ? Now at least I know. What is an encyclopedia for anyway ? New Age with a smile ... could be much, much worse.(Lunarian 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Stop the deletionist madness! Let's start improving incomplete articles, not deleting them. She is clearly notable, since she is a NYT-best-selling author, and has a connection to the Secret film. The article also has attained publicity in the NYT, which means she has "notoreity" (though that doesn't necessarily translated into "notability," as some claim) Keep this article, even if it's new age nonsense. I suggest that this AfD be closed early, as per the WP:SNOW guideline. - Nhprman 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, looks like we've got a pretty clear majority, and this AfD has brought out new reasons to keep the article. Seeing as this is the case, can we get an Admin to snowball close this baby so we can get on with our lives?--~Ça Suffit~ 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 18:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet slang phrases

[edit]
List of Internet slang phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Please note prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Internet_slang.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Already tranwikied to Wiktionary, see Wiktionary:Transwiki:List_of_Internet_slang_phrases. Pan Dan 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of paintball scenario teams

[edit]
List of paintball scenario teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A completely useless, unencyclopedic, unverifiable list. The teams listed here are not notable. I was the one who originally seperated this article from List of professional paintball teams to avoid debating and arguments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenStorm (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 Keep Gnangarra 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karmein Chan

[edit]
Karmein Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A murder victim, who is not well known, nor did her death lead to anything of import (laws, books etc.); her murder is already covered in the article on the murderer. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be considered with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle talk 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as per my comments at the AfD for Ebony Simpson, this case dates from 1991 and 1991 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria. The Karmein Chan case was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories. I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold. Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as at the Ebony Simpson AfD, this article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and aftermath.--Golden Wattle talk 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who cares about google hits; there is nothing verified in this article which is an issue given that it talks about her living parents. --Peta 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she was all over the news in Australia. She's an inherently notable person, though probably not for anything that she did. - Richard Cavell 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a horrific case that dominated Australian news for a good few years so surely that's reason enough to keep it. Also, if fictional television characters deserve to have their own pages then surely a murdered child involved in a major and still unsolved case should have their own page. And she is 'well known' to Australians. There are many celebrities who aren't well known in other countries not of their nationality yet they still have pages so the same applied for Karmein Chan. - Cosmic_quest 23:01, 12 March 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Lee (model)

[edit]
Veronica Lee (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not demonstrate notability per WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Reason for AFD was due to the fact that the speedy delete was contested by another user, hence the move. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagat.com

[edit]
Pagat.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:A AlfPhotoman 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It plainly meets WP:A, with at least 200 pages of the site independently attributed by whatever the leading sites for every different game are, so your comment doesn't make any sense. This website is actually a prototype for what we want in terms of WP:A. Some additional material is the primary source for obscure game rules, but for games that have multiple authoritative websites devoted to them, this site is almost always cited as a reliable reference. 2005 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Bencherlite 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing delete vote in light of comments below and addition of a reference to the article - although if the article had been written with an eye to WP:WEB, particularly "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section", this debate would have been unnecessary. Keep and expand. Bencherlite 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; violates WP:WEB --Mhking 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Plainly meets WP:WEB. The website is the preeminent card games website on the Internet, with literally thousands of non-trivial online references from the International Playing Card Society on down. Please do some research before making afd's... added... and also the random removal of links added by many different editors that clearly meet WP:EL calls this whole afd into question. Please act responsibly. 2005 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is clearly the most authoritative website about card games on the Internet, and it's well-known as such. Rray 07:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. 56.000 google hits. The site is strongly recommended in David Parlett's book "Teach Yourself Card Games", so we have at least one very authoritative mention in the dead forest media.Punainen Nörtti 11:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Agree with other keep opinions in spades. Dddstone 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seem to be some clear feelings about this article, but where is the proof that this site is notable? There are no secondary sources mentioning that it is notable or an important Web site. That is required. Being mentioned in a book is not a proof of notability, especially if the mention is, "Here's where you can go to play games online." You need secondary sources stating that this Web site is important. --Mus Musculus 14:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Parlett's mention is a full-page praise of the site, mentioning that it is the single best source for rules of card games. Thus, Parlett's book a secondary source stating that it is an important web site. (Do you want to have quotes?)Punainen Nörtti 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all 124 listed articles. note I'm using popups to delete, please contact me to have any erronously listed articles restored Gnangarra 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1850-51 Australian cricket season

[edit]
1850-51 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable cricket season, article effectively empty. The matter has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#1877-78 Australian cricket season. This AfD is intended to cover all similar articles where no additional information about the season has been included. It does not cover the 1977-78 Australian cricket season , 1876-77 Australian cricket season , 1980-81 Australian cricket season , 1932-33 Australian cricket season, or the 1928-29 Australian cricket season - each of which have had content added and claims to notability. In the discussion at WikiProject Cricket, it was noted that it should be possible to write a meaningful article when there had been a real competition in place: domestic or international. Similarly for tours. The difficulty arises when, as in the 1877-78 Australian cricket season, there was very little domestic competition and no international interest, and is even more problematic for earlier years when there is very little record of anything much "official" happening. The template for the articles is at Template talk:Australian cricket seasons to make it easy for editors to create articles with a similar look and feel. I believe however that red links are better than effectively empty blue links. The prod of the 1876-77 Australian cricket season was objected to, hence the escalation to AfD. Delete Golden Wattle talk 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - have only had time to tag up too 1879/80 with {{subst:afd1|1850-51 Australian cricket season}} so far - it is a very time consuming process and I have real life pressures.--Golden Wattle talk 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from articles mentioned above, also excluded are 1940-41 to 1944-45 Australian cricket seasons and 1915-16 to 1917-18 Australian cricket seasons as being not empty.--Golden Wattle talk 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also 1903-04 Australian cricket season , 1898-99 Australian cricket season, 1913-14 Australian cricket season , 1910-11 Australian cricket season , 1878-79 Australian cricket season , 1925-26 Australian cricket season , 1927-28 Australian cricket season, 1937-38 Australian cricket season are no longer entirely "empty". --Golden Wattle talk 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1850-51 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1856-57 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1857-58 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1858-59 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1859-60 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1860-61 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1861-62 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1862-63 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1863-64 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1864-65 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1865-66 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1866-67 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1867-68 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1868-69 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1869-70 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1870-71 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1871-72 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1872-73 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1873-74 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1874-75 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1875-76 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1879-80 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1880-81 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1881-82 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1882-83 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1883-84 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1884-85 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1885-86 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1886-87 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1887-88 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1888-89 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1889-90 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1892-93 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1893-94 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1894-95 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1895-96 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1896-97 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1897-98 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1899-1900 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1901-02 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1902-03 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1904-05 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1905-06 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1906-07 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1907-08 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1908-09 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1909-10 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1911-12 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1912-13 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1918-19 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1919-20 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1920-21 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1921-22 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1922-23 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1923-24 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1924-25 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1926-27 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1929-30 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1930-31 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1931-32 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1933-34 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1934-35 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1935-36 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1936-37 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1938-39 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1939-40 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1945-46 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1946-47 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1947-48 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1948-49 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1949-50 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1950-51 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1951-52 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1952-53 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1953-54 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1954-55 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1955-56 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1956-57 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1957-58 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1958-59 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1959-60 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1960-61 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1961-62 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1962-63 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1963-64 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1964-65 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1965-66 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1966-67 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1967-68 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1968-69 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969-70 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970-71 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971-72 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972-73 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973-74 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974-75 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975-76 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976-77 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978-79 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979-80 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1981-82 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982-83 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983-84 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984-85 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1985-86 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1986-87 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987-88 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988-89 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989-90 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1990-91 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1991-92 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1992-93 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1993-94 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1994-95 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1995-96 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1996-97 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1997-98 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1998-99 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999-2000 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2000-01 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001-02 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002-03 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003-04 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004-05 Australian cricket season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison McMahan

[edit]
Alison McMahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

IMDB only lists her as an assistant director on a project [60], with no mention of the other films listed in this article. The only thing I could find to corroborate this article is the official website [www.alisonmcmahan.com] which was clearly the source for this article as it skirts the edge of being a copyvio. All the external links are websites associated with the subject to purchase her goods. I don't see any evidence of them being distributed by others. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that this article was relevant to IMDB because she is linked to on other IMDB pages, because of her work with the Alice Guy Blaché biography and the critical analysis of Tim Burton. Since her name was in red on those pages, it seemed to me that it was appropriate to the link lead to something. If the use of her biography is a copyright violation, then I will happily edit it. Thank you for your comments. Rainb 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, she only has one credit on IMDB. As for the Tim Burton article, you added the external link. IrishGuy talk 08:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, I added the external link to her book on the Tim Burton page, which I did because her book was previously sited as an academic source for the page. The link that I followed that made me realize there was no page was the one on Alice Guy Blaché. I mistyped above when I wrote IMDB - I meant to Wikipedia - she is linked off of other Wikipedia pages. I apologize for the mistype. Rainb 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino (language)

[edit]
Dino (language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an actual fictional language, just a puzzle from a game: English-language text with letters substituted for different ones (see Caesar cipher). Creator removed WP:PROD notice without any explanation. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Note that WP:NOTNEWS is a rejected policy, delete arguements based on this have been discounted. Gnangarra 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu

[edit]
Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the alleged murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that process has not been followed - in particular there was no clear edit summary notifying of the nomination. This nomination should be considered with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle talk 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - she is definitely notable, particularly while the guy charged with her murder is still facing charges. - Richard Cavell 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since so far there is just one functioning link to an article which says someone is to be tried for the crime. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor is it the daily court reporter. See also the proposed WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. As can be seen from the most elementary google search she meets that criterion - the case was well reported with analogies being drawn to the James Bulger case, and even the suggestion that the murderer might have been one of the perpetrators in the Bulger case.--Golden Wattle talk 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this case would indeed meet the notability threshold under the proposed NotNews policy as the case was the subject of newspaper coverage such that the the news item has received multiple paragraph coverage in multiple distinct articles over a multiple week time frame. --Golden Wattle talk 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per news articles about her. We don't seem to have a policy on people who are temporarily notable due to news events, so.. --Mus Musculus 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I have no opionion about whether or not this should be kept, but it does seem most of the facts of the case are covered at Dante Arthurs. Do we really need two? And the mention of the rumor about Arthurs' identity seems out of place here.--Cúchullain t/c 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was Keep and renamed as Murder of Ebony Simpson Gnangarra 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Simpson

[edit]
Ebony Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial.--Peta 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or Merge) - this case was front page news at the time. Needs to be on its own or in an article on the case. Agree with Golden Wattle and Pan Dan. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Pan Dan Garrie 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - was a major news story at the time; requests for expansion is the correct procedure to use here, not an AfD. JRG 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt that good sources can be found or that it can be more than a memorial article. This sad case does not demonstrate notability. The only source which is not a proforma court document is a book which gained very little attention (only 13 Google hits for the book and no Amazon sales rank) and the case itself has almost no Google hits besides blogs or sites echoing the Wikipedia article. If there was coverage in local newspapers at the time of the murder and the trial, then add that to the article, but then compare it to the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS. The article about the killer also deserves deletion. Edison 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1992 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria. Ebony Simpson was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories. Dating from 1992 most of these are not online. She is still however mentioned from time to time in the newspapers. She is the subject of a book. I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold. Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as above, the article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and afermath.--Golden Wattle talk 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Edison, it is articles like this that help Wikipedia rise above the lowest common denominator material which occupies a large chunk of the internet. This was really front page news at the time and much more notable than current google hits may indicate.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a memorial article. This was a MAJOR news story in Australia in 1992. JRG 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a case where the victim of the crime received much more coverage than the murderer. If celebrities or serial killers get a page, there is no reason this needs deleting. This is not a memorial. This event received national news coverage in 1992 - I know, I live in Sydney Australia and remember it well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boutan (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- meets WP:BIO. Major national news at the time. -- Longhair\talk 21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_11&oldid=1234119079"