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

The result was Closed. Trolling... Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Wray[edit]

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

Vandalism and Blocking of users who try to edit it. Deletion56 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of vandalism and blocking of user who try to help and edit it. This includes the template and discography.Deletion56 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close vandalism is not criteria for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Bad-faith nomination by yet another sock of User:Soccermeko.Kww (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though this temple probably exists, this article is not verifiable (WP:V), nor notable (WP:N). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhadata Ashram[edit]

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Also a major part of the article - Gurujee section - has been nominated for speedy deletion by me for copyright violation. --gppande «talk» 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the copyvio; speedy deletion doesn't apply to sections of pages, you can just delete them yourself. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm almost wanting to say it's spam. Appears to be little more than a promotional piece for a religious group. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no reliable sources; the buck stops there. JBsupreme (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep there are reliable sources to verify that the temple exists. Please keep in mind different spellings like Siddh data ashram and Sri Siddhdata Ashram. Laudak (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are we waiting for admins? Please delete --gppande «talk» 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per unanimous vote. --JForget 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology vs. Horse[edit]

Technology vs. Horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another "myspace-band", references are poor. Albums are self-published. Fribbler (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could not find reliable sources; 89 g-hits.-Samuel Tan 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources to be seen. See related discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Off-key in regard to WP:Music. The article reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:Music --Vhoscythe^chatter 11:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Samuel Tan. No reliable sources can be found. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Stewart[edit]

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

Here rather than PROD since it's been deleted via PROD once before. I don't think being a journalist or lobby correspondent provide inherent notability and there's no RS evidence that s/he is notable in these fields. Ghits only confirm existence and do not establish notability per WP:BIO. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep?: Difficult for me to judge as I don't receive STV. However, it's possible he's (and it is a he) a fairly big fish in his Scottish pond. I'd give it the benefit of the doubt for now. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stewart is one in a long list of reporters for the shows he works for. Probability of notability appears slim. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot find any coverage about him. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no ghits, only claim is local/regional TV news. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local/regional broadcasters are generally non-notable. Broadcasters that are national in scope, on the other hand, would be notable if there is sufficient nontrivial coverage in reliable media. B.Wind (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working Class Rock Star[edit]

Working Class Rock Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, and partly WP:V. There are no citations and little sources given. The film isn't released until November. Also, the talk page gives light to extreme COI issues. This was also deleted before via AfD and speedy. (see Working Class Rock Star (film))

• Delete Undeath (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting as creator of this page (for the second time now). I'm still baffled that you keep saying the information here isn't verifiable. Please specify which you find untrue or unverifiable and I'll have a citation to back up every case. I don't know how the citation system works with these pages, but the information enclosed is 100% true.

And calling the fact that I'm also the director of the film a conflict of interest is rather non-sensical. With an independently produced release not a lot of promotion money ends up on the table, and you end up wearing a lot of hats. I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia.

To state that the article isn't notable and/or relevant is simply strange. I don't see how a North American DVD release available in most retail stores isn't notable. What exactly makes notability in your mind? Does it have to hit theaters?

So decide what you want. All the information is 100% factual, none of it is crystal ballery, and I can cite proof on every case. In reality, who better to give accurate information anyway than the person most involved in the creation and subsequent sale of the film itself?

Don't you people have anything better to do or articles that actually need editing and deleting to deal with? I'm sure someone has posted that Hitler invented cheeze whiz somewhere, deleting that makes more sense.

Not to mention, all of the information that is stated here is also available on IMDb and through NYTimes and Yahoo!, and you're meaning to tell me that Wikipedia is stricter than those companies when it comes to source checking? Do you know how hard it is and how much you need to have proof wise to get onto IMDb with a decent amount of info on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.196.249 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC) unstableground (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't (yet) have an opinion on this deletion, but I'd like to comment on a couple of your points. You said "I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia." Unfortunately, WP:NOTADVERTISING is pretty specific -- Wikipedia is not your personal promotion site. Moreover, WP:COI says that you should wait for others to decide that your film is notable and write about it. I can understand that might be frustrating to you, but those are the rules.

"What exactly makes notability in your mind? Does it have to hit theaters?" No, certainly not. Take a few minutes to read WP:NOTABILITY and particularly Wikipedia:Notability (films). (Please read them thoroughly before you decide what they mean). Verifiability (which would be a problem for Hitler inventing cheeze whiz) is important on wikipedia, but so is notability. My cockatiel is verifiable, because I can prove he exists, but I assure you he's not notable in the least. Especially because no third party has written about him. Is your film notable? I have no idea. It would help if you could provide some independent sources that show how the article meets the above guidelines.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the creator of the article You cannot write an article about something you made. That's COI. Undeath (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand why you would call that conflict of interest, but am I really supposed to wait around for someone to write an article and get half the info wrong? Wikipedia is rife with incorrect info, so I'm taking it upon myself to make sure the info is correct. As for proof of notability and all the info in the article, please see the following:

(5 stories down from top), [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

The list goes on. unstableground (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:COI, you'll see that yes, you are supposed to wait. If the amount of incorrect info in Wikipedia bothers you, as it bothers me, I definitely encourage you to spend some time improving articles where you do not have a conflict of interest. And after briefly looking at the sources you listed, I again urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY, especially the part about sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So If I add all of these sources to the page it ups my notability or makes it significant? Some are already on the page as External Links, but I guess they have to be filed correctly. How do you code sources into the page? That's the main issue, I don't know how.

On the COI issue, I'm still on the fence. I get it, I just don't fully agree. A conflict of interest would be if I used the page to state a lot of facts that are untrue, claim they are, and hold by that. It would be self promotion through Wikipedia and exaggeration....... in this case I'm not using Wiki to advertise. The Wiki link doesn't end up in any ads, it's simply there if fans and those interested in the project want to know more.

Wiki is a great platform for people to find out more about the subjects in the film, as the majority have huge uncontested Wiki articles devoted to them. The page should stand, regardless of who created it. If I had my PR person take the time to put up version #3 in a couple of months it would just be a waste of everyone's time, and rather redundant. It would be the same page, with more citations. unstableground (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion I'll suggest you save the information of this article for a later period of time. Say...when the film comes out. If it hits it big, or recieves a decent amount of coverage, then re-create the page then. But as of now, it's pure COI and crystal ballery. Undeath (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The creator of the page said above that "I also handle a lions share of the web promotion of the film, including Wikipedia." This condemns it to deletion as a conflict of interest and Use of Wikipedia as Advertising. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• So the links I've provided above aren't an example of significant coverage? That's only a fraction of what is out there right now. Search for the title in "google", you'll get like 8 pages of results of "coverage". Crystal ballery it is not.... by far. I'm not hoping that anything will come out and anticipating it... it is coming out, I have a release date and ISBN #. I have ads going into Koch's catalogs in a couple of weeks. This is not advertising, it's a tie in for further info. I don't quite get how this is such a big contention of terms. unstableground (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "tie in for further info"? That's still WP:ADVERTISING as you made the film and you are using Wikipedia to promote the film, which is also the COI. The coverage does not matter. Did say, Kevin Smith write or asked someone else to write the page for Clerks II? No. No he did not. And that's what makes this such a clear delete. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - Non-notable. Could not find any reliable sources that cover the topic substantially, to fulfill notability criteria; only 89 g-hits. No references. Conflict of interest since author is the director. Author also asserted (above) that he uses Wikipedia to promote the film. Thus likely falls within multiple reasons for deletion.--Samuel Tan 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the article's author: this is an encyclopedia, not a portal for advertisements or for you to write whatever you want. Would you walk into the office of the Encyclopædia Britannica demanding that it is your right to have your movie included in its pages?-Samuel Tan 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You equate Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica? Wow, and you say this is "crystal ballery". No, I made this page simply because... well... look around. Any release seems to get a chance to have their own page up here, and for some reason mine has been target for deletion twice? And every word of this article can be copied and pasted from somewhere else, if you really want me to take the time. But I'm sick of this, I have better things to do than to attempt to argue this any further. I'll just wait until the film comes out and it's selling and renting everywhere, and then repost. Then someone like Undead Warrior will come along and purely out of boredom and obsession will find something... anything wrong with it and it'll get recommended for deletion again. It won't matter if it's me or some kid posting something similar, this article has been online now for months uncontested. As soon as I added the release date and further info it suddenly got pounced on. It makes little sense, but protect your self inflated sense of self and I'll move on.unstableground (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.196.249 (talk) [reply]

I'd like to point you to two pages: WP:AADD and WP:SPIDER. You don't seem to get that if you repost it WILL go under AfD again or will be speedy deleted, because like I said, you have produced the film and are using Wikipedia to promote the film. Wikipedia is not a tool for viral marketing, it is not you or your employees' personal webspace and you Do not own the page you create. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clear violation of so many policies. The film lacks notability and reliable sources that have not been paid for or are not the imdb. The article has spam, crystal ball and conflict of interest issues and finally the author has ownership issues. The comments given by the other editors are correct, wait for someone else to call it notable and let them post and edit the article, correct any information on the talk page but avoid making an article about your own film as this will raise a ton of issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a place for viral marketing or any kind of promotion. "I understand why you would call that conflict of interest, but am I really supposed to wait around for someone to write an article?" Yes, you are; and if no one independent of you is interested enough to write one, perhaps the subject is not notable enough for an article. "On the COI issue, I'm still on the fence. I get it, I just don't fully agree." Sorry, that's your problem. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have userfied the current version of the page, if this editor is serious about contributing to Wikipedia then he can do so on other pages until November 11, then if this straight-to-DVD documentary is notable then other editors can take it back in to the mainspace. The user can edit it as much as he wants for the next five months off the mainspace without fear that it will be deleted. But I cannot see this article as it is surviving this or any other AfDs (more likely CSDs). If he is genuine then he can experiment with his own sandbox and learn how to do inline cites and find RS. However if all he wants to do is have another promo page then I suggest he looks elsewhere. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources given fail WP:RS and movie has not been the subject of "non-trivial" coverage as required by WP:N. I have also formally warned the user with respects to WP:COI. —Latischolar^talk_{contributions} 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a trickle of short articles in the metal press based on the director's press release, but not enough right now. It's hard for an independent, DTV production to be sufficiently notable this far out from release. I am open to reconsidering later in the year, especially since my notability bar is less strict than the current WP:NF, nor do I accept the legitimacy of its promotion to a guideline. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per unanimous vote among experienced/established users. --JForget 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayley Gap[edit]

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

Disputed prod; no reliable sources, WP:FRINGE, apparently original research Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I will reamain silent on this matter. my goal is to provid usfull information wich will help others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaga99 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm leaning more towards WP:NFT. 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which are about this; 0 gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay A transistor is a good idea. I work with high power all the time. (im an electrition) And i have found that normal transistors are not very good swichers. Although tuning a spark transistor would be a bit hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mega volt2 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Mega volt2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per all above. Original research of something made up one day. Resolute 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources establish neither notability or factuality. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay Usfull information. Anyone making a teslacoil could use this. The faster it swiches the beter it will be for a tesla coil. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willy56.5 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Willy56.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Stay I to agrea with Willy. I try many gaps and the Bayley gap would make a great spark gap, and i would be happy to make and use one myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza pants (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Pizza pants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: Mega volt2 (talk • contribs), Willy56.5 (talk • contribs), and Pizza pants (talk • contribs) have all only made contributions to this page, and have all !voted "Stay"(is that like "Keep"?). ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:V, as no one at all (other than User:Omaga99) appears to have written about this. Deor (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 3 ghits, none for g-news. Fails at WP:N & WP:RS. All the "keep" er "Stay" comments seem ...umm... read them yourself. Faradayplank (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The source is not there. But the Bayley gap is being published in you-tube for anyone making a tesla coil. In a few years other people will be using and refering to Bayley. If the Bayley gap was not anywhere else i would vote to destroy. Here is the you-tube video i found.[11]— Mr.ZAPY! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Youtube is not a reliable source - anyone can post anything there. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: There is no way an invention in 2008 will have passed peer review, let alone the WP:V threshold, barring it being done by a Nobel laureate. Someone should also explain to the article creator about WP:SOCK.  Ravenswing  09:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - absolutely no reliable, independent source. Wikipedia is not a place for first publication. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the supporting editors Mega volt2 (talk · contribs), Willy56.5 (talk · contribs), Pizza pants (talk · contribs) and Mr.ZAPY! (talk · contribs) all edited for the first time on this AfD. Such other edits as they have made consist only of adding the occasional dot. Mr.ZAPY! also removed an earlier note by Wakanda's Black Panther!, which I have restored, pointing out that the first three were SPAs. I have filed a suspected sockpuppet report here. JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is a hoax and passes the 'duck' test with flying colours ('This page is protected by Omaga. Vandals will be reported and the page will be reloaded with original context.'). It is obviously nothing more than pseudo-science. David873 (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's a hoax as such; rather the contributor's design of triggerable spark gap with a fan for cooling and arc extinction. Fails WP:N and WP:OR, and the sockpuppetry is a little annoying. — BillC ^talk 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Mmm, I'd be much more comfortable with the notion of article creator = skilled inventor if the article wasn't semi-literate. Turns of phrase like "For the Head is were the spark will occur ... The heat sink can be purchased or made with a price of sheet melt" put hoaxes in mind.

• Delete I'm not even sure this "Baylay Gap" exists. Even if it does, it obviously hasn't achieved substantial independent coverage to pass WP:N. To the author: Simply existing isn't a basis for inclusion in Wikipedia. Not even for a scientific discovery or electronics product. And while, sure, this "Bayley Gap" might be known around the world in a few years, to include it in Wikipedia now would be in violation of WP:Crystal ball. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A search on Google for 'Bayley Gap' reveals nothing relevant and Google Scholar returns no results. Furthermore, some of the terms used in the article do not seem to exist. Judging by the external links and his user page, the person who came up with the ideas for the article in the first place may even be guilty of fraud. David873 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm also dubious it even exists. Even if it does, it isn't notable. Alberon (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced (well, YouTube-sourced) nonsense/hoax, support votes are all from SPA/socks. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Smells of a hoax.PB666 ^yap 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Sarasvati Yoga Society[edit]

Swami Sarasvati Yoga Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable yoga center advertisement written like a biography of its owner. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. 17 g-hits, none reliable secondary sources.-Samuel Tan 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete "Recently nominated for the Australian of the Year Award."? One magazine source on the leader, not distinguishing her much. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G2 by Gwen Gale, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Charles Bennett[edit]

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

Non-notable Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Not sure why it wasn't tagged as such but I'm tagging it now. Accurizer (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (should have been proposed for speedy deletion). Just a school kid having fun. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and merge to Lyme disease. This has clearly been a hard fought discussion but there does seem to be an overriding consensus on two points: firstly, there is sufficient notability for the subject to be included in Wikipedia; secondly, the article as it stands is far from ideal and it may be better to start from scratch. My decision is therefore to redirect the page to the main Lyme disease article, so that editors more knowledgeable on the subject than I can merge the good material from this article's history. This doesn't mean the Lyme disease controversy cannot be re-created at a later date - as long as the new article adheres strongly to WP:NPOV. Waggers (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease controversy[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Lyme disease controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Article does not clearly establish what the title controversy is. A long table implies equal weight for contrasting views of a condition called chronic Lyme, but the guidelines grouped under IDSA are the views of most of medical community not just IDSA. ILADS is a relativly small advocacy organization who's membership is open to many people not just doctors, scientists so the table is undue weight. The section on CDC is not a controversy so misplaced, the long-term drug section is too detailed review of primary literature and controversy is not obvios. All relavent information covered in Lyme disease so IMO this is a POV fork to advance views which don't make it at the main article. RetroS1mone talk 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or, as an alternative, Stub and rewrite from scratch using reliable sources and reining in meatpuppetry: Horrible, horrible POV fork and a focus of extensive meatpuppetry. There is probably enough material for a good, encyclopedic content fork on the controversies surrounding Lyme disease, but this article isn't it. It should be stubbed and material should be added piecemeal with reference to specific reliable sources. Additionally, extensive administrative oversight is needed to address the serious problems with agenda-driven meat- and sockpuppetry which make this article and Lyme disease nearly uneditable. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge encyclopedic content into a short section on Lyme disease. Then keep the Lyme article semiprotected and appoint two experienced editors to guide improvement there. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect and merge, hasn't there been a NEJM article on this? I think there is a debate but the article is a POV fork so let's rewrite it properly, preferably in a separate article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and place salvageable material in section within Lyme Disease, using (a) verification of all claims at the point of editing them into the article using (b) citations of reliable sources, with (c) care and attention being paid to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If this section becomes too large (and only if this happens, given the quality of the sources that should be used) consider splitting off the section into main article of its own.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect and merge, as a patient, this Wiki is for me. I can go to the CDC site for orthodoxy. Here, I expect to find, and have a right to see, all responsible, researched, fact based recommendations, pros and cons, and not only or mainly the prevailing policy of the medical establishment (no criticism intended). There clearly are areas of uncertainty and there are suffering people who fall into those areas who have to make hard choices. We deserve full disclosure and well presented POVs from both sides. The original article presumed the CDC's POV. I needed the table in this branch to visualize how the recommendations compared. Both sides are pretty scary.LeoBellew (talk) 2008 07 08Jul 04:58Tue (UTC) — LeoBellew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Editor's first post, and there has been off-Wiki recruiting on Lyme advocacy websites. [12], [13], [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, Wikipedia is not written for patients. See WP:MEDMOS#Audience and the medical disclaimer. The mere fact that some patients find this information convenient is not proof of topic notability or its appropriateness for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, POV fork giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't necessarily have to be so. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think giving this "controversy" its own article overestimates its notability. It can certainly be mentioned in the main article, but this isn't something like the creation-evolution controversy where the debate itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but cover the social and political impacts and history, not the fringe claims except as necessary background. Lyme disease says that there are enough people barking about this to reduce the pool of researchers, which would seem to be sufficient for WP:Notability. I am not a doctor - does anybody not associated with ILADS promote this idea? If not, it might be appropriate to treat the idea there instead. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge and redirect if necessary. This is nowhere near as notable as, for instance, researchers shying away from animal testing. The conjecture and its social consequences are adequately treated in Lyme disease. Kudos to Tim Vickers. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for several reasons:
  1. Content forking. We don't want two articles, Orthodox scientific views of Lyme disease and Alternative interpretations of Lyme disease. That, BTW, is what the article really is about, in its current form: it's not actually about the various political actions and, well, controversies. The article is not accurately titled. The two views should be represented in the same article with due weight (= less attention on the widely rejected "alternative" idea).
  2. Notability. The alternative view of Lyme disease is not particularly notable. Important enough to mention in the article? Yes. Important enough to merit an entire article, with a careful comparison of the POV of each side? No. As Tim pointed out, this isn't like creationism vs. evolution; this is much more like Multiple chemical sensitivity spinning off an entire article for the sake of a point-by-point comparison of the differences between the mainstream and alternative views. Although I know a bit about the alternative interpretation of Lyme disease for professional reasons, I've never heard a regular news story about "chronic Lyme". (I see that exactly two are cited in the article; both are entirely critical of the "chronic Lyme" idea.) I have, however heard and read many stories on the mainstream view of Lyme disease. I therefore conclude that readers are not going to come looking for information about the controversy itself.
  3. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. This article feels like it was created by someone with the specific agenda of drawing additional attention to this idea, with the hope of giving it additional credibility or at least raising awareness.
  4. Undue emphasis on an idea that is rejected by mainstream researchers. I realize that this is inconvenient for agenda accounts that want to push minority viewpoints, but all Wikipedia articles, taken individually and in aggregate, must reflect the mainstream view -- the "orthodoxy", as one patient put it in comments above. This is the meaning of NPOV. If you consider these articles together, the aggregate attention dedicated to the rejected viewpoint and a few political actions is really not appropriate.
  5. Wikipedia is WP:NOT your webhost. If a pro-chronic-Lymer wants to make this information available somewhere, that's fine. Grab a copy right now. There are no copyright restrictions to stop you. But put it up on your own website, not here. The fact that you want this information to be somewhere on the web does not oblige Wikipedia to be that place.

IMO the existing summary in the main article is perfectly adequate to describe this controversy. I think therefore that deletion is a reasonable action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been uncertain about whether or not to maintain this subarticle. On balance, the controversy is by itself sufficiently notable, and sufficiently virulent, that it would probably be agood idea to have this as a separate article, keeping the main one for the scientific aspects. DGG (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The controversy itself, as a separate entity from the disease, is notable. It must be addressed, since it has significant media coverage; so if this page were deleted, it would bloat the main article. The controversy has two aspects - the media/cultural issues, and the actual medical controversy. I'm not familiar enough with the scientific issues to know whether the alternative ideas about it are a fringe theory or not, but there is no doubt that whatever those issues are, there has been significant debate about it, too much to simply ignore. From a purely policy standpoint, the controversy as a topic meets WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The controversy is notable enough to have an article of its own. As it stands, it contains far too much technical detail for an encyclopedia – for example listing the ten specific serologic bands in the CDC Western Blot IgG surveillance criteria tells you nothing about the controversy – I would have said something like "delete all except the first four paragraphs" but this is not an option in AfD. Jll (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/plea: Would it be possible to get a commitment from participants here, if this article is kept, to watchlist it to help deal with serious and ongoing agenda-based meatpuppetry surrounding this article? MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've radically shortened the article by removing sections that were either unrelated to the controversy, or gave undue weight to fringe claims. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lyme disease and delete Redirect; with Tim Vickers tightening of the article, and accounting for duplicate text in the two articles, I believe the main article can now incorporate a merge (in terms of WP:SIZE as measured by Dr pda's page size script). The controversy does need to be mentioned somewhere on Wiki, but the coordinated meatpuppetry, fringe theory, and sockpuppetry issues can be more effectively dealt with by having all of the content in one article. Per Mastcell's plea, I see no evidence that some of the "keep" declarers will help maintain the separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid we can't merge and delete, Sandy, as that would violate the terms of the GDFL by failing to credit the contributors of the merged text. You'll have to pick one :) Skomorokh 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arrrrgh, this is why I rarely come this way :-) The correct term, I believe, is Merge and Redirect. Thanks, Skomorokh. 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV fork, deserves a line or two in Lyme disease but that is all --T-rex 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV fork, subject adequately covered by Lyme disease#Controversy and politics.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killeroo[edit]

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

All episodes covered in Mighty Boosh series articles 1, 2 and 3. Episodes not notable on their own. No reliable sources. For example, in the The Mighty Boosh (series 2) article, "The Nightmare of Milky Joe" has its plot explained fully. On the "The Nightmare of Milky Joe" article, all that is different is the addition of cast and trivia.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Mutants (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bollo (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tundra (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jungle (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Charlie (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Electro (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hitcher (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Call of the Yeti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Priest and the Beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nanageddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fountain of Youth (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Legend of Old Gregg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Nightmare of Milky Joe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eels (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Journey to the Centre of Punk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Power of the Crimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Strange Tale of the Crack Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Party (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Chokes (The Mighty Boosh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These episodes do not appear to be notable in their own right. See also Talk:List of The Mighty Boosh episodes for an earlier discussion of this. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to The_Mighty_Boosh_(series_1)#List_of_episodes, The_Mighty_Boosh_(series_2)#List_of_episodes, etc, as per WP:EPISODE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, per Fabrictramp and said guideline. Alai (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever useful information and redirect per Fabrictramp. There won't be much to add to the targets as the trivia should be stripped and the synopses and cast lists seem to be there already. B.Wind (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerous arguments by new editors who did not address the pertinent issue of notability as defined on Wikipedia, or who made assorted weak arguments, were discounted.  Sandstein  17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ThatGuyWithTheGlasses[edit]

If you came here because your vote was solicited by this blog post, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable Internet producer. No independent sources and no news sources found (none in article and not found in Google search). Fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost no YouTube "producers" are notable, and I see no evidence that this one is. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. no claim to be notable --T-rex 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, not notable, I edit on here and I'm no way notable! Bevo74 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This YouTube producer is very notable, he has his own site, and is in a "war" with the Angry Video Game Nerd...besides, I just added some new sections and cited some references and sources. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• comment Your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is somewhat lacking. You can't use postings from the guy's own website to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Links to the person's own entries on his website and a non-notable site isn't enough to meet the criteria.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are places that know who he is: http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/01/nostalgia-critic-is-back.html http://pokgai.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/nostalgia-critic-does-pokemon-the-movie/ http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=223028 http://digg.com/music/The_Nostalgia_Critic_reviews_the_movie_The_Wizard http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html;jsessionid=0C1C55227203DBC1C66E521B11F9F654.app05_06?topicId=7116276547&sid=1 Also, Cinemassacre is notable. It's the Angry Video Game Nerd's own website...he's notable, so it is too. Happy now? 75.62.124.115 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that should go as well 192.28.2.6 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Let's see: two blogs, two webforums, and a post at digg.com. Nope; that's nothing (and just because the AVGN has a website, doesn't make his website a reliable source (or notable, incidentally). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though I am a fan of TGWTG, I would probably agree with deleting an article about him if he was still on Youtube. However he is no longer a Youtube producer and is independent. Not only that but he was the one who created the "5 Second Movies" meme. That Guy has also done sketches and interviews with other internet notables. 70.53.123.207 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 70.53.123.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KeepThere's also the fact that the Angry Video Game Nerd, another YouTube celebrity and somebody with a Wikipedia page has acknowledged him and the "fued" between the two has already become a popular Internet phenomenon. If 2 Girls 1 Cup can get a Wikipedia page, so can somebody like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, who has produced more than just disgust on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estefan (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Estefan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• That may be perfectly true, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but without reliable sources it can't be verified, and verifiability is so important to an encyclopedic article that it is right in the five pillars, which are Wikipedia's most important policies. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That Guy With The Glasses is just as important as The Angry Video Game Nerd and deleting this page would mean that, to be fair, every single article on Wikipedia about a YouTube producer would also have to be deleted. -King SweaterHead (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blogs, forum posts and Digg links do not convey notability at this time. Also, just because other stuff is on Wikipedia doesn't mean this gets to be as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Once again: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/226338/ http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-nostalgia-critic/984176898 http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/800736 http://digg.com/comedy/Nostalgia_Critic_Captain_Planet http://allwhogainpowerareafraidtoloseit.blogspot.com/2008/03/nostalgia-critic-speaks-truth.html http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=435691 http://www.tv.com/the-nerd/avgn-responds-to-the-nostalgia-critic!/episode/1208886/summary.html http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lPZdFWC6D38&feature=related http://forums.gamernode.com/showthread.php?t=19175 http://my.spill.com/video/video/show?id=947994%3AVideo%3A316772 http://forums.earth-2.net/index.php?showtopic=4026&mode=threaded http://www.xomba.com/user/thatguywiththeglasses (site where he had bum reviews for a short time) Come on! This guy IS NOTABLE. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — 75.62.124.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep More and more "YouTube producers" are notable, citing G4's list of "Who's on youtube" and Spike recent signing of the AVGN, a "YouTube producer". The person in question has a long standing feud between a notable producer, James Rolfe, and has claim to be notable himself via Cinemassacre.com, and TheGameHeroes.com websites. Cparsley (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Cparsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete none of the links provided do anything to assert notability. AVGN has enough sources to get by with an article. Getting in a flame war with a notable person doesn't make someone notable. JuJube (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What about these links? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece http://www.lepost.fr/article/2008/06/20/1211673_voir-un-film-en-5-secondes.html The 'feud' with the AVGN is not a flame war; it's nothing more than a fake created rivalry by two people who respect each other work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemvs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Mikemvs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Keep* As per the reasons above. ThunderPower (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion everything deserves a goddamn page in wikipedia, nc is not that bad except his annoying slogan - I will remeber it so you dont have to - that's awful even though its kinda coll and it reminds you of him......damnit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd90022 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Sd90022 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep per sources and reasons provided above. Blacklist (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is the origin of the "Five Second Movie" trend. This is to the extent of even having The Times UK newspaper write an article on him: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece 82.69.9.61 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WHAT ARE YOU DOING! Seriously Keep this article, deleting this article is just wrong. Should we remove articles of other celbrities, as TGWTG is to some extent a celebrity. not to the level of george clooney or edward norton, but still pretty famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.133.139 (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — 216.118.133.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - If AVGN and has his own wikipedia entry, why not this guy?... if "ThatGuy" is removed, maybe AVGN should too. Nubita (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Nubita[reply]
  • That's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, a notably invalid argument for retention of an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your WP:JNN vote was equally worthless. SashaNein (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Is the subject of secondary reliable independent sources as cited above, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. Once again, some WP users have it in for Youtube celebs. --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - once again: blogs, online forums and the like do not constitute reliable sources; nor does mention in such places constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Times isn't a blog and the coverage is more than a "passing mention".--76.79.244.92 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't the website Kotaku a blog? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotaku) yet it has it's own wikipedia article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.89.89 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Users responding based on the request at ThatGuyWithTheGlasses website please note:

  The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.-Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#cite_note-4

• http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3831656.ece may be considered a trivial source. The article subject is Hyperediting (editing films (or entire tv series) into bite-sized chunks). It only mentions the subject of the article as one of the pioneers of doing this on the editing. However, this is commonly known as a trailer and just because of its shortness is an internet fad and is correctly listed as a "Microtrends". --Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five Second Movies are not trailers. Very different. 82.69.9.61 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That Guy With the Glasses is an internet celebrity. If Chris Crocker can have an article, it's only fair if other internet celebrities get the right to have articles. Lightman2 (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) — Lightman2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Delete, nothing but spam if people want to use YouTube why should they clog up Wikipedia. Youtube celebs a contradicition in terms I was amazed to see there's a template. It looks like the bloggers have talking to each other. 86.163.86.6 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) - 86.163.86.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Deleted comment pasted back in by Bevo74 (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeeeeeeep Please I think Wiki can handle this article. That guys is becoming more and more popular and you'll be re-adding him if you delee him now! 217.226.239.26 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Internet celebrities DO exist. Think about it: What is Paris Hilton famous for? Being rich...and other things I won't mention...but she hasn't showed any real TALENT. ThatGuy, on the other hand makes videos that people like. He and his brother write the scripts for them. This shows TALENT. ThatGuy, while not as a famous as Paris Hilton, is still online and is notable. He's going to get even bigger, so you might as well just keep the page we have now. 75.62.124.115 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Talent does not equal notability. Sure, ThatGuy and company might be more talented than (insert tabloid celebrity here) but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are enough reliable sources to prove anything. The only way Wikipedia can maintain a high level of accuracy and quality is if every statement written in the encyclopedia can be proven with some sort of evidence, be it unbiased media coverage, a book, or a web site that fits the notability guidelines. If standards like these weren't regulated anyone could write anything and it would stick as long as it sounded plausible. That's the biggest issue when it comes to Internet celebrities -- you or I might know that something is true, but we can't necessarily back that up with a source. -Spectere (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - there is no more useless argument for retention than, "He's up-and-coming/They're gonna get bigger/If you delete her now, you'll have to create a new article when she becomes more famous." All of these are really just different ways of saying, "I tacitly admit this subject is not yet notable; but I believe the subject will become notable." --Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article obviously needs some work, but then again no article in this category is initially well written. But of course that's not the issue.
• Keep, Let his site grow and their will be more need for a Wikipedia page.

At the moment, I think it's a bit of a balanced arguement as to whether the article has significant importance to remain on wikipedia. Several websites have written articles about or mentioned Thatguywiththeglasses' work, and of course there was the interview with Handome Tom on Video Game heroes. But at the same time it's still very underground and most 'casual net users' only know him as 'that guy who makes 5 second movies'. Thatguy and the other writers/admins on his site have talked about turning the website into an actual internet company, getting the investment to secure a location to film what is touted to be 90 different shows, each with lengthy running seasons. Maybe when that actually gets underway, and these numerous projects gain popularity around the internet (in a fashion similar to 'The Whitest Kids you Know'), then there will be no arguement that the site deserves a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigis (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subect's photos are in use, but sufficient sources about him have not been found to meet WP:BIO. If they are found, then the article can be recreated. Ty 05:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor (Photographer)[edit]

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

Autobiographical article by a Sydney fashion photographer; COI issues, and lack of notability. I put a db-person tag on a first version of the article; he removed it and added some detail including one link to a Sydney Morning Herald article. I looked to see if I could find more: googling "David Taylor Photographer" produces at least three different British ones; narrowing it to "David Taylor Photographer Sydney" we are down to this article, a photographers' site called ftvstudio.com, and a couple of his images on photo.net. I don't think notability is established to the standard of WP:BIO. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem has more to do with the name than the person, David Taylor is like John Smith and consequently difficult to search for. Also the larger part of his work has been through print media in Australia. A photographers search at http://www.wireimage.com/ or http://gettyimages.com shows to some degree the extent of his work. Which accordingly presents a problem for searching as most wireagency images are credited to the agency not the photographer.

Also

http://www.theimagedistillery.com/

http://thisisthefirstfloor.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-am-eyes-runway-presentation.html

http://www.honeyhartley.com/page/page/4606357.htm

http://k9pincushion.blogspot.com/2007/07/david-taylor.html

http://photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=1718986— Tweekme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - yes, he has taken photographs and they are on show, but has he been "the subject of published secondary source material" (i.e. about him, not by him) "which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." See WP:CREATIVE for the notability standard for creative professionals. JohnCD (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article is probably original research and fails notability guidelines and that a merge is not appropriate. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Pinyin Simplification[edit]

Chinese Pinyin Simplification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. WP:OR. Author of the article is mentioned in the text, so it's a WP:COI as well. Borders on WP:ADVERT with the mention of an invention. Given references are not secondary sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pinyin. I was not able to find reliable sources in English. I also could not find sources from Chinese g-hits, although my Chinese is not good enough to be sure about that. I suggest merging it to perhaps a "simplification" section in the Pinyin article.-Samuel Tan 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure there's all that much to merge here, to be honest. Nothing is referenced, and I'm not sure that we want to add possible OR text to an already heavily developed article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources used, and it reads like a proposal and, as such, Original Research. If it had been published so that a number of reliable sources could be used, and it was created and edited by someone without a conflict of interest, then perhaps it could be merged with Pinyin. But as it is, just delete.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With no reliable sources, there's no reason to keep this rather odd "how to" article, which suggests that you save keystrokes by typing "tag" instead of "tang", or "tio" instead of "tiao", or, worst of all, "hug" instead of "huang". I don't know of any person who would omit a letter from a word in order to make it easier to type; I think it would take longer to remember to not type "n" instead of to type "ng". No point in "keepig" this article. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Take your choice - behind Door #1 we have Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide; and behind Door #2, it's original research. Either way, this "article" needs to be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  16:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend[edit]

List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list doesn't really surve a purpose, and I really doubt anyone's going to search for a title like that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That is one unlikely title alright, what the hell is a "pseudo-blend"? I can't find it here or at Wiktionary.I don't think "initialism" is a very common term either, although it is at least an actual word. Anyway, it's a pretty flimsy concept for a list article. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's already a perfectly good list here. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Beeblbrox. "Pesudo-blend"? That's a new one. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and redundant to List of environmental organizations. I am also perplexed by the use of "pseudo-blend" so I googled it. This page is the top result. Also "initialism" gives me a red squiggly line under it when I type it in, so it's not a word Firefox recognizes. I think they were going for "abbreviation". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant pedantry. An initialism is an abbreviation that's pronounced as a series of letters (like FBI), whereas an acronym is an abbreviation that's pronounced as a word (like NASA). I have no idea what a pseudo-blend is. Deor (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be funny with the whole "red squiggly line" bit. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another randomly assembled, non-encyclopedic list. I am sure it was created with the best of intentions, but it doesn't fit into Wikipedia's requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per User:Beeblbrox. WP:NFT on the title. WP:PAPER means we can write out the full words at List of environmental organizations --T-rex 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think, frankly, that this is an WP:POINT nomination.  RGTraynor  09:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please elaborate on that, I don't understand your reasoning. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did not get that either. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The potential for vandalism in this one is obvious, but the main point is, as Tenpound says, who would look here? Wouldn't it be easier to type in "APLC" in the search box if you didn't know what the APLC was? Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If we can have List of environmental organizations and List of acronyms and initialisms, then why not this? -- Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - According to the article "List of acronyms and initialisms", a pseudo-blend is "an abbreviation whose extra or omitted letters means that it cannot stand as a true acronym, initialism, or portmanteau (a word formed by combining two or more words)." According to the article "Blend": "In linguistics, a blend is a word formed from parts of two other words. These parts are sometimes, but not always, morphemes."

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting interesting. I see that in the linked article, but I don't think I see a source backing it up and [15] seems to contradict that assertion. We may have a whole other problem on our hands at that article, but of course that is a seperate discussion not related to AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I used Wikipedia's search function in a search for "acronyms" and I found the following.

(with the "Go" button)

• • Acronyms for market segments --> Terms for market segments
  • Acronyms in healthcare
  • Acronyms in microscopy
  • Acronyms in the Philippines
  • Acronyms of Laser Physics and Technology --> Laser acronyms

(with the "Search" button)

• • Recursive acronym
  • Three-letter acronym
  • List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions
  • List of U.S. Navy acronyms
  • Oil field acronyms
  • Pseudo-acronym
  • List of astronomy acronyms
  • Glossary of military abbreviations
  • List of government and military acronyms
  • List of waste management acronyms
  • European Union Acronyms, Jargon and Working Practices
  • List of medical abbreviations: Overview
  • List of Indonesian acronyms and abbreviations
  • List of acronyms used in arts and crafts
  • List of U.S. Marine Corps acronyms and expressions
  • Law enforcement jargon
  • List of business and finance abbreviations
  • Vehicle acronyms and abbreviations
  • List of Singapore abbreviations
  • List of dosage abbreviations

-- Wavelength (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok now we're getting way off the topic of the AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • On the contrary, this is not off the topic, because I am showing that Wikipedia has other lists of acronyms. (They are useful, and they are not especially prone to vandalism.) Also, those lists are not superfluous to these lists.
      • List of marketing topics
      • Lists of health topics
      • List of Philippine-related topics
      • List of laser types
      • List of basic astronomy topics
      • List of waste management topics
      • List of European Union-related topics
      • List of Indonesia-related topics
      • List of basic visual arts topics
      • List of basic crafts topics
      • List of basic law enforcement topics
      • Topical outline of business
      • List of finance topics
      • List of basic finance topics
      • List of basic economics topics
      • List of basic vehicles topics
      • List of transport topics
      • List of Singapore-related topics
    • In like manner, List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend is not superfluous to List of environmental organizations.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Before I started List of environmental organizations by acronym, initialism, or pseudo-blend, I was preparing to start an article List of environmental acronyms (which I still might start eventually), but when I discovered that many of them involved environmental organizations, I decided to list them separately. If the title is too long or too strange, it can be changed to something shorter and more familar, such as List of environmental organizations by abbreviation.

• Its usefulness is not limited to helping people find names of environmental organizations and articles about them. Yes, it is true that one can more easily find the full name of "APLC" by using the search box. But this list is much more helpful when people want to examine many environmental organizations' acronyms together. I can think of two kinds of situations where one might want to do that. In the first, one may simply be interested, from a linguistic perspective, in examining patterns and tendencies in choosing names and acronyms for environmental organizations. In the second, one may be about to start an environmental organization and want to avoid choosing an acronym already in use for another environmental organization or an acronym too easily confused with one already in use. For both those kinds of situations, a list of such acronyms and names on one page is definitely helpful and not superfluous.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evalyn Parry[edit]

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

Try and stick with me on this one as it might get a bit hairy. I don't believe this page passes WP:BIO. The sources given are only links to the specific festivals, none of which seem to be very notable in themselves. Also, the "gay twist" presents a bit of a NPOV problem in the beginning of the article. Her albums are non notable as they are not connected with a major company so that fails WP:BAND. Her written works have recieved little to no coverage so the article fails in that aspect too. There are no citations given too. Delete Undeath (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Has written plays, received awards, released records &c. "Her written works have received little to no coverage": Coverage of Clean Irene and Dirty Maxine, Coverage of Francis Mathilda & Tea I don't suppose she is a major figure and the article is badly written but no reason for deletion. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I immediately recognized the name. Has won non-trivial awards and is widely known. Article needs some revamping, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article does need some cleanup, certainly, but valid sources are available. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The nom did not make clear what search strategy was used for researching in advance of this AfD. There are articles in The Georgia Straight [16] Vue Weekly [17] Xtra! [18] the Edmonton Journal [19] the Toronto Star [20] – all found with a quick glance at Google News search results. Keep per WP:N, or WP:BIO#Basic criteria. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. No prejudice to anyone creating an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Shattuck[edit]

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

Another political candidate. NN because she doesn't yet hold an office and has done nothing else to merit a biographical article. Google search brings back only campaign-related sites and stuff like Facebook. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Myers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Loyd. The results of these AfDs was to delete the articles and create a redirect to the political race each is involved in. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:BIO#Politicians, being an unelected candidate does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. No newscoverage of her that I could find. GoogleNews gives 37 hits[21], but on closer inspection they all appear to be false positives, that is, to refer to some other people of the same name. Nsk92 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, does not quite pass WP:POLITICIAN at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Akhter[edit]

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

Proded twice, but basically, "a production assistant and a bunch of other random jobs doesn't seem to be notable enough." Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing in the article's text indicate actual notability per WP:BIO, plus there are no sources. Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete no references. Chikwangwa (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federer versus Nadal[edit]

Federer versus Nadal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Arb name (ie. why not "Nadal versus Federer"). Not notable for own article. All details are simply forked from each players respective articles. Some of this can be moved to 2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the notability of this article is without a doubt and don't see why it shouldn't qualify if it is well written and referenced. Federer vs Nadal capital letter first I don't think that is a POV issue. Do we have an article on Sampras vs Agassi or Bjorg vs McCanroe? This are undoubtedly important rivalries in tennis. I don't think it is suitable to move it all to 2008 chamionship as Wimbledon 2008 was only a part of the history between the two which goes back 5 years at least. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other tennis rivalry articles. The article is not reliable sourced, with some links to YouTube. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But there are numerous other rivalry articles. IE:Boston Red Sox vs New York Yankees, Celtics vs. Lakers, ect. Federer vs Nadal has shaped Tennis for the last three or four years and has been notable due to the public's reaction and attention to it. As to why its Federer vs Nadal instead of Nadal vs Federer, that's fairly simple, Federer comes before Nadal in the alphabet.JohnWycliff (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, the fact that other sports rivalry articles exist is no argument to keep this one. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The rivalry easily satisfies the two main pillars of a Wiki-article: WP:RS and WP:V. Notability is already established via the reporting by said reliable sources. This isn't a rivalry conjured up in someone's blog. According to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, whether a tennis rivalry article exists or not is no valid argument for or against inclusion. --Madchester (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering the question by Blofeld of SPECTRE ("Do we have an article on Sampras vs Agassi or Bjorg vs McCanroe?"). I wasn't using it as an argument. I don't see how the notability is backed up by reliable sources, that is not to say that the nature of this rivalry is reliably asserted. I.e. matches played, won/lost. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OSE refutes the argument that b/c something does/doesn't exist it deserves/doesn't deserve an article. As for sourcing issues, that can be addressed via a simple ((unsourced))/((refimprove)) template; not by jumping to the AFD process. --Madchester (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Federer-Nadal rivalry. Clearly notable enough for an article, especially after today. However, it should be moved to match the other rivalry articles mentioned. I agree that some references aren't reliable and this could use some cleanup, but these can be fixed and are not reasons to delete. Also, I don't see how this can be merged into 2008 Wimbledon Championships when only one line is about today's final. I'm not worried about this being a fork since both players' bios are overloaded with tournament details. Giants2008 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Federer-Nadal rivalry. PRRfan (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all the reasons Madchester gave above. Thecomaboy (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all reasons above. --Sli723 (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This will go down as one of the absolute greatest (if not the #1 greatest) tennis rivalry of all time. They have been #1 and #2 simultaneously for the longest time ever, competed in 3 consecutive French Open and Wimbledon finals, along with several other records. This is extremely notable and it would be wrong for this encyclopedia not to have an article devoted to this storied rivalry. The number of articles that pertain directly to their rivalry is a testament to its notability. Supertigerman (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Acknowledged as one of the greatest rivalries, if not the greatest rivalry, in tennis. However, article should be renamed to "Federer-Nadal rivalry" to match other rivalry articles like Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. —Lowellian (reply) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't having a single rivalry article better than having a (potentially large) rivalry section in each player's article? Toomai Glittershine (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per above NewYork483 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - these two guys have made plenty of headlines playing against each other. As such it clearly passes both notability and verifiability --T-rex 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smuckers (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Just don't understand why this article should be removed. --Jorditxei (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For all the reasons above. -- Nick C (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep for all reasons above and just end this Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Federer-Nadal rivalry, as above. Axl (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Solid collection of information that will greatly benefit visitors to the website. I found it far more useful than the respective pages or the Wimbledon page itself. Yanksox (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily satisifies WP:N, there are several realiable sources referring to this rivalry as perhaps the greatest ever in men's tennis, for example, here and here.Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and yes, rename to Federer-Nadal rivalry. Reasons as Supertigerman said. Jr888 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - keep (per consensus) - Okay already! Perhaps I was getting fogged by the article name, which seems a bit strange. I also felt this was a kneejerk reaction to contemperary news story, but I didn't realise this went back a bit. Can we all agree on a name change for this article to Federer-Nadal rivalry? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Farmer[edit]

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

Does not assert notability of the band. Green caterpillar (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable sources as required by notability guidelines for music. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BAND as it has had only one release on an independent label. No assertion of notability. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per unanimous vote thus per WP:SNOW --JForget 23:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Molyneux (footballer born 1989)[edit]

Lee Molyneux (footballer born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Non-notable as the subject hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO#Athletes. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Without meeting WP:ATHLETE he falls under general notability guidelines, and I don't see multiple independent reliable sources. Giants2008 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When he's famous, then the article can be recreated. In the meantime, delete. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single property website[edit]

Single property website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable and obscure topic seemingly added as an advertising method. Lots of recent additions by realtors removed. Article has barely any wikilinks and no reliable third party citation. Mfield (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT: For the reasons stated above, this would be no great loss to the world...Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, the text looks mostly like OR. Nsk92 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. currently it is a bit of a how-to, but notability is the reason for deletion --T-rex 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not a notable topic at all. The whole thing is mostly self-promoting OR written by various realtors with clear WP:COI. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stealth spam with a commercial agenda. Somebody wants to sell you a way to set up these websites, and hopes to use Wikipedia to get more business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The topic is not notable, which is made clear by the fact that there are, apparently, no reliable third-party sources to be found. It might warrant a sentence or two in a real estate article. --Bonadea (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A viuvinha[edit]

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

Notability EE 19:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a couple of references. Seems to pass at least a couple points of WP:BK. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely notable, as a quick GoogleBooks search[22] demonstrates (651 hits). Quite a few reliable sources there, discussing the book, e.g. [23][24][25], etc. The article needs further work, but that's not a good reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This notable book is used in FUVEST, the entrance exam of Universidade de São Paulo. Zero Kitsune (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bird Vienna[edit]

Blue Bird Vienna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for non-notable festival. "Blue Bird Vienna" gets 6 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. The 6 gnews hits aren't about this festival. Prod contested with no comment by IP user. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Disgraceful advert. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails any kind of notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monash Residential Services[edit]

Monash Residential Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete, nothing but a dumping ground for vanity and completely unsourced (and unsourceable) original research about student dorms at Monash University, Clayton campus. It was already the subject of an AFD a couple years ago, where at least the decision was made to merge in the articles on the individual halls. Since then, it has remained completely without any references (apart from the MRS and hall official websites) and even with the student vanity garbage removed ("Farrer Hall is the most adventurous hall at Monash. Since the start of 2008 Farrer Hall has not slept, and most residents are on a first name basis with the security guards."), it is still mainly puffed out with unencyclopedic, insignificant information. Without any secondary sources, there's no indication that it has any independent, substantive notability, so there is no basis for it being a stand-alone topic from Monash University, Clayton campus or the main Monash University article. Postdlf (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the article is bad, deletion is not the answer. Monash is a major university and its Halls of residence (they are not called dorms in Australia) could well be notable on their own, as for example are the Colleges of the older university in Melbourne. The decision to merge them together was sensible, but this combined article should be retained and improved. --Bduke (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Could" be notable? Now's the time to show that they are, by providing reliable secondary sources that attest to their notability. If that can't be done (and two years after the prior AFD, there should be no excuse), then this should be deleted and the dorms shouldn't merit more than a mention of their names (if that) in the university's main article. Postdlf (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to indicate any encyclopedic value of the subject, such as architectural of historical significance of the dorms. The article reads like a promotional brochure and it is hard to imagine it being anything else. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable content that couldn't be adequately covered within the Monash University, Clayton campus article. Murtoa (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely unremarkable and non-notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all above. Procedural. Five Years 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was labeled "needs sources" just this month. What's the rush in nominating this based on lack of sources so soon? The sources for this story seem to be included in the article (referenced Webpages.) Notability? Some of these structures have been standing for over 40 years. They are notable in THAT community, certainly, although it fails the "Notoriety on the Internet" standard of some Wikipedians, I guess. Articles on each of these dorm halls would be kind of silly, however, but I see they don't have separate pages anymore, which is fine. I'd point out OTHER articles listing college dorms, but I suppose I'd risk getting the "other crap exists" Deletionist essay thrown at me. As if lists of MIT's dorms are "crap" (not to mention, and I won't, Notre Dame, or Boston University, or Sarah Lawrence, or Harvard.) But I'll skip over that. Finally, nominating an article every month until Wikipedians "get it right" (this was nom. just 4 weeks ago) is abusive. Stub it, fix it, or leave it alone. - Nhprman 02:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was nominated two years ago. Postdlf (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability "in THAT community", if that were a criteria, seems to be restricted to the absolute minutiae of the day-to-day happenings of present residents. I appreciate that the current state of the article shouldn't be an absolute guide, but I would hope commentary for Notre Dame or Harvard would be somewhere exceeding Newspapers are delivered directly to the Hall every morning or Each flat is fully furnished to include all the necessities of student life, such as chairs and a table. I have serious doubts about the existence of secondary sources that would lift this article to a sufficient level. If it were distilled to a strip list of the various halls, then surely that could be a part of the Monash University, Clayton campus article. Murtoa (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're making comments about the quality of the article, and that's fine, but please feel free to fix it. I'm not opposed to merging this, but the fact that other precedents exist for breaking them out into their own articles does count for something in this discussion. - Nhprman 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken up your suggestion to fix it. There's not much left, and some is hardly notable, but perhaps a base for improvement, if that's possible. Murtoa (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Monash University, Clayton campus can easily incorporate it, to the extent it's verifiable. Postdlf (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I urge that what remains be merged into that article and that the AfD be ended. - Nhprman 16:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above - no independent sources, no evidence of notability is even likely. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no different from the residential services at a million other schools. The listing of the dorm buildings can be merged into the article on the college in general. --T-rex 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catharines Wine Tasting of 2005[edit]

St. Catharines Wine Tasting of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Wine tastings like this happen all the time. May be of interest to a trade journal or local paper but hardly merits an entry in an encyclopedia. Other than the two sources (one of which seems to have been copied from the other) there is nothing to indicate any wider significance. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. no claim of notability --T-rex 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• hic err, delete per nom. nn local winefest. Resolute 01:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this event was not significant other than an attempt to promote the Canadian wine indsutry, which as stated by another user, happens all the time in different places. I checked WineSpectator.com to check for an article on the event and one doesn't exist so in the end this event fails WP:Notability.--Chef Tanner (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Put the cork back in and Delete Non-notable local event. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I know of at least one other major publication that likely covered this (Wine Access magazine), the fact is there's nothing to suggest this tasting was any more notable than the many others held in this location in other years. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included on the project page of WP:WINE. -- Tomas e (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete passing mentions in two articles aren't enough. - Merzbow (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 some. Consensus here and precedent previously has been to delete football clubs below a certain level deemed automatically notable. Clubs playing below that level can demonstrate particular notability; none of the clubs nominated but not struck seem to do so. This is important, because if any of the articles to be deleted are in future worked up to demonstrate particular notability (e.g. a significant FA Cup appearance would do the trick nicely) they would overcome this hurdle without the need for promotion through the league system. Dweller (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overton United F.C.[edit]

Overton United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football club that fails to meet the generally accepted notability standard, i.e. having played at Step 6 or above, or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (see this AfD for the last similar AfD). Was originally prodded, but removed by IP without explanation. To avoid wasting editors' time, I'll also add A.F.C. Stoneham, Bishops Waltham Town F.C., Clanfield (Hampshire) F.C., Colden Common F.C., Fleetlands F.C., Hamble Club F.C., Otterbourne F.C. and Paulsgrove F.C., all of which play in the same league and are in the same position regarding their history, and none of whose articles extends beyond five sentences. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, these are the articles that are still part of this nomination:

A.F.C. Stoneham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clanfield (Hampshire) F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hamble Club F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Otterbourne F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I've only reviewed the first two teams (well second and third actually), and it's clear that Bishops Waltham Town F.C. have played at level 10 - and here's a contemporary link stating this. This is the problem with these multiple deletes, as trying to eliminate a half-dozen articles at a time results in a lack of proper review of them. I've previously noted that bundling articles like this doesn't meet the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website appears to be mistaken - they were at level 11 in 2006-07 - see Tony Kempster (Wessex One is level 10 and BWT were in Wessex Two). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it appears that they did play at Step 10 in previous seasons though, so I shall withdraw them. However, I have double-checked on the FCHD and none of the others have played above Wessex 2/3 (renamed in 2006-07, hence the confusion) (see Overton, Stoneham, Clanfield, Colden C, Fleetlands, Hamble Club, Otterbourne and Paulsgrove). пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't gone through all the teams, but it appears Colden Common F.C. played at Level 9 in 1999/2000 according to http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/hampgrid.htm - in the Hampshire Premiere league which is listed as level 9 at http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/archive99-00/gridsindex.htm. I'll stick to a keep, but I think this would be best dealt with team-by-team. Though as many of these teams did play for years in the old Hampshire League, and Hampshire Premier was Level 9, and presumably Hampshire 1 was Level 10, I'm concerned that some of these other ones may also be notable.Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll remove Colden Common. However, prior to the creation of the Conference North/South (2004) every league was one level higher, so I think we should see Level 10 in 1999 as Level 11 today (otherwise this could lead to all teams playing in county leagues prior to 2004 being classed as notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've removed three more following an explanation of the league history here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that my work has been mis-represented! It was an attempt to show that these clubs are not notable, rather than the other way around. Since the Wessex League was formed, only one Hampshire League club ever got accepted for the Vase, and that was the special case of Petersfield after they got relegated from the Isthmian League. The participation in the Vase was the basic reasoning behind the border between Level 10 and Level 11 being the presumed split between notability and non-notability (Special circumstances of individual notability not withstanding). Level 10 now is at about what Level 8 was 20 years ago, it's local football, just a step up from the bulk of county competitions. I'd certainly deem all those clubs whose nominations have been withdrawn as non-notable. Top division of the Hampshire before 1985 - OK, but I'd have difficulty supporting any other Hampshire League clubs. I've been to some of those mentioned here and have seen many other Hampshire League games before it merged into the Wessex, and have a reasonable idea of the standard of play as well. - fchd (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the basis that all these are pretty minor teams, I don't think any of them are notable. Even those which may have had brief spells in the top division of the old Hampshire League are difficult to find substantial, multiple, non-trivial reliable sources about. Even the likes of Bishop's Waltham Town. I would be inclined to Delete all - fchd (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The four that are left have played at Step 6, but not recently. However I am not fully comfortable in removing them as they seem to meet criteria. Where is this "criteria" defined? Nfitz (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria is defined by the consensus of numerous past AfDs (more than 10),including:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton Electricity F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Express F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matlock United F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Deportivo Galicia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookham Dean F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stansfeld O&BC F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oakley United F.C. (England)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Chelmsfordians F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spelthorne Sports F.C.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnoldswick Town F.C.

• • And was previously part of WP:CORP until it was unilaterally removed here, as well as being repeatedly covered in the WP:FOOTY talk page, including here. As explained above, the four in question played at Step 6 before the current Step 2 (Conference North/South) was introduced - it was the county league level of the time. Using the argument that they played at Step 6 prior to 2004 would mean that most clubs currently at Step 7 are notable, when past consensus states that they are clearly not. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not 100% sure the striked through ones oughtn't be deleted, but I'm willing to follow precedent in allowing them. The remaining ones should definitely be deleted per accepted precedent, the lack of reliable coverage at that level, and a general lack of notability. Vickser (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete those remaining per fchd. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The club itself is fine, were there to be any non-criteria players created out of it then they would have to go. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "the club", which one(s) are you actually referring to? I'm completely confused now as to which article(s) are still covered by this AfD..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which goes to why we shouldn't be bundling articles into an AFD when there is going to be debate about their notability. It would also help if people followed step III of the WP:AFD#How to list multiple related pages for deletion, which would make the AFD a lot clearer. I've just done this now at the top of the article - I hope everyone is okay with that. Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bundling is not the issue - the articles are identical in terms of content, and it was only confusion over the history of the Wessex/Hampshire League which has caused the problem. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In terms of knowing which club this user is referring to, I think the bundling is the issue. I don't think they are identical. Three clubs date back to the 1990s, but one dates back to the 1960s, and I'd be a lot more comfortable if the history of that one was known. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article is wrong, the club (Clanfield) was actually founded in the 1980s (see their website). пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful information to Hampshire Premier Football League. While these teams have played at level 10 historically, I've been convinced that the level 10 criteria should only apply to after the creation of Conference North and Conference South a few years ago, and that level 9 would be more appropriate for the years these teams were level 10. However as they are borderline, then any useful material should be merged into the Hampshire Premier Football League article. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At the very best, notability is shaky. College athletes, even starters, have regularly and definitively been deleted as "non-notable". This particular player, even for a highly watched, high profile team, got busted with drugs (allegedly? not sure of a conviction even, doesn't look like it), which stirred up a whir of marginal AP releases, and a (reliable) ESPN story. (By the way, the arrest involved three players that had playing time, James Ingram and Ed Collington don't have articles, or I would include them in this deletion). If Holmes' playing time has been deemed non-notable by Wikipedia precedence and guideline, his personal issues don't suddenly make his playing time notable, any more than his playing time make his drug bust encyclopedically notable. WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP1E, apply. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Holmes (football player)[edit]

John Holmes (football player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college football player per WP:ATHLETE. Not a professional, and no awards as a college player. Really only notable for being kicked off the team. DarkAudit (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Clearly NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable using the same arguments referenced above, except they have been mis-applied and called "clearly NN" (non-notable). Please read WP:BIO a little more carefully. Also, if you're going to quote WP:ATHLETE please remember to quote all of it, including the part that states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" ... college football is the highest level of amatuer football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comments I'd like to see this article given some time to develop. The controversy over the drug charges appear to have been resolved as a "wrong place/wrong time" issue, and steps have been taken to restore him back to the team. His new coach is standing up for him and it appears he's going to be a starter once again. There's a lot on the news cycles about him, mostly related to the drug charges, but he did perform well in the Gator Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl with at least borderline noteworthy achievements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment College football is not the highest level of the sport. The NFL, CFL, etc is. He has not won any pre or postseason awards. If not for the drug charges, he would have received little of the press he is currently receiving, which is basically WP:BLP1E. And in the interest of full disclosure, I'm local to WVU (I can see the Coliseum out my front window). Don't let your fannhood trump guidelines here. Not every Mountaineer deserves a page. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can't speak for the NFL, but the CFL is fully professional, so isn't the highest level of amateur sport. If college football is indeed the highest level of amateur sport, then surely he meets WP:ATHLETE. Are there no national-level amateur teams? Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The "highest level in amateur sports" is generally regarded as those sports that do not have a fully professional league. College football does not fit that description. A couple of good games and a cluster of stories centered around a drug bust do not rise to the level of notability required here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There's nothing in WP:ATHLETE that says that the second clause about amateur sports is an OR statement. And reading the rest of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that would not be the case. Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply College football is not considered an amateur sport because there is a fully professional level of competition. He is not played in a professional league, so does not meet the guideline. Even as a college football player, there isn't much here but a lot of peacock words that make him sound more notable than he is. Nothing here to show that he is notable even on his own team. The majority of the references are for the drug bust and the aftermath. Not only is it a single event, the coverage is all local. Local as in towns of 20,000 or less local. There is coverage, but mere coverage is not sufficient per guidelines. It needs to be significant coverage. It isn't. DarkAudit (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply "College football is not considered an amateur sport because there is a fully professional level of competition.". That defies logic - if you used that logic one would say amateur soccer doesn't exist because there is a fully professional level of competition; but in any park on any evening it is full of amateur players. Obviously there is amateur football. But is college football the highest level? What about University football? What about this amateur league - North American Football League Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Break and indented for lots of replies from one editor
        • Reply-Amatuer? College football is most certainly an amateur sport. It is widely accepted to be the highest level of the amateur sport for American football. Sure, the NFL exists, but that absoloutely does not mean that college football does not, nor would it negate its amateur status.
        • Reply-Not played professional by that rule, only NFL players would ever be notable and there would never be notable college-only players like Pete Dawkins, Knute Rockne, Tim Tebow, etc... yet consensus says that just isn't the case.
        • Reply-Peacock terms agreed, the article could stand a good re-write--but not a deletion. As stated in WP:PROBLEM, "Even a poor article can be of benefit, and not so bad that Wikipedia is better off without it." Unless the article is harmful in some way, it likely should be improved instead of deleted.
        • Reply-not notable even on his own team 48 tackles his Sophomore season, significant play time his Junior year and strong efforts in two bowl games--yet you expect us to beleive that even his teammates don't know who he is? That's ridiculous.
        • Reply-Majority of references about the drug bust Sure, if 3 of 6 is a majority (hint: it isn't). Agreed more inforamtion should be added (but again, that's no reason to delete)
        • Reply-Single Event There is significant detail for his sophomore and junior years. That is clearly not a "single" event but two seasons and details on two bowl games.
        • Reply-Local Coverage since when are USA Today and ESPN "local coverage"?
      • End of Break thanks for reading!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DarkAudit's claim that college football players cannot be notable under WP:ATHLETE because the NFL is the "highest level of competition" or because "amateur sports" are those which have no professional league is wrong. WP:ATHLETE links to Amateur sports which has a section Amateur sports#North American collegiate athletics which discusses American college football as an "amateur sport." A college football player, particular one on a top national team, or one who wins national awards, can certainly be considered notable, since there are multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N as well. Edison (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply For the purposes of WP:ATHLETE, college football is not considered an amateur sport. Your lawyering aside, the player still does not meet the previously established guidelines for college football players. The player has not won national awards. The ESPN article is about the drug bust, and the other articles about the incident are from local media. That is WP:BLP1E, and is not "susbtantial". The other national coverage is for the team, not a feature on the player. So yes, the majority of articles that feature the player instead of a passing mention in a wider article is about the drug bust. Bringing up Rockne and Tebow is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Rockne is a national championship winning coach from the era where the NFL was a sideshow at best. Dawkins and Tebow won the Heisman. This guy hasn't even rated a Player of the Week. There are higher standards for college football players than "significant play time his junior year". DarkAudit (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply' To you, "lawyering" seems to consist of saying you are wrong and citing the Wikipedia article that proves you are wrong. Deal with it. You are wrong. Edison (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Seriously, you're going to have to really explain how I am "lawyering" by stating that college football is not considered an amateur sport for the purposes of WP:ATHLETE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment Let me cite Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Players here. "Went on to play in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)" No. "went on to be a head coach in the NFL, AFL, or CFL (or other comparable professional leagues)" No. "Were inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame" No. "Won major national awards such as the Heisman Trophy, Outland Trophy, Wuerffel Trophy, Doak Walker Award, or other similar trophy" No. "Completed a special noteworthy play or achievement" No. "Otherwise achieve notability outside of college football." No. By your own wikiproject's standards he fails to achieve the required notability. The examples cited for notability outside football are former Presidents Ford and Reagan. A local drug bust does not compare. DarkAudit (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey you read the essay! Thanks! Four points here: 1) I'm willing to leave room for the argument that his two seasons of play, two bowl game appearances, and the controversy may qualify as a "speical noteworthy play or achievement" and would like to hear arguments both for and against it (other than just "No" if you don't mind), 2) the player notability guidelines are going through a major discussion right now on the notability essay's talk page (why not participate?), 3) Those notability guidelines are not meant to "take away" notability from a player that has already clearly achieved it; and 4) all of the other arguments for deletion were seriously flawed and should not be considered reason to delete: saying that college football is not an amatuer sport when the whole planet knows that it is; asserting that the article covers only a single event when it obviously provides details of two seasons of play; and saying that the player isn't notable even by his teammates--all those were totally invalid and inappropriate arguments that reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it shows a bias against the subject which is not grounds for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I wasn't saying that college football was not an amateur sport at all, but for WP:ATHLETE purposes, because there is a professional level beyond college, it is not in the same category as the other "ameteur" sports. That's for Wikipedia article purposes, not the world as a whole. I cited WP:BLP1E because most of the references for the player and not the team were for the bust and subsequent dismissal from the team. The "not notable even on the team" was not that he wasn't known amongst his teammates, but that he is not that well known amongst the less-than-rabid WVU fans (I'm certainly a fan... I've got a WV shirt on and I can see the WVU Coliseum from where I'm sitting right now). The rabid ones would know him certainly, but the rest of us wouldn't if not for the bust, not like Boo McLee, Johnny Dingle, or Scooter Berry. (Schmitt, Slaton, and White are on a whole other level... practically cult figures, especially Owen Schmitt \o/ _o_ \o/ _o_) DarkAudit (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment thanks for clearing that up--it sure read like you were saying it isn't amateur. Well, maybe not at certain colleges in Texas in the 1960's...--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia certainly does not need articles on every college football player who ever played the game. This person has done nothing to distinguish themselves from hundreds of thousands of other non-notable players. "Highest level of amateur sports" can be interpreted far too broadly for any sort of reasonable inclusion notability standards. That would include anything from this guy, to a 3rd string punter who sits on the bench, to a 3rd string volleyball player. None merit a page. Let's leave the pages for people who actually did something notable, such as those who go on to play professionally or won a college award, please. VegaDark (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see one argument here, and one non-argument here.

First, the argument: done nothing to distinguish from other non-notable players Perhaps, perhaps not. I'd make the argument that the player has indeed separated himself from a third string punter who sits on the bench by... well... not sitting on the bench and actually playing and making tackles and stuff... Is it enough for notability? Maybe. Is it more than a third string punter who sits on the bench? Definitely.

Second, the non-argument: Too Many Articles See WP:EVERYTHING -- Wikipedia should not be about everything, yes. That does not mean that a particular college football player may not be notable. WP:Everything states that the Wikipedia community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what should be kept. This means that not every college football player should have an article--but that also does not translate into an argument that any given article about a college football player should be deleted. Because there may be a question about notability, there should be a specific reason to delete or not to delete. At the college football project, we have found that one editor's "everything" argument is another editor's "surmountable problem"

What I see from your statement is that you think the player has not done enough to be notable, and you may be right... but comparing the player who has played in games, has recorded tackles, has generated statistics, and has articles written about him to a player who has none of that is a seriously flawed argument and I think shows prejudice.

Bottom line is this: The player is either notable or is not notable--somebody else being not notable doesn't mean this player is also not notable. The notability arguments should stand on their own merit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for play in a bowl game is dicey when another play in the same game earns a name. Google Runaway Beer Truck. Four tackles pales by comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have to go with "so what" on that one... okay someone did something spectactular in one game, sure. Someone else has played fairly regularly for two seasons. It's not even a fair comparision--of course, if you drop all of one season and almost all of another, then compare one bowl game performance to another, then YEAH... but you gotta look at the entire content of the article and subject at hand here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not argue "too many articles" - I stated that Wikipedia does not need articles on such players. That's two different things. "Not needed" does not equal "we would have too many articles" - For me it meant that this player is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, as I later explained. Further, the fact that a starter vs. a 3rd string punter are completely different is exactly my point in that "highest level of amatuer sports" can not reasonably be used as the standard for inclusion, since that standard could include any people in my example, or any college athlete in general (3rd string women's bowling athletes, for an even more extreme example). I'm saying that the standard of "highest level of amatuer sports" should not be used here (or ever) for that reason. Instead, we must look at this from a reasonable point of view. I would argue that it is not reasonable to have pages on all college athletes who have recorded statistics (or even started) for a team, as you apparently support. There are around, what, 70 to 100 players on any given college team? Over 4 years, let's say 75% of them record statistics. That times 119 (FBS schools only) would mean somewhere inbetween 8000 and 9000 players every 4 years would deserve articles. And that's only FBS schools, and that's only football. Imagine if this standard were applied over all NCAA sports. Hell, let's increase the standard to being a starter (this in itself presents problems...is someone who replaces an injured player a starter? How about people who only start on special teams?). That right there would allow for articles on about 25 players per team initially, adding about 10 on average per team per year for new starters. That amounts to about 6500 articles for football players from FBS schools alone over a 4 year period. Now, I am not pointing this out to say "Too many articles!", I am pointing this out to ask how we can consider this that notable? I fully support pages for college athletes who go on to the pros, or win a college award. I even support allowing pages for All-Americans. But simply playing in a game, or simply playing as a starter, is not notable enough for someone to get a page on an encyclopedia. I would further argue that winning all-conference honors should not make someone notable enough for inclusion. VegaDark (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, lots of stuff there... I'll take a stab at those!

• Comment--Too many articles/articles not needed okay, we'll go with that. What exactly does "needed" mean in Wikipedia? Well, that goes back to the five pillars I guess... but the bottom line is that we are not here to decide if this article is needed in Wikipedia, but if it is a noteworthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is far from complete, and there are many articles that certainly would be more worthy than this one for inclusion--but that does not negate this one (or any one other) just because it isn't as important.
• Comment-"highest level of amatuer sports" is unreasonable Maybe, but that's what it is on Wikipedia:BIO and Wikipedia:Athlete--which was reached by consensus. If you don't like that (and there's nothing that says you do have to like it), then shouldn't your argument be made there and not here? Why this player?
• Comment-all college athletes unreasonable agreed. But we're not talking about all college athletes, we're talking about this college athlete. (Someone's going to reference it, so I will: See WP:BIG for some enlightened reading).
• Comment-all starters is too much also agreed. But again, we're not talking about all starters, just this one.
• 'Comment-wrap up This player has met the guidelines for notability based on the news articles published from local, regional, and national sources. He's been the subject of both on and off the field issues--some flattering, some not. He's been referenced as a key player and contributor for the team by leading experts in the field. The only thing I see wrong with this article is that it needs some cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a guideline, not policy that must be followed at all times. ESPN and SI.com and whatnot always publish articles on when a player gets arrested or kicked off a team. School websites usually have player bios for every team member. Local papers have articles on lesser-known players all the time, and national sources regularly cover bowl game results. A culmination of some or all of these does not make one notable enough for Wikipedia IMO. This is a case where multiple third party sources alone does not establish notability enough for a page, and I would argue that for almost all college athletes. VegaDark (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a guideline, but there's a reason it's a guideline--it works quite a bit. Sure, exceptions can be made--why in this case? The argument seems to be that "this player is not notable because all those news sources would obviously carry news articles about such noteworthy events and therefore since it happens a lot it isn't notable" --- I really don't understand your point. He's not notable because of all the press he's gotten? Local papers and school websites can be good supplemental material for an article, as is the case here. And ESPN and SI do publish articles when players are removed from the team for charges because its ... well... a noteworthy event... and the bowl games are ... well... noteworthy events... but they don't count? Why not?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current debate in the CFB notability discussion is wary of listing even All-Americans. This guy isn't one. He wasn't even all-conference. It doesn't even look like he won a player of the month or week. The way I read the standards, a college football player must be an award winner, an award candidate, on the cover of a video game, or garnering national notice on his own for his play, and not for unfortunate off-field incidents. The play may be solid, but when the NFL and CFL are the next step up, solid doesn't cut it for a Wikipedia article as a college player. DarkAudit (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response yes it is, and I'm one of those wary people of granting a notability "blank check" to "all-Americans" because there really isn't any clear-cut definition of exactly what is an "all-American"--which brings us right back to this athlete. If the athlete qualifies for notability under WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE (and I believe this one does), then the college football notability guidelines certainly wouldn't "take away" the notability that has already been established. This is one of the reasons that specific guidelines have yet to be developed in that essay. It's more than just solid performance, it's the coverage of two seasons worth of solid performance coupled with the legal issues. Heck, the player could have had lousy performance, but with news coverage like that over time he'd still be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply With "news coverage like that" over time he'll be doing hard time. The coverage where he is the subject, and not the team as a whole, is solely about the drug case. In other words, except for the drug bust, he's mentioned only in passing as part of a wider article. That does not meet the guidelines of WP:BIO, let alone the athlete subsection. Notability has not been established for his performance on the field. When the WVU Sports Information office doesn't have any record of him being named all-anything or even getting a player of the week or month (yes, I called them) notability isn't there. DarkAudit (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Your last comment makes it sound like you are trying to exclude the article because you are a WVU fan (which you admitted above) and that you may be thinking that it looks bad for the team to have an article about someone you believe is headed for "hard time" ... yes, he's mentioned in passing in some articles and featured in others--some on the drug bust, at least one on his restoration back to the team--indicating mutliple events and not a single event. As a stand-alone player, probably not notable. Factor in the other issues, and notability comes to the surface.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Not at all. I called them to confirm if he had been named to any of those accolades because if he had, it would have shown notability that without it just isn't there. I just was following up on your "news coverage like that" statement. The bust and hoped-for return is still the same case. Take away the stories about the bust, and there are no stories where he is the feature. You'll note that I also argued in favor of deleting the Willie Edwards (a member of the 1988 Fiesta Bowl team) article a few months back, and his record is impeccable. Just being a member of a top-25 football team, even a starter, does not make one inherently notable. Solid play does not make one notable, one must stand out. He does not. My support for WVU does not change the fact that the guidelines in WP:ATHLETE and the College Football Project as they currently stand are not met, and no amount of claiming "yes he is" over and over again in spite of that will change it. Slaton's in the NFL. White's a Heisman candidate. Devine has ESPN drooling. Schmitt's on the cover of NCAA '09. Those are the type of player the project deems article-worthy. Not everyone who takes the field, starter or scrub. DarkAudit (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Yes, one must "stand out" as you say, but that "standing out" as a player with great ability and results is not the only notability guideline. Daniel Ruettiger and Katie Hnida come to mind--only a handful of plays for them, yet they both achieved noteworthy accomplishments that brought them above the average player to warrant articles. Rudy's was positive (a movie) Katie's was mixed (first female to score in Div IA, then the CU rape controversy). My point is that not all notability issues are positive about the topic. Sometimes notability can come from a negative event, and I believe that is the case here.
          • Additional Comment VegaDark says that the WP:ATHLETE standard is unreasonable, DarkAudit says that WP:ATHLETE has not been met. Can you get together on this one, or do you want to maintain opposing points?
          • And one more comment I never just say "yes it is" and have given multiple arguments to support the points I make. A cursory review of this page will show that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply The drug bust is a local story. ESPN picked it up because of the notability of the program, not the player. Notability is not inherited or conferred by association. Just starting for a top 25 team does not meet the established guidelines. The bust and it's aftermath is WP:BLP1E. The CU rape controversy made national headlines for weeks, and destroyed the credibility of the coach. They made a movie about Rudy. Again, no comparison. DarkAudit (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-local story? If it was a local story, why was it covered at the national level? If it was a local story, it would remain a local story. Like this one. But it wasn't, it got national headlines. Are the news sources of ESPN and SI and USA Today so full of dunderheads that they can't tell a national story from a local one?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional All the examples you have cited, in addition to being WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is classic apples to oranges. All have made a significant impact on their team, the sport, or society in general, where Mr. Holmes has most definitely not. DarkAudit (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HURRAHHH! Which is why I keep coming back to "judge the article based on its entire topic" instead of coming up with all kinds of generic non-applicable arguments. Get back to the topic at hand. It's not just an article about the player's playing ability, but about the player--the good and the bad, on the field and off.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As has been said before, ESPN and SI, et al., cover college football. That's their job. Someone, anyone, even the 9th-string long-snapper getting kicked off a top-25 program is news. Especially when it involves players being arrested. That does not immediately make that player notable or encyclopedic. Being a starter or near-starter doesn't make it any more important. Especially when the coverage starts and ends with arrested and kicked off the team. When all is said and done, even if he gets back on the team today and has a similar season to last, he'll still be just another linebacker/defensive back who played big-time college football and went on with their lives. The bust will have been long relegated to the mists of time. DarkAudit (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a 9th string long snapper with a drug bust wouldn't be notable. A 9th string long snapper wouldn't have national articles covering play time either and probably wouldn't even dress for two bowl games. But this isn't a 9th string long snapper, it is a starting linebacker with two years of serious playing time coupled with another issue that is still getting coverage. Those unique combinations over several years time make a strong argument for notability. Evidently not enough for you, and I get that--but please stop making up arguments that just don't apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Let's see here... ESPN's article is just a reprint of the same AP story that everyone got. The USA today article has a grand total of 5 words about Holmes, and 2 of those were his name. Bob Hertzel is a local Morgantown writer. CBS just picked up the story his paper put out on the wire. And there are only 6 words about him in that one. Bowl game writeup? One sentence. Most of *that* was about the other team fumbling. That is as obvious an example of "in passing" as you get. The Fairmont paper and the Clarksburg-Weston TV station cover the team because it's their market. The "combination makes him notable" is very much you saying "yes he is" over and over again when the guidelines quite clearly show that he is not. DarkAudit (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need more participation in this discussion, because it's degrading into a "Wabbit Season--Duck Season" Bugs Bunny-Daffy Duck-Elmer Fudd thig (which is fun to watch on TV, but not so much in in an AFD)--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duck season! Agreed. At this point it's either going to be relisted or close as No Consensus and need a renom. DarkAudit (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've never done a "re-listing" but I'm sure someone will come along and close this as "no consensus" shortly...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Usually an admin comes by and does either one. There's still a couple days left, but it's buried three days deep in the log where few choose to look. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after reading through all this debate and looking at the article and linked stories, I don't think there's enough to sustain an article under either WP:Athlete or WP:Bio. The ESPN article is really the only thing that could count as significant coverage. If it had been picked up by nationwide papers, I'd be swayed, but the evidence presented doesn't seem to say it was. The USA Today short mention of "losing . . . John Holmes to legal problems" [26] doesn't count as enough for me. Vickser (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halelujiah! at this point, I'm just glad to hear from someone else, even if their opinion differes from mine!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - being a college player doesn't automatically make him (or anyone else) non-notable --T-rex 19:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply But by the accepted general biography guidelines and the project guidelines, he is non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let's examine the sources to see if he passes W:V, irrespective of ATHLETE, N or whatever. Bear in mind, that as with our rules on murderers etc, reference to the crime is not the same as reference to the person (see ref 7 vs ref 6 for a good example of heading toward showing notability). Remember, I'm looking to see if the references help decide notability/verification, not whether they support the specific point being made in the article.:

Ref 1 - Unreliable, I think, which fatally undermines what's otherwise a very very strong reference to Holmes

Ref 2 - Looks reliable. Not a really strong reference to Holmes himself though. ("He will fit into the equation somewhere." sounds like a definition of 'not yet notable')

Ref 3 - No idea about source reliability, but irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes

Ref 4 - Seems to be an RS. However, fairly irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes

Ref 5 - passes RS, totally trivial reference to Holmes

Ref 6 - Is WDTV.com an RS? Fairly irrelevant, as it's a totally trivial reference to Holmes

Ref 7 - passes RS, does make some good reference to Holmes

Ref 8 - totally trivial reference to Holmes

Ref 9 - Is The Times West Virginian an RS? If so, this is a solid reference

So, regardless of whether college football passes the acid test of automatic notability (I'm disinclined to see it that way) there's still the excellent point that notable college players will be able to show notability anyway, even if not caught up in drugs busts. This guy doesn't seem to pass WP:V, as the one solid reference (#7) is insufficient for the usual test of multiple, non trivial references in RS. I am fairly ignorant of American football, so I may have made some incorrect assumptions about what's RS. If #1 or #9 are reliable, I'd certainly reconsider. But for now, all in all, I argue for Delete. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looking at The Times West Virginian source, it appears to be reliable, so there is just enough coverage to keep the article. However, if the subject of the article wants the article deleted, I would change my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The Times West Virginian is the daily paper of Fairmont, WV, and Bob Hertzel is the former Sports Editor of the Dominion-Post. WDTV is the CBS affiliate in the Clarksburg-Weston market, so reliability is a non-issue. The issue I have with those two sources is location, location, location. For all intents and purposes they are covering a local story. WVU is a mere 40 miles from Clarksburg, and is the 800-pound gorilla in the area. You can't throw a rock without hitting something or someone associated with the university in a three-county area. WVU is part of their beat. There is or will be a feature story done on nearly every player who starts for the Mountaineers between now and the end of the bowl season (then we switch to basketball players). Such has been the case for decades. They're the only game in town. Even so, the articles are not about his play or projected play. They're about one incident, the bust, with a couple of followups regarding his dismissal from and hoped-for return to the team. *All* the articles that feature him, instead of mentioning him in passing, are about the bust. That is a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. DarkAudit (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - concerns relating to WP:BLP1E per DarkAudit.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 17:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester Banks CC[edit]

Leicester Banks CC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Fails notability and verifiability; in addition it is believed to be a hoax article. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn;t look like a hoax to ne, but it certainly fails on notability grounds. JH (talk page) 09:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability and verifiability. AlwaysOnion (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it does not cite its sources; as a result most of the content is unverifiable. The club does exist, but coverage is local news or not substantial [27] [28] [29] [30] so it does not appear to meet the notability criteria. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pak-Afghan Confederration[edit]

Pak-Afghan Confederration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Part conspiracy theory, part original research, all unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Article fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. Also, the spelling is sub-par. L0b0t (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Sub-par spelling is a reason for improvement, but I agree with L0b0t on every other point. Edward321 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Dreamspy (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the million policies that User:L0b0t listed. Also given the formatting, I suspect a copyvio --T-rex 05:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not encyclopediatic. --Soman (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halo (series)#Film adaptation. Although it is not at all clear if the movie will still be released in 2009 (or ever), It's not at all unlikely that this will be used as a search term for a quite a while. Even after 2009, it might be used as a search term based on the IMDb article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (2009 film)[edit]

Halo (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article warrants deletion because it contains no sources and a portion of the content is merely a word for word copy of the material found at Halo (series)#Film adaptation. There is no new evidence that the film has gone back into production or is at least no longer cancelled, aside from a currently removed linked to a YouTube fan video which seemed to be the original basis for creating the article. As such, there is no indication at this time that the movie will ever be made, let alone be ready for a 2009 release (which is why a simple redirect would be impractical), and so the article isn't needed. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deltete per nom. Blackngold29 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I can't help but agree, I recently edited out the youtube link, but having read the material found at Halo (series)#Film adaptation, I believe there is no particular need for this article for the time being. Perhaps if the film is continued and more information is brought into light then a seperate page could be warranted. But in the meantime I say bin it. - Deathbycheesedrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbycheesedrum (talk • contribs) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Halo (series)#Film adaptation - this has a long way to go before anything is even close to verifiable --T-rex 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above.... since we won't see Master Chief in big screen anytime soon. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Halo (series)#Film adaptation tabor-^{drop me a line} 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; this has been stuck in development hell for a long, long time, and there is zero guarantee that it will ever begin production. The "Film adaptation" section suffices. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- For those here who have opted in favor of the redirect, I must remind you that I do not believe that is the best option. What if the movie never comes out in 2009? There would be no point in searching for a Halo movie that was released in 2009 then, because none would exist. To avoid any confusion or premature assumptions about the movie's release, the article would be better off deleted. If it has to be recreated, it will be, but there is no point in having a redirect no one is likely to use or that would be inaccurate. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per T-rex. --SkyWalker (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree that it is an unlikely search target so redirecting it won't be useful. Halo (film) and Halo film already redirect to the relevant section so I think that they suffice. It was supposed to be released in 2008, not 2009 anyway so the title is misleading. James086^{Talk | Email} 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT ukexpat (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A "salt" until the end of the year would be appropriate. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim outrage[edit]

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

Article was just restored by DRV after an improper speedy was overturned. Article fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:SYN, WP:NOTDICDEF, and WP:INFO. L0b0t (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. non-encyclopedic. An arbitrary word compination. No content beyond derived from separate words: Muslim and outrage. Mukadderat (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- seems like a poorly written dicdef, and besides, it fails WP:DUH! L'Aquatique[review] 18:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a nonencyclopedic dicdef/OR. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the nomination says it all, really. :) Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's alphabet soup. Resolute 01:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Debate 木 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm outraged that I cannot think of a clever response to top the nominator's be-all/end-all explanation! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This REALLY pisses me off!!! I get angry every time I think about it. Abdul Mohammed Hussein al-Mandsfordi (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every time I see this article title I want to start singing The Sweet's "Teenage Rampage". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLICY. Eklipse (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a self-evident definition of a common phrase. I have been unable to find independent sourcing of this as a unique topic. Anything we could write on the topic would appear to violate WP:SYN. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.Bless sins (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. No irremediable core policy violations (which would mandate deletion regardless) are plainly evident, so default to keep.  Sandstein  16:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet brigades[edit]

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

Note: I failed to find the first nomination. Different article title? Mukadderat (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. While there is seemingly plenty of referenes, they are just a collection of various things to promote a neologism. There is virtually no google hits that define the term in the meaning of the aricle. The definition is self-made and often contradicts the references provided. While there is no doubt some governments attempt to put internet under control, the term in question is not established yet. In the previous nomination I voted to "keep" this page, but now I see it just gradually becomes an indiscriminatecollection of various facts, mixing real government internet control and conspiracy theories in a form of original essay which attempts to promote the virtuslly non-existing term. At best it may be split into a series of articles kind of Government intervention of the internet in China, Government intervention of the internet in Russia, Government intervention of the internet in the United States, etc. Mukadderat (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per argumentation in previous 2 AfDs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Since previous AfD, this article has been improved by providing references to BBC News, Reuters, and other publications in reliable sources (please see list of references). There is no original research here; everything was taken from sources. If something was not, please tell what it was, and let's fix it.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Objection: With all due respect, please find me sources which (1) use the term and (2) define it as it is defined in the wikipedia article. This is a classical example of original research: to make a definition and then to collect newspaper articles whivch fit it. Mukadderat (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Those particular sources are not relevant to the subject, unless you believe that petty vandalism and Oprah Winfrey are somehow tied together in a propaganda campaign. WillOakland (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Reply. In the current version, sources 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11 cite specifically the term "Internet brigades". The corresponding article in Russian WP is also called "Internet brigades". Note that you and others just deleted nine reliable sources on this subject including BBC News and Reuters. The deleted sources are relevant even though they do not tell a combination of words "Internet brigades", because this article is about phenomenon, not about a combination of words. I restored these sources to allow others decide if they are relevant or not. Let's be polite and keep the article as it was until the end of AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cited are russian sources which present russian conspiracy theory, an example of putinphobia very fashionable today. `'Míkka>t 15:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article still is a mess, but it is not an entirely unsourced mess. I have removed the sources that do not deal with state propaganda. WillOakland (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe rename to "Government propaganda on the internet," with sources that discuss this subject per se (rather than the typical laundry list of what some editor thinks is propaganda). WillOakland (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I understand the intent of the artcle, its subject is not propaganda: it is active intervenstuion and subversion of internet forums by secret services. Mukadderat (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well sourced and per past consensus. Ostap 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I challenge you to list sources which use and define this term as in wikipedia article. Mukadderat (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable topic, valid title per WP:COMMONNAME. Martintg (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "COMMONTITLE? You must be kidding. there is no such term in English language. `'Míkka>t 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - invented term. Coatrack OR, i.e., synthesis of a new term unduly internationalized: At very best the term may be applied to translate the russian conspiracy theory given in Russian language references. `'Míkka>t 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. So, you have deleted nine valid sources again. Well, perhaps the inclusion of CIA was questionable, but this should be established by consensus. So far, all three people who discussed the matter had come to an agreement that, yes, they belong there, and I do not see any valid objections, a discussion and consensus building at the article talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what is your consensus, it is a cconsensus of original research. There is no such english term. How difficult it is to understand? The term is legal in wikipedia only as applied to about Russian conspiracy theory. `'Míkka>t 15:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps the expression came from Russian. However, this "conspiracy" theory is Russian, Polish, Chinese, and American, as one can see from the text and references, unless you delete them again.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted all recent edits again, in violation of WP:3RR rule. So, that is your final and decisive argument?Biophys (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYN, seriously this article has only one purpose to make a WP:POINT --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have read the translation of the original article by Polyanskaya , "Commissars of the Internet" and have to say that it looks like a conspiracy theory. It is written with serious claims not backed by serious references, only mentions some "protected polls" etc. Her conclusions are naive at best in many times (e.g., why liberal tone of runet (russian internet) changed: an easier explanation is that in older times internet was available to intellectuals only who are mostly liberals even in America, and now "average russian" speaks). I have also browsed google for the term and have to conclude that the article is an unreasonable self-made generalization of a new theory KGB scare. The chinese example is competly different flavor. China has long and consistent and documented history of manipulation with internet. I would suggest the author to salvage the reasonably referenced russian part of the text into tyhe exact translation of the russian term, web brigades, and start with the explanation that this is alleged phenomenon, not proven yet. Wikipedia had already done its piece of "manipulation with internet" by proviking titles like Does the pentagon have 'internet brigades' like the russians , so this must be stopped now. Laudak (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One source (Yusupovsky) claims this to be a "conspiracy" theory. At least ten other well informed sources claim this to be real. But even if you are right, this is a content matter, not a reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. We have a lot of articles about different conspiracy theories. That is not a valid reason for deletion. Renaming this as "web brigades" is also not a reason for deletion. Please explain what is exactly the difference between Russian and Chinese teams per cited sources? I do not see any differences. P.S. You apparently never visited discussions at certain Russian language sites, such as grani.ru, so you did not see such teams in action.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree here. It is your job to provide sources which say that Russian web-brigades and Chinese Internet secret police are one and the same. Saying so without references is exactly WP:SYNTH of various material into a new notion, i.e., original research. Laudak (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you wrote "Renaming this as "web brigades" is also not a reason for deletion." I am not talking about renaming. I am talking about writing a separate article based on good sources about Russian web brigades. And about deleting the non-existent term which unduly attempts to generalize. Laudak (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you suggest to exclude materials about Chinese teams from this article, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. We can discuss this matter at the article talk page if you wish.Biophys (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to be restoring much more stuff others are trying to delete... Anyway, you are still missing the major objection: you introduced a neologism. A completely new article must be written which do not mix and match notions and it must stick to Russian context -- where the term "web-brigades is used. And you don't really need my help: all what you have to do is to cut and paste the corresponding text into a new article with a non-objectionable title. I admit I was tempted to do this myself, but I don't want to steal the authorship/priority from you. :-) Laudak (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are telling that "Internet brigades" should be deleted, but "Web-brigades" is fine. Then one should simply move this article rather than copy and paste. This is not an AfD is about. If this article will be deleted, and someone recreates it under a different name, it should be "speedy deleted".Biophys (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Oh god, not another one of Biophys' pet WP:OR/WP:SYNTH WP:POINT articles.--Miyokan (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the reason is me. Thanks. Please note that I do not own this article. I only contributed here.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a personal attack is not a valid argument in an Afd discussion. Ostap 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this is not a valid argument. However such deletions of sources from the article, in combination with claims of OR can indeed affect results of an AfD. Note that deletion was done in violation of 3RR rule.Biophys (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Kuban Cossack, nothing but a collection of WP:Synth to make a WP:Point, only one or two references are actually used in context and even they are barely credible, written by known conspiracy theorists. Regarding so called "personal attacks" on Biophys, I don't think that's a personal attack at all. This is just dejavu and the regular editors on these subjects are becoming understandingly annoyed. It's completely valid to note certain negative and disruptive tendencies of particular users and their editing habits when their disruptiveness is recurring endlessly. I can't count how many non-factual, blatantly biased, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR filled conspiracy theory articles and sections that this user has created (many of which have already been deleted or revamped). It's important to remember that this is an encyclopedia. We should not let it turn into a propaganda vehicle to brainwash and misinform unsuspecting readers. This is potentially the most dangerous aspect of wikipedia. Krawndawg (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, how many "conspiracy theory articles" have I created? I can count only a couple among at least 300 other articles created by me. Even if I did, such articles are allowed by WP policies.Biophys (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A very interesting subject on a current phenomenon, all that it needs is expansion. Tymek (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where did you read about "internet brigades" besides wikipedia to conclude that such a phenomenon exists? Mukadderat (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources provided say, this phenomenon does exist, and it does not take a vivid imagination to admit it. As for the name - it might as well be changed, but I am leaving it for users involved in creation of the article. Tymek (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-notable neologism - but an important, real subject and not a bad article so keep. A more dignified name would not be unwelcome. And if there's another article on the exact same thing they should be combined. But yes, the phenomenon is notable and the article has encyclopedic content.Wikidemo (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severel "delete" voters agreed that the topic makes sense as a specific russian web-brigades conspiracy theory, but the current article title is a neologism and everything beyond Russian context is original coatracking into this theory. Other suggestions about salvaging its content are also suggested. But as it is the article violates WP:SYNTH. Mukadderat (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, the only problem seems to be with title, whereas the subject is notable and sufficiently sourced. Note that we also have two articles in Russian and Chinese wikipedias about these "Internet brigades". I think Chinese users know this better. There are some content disagreements. But an AfD nomination is not the way to resolve content disputes.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. First, may I please ask "delete" voters to stop attacking Biophys? "Comment on content, not on the contributor." And also may I ask that attempts to silence criticism of the Moscow regime — a government that perpetrates brutal killings, torture, abuse and violence, that carries out unlawful killings, politically motivated abductions, and disappearances in Chechnya, Ingushetiya and elsewhere in the North Caucasus, that has dramatically weakened freedom of expression and media independence by shutting down television networks, harassed, intimidated and even killed journalists (and for that matter set up Internet brigades), is rampantly corrupt, and has turned the Duma into a rubber-stamp while centralizing vast powers in the President (or now his eminence grise) — not be made through blithe, dismissive references to "Putinphobia"? Yes, a man who does all that absolutely is to be feared! OK, now to the policy reasons for keeping this article. First, no matter how much some may deny this, the phenomenon has been documented in reliable sources, the martyred Politkovskaya not least among them. Second, with expansion of the article to cover Red China and Western nations, we see this is not a Russia-only phenomenon, but one that has been found in other places too, again in reliable sources. Third, this may be the best name we have - though if someone comes up with a better one, by all means let's consider it - but a bad name is not a rationale for deletion. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes and are also aware that in Russia winter is all year round and armed bears walk the streets? --Kuban Cossack 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the risk of turning this into a forum: the killings, torture, abuse, violence, abductions, disappearances, harassment and intimidation of media, and centralizing of Presidential power are not a laughing matter - right? Biruitorul ^Talk 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Told by a real expert such as you they are, much like the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam was so surely meant to have... Tell me Biruitorul when was the last time you visited Russia? --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. This discussion has nothing to do with Saddam, though for the record, intelligence agencies from various countries (UK, US, Denmark, Italy) all said he had WMD (which may have been transported to Syria by the Russians). 2. Visiting a place has little bearing on whether one can be considered an expert in that field. Joseph Needham never visited Ming China; Stanislas Julien never visited China, period. Ronald Syme never visited Augustan Rome. Champollion never visited Ancient Egypt. Clyde Tombaugh never set foot on Pluto. Yet all were undisputed experts in those areas. I've never claimed to be a Russia expert, but I'm astute enough to listen to what the experts tell me are the dark happenings going on there. 3. TVS? Mass graves? Skyrocketing corruption? Politkovskaya? Litvinenko? Centralization of power? Torture? ? These are forceful ghosts that will come back to haunt Russia; they can't just be waved away. Her men are dying. Fascism and Islam are spreading. It pains me to see it; it's a country I love very dearly, that could be doing so much better. But laughing off its manifold problems is not really a solution to them. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you've never been to Russia and your primary sources are all western. Well congratulations, you're a victim of propaganda and brainwashing. But even western press tells us that Politkovskaya's murderer has been found out. Even her own magazine editor says those pointing the finger at the Kremlin are doing so unjustly. Do yourself and the rest of wikipedia a favor and stick to subjects that you have actual experience and knowledge in, we don't need self-proclaimed "experts" like yourself spreading hearsay and propaganda. Taking your word seriously would be like taking a communists lessons on free trade seriously. Oh, and I really do resent your attack on the Islamic faith. You pair Islam with Fascism? That's blatant, ignorant hate speech, and you probably don't even realize it because you watch so much Fox news that it's become normal to think of Islam that way. The cold hard truth is that you are completely clueless and have no business involving yourself in such subject matters.Krawndawg (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Even if we concede Politkovskaya, Litvinenko and many others remain, like Fatima Tlisova (chased out of the country after being beaten). 2. Counterpunch itself is a propaganda site. And anyway, it's not hard to be popular when you've destroyed the opposition. As I asked earlier, "the killings, torture, abuse, violence, abductions, disappearances, harassment and intimidation of media, and centralizing of Presidential power are not a laughing matter - right?" You may call me brainwashed, but that doesn't wave away those realities. 3. As I pointed out, going to a place does not make one an expert in it - or was Stanislas Julien not an expert in China? And as I also pointed out, "I've never claimed to be a Russia expert". 4. Islam, like any other religion, is just another ideology, although one that a billion or so people hold rather dearly. I will however reserve the right to criticise this ideology as I do, say, fascism or Marxism, without paying much attention to spurious charges of "hate speech". Why would it be "hate speech" to criticise a religious ideology but not a political one? And anyway, an ideology that is still going around killing people should be hated. Not the adherents of that ideology, but the ideology itself. Or shall we exclude atheists from Wikipedia? (Also, we do have an article called Islamofascism - the connections are there.) And speaking as an Orthodox Christian, it pains me to see Russia, once Orthodoxy's strongest champion, slowly fall to a great, intractable rival. So I do lament the spread of both fascism and Islam there. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem seems to be that what is essentially a conspiracy theory is presented in the article as solid fact. None of the cited sources provides any tangible proof that the phenomenon of "internet brigades" exists, but they all rather speculate on their existence, make assumptions and allegations, and then draw conclusions. For me, this is a red flag showing that the topic covers a theory, not a fact. While the sheer number of cited sources asserts the notability of this theory, none of these sources looks at the phenomenon objectively or studies it academically. Until such sources appear, the subject does not have encyclopedic value, and hence my opinion is that, in its present form, the article should be deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, "verifiability, not truth". The subject of this article satisfies the WP:Notability because it has been described in multiple reliable sources. What else "encyclopedic value" do you mean?Biophys (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the article talks about "internet brigades" as if they were a fact of life, but no tangible evidence to that effect is presented either in the article or in the sources cited. Hence, the logical conclusion is that the article does not describe a fact, but a theory (and a conspiracy theory at that). As there are no sources dealing with this theory from the academic standpoint (no objective analysis, no proof, only assumptions, allegations, and speculation), the theory has no encyclopedic value, which is why the article should be deleted. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory has immense encyclopedic value as it describes efforts of the most influential authoritarian government in the world to dominate Internet(and therefor the world's access to free information)-so therefore I have to disagree with that argument. As to articles about Russian attempts to censor internet and manipulate information there-they are plenty, including academic ones. Although Wikipedia isn't limited to academic sources per definition.--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Plenty of academic sources"? If that is indeed so, please note that none of those sources is cited in this article's reference section. All I see is a vast collection of newspaper clippings, some more relevant than other, and every single one providing nothing more than speculation, not proof or analysis. As currently presented, the subject has as much encyclopedic value as your average alien abduction report. Please note that our notability criteria explicitly ask for the subject to have objective evidence, and that a "burst of news" does not constitute evidence of sufficient notability. As for Wikipedia not being limited to academic sources, that only works well when non-academic sources supplement academic ones—otherwise I'd be able to post and keep an article about my own backyard (the existence of which is verifiable through numerous county assessor's records and which has some newspaper coverage from the times when my residential community was being built).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the arguments of Laudak. _{1 != 2} 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Split in two and delete this one per Laudak et al. I've looked at the references and it looks like none of them group these two phenomena. The information about alleged web-brigades in Russia (some of which is perfectly sourced and notable) should be moved to another article. It should also be noted that the current article is extremely unbalanced with only a paragraph about China where internet control and censorship is much more strict (and proven) than in Russia. Alæxis_¿question? 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China is far more visible to journalists and media then Russia Alaexis-consider the amount of media coverage and tourist reports during Russian military invasion of Chechnya compared to police crackdown during Tibet riots.--Molobo (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? - No reporters were allowed into Tibet or Chechnya. Anyone reporting from either of those locations were doing so in secret. The difference is that China controls all of its press, whereas you can go to any newspaper stand in Moscow and find papers calling Putin a murderer and a tyrant. Krawndawg (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, Alaexis suggests to keep Russian/Polish portion and split Chinese portion, even though Chinese users made an "Internet brigades" article in Chinese wikipedia. Then why delete? What names would he suggest for the splitted articles?Biophys (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep-the article describes a real life actions of Russian authoritarian government to influence Internet opinion and content as well control over its citizens, as well as manipulate in other countries. This has been studied and exposed. The article uses respectable sources and covers a subject of political events in the world as well as development of governmental attempts to control Internet. There is nothing for its deletion.--Molobo (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • False. The article describes allegations. And it was already suggested by several people that the Russian part must be saved under an appropriate title and clearly stick to Russian context and Russian term , web brigades. `'Míkka>t 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you simply suggest renaming. But what is the difference between "Web brigades" and "Internet brigades"? I thought "internet" and "web" are the same.Biophys (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you demonstrating great inflexibility by reverting the removal of original research, I still vote for deletion. `'Míkka>t 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you tell: "this is personal". Please remember: this is NOT my article. This is good faith work by many good wikipedians.Biophys (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research, and clear violation of WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is notable and well sourced. Of course it can stay. I notice many agenda pushing Russian nationalists are trying to get it deleted now. It could however be expanded. There's only a small section about China even though they're probably the king at internet censoring. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not-so-subtle insinuations nonwithstanding, could you clarify how this article is "well-sourced"? Our notability guidelines specifically state that news is not an acceptable source to establish notability, and news reports is all the reference section of this article presently contains.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Journalism always falls under "news"? If so, then what's left? - PietervHuis (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Books, encyclopedias, journals. ACADEMIC refrences not that of articles in yellow press.--Kuban Cossack 08:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't go as far as to label most of this article's references as "yellow press", but otherwise Kuban voiced my point precisely.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a neologism. Also there is just a handful of sources, most of which are news publications. In my view this thin coverage suggests that the subject is not notable. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "A handful of sources, most of which are in news publications" is good reason for a keep. This is a neologism, sure, but a notable one. Used for a notable topic, with extensive documentation. the actual existence of them & their nature is not even necessary to be demonstrated, as long as they are being talked about. One of the comments above urged us to delete it on the basis of people putting in OR material. But that's an editing question. Agreed,m this is the sort of article where difficult editing questions arise, but we can and indeed are obligated to deal with that. DGG (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Much suggests that the internet has become an important battleground for competing national and private entities. The topic is therefore a notable one. As with any article on a notable topic, this one too will need to be judiciously edited and refined, including perhaps its title. But there is certainly no justification to delete this article. And... proponents of deletion: please do try to stay on-topic and forego ad hominem attacks on other participants in this discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is a conspiracy theory presented as a fact, but the article mainly contains original research coupled with referenced opinion pieces in a novel synthesis, thing against Wikipedia policy. Something can be salvaged, but certainly not the article in its current form.Xasha (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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