< July 29	July 31 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Sader[edit]

The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Failed candidate. ~~Delete~~ GreenJoe 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I am amicable with Merge. GreenJoe 04:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a party candidates list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Merge. Bearcat 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is beyond candidacy. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Earl. Ground Zero | t 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GreenJoe 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable; sources would be good though cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written and informative as well as notable --Childzy ^{(Talk|Images)} 13:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a hopelessly ill-defined political battleground masquerading as a list. The editors arguing to keep the article have stated that it meets criteria, but do not elaborate how this article can ever be neutral or stable; those arguing for deletion have pointed out numerous unfixable flaws in the premise and content of the article. -Wafulz 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state[edit]

Labelled? By who? When? This will never be anything other than a battleground. It amounts to a POV fork of the State Terrorism articles that already exist and we don't need another front in these fights. It'll always be a POV magnet for edit warriors already active in other areas of Wikipedia. RxS 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article state terrorism has no accounts of terrorism, it only discusses the definitions by various governments and NGOs. Perhaps you are thinking of the article State-sponsored terrorism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring specifically to the state terrorism article but to the various articles describing allegations of acts of state terrorism, for example: Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. The plural might not have been as clear as it could have been. RxS 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete and Redirect with State-sponsored terrorism. Basically the same "article" and I agree with RxS' statement above. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with State-sponsored terrorism and please realize that Merging articles 1) does not require you to take them to AfD and 2) does not even involve deletion one of the parent article, as the history of both articles has to be preserved in order to fulfill GFDL criteria. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not violate WP:LIST. Thanks Taprobanus 15:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But it does violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and RxS is quite right: even if there was a generally accepted definition of "state terrorism" (which there is not) this will just be another perpetual football kicked around by polarized factions. RGTraynor 18:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate disagree with you RG, because you are reasonable guy, but WP:NPOV is never a reason to delete and WP:NOR is in conflict with WP:LIST, is'nt it ? Taprobanus 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RxS said it perfectly well below. A list with an uncontroversial, generally agreed-upon definition doesn't conflict with WP:NOR. A list comprised of unproven incidents (many of which would be sheer allegation) for which there'd be numerous points of knife-fight controversy? No. Heck, let's see how many of editors -- and I note that a number of the participants on this AfD are regulars in one nationalist/irredentist/civil war controversy or another -- can agree on the definition of "state." RGTraynor 16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Nat Tang. Nothing wrong with controversial subjects, but the inclusion criterion is wooly enough that the list will never be more than OR, and the content is dealt with elsewhere in any case. EyeSerene^TALK 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 21:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This serves no purpose but a redundant rehash of the main articles or the main articles of the countries themselves. Put that bar of soap away; it does not need to be used everywhere. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it meets WP:LIST and WP:RS its fine.Baka man 23:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the issue, keeping it in compliance with WP:LIST will be a never ending battleground. We have the material elsewhere and rather than using this as a list, people will use this as a POV fork (and are using it that way right now). For reference: Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Look at the talk page and see the mud fights over sourcing. Over a list. RxS 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bakaman. Lotlil 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this POV battleground. Giggy _U^CP 04:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per bakamanc --Sharz 07:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Accusations of NPOV and OR are specious. The article is properly sourced and makes no original claims; it presents the topic at hand in a neutral and factual manner. Stone put to sky 15:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look at the talk page you'll find disagreement over whether the list is properly sourced and presented in a neutral and factual manner. Now, that's not in itself reason to delete but the issue is that it'll never be anything other than a POV fork of other state terrorism pages. See my comment below. RxS 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep and possible merge as per above. 66.142.90.121 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Facts are presented in NPOV and meets WP:RS. Johnathan1156 03:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Labelled? By whom? When? are discussed on the particular articles.Lustead 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they are having separate disagreements on the talk page. Same fight, different page. The content on this list is being developed separately from the other state terrorism pages which is not how lists are supposed to work and why this one will never be a proper list. RxS 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is inherently POV. Beit Or 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very NPOV and meets WP:RS. Bmedley Sutler 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per Bakaman Harlowraman 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a List of state terrorism acts as identified by a state. It is something much different and the present article could not meet NPOV, V, NOT, and OR. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, POV fork --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Bakaman and others. Passes WP:List Watchdogb 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is a blatant POV fork. Also the very nature of the list is contrived and violates WP:LIST too(as RxS has explained above). Sarvagnya 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. This discussion appears too vote-like. More in depth, substantive arguments from both sides are needed for an entry of such magnitude. El_C 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-people have forgotten the true essence of Wikipedia and sadly dragging this into a wrong track. POV forks such as "state terrorism bla bla bla..'s should not have any place in Wikiepdia. Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 11:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- seems like it would be crufty to me, even if that is not the objective. At worst, it makes Wikipedia an enabler- since its terrorism as defined by specific states, it seems that the lack of a defined criteria could be worrisome. And the sorted by state modifier really benefits no one. I think a category would be better. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Should we allow an on-line encyclopedia is going to become a politicle poster board- vehemently No. Bodhi Dhanapala says delete.Bodhi dhana 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of NPOV, V, OR and SOAP, in agreement with Storm Rider, RGTraynor and nom. Not only is the title itself a messy, poorly written screed of a POV fork, but the entire article drips with a POV that is Anti-American and Anti-X-country. Citing a single, albeit respected, academic source, Noam Chomsky, does not make a good encyclopedia entry. Poorly defined terms per David Fuchs. I am not sure the problems can be fixed. The proper place for such an essay (which is what it is) would be DailyKos or some other blog. Then I'll comment on it there. Furthermore, I am not sure it properly synthesizes the research itself. For all these reasons, the article must be deleted. Bearian 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is merely a random collection of quotes/opinions by various individuals where they use the words "state terrorism" to describe events covered in detail in other Wiki articles. This POV Fork can therefore never meet the standards of a encyclopedic article. Currently it contains allegations by Ching-In Moon, Chaesung Chun, James Lutz, Brenda Lutz, Daya Somasundaram etc. How far are we willing to go with this? Will Wikipedia editors opinions soon be included too? Per Berian these belong on respective blogs, not Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Divas: South of the Border[edit]

A group of articles about DVDs, not notable DVDs but just Diva DVDs, which basically summarise the DVDs with no source other than the DVDs themselves. Darrenhusted 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating (as they are all the same thing):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.

I am obviously voting Delete All. Darrenhusted 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, non-notable T&A - DrWarpMind 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, per nom. There is nothing outstanding about any of these DVDs, and they are already briefly mentioned and summarized on the WWE Diva's page under the heading Photoshoots. Nikki311 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The list is not indiscriminate. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurance companies in Hong Kong[edit]

This list clearly goes against WP:NOT#DIR. Half a dozen non-red links, and a couple of those go to external websites. Russavia 23:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not exactly an indiscriminate list. This is a government-published list of government authorised insurance companies.[1] The list also states what "business type" each company is. Perhaps expand the article to explain what it means to be authorised by the government to be an insurance company, and also to explain what the different "business types" mean. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete In its current state, there is not much context in the article, making it look like indiscriminate info. A short history and explanation on insurance companies is required to make it otherwise.--Kylohk 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not indiscriminate. Provides information that the category does and cannot provide. Abberley2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hong Kong is arguably the financial capital of southeast Asia and a list of a financial services segment business such as this is of encyclopedic value. --Oakshade 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zomax[edit]

Declined speedy. Previously deleted. Article created by User:Zomax. It is an American company that provides media and supply chain solutions. 650l2520 07:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment According to this webpage, this company has won the Best Service Provider Award at RetailVision Spring 2007. Is this award notable in itself? However, it must also be pointed out that this article was most likely created by an employee of the above mentioned company, thus, there is a conflict of interest here as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's notable (and based on that one award I'd say not) we'd be better having an article without a WP:COI attached. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is conflict of interest in the article, and the subject isn't mentioned in reliable sources (search engine) or has any significant achievements or innovations. One single award that isn't widely known isn't going to help much. Also, had the article been deleted before, it may qualify for a speedy if it's the same thing again.--Kylohk 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted before as G11 and A7 (and also here) but the new speedy was declined this time. 650l2520 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Comment - I did some edits to the first article before it was deleted and recreated. That one had information on the company when it was in Minnesota, US. Can that information be brought back and made a part of this discussion, perhaps as a subpage? I don't remember much of what was there, but it may helpful. If that is not possible, I say redirect to Zomepirac as "Zomax" was McNeil Pharmaceutical's brand name for Zomepirac Sodium. I know that a disambig to Zomepirac was in the first article as I put it in there. Thanks. --EarthPerson 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvios should be speedied in most cases. --Core desat 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Mystique[edit]

While this group has excelled within the competition of Winter Guard International, the group still does not meet notability standards. WGI is somewhat of a niche competition that is not as notable or well-known as the two major drum corps organizations. Moreover, this article is written an overly promotional tone straight out of a news release. Realkyhick 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COPYVIO of the G12 sort. Content lifted straight from the about page of the subject's website. --Aarktica 23:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is consensus needed here? A previous AFD was closed with the rationale that policy trumps consensus (or lack thereof) for such matters. --Aarktica 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I think there's a general reluctance to act on an article when there's only one vote (aside from the nom — me, in this case). That's understandable. I think the policy-trumps-consensus argument works when there's an obvious rationale for a speedy deletion. I don't know. Realkyhick 15:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I meant to sound impatient, I just thought it was black-and-white. No matter, it will probably get the deep-six soon enough... --Aarktica 16:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are no policy violations and the consensus seems to be to keep the article in some form. There is no consensus for deletion. Significant editing has occurred since this AfD was listed and the nomination does not reflect the current state of the article. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am renominating this page for deletion. This article is mostly full of junk, and contains lists of names for no apparent reason. It also includes "close calls" of celebrities which don't seem at all significant. Also contains junk from 2001 that has never been and probably cannot be updated because it was never significant in the first place. It has had a cleanup tag on it for almost a year and a wikify tag for almost five months, as well as a long-standing update tag. I think this article should be deleted; if there is any material here worth keeping that ISN'T already in the main attack article (I don't see any), that could be kept, but overall, I think this article is junk and just full of non-notable material. The last AFD ended with a majority saying it should be moved to a different wiki or deleted. Titanium Dragon 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [Page formatting corrected by ●DanMS • Talk 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC) and by Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Weak delete, seems like this list could have its potential only if severely rewritten. ~~Kind of on the fence regarding its encyclopedic merit.~~ WP:NOT#MEMORIAL seems to be a bit of a concern here, but that also seems like it could be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the "not a memorial" criterion. We've canned numerous "Survivor/Victim Of..." articles in the past if I recall, and there's no reason to keep this one, regardless of how it is written or could be re-written. The subject matter itself just simply isn't up to par. Tarc 00:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many unsourced items, and to be honest there were about 5 billion survivors of the 9/11 attacks -- the criteria is simply too broad to make a useful list. Anyone who missed their flights that day or got stuck in traffic or got off the subway 5 minutes before the first plane hit ... they could all lobby to be included here. I don't normally vote against articles that have survived AFD before (especially more than once) but I'm making an exception here. A more specific article, say on firefighters who fought the WTC fires and survived the collapse, and the makings of such are here, would be more viable. 68.146.47.196 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a cleanup alright, but this article has plenty of valid content. Furthermore, I believe that this subject justifies an article of its own. Trim, don't delete.--Hús ö nd 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a list. I don't know why people think it is. It's an article about the groups of people who survived. survivors. It contains one short embedded list. It's also not full of individual trivia--it contains one or two items that should be removed. It doesnt try to talk about everyone in the city--it talks about those in the buildings at the time. The point of AfD is to improve articles if possible--deletion is a last resort for those that cannot be improved. This one can--its close to good enough already. I think the campaign against lists has grown to include all articles that sound as if they might possibly be a list. Even by the nom, "full of junk" is a reason to remove the junk, contains lists is a reason to --at the very most--remove them. This is not a memorial--read Not#Memorial. All it needs is editing; I started doing that. DGG (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, deletion is also for articles which aren't notable, which is why I think this article should go. Surviving 9/11 is not notable; being killed in a terrorist attack or surviving one does not make you notable, and putting a pile of them together does not make it notable either. I think a lot of it is just junk - for instance, the celebrities who had supposedly close calls. The people who DID survive long drops already appear in the appropriate articles, and the rest just aren't worth noting - they were pulling people out of the rubble, but who those people were and how they survived is not, in general, particularly notable and where it is, it is already in the main article. Most of what is not in the main article which is in this article is just junk that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 9/11 was significant, but living through it or dying in it doesn't make you notable, nor should Wikipedia contain every minor news report. Titanium Dragon 00:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it has a few names, I think that's acceptable -- obviously we're not doing memorials to living people, and it's notable for someone to survive an unprecedented engineering disaster, the collapse of a skyscraper. There is also some notability in those who were in the towers or surrounding buildings and escaped before the collapses. USAToday and the NYT, at least, both did extensive investigative reports examining in detail why some groups of people survived while others did not. There are issues of encyclopedic merit here that could be covered better, such as the issue of the PA announcements telling people in the second tower to stay at their desks, and how survivors generally ignored those announcements, or the people who found (or failed to find) the one open stairway. All of this has implications for disaster management and has in cases figured into the redrawing of building codes or emergency plans for future man-made or natural incidents. This article has frayed ends almost as if parts haven't been updated since 2001, but those can be fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per DGG and Dhartung. Some events, like 12/7/1941, 11/22/1963 and 9/11 tend to fall in the category of "hands off". What we forget is that although thousands died on 9/11, thousands more survived, for the reasons described above-- sound engineering, heroism, risk taking, etc.. I imagine that 9/11 will become a Wikiproject of its own as we work on identifying, say, the persons who were working at Cantor Fitzgerald, or at the Risk Waters Conference when Tower 1 was hit. If there are similar articles, merge them. I think many would take issue with the use of the word "junk" in giving reasons for deletion. Sad to say, people are continuing to die every day as a result of 9/11. Mandsford 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Pearl Harbor (which didn't even START World War II, something a lot of Americans don't understand, and most Americans couldn't tell you what day it occurred in, and I'd wager not even the year), something I don't even recognize the date of (was that the day JFK was shot?), and 9/11/2001 are NOT inviolable. They were significant events, but holding them up as holy is short sighted and silly (and Americentric - the day Germany attacked Belguim was a FAR more significant date than Pearl Harbor, and numerous days in history were massively more important than the day JFK died). Surviving terrorist attacks or significant events does NOT make you notable, and Wikipedia is supposed to contain notable information. Who cares if someone was still in intensive care in 2001? It is irrelevant. Likewise the supposedly close calls and various groups of people pulled out of the rubble. Those which were significant, the people who fell a long distance and the last person pulled from the rubble, are already elsewhere on Wikipedia in the main 9/11 articles. If an article isn't adding anything valuable and is mostly full of junk, it should be removed and any useful info which DOES belong in the main articles which isn't there (none, as far as I can tell) should be merged into the relevant articles. Titanium Dragon 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this article can be summed up better and placed within another article. And being a survivor of 9/11 does not really make you notable. It would be to hard to verify this information, as anyone who was in NYC at the time can claim they survived it. On a side note, and I know this is not a criteria for deletion, but this article seems ripe for the picking of vandalism by people adding their names and fake stories. Gorkymalorki 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis page is perfectly valid. It details groups of people and how they survive. Alyeska 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a memorial, granted, but this particular group of people are highly notable and have been reported on many times by the media. Never forget means just that. Burntsauce 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a memorial means exactly that as well. This is not something that belongs on Wikipedia and it contains no useful information not present elsewhere. Titanium Dragon 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Burntsauce, Húsönd, DGG, Dhartung, and Mandsford. This is neither a list nor curft. Very little trivia needs to be cut out. Update it, clean up the language. This is an important topic, folks. Bearian 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but recognize that not all disasters are created equal, so I would feel quite differently about Survivors of the Virginia Tech shootings which presumably includes all students and faculty there or Survivors of the Chernobyl nuclear accident which could include most Europeans alive at the time, etc. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could include everyone who was in the building, COULD have been in the building, was considering flying out that day, ect. Really, this article doesn't contain much valuable information (celebrities having supposedly close calls is not notable, for instance). Moreover, surviving an attack does not make you notable according to WP:Bio, and adding together a group of non-notable people does NOT make them any more notable! Titanium Dragon 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks#Survivors, subject not encyclopedic. None of the three sourced pieces of trivia is worth merging. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-03t10:54z
- In general redirection to a sub-heading is, IMO, a very bad idea.
  - This kind of redirection only works so long as no one removes the sub-heading, or changes how it is spelled.
  - Every article has a button on it named "what links here". The ordinary world wide web lacks this feature. Links on the ordinary world wide web are unidirectional. There is no stisfactory way to determine what other www pages link to a particular page. On the wikipedia we know what articles link to the page we are looking for. It is a very strong advantage the wikipedia has over www. When we make a major change to an article, we can look at the list of articles that link here.
  - When we delete an article we can see which articles link to it, and will be left with a red-link. But the wikipedia has no mechanism that would allow an editor to know that they were going to royally fuck stuff up merely by changing one of an article's sub-headings. To my way of thinking any subheading that is interesting enough that someone considered the kind of link suggested has just had a very strong argument advanced that it should be broken out into its own article. Mind you, in this particular case, we already have an article about the survivors.
  - Unfortunately, the powerful bidrectional nature of wikilinks is frequently overlooked.
  - There are a relatively large number of wikipedians who regard themselves as "mergists", who like to merge smaller articles into larger, omnibus articles, even when those smaller articles can stand on their own. My concern is that this "urge to merge" squanders much of the advantages the wikipedia's powerful bidirectional linking gives the wikipedia over the ordinary www.
  - Nominator keeps talking about the desirability to stuff all the details into "main articles". Nominator is fully entitled to his or her own view as to the wikipedia's future direction. I wish they would stop acting as if their personal interpretation was the only obvious choice.
  - Cheers! Geo Swan 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't make up my mind whether we should keep this article or not, but how wide should this article's sweep go? I went to the article expecting to read about Seth MacFarlane, who famously missed American Airlines Flight 11, or Julie Stoffer who also was scheduled to be on one of the doomed flights out of Boston but did not fly. How will we ever get a handle on which notable people intended to be on the airplanes but weren't? Is someone prepared to research notable incidents of otherwise non-notable people who missed the planes? Those people are Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks as well. This seems like the kind of article WP should have, but compiling and sourcing the info will be tough. Vadder 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs cleanup badly, but is definitely a notable subject. Neranei ^T/C 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geo Swan 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator, User:Titanium Dragon has both nominated this article for deletion --and made a huge and poorly explained excision. This is a phenomenon I have seen before, nominators, who, after they have nominated an article for deletion, then made significant edits to that article. When challenged, on what they heck they thought they were doing, they claimed those edits were good-faith efforts to improve the article. It is an argument that strains my ability to assume good faith. Only nominate an articles for deletion when you think it is truly hopeless! If you think it can be improved, then try to improve it, or let someone else try to improve it. Don't nominate it for deletion. Your subsequent edits to the article will give the strong appearance of bad faith attempts to sabotage the article, making it appear weaker than it was when first nomiated for ((afd)).
- Nominator has decided to make several batches of ((afd)) of articles about survivors that he or she regards as NN, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Clark and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Praimnath

Huge and poorly explained? Other than me having an entire section on here explaining why I excised all the junk that is, quite simply put, irrelevant? I simply don't see a burn victim still being hospitalized in 2001 as being notable. Someone else removed all the celebrity close calls. I also removed a bunch of junk about survival by company, stuff which, in my eyes, is simply not important. A lot of this stuff simply is not important. And yes, I did nominate a bunch of non-notable survivors for AFDs, because they aren't notable. When I find swaths of junk, I'm more than happy to nominate it for deletion if necessary, and in my eyes, this is non-notable.

Your attack on my good faith is, frankly, unwarranted. I made note of what I thought, and you did not even bother to comment on it, so I did it. And now you're accusing me of bad faith? Please. I -did- improve the article by cleaning it up (something no one bothered to do) and updating it (removing irrelevant junk from 2001 which were artifacts of recentism). I think what I did was condense all the useful information into a single paragraph, and excised all the unencylopedic stuff that wasn't worth noting. I think my edit made the article stronger, not weaker, but I think it goes to show how little there is in the article that was really worth having around in the first place.

Frankly, I think you're missing what notability entails and what deserves and does not deserve its own article. I think that this should not be its own article because what there needs to be about this is already in the main article. Titanium Dragon 22:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a longer reply to the various points here almost written, but I seem ot have closed that window when I answered the phone. I'll briefly address the good faith question.

I wrote that you strain my ability to assume good faith. After long consideration of your comments in these three ((afd)) fora I have come to the conclusion that you are sincere, and that you are simply unaware of how first nominating an article for deletion, and then gutting it gives the appearance of bad faith. Of course sincerity is an over-rated virtue. If you thought the article could be improved you never should have nominated it for deletion. If you have changed your mind, and you think the article can be redeemed, then why haven't you withdrawn your nomination? Is this really that difficult for you to understand? Geo Swan 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- before I forget, for the various reasons I have offered above. Cheers Geo Swan 15:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the notable information in the article[edit]

Going through the article:

Number of people - in main article
Survivors by company - non-notable
Survivors at/above impact zone - in main article
Survivors in elevators - I don't think this is notable
People pulled from the debris - that people were pulled from the debris is notable, but who they were was not (20 people, but they don't need to be named/profiled, though it may be appropriate to say how many firemen were as a big deal was made of it). When the last person was pulled from the debris is also probably notable.
Injured - number notable, who was and where they were was not.

All of this could be summarized as

According to the 9/11 Comission, between 16,400 and 18,800 civilians were in the World Trade Center complex at the time of the attacks. Only 14 people escaped from the impact zone of the South Tower after it was hit, and only four people from floors above it. They escaped via Stairwell A, the only stairwell which had been left intact after impact. No one was able to escape from above the impact zone in the North Tower after it was hit, as all stairwells and elevator shafts on those floors were destroyed. After the collapse of the towers, only 20 survivors were pulled out of the debris, including 15 rescue workers. The last survivor was pulled from the rubble 27 hours after the collapse of the towers. 6,291 people were reported to have been treated in area hospitals for injuries related to the 9/11 attacks in New York City.

This is easily inserted into the main article, but all of this information is already there. Titanium Dragon 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete; article was relisted but consensus still not attained. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Barnes[edit]

Non-notable minor character from Hollyoaks. Fails WP:FICT criteria. No character list to merge. •97198 talk 13:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that she's not notable as a fictional character, but note that she is linked from List of characters from Hollyoaks. Shalom ^Hello 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this article should stay as she is still a character in Hollyoaks, even if she is a baby, and the current storylines feature her considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwencooper (talk • contribs) 22:50, July 30, 2007

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of characters from Hollyoaks. This is a 'minor' character in the TV series thus it should be "...merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."" per WP:FICT. The need here is for someone to add short descriptions about characters to the List of characters from Hollyoaks not to create articles about every bit player in the series. --Malcolmxl5 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Houchin[edit]

Combination of non-notable magician and spam for the magic seller he works for. Ghits are misleading as they are mostly referring to the effects he is marketing, or forum discussions. There appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:N. Saikokira 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus crystal ball stuff at the bottom. Nyttend 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but needs to be re-written. Notability is not verified by independent sources, however his effects such as sinful, stigmata and indecent seem to have a significant take up in the magical tricks community based on google hits. Article style looks unprofessional, more like an ad for the magic effects themselves so needs rewriting. Statements like: "With 2006 came Houchin's self-produced second album, "Stigmata." It was his first solo project and second international best-seller" require citations. Uranometria 23:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The subject of this article is Wayne Houchin, not his effects. If you believe the effects are notable then create a seperate article for them. There are hundreds of popular magic effects on the market, that doesn't mean the creators of those effects are notable and should be added to Wikipedia. At least you agree that his "notability is not verified by independent sources", since that's the relevant issue here. Saikokira 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - -- True, but if his work gains notability then so does he. The places where his effects are mentioned also seem to mention him and his name as a form of credit. Uranometria 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be the user; just self-promoting. If not, spam. A Raider Like Indiana 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the bulk of the article is a direct copy of an older bio from his site as found ont he wayback machine [2] and thus is primarily a copyvio. Removing that leaves not much else but the text of this effects. The referenced review of his effect is a forum post. Fails WP:RS. -- Whpq 22:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurance companies in Singapore[edit]

This list clearly goes against WP:NOT#DIR. Half a dozen non-red links, and a couple of those go to external websites. Russavia 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. I can understand a list of hotels, but insurance companies? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If we can have countless lists on various company types in Category:Lists of companies, is there any particular reason why insurance companies are out?--Huaiwei 07:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Category:Insurance companies in Singapore" is understandable, but this is against WP:NOT#DIR --H irohisat ^Talk 23:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, maybe in the main article but not in a separate article.--JForget 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless this list contains nothing but full addressess and contact numbers etc, it dosent work as a "directory". This is nothing more than a simple Wikipedia:Lists of names classified by type, and that is permissable in wikipedia. Otherwise, I will be questioning the existance of just about any article in Category:Lists.--Huaiwei 06:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Keb25 07:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is a list of company names. This is not a directory.--Huaiwei 08:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not indiscriminate. Provides information which the category does and cannot provide. Abberley2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hirohisat. Since this is a legitimate grouping, there's no reason not provide a structured, annotated list which is far more informative and useful that the blank lists provided by categories. Kappa 03:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a category is not a good idea, because it would spam up the company articles with a category for every country they operate in. Nevertheless a legit grouping for a list. Kappa 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful for navigation as the list is almost all redlinks and really provides little if any information. This list is exactly what I would expect to find in the Singaporean Yellow pages and Wikipedia is not that. Pascal.Tesson 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep comments were rife with Singapore-centrism and WP:ATA arguments (WP:USEFUL, to name one). —Kurykh 01:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Singapore[edit]

I originally put a ((prod)) tag with the rationale

Spam magnet. 90% redlinks and most of these articles, if created, would be deleted as non-notable or spam. Also, Wikipedia is not the Lonely Planet.

This was removed by Kappa with the edit summary

red links can be removed with the "edit this page" button.

Still, Wikipedia is not a directory and such listings without context are useless. See hotels in London for an article that has some value. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Russavia 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's (obviously) useful to be able to find wikipedia articles about hotels in specific areas of Singapore. Kappa 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And that is what wikitravel is for. or the Yellow Pages. Or the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board office or website. It is not what Wikipedia is for. --Russavia 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board office is where I should be going to navigate wikipedia. That would explain why navigation around here sucks so badly. Kappa 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the STPB is where you go to find out about hotels in specific areas of Singapore, which is what your reasoning is, particularly as 90%+ of the links are red-links with NO articles. --Russavia 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to follow the discussion. I am looking for encylopedic discussions of notable hotels, not a place to stay. Kappa 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one would be looking for articles of notable hotels in Singapore, then this list is not where they will find them as one can plainly see, but they will find them at Category:Hotels_in_Singapore which is obviously already in use.

Please try to follow the discussion. If one was looking for articles about notable hotels in a particular area of Singapore, say Chinatown, one would be able to do so using this list, but not by means of the category. Kappa 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than up with the discussion. Look at the list, you aren't going to find any articles on notable hotels in Chinatown by using said list, and if you were, it likely wouldn't meet the bare minimum notability criteria and be put up for AfD, as per the one hotel you will find an article for in the Chinatown section of the list, the Damenlou Hotel. --Russavia 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Damenlou Hotel is non-notable it will soon be a redlink again... are you saying none of the articles about hotels in Downtown or Orchard Road are notable? Kappa 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not travel guide or a directory, so a list of the more notable ones can be put in the main article since it is not a large area of land.--JForget 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The main article being Singapore ? Kappa 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel directory. Keb25 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Evidence that the Hotels in London article is a viable article should suggest that a Hotels in Singapore article could work, although perhaps not a List of hotels in Singapore. Luke! 01:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't actually seen any sensible reasons not to organize Singaporean hotels by location. Kappa 02:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make it clear that the debate is not centered on whether Singaporean hotels should be organized by location, it's about whether such a list should be on Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to be a directory of hotels no matter how cleverly or conveniently organized. This list is simply too far away from our core objectives. Why does Hotels in London work? Because it at least tries to incorporate some context: a bit of history on how, when and why the hotel business took shape, a bit of analysis of trends, a bit of analysis of what types of hotels appear in what kind of neighborhood. This list on the other hand provides absolutely nothing. It does not try to identify hotels which are significant in any shape or form, it does not try to provide context. It's as encyclopedic as a list of streets in Singapore or a list of supermarkets in Singapore. Pascal.Tesson 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me your core objectives don't include helping readers find articles they are looking for? Kappa 03:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm telling you that my core objectives don't include maintaining indiscriminate lists with 85% redlinks, another 5% on AfD and another 5% redirecting to the article for the chain of hotels. In the same spirit, my idea of encyclopedic content does not make room for vague classifications like "budget" and "boutique hotels". If you find the navigation of the category so problematic, you can always create a navigation box which will work just as well and won't be as bad a spam magnet. Pascal.Tesson 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your problem is with the current state of the list, it's unfortunate that you are trying to pretend that it's inherently against policy to have this kind of thing - implying it's pointless to try to clean it up. IMO templates imply that they contain a complete set so they are unsuitable for this kind of purpose. Also they leave no room for notes on size, date of foundation, references etc. Kappa 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving reasons for improving the article, not deleting it. Kamryn · Talk 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless this list contains nothing but full addressess and contact numbers etc, it dosent work as a "directory", and is hardly useful as a "travel guide". This is nothing more than a simple Wikipedia:Lists, and that is permissable in wikipedia. Otherwise, I will be questioning the existance of List of airports in Russia, for example.--Huaiwei 06:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidently useful list. An article being in poor shape is not a reason for deleting it (or we would lose 90% of our content). Kamryn · Talk 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get a chuckle out of that one... I suppose I also have a strong bias against New York. Pascal.Tesson 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admonishment was not meant for you, but for Russavia, who filed the original group deletion nomination after a dispute on Singapore Airlines. He has a vendetta against the Little Red Dot, and his group deletion nomination reeks of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supposedly have a bias against Singapore, because I nominate non-notable hotels (wikitravel material) not only in Singapore, but in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Philippines, UAE, etc and there will be more to come. No vendetta here, just a desire to be rid of non-notable entities and un-encyclopaedic material from WP. If I have a vendetta against Singapore, please explain why I did not nominate Raffles Hotel, Raffles The Plaza, Swissôtel The Stamford, Goodwood Park Hotel, and The Fullerton Singapore; perhaps because these are notable hotels in Singapore? --Russavia 14:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple look at Russavia's contribution history will tell a different story. His pass disagreements against certain Singaporean editors and his strong believe that Singaporean contributors are a result of "arrogant fanboism" has clearly been the guiding force behind many of his recent edits. It is clear, that his entire exercise against hotels in general started with a string of Singaporean establishments. Only with Pascal.Tesson "egging him on"[3], did he proceed to massively nominate hotel articles from around the World, but I suspect it isnt so simple. His repeated claims of nuetrality towards Singapore based on the fact that he has nominated non-Singapore related articles gives me reason to suspect that his actions are merely a calculated cover-up effort. People may lie, but their actions do not.--Huaiwei 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a friendly request to do so, Huaiwei seems unwilling to retract involving me in this dispute. I did not egg Russavia on. I simply reminded him of speedy deletion criteria and made a comment on my own efforts from way back when to clean up Category:Hotels which clearly needed it, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casablanca Hotel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grecian Sands Hotel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radisson Hotel Admiral, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheraton Hong Kong Hotel & Towers among many examples taken from my deleted contributions circa June 2006. While it may be that Russavia's motivations were Singapore-related, I find it unfair to suggest that I'm somehow backing up that effort. Pascal.Tesson 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Sengkang 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. This is what categories are for. WP isn't a travel guide: want a list of hotels in a city? Go use the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sources have been added so I withdraw. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hits (Faith Hill album)[edit]

Unsourced article on an upcoming Greatest Hits package from Faith Hill, not due out until October 2. I've been following this album for a while, and I can verify that the album release date has been repeatedly pushed back. Sites like Amazon and Billboard have posted several different tracklistings, with none of said listings being confirmed yet. Should be deleted as a case of WP:CRYSTAL until further notice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As long as the article accurately reflects the uncertainty about the contents and date, there's nothing wrong with it. Eventually, a Faith Hill greatest hits album will be released, and this article will become the basis for it. Deleting it now just means extra work later on. Wasted Time R 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R, I see nothing wrong with this article. --Caldorwards4 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except maybe that it needs sources (and some grammar tweaks)? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm closing this as a keep, sources have been added so WP:CRYSTAL is no longer violated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (unsourced, own website gone, notability not established). Note: recreation if/when a second Festival really occurs in March 2008 should not be speedy deleted as recrewation, IMO - Nabla 21:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Europe[edit]

No pages link to this except for the redirect page Festival of europe. WP:NOTABLE#Notability_is_not_temporary applies here, I think; even if other such series of lectures occur in future years the topic would not seem to be notable at the moment. Presumably it was thought worthy of an article based on the institutions and speakers involved, but I can't see anything linking back to this page unless a future Festival makes the news in some way, or until the event becomes more established. Ham 22:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the sponsorship (Tate, the Cortauld, & Birkbeck) it can be assumed to be sourceable and newsworthy. Repeated years are not necessaryDGG (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. I dont believe notability should be inherited through sponsorships. Searched google news and found stuff, but I'm not sure if they're talking about this festival specifically. Corpx 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is talking about events that happened in March in the future tense, so this page is clearly not being maintained. - 52 Pickup 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the solution is of course to maintain it. Just an editing question. (Incidentally, I dont regard sponsorship as necessarily determining notability, just that shows with notable sponsors tend to get reviews. The reviews are still needed. ) DGG (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If/when sourced, seems notable enough. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Let's give a few more days for additional responses (I note that the external links aren't that helpful). El_C 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Website gone dead. Institutions not specifically said to be sponsors - may just have lent/rented lecture rooms. Water under the bridge. Johnbod 01:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources. -- Whpq 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to say delete. No relevant Google News hits, their website is already dead, and according to the article, it "was held in London between 19th - 29th March 2007... [and] attracted well over 1500 people." That's less than 140 people a day. I searched the external links already in the article, and did find this Open Democracy coverage, but can't say I find that sufficient since OD are apparently a sponsor. --DeLarge 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police stop, search, detention and arrest powers in the United Kingdom[edit]

The page is out of date, needs a lot of updating, and will need regular updating. It has been tagged to be updated for over 6 months, and noone has done this. TFoxton 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook may also apply. Instruction manuals... Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. --TFoxton 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it requires updating and regular maintenance isn't a reason to delete the article. As long as people know it's out-of-date until someone comes along to update it, there's no reason to delete it. --GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs improvement and updating, but is totally legitimate. I don't see how this can be considered a manual/guidebook case. --Targeman 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate topic with some useful information. If we deleted every page that needed improvement/updating we'd have a lot fewer pages. Can it be brought to the attention of a relevant Wikiproject for updating/maintenance? Espresso Addict 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:Espresso Addict and co, as long as people know it's out of date I don't see the harm in it remaining until it's updated. RBlowes 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I can't see this going any other way, and an out-of-date article is not a reason for deletion, but for editing. I DO recommend renaming to Police powers in the United Kingdom or Law enforcement powers in the United Kingdom. That covers the content and is less awkward. CaveatLector^Talk 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per above. Rationale is for cleanup not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that this is a WP:POV fork from various other articles that cover the topic in more detail, inlcuding Stop and search, Detention (imprisonment),Arrest, Anti-terrorism legislation and Public Order Act. No wonder this article could not be maintained as it straddles 5 different Acts of parliament covered in more detail in other articles. This article is an Amalgamation of too many other articles to be of any use, not to mention the problems of maintaining it identified by TFoxton. --Gavin Collins 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Strong Keep as per CaveatLector, TenPound Hammer, RBlowes, Targeman, Espresso Addict, and GorillaWarfare. Yes, it needs a bit of improvement, but that is not Grounds for deletion. I might add a legal disclaimer (a la Allocation questionnaire) or a link to the standard legal disclaimer. It is axionomic that "The law is vast and constantly changing." I would argue that all legal articles need to updated periodically. That is why we have a WikiProject:Law. That is also why I have here at WP in the first place -- to help my students. If we deleted every legal article for the reason that it is out of date, WP would be bereft of legal research, and thus a valuable tertiary source for college (paralegal) and law students. I am happy to jump in and fix it per the Heyman doctrine. Bearian 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the required policy on deleting articles and the reasons therefore, and Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer for the wording of the specifics for legal articles. Bearian 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laddered[edit]

Non notable neologism coined by some kids in New York City. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or for things made up one day. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete as per nom. Definitely not notable. I couldn't find a single reference to it anywhere, not even the Urban Dictionary! --GorillaWarfare ^talk 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and GorillaWarfare. "Laddered has grown among 20 year old Croatians and Indians living in New York". --Targeman 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Eliz81. RBlowes 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Things made up in one day could end up in Wikipedia if they end up being "analyzed" by academics etc. But this one clearly has not.--Kylohk 00:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Hmmm.. Sooo many things to say... Horrible grammar, not notable; If this was at least a bit notable it would be on UD. Ditto per above. James Luftan ^contribs 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lief Henderson[edit]

Unreferenced bio of jeweler from New York City. Fails WP:BIO. Lack of google hits and article tone lead me to suspect WP:HOAX. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every word in this article screams "HOAX!!!" --Targeman 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Leif Henderson but totally unrelated to the article at hand, no google hits either outside unrelated surname matches for book publications. RBlowes 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not a hoax, not notable. James Luftan ^contribs 01:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as NN, poorly written, and no assertion of notability. Not sure if it is a hoax, but that does not change my stance. Bearian 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CitiCat^♫ 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later Days[edit]

Naples, Fl-based punk band. Although they won a contest, they are a myspace-based band without sufficient notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does indeed fails WP:MUSIC I could only find two sites referencing them, Myspace and Bonita News, which, reports the award. I don't think the Collegiate Nationals Music Festival counts as a National Tour though and without other sources I'd have to agree for a deletion, unless I've missed anything of course! RBlowes 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, recreation of deleted material (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over 9000). Krimpet 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9000 (meme)[edit]

Non notable neologism and internet meme. Doesn't meet criteria for own article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, with a power level of over 9000. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Given an article with the same purpose has been deleted on a previous occasion is only one of the main reasons why this should too. Serves of no encyclopedic value. Bungle44 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Sampson[edit]

Because the subject has strenously objected to the existence and content of the Wikipedia article on his webpage and in private correspondence (I created the article). The subject is a minor academic figure who has published a critique of the nativist strand of psycholinguistics which is actually rather good, but which nonetheless attracted little critical or commercial attention, and therefore only barely qualifies as "notable". Since he is so incensed by the Wikipedia entry, in light of the requirement that Wikipedia is sensitive on biographical material relating to living authors, and given that the subject is an extremely peripheral figure in any event, it seems reasonable to just delete the entry and be done with it. Mean time, I have removed the majority of the disputed content, making the article very brief indeed. I have notified all other users who have contributed to the article (that is, three of them) of this AfD. ElectricRay 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough for deletion in light of the above. I do think that the article's existence has some slight merit in documenting the existence and terms of debates over various forms of political correctness, especially racism. Given that the page had included a link to his own webpage,and had been modified in light of the comments made there, I wonder if Professor Sampson has any strong opinions on the current or previous version? If he's reasonably happy it might be worth perpetuating it. HTH Richard Keatinge 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep and edit objectively. He's Professor of Natural Language Computing in the Department of Informatics, University of Sussex,and that is notable, not borderline notable. His public career is public. His published works, and the criticisms others make of them are public. All we need do is be objective. I note that he inserted in the article text the line that "Sampson has responded on his own web page to the content of the original version of this Wikipedia article (see References below)." This belongs on the talk page: it is not encyclopedic content. The original content does seem to have contained unsourced and possibly inaccurate negative criticism. The discussion of its accuracy is for the article talk page.

This is not a private individual requesting the removal of negative material about his private life or a public individual requesting the removal of an unrelated past incident. He's an academically based politically active controversialist, and the material discussed concerns his academic and political career. Subjects of articles can correct errors, and insist on the removal of unsourced comment. They do not however get to require that we either write the article to their liking or remove it. He has his blog for the purpose, and he uses it. I see no reason for our article to necessarily "make him happy." DGG (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. English professor at reputable university, published book with several editions, seems likely to meet WP:PROF. The fact that the subject objects to the article does not mean Wikipedia has to delete it, merely make sure it is accurate, unbiased and well sourced. Someone should probably look through previous versions to make sure that anything defamatory is properly removed. Espresso Addict 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a Speedy Keep candidate. As per above, would pass WP:PROF and has been a public figure in academics and politics. Inaccuracy concerns appear to have been addressed. Other than that, subject seems like a bully who complains about others being hypocritical about defending free speech, rationalizes away his own poor fact-checking and then makes a big deal out of easily-corrected mischaracterizations. Canuckle 23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but with scrupulous reference to reliably-sourced material and caution about undue weight (e.g. he has a biography and career that don't solely consist of his controversial statements). But his comments and analysis thereof are on record in respectable British newspapers (e.g Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph all covered them as newsworthy). I think it was certainly an error to use a polemical article by Hitchens as a major source. So Keep, but get it vetted by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gordonofcartoon 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This academic has been notable for several decades since he was at Lancaster University which should be mentioned. However take care about BLP issues as noted above. --Bduke 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once a person enters the public eye through publication or a notable position, they become notable and are subject to coverage by Wikipedia and other media. Obviously the article must adhere to WP:BLP policies, as well as WP:NPOV. It's not unheard of for subjects of an article to be involved in their creation, so if the person here has an issue, he is invited to contribute to the creation of the article about him, so long as WP:NPOV is maintained, and certain provisions under WP:NOT are also watched. 23skidoo 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per all above uses. James Luftan ^contribs 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, Dr. Sampson is notable and has been for many years. I believe he was somewhat justifiably upset at the "Controversies" section. The spat with Chomsky is definitely notable but we should not just write neutrally, but attribute views about the situation. The UK politics issue wasn't half clear -- did it attract national attention or not? If so, attribute like mad. I'm not sure how "right of reply" works in light of WP:ASR; if there's a policy or guideline, could someone link to it?--Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did it attract national attention or not?

Yep. It was in all the major papers, BBC too, mentioned in a ministerial interview [4], and has also been cited when others, such as Frank Ellis last year, made similar statements in a similar capacity.

But looking at the original article again, I agree that his annoyance was justified; it gave undue weight to the controversies, and drew on a single hostile source for the Chomsky story. Gordonofcartoon 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Provided the article is kept in NPOV, the subjetcts opinion on if there should be an article written about him is irrelivent. Particularly since he maintains a personal website which he himself contributes to (so he obvioulsly must not oppose web content about himself). If the professor is notable (and I believe he is), and the article is kept neutral, I say keep.--Kelapstick 10:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ahmed ElShiekh[edit]

Non-notable person. There are thousands of college and university deans around the world and this article does not indicate why this one should have an article. A notability tag was added in March and there has been little improvement since. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. No reliable sources provided. Searching via Google brings up nothing useful, at least in English. -- Whpq 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The obvious problem of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries means that lack of sources in English is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Espresso Addict 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - I agree, and I did qualify that i could find none in English. And I'll happily change my opinion if the reliable sources can be found. -- Whpq 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. According to our article on it, 'the University of Khartoum is the most historically prestigious and selective university in Sudan', and thus its Dean is probably notable independent of other criteria. ~~The Univ. of Khartoum website lists Prof. Elsiddig Ahmed ElMustafa ElSheikh (I'm assuming that this is the same person?) as Deputy Vice Chancellor and his English CV is available here: [5].~~ Espresso Addict See DGG's comments below & [6] 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is obsolete--he is now vice-chancellor, the chief executive officer, equivalent to President in the US tradition. The University of Khartoum, formerly Gordon College, is the original Western educational system Sudanese university. College presidents are notable. People get appointed to university administrative positions for a combination of academic, administrative , and sometimes political, demonstrated ability, and are thus likely to be notable. The article does need sources, but they do not have to be in English, nor do they have to be found on Google. His full name as usually written is Mohamed Ahmed Ali El-Shiekh, and that might help find references. He seems to have been dean of their medical school. "Prof. Elsiddig Ahmed ElMustafa ElSheikh" is someone else--the web page cited shows the pictures of the two. They don't even look related, and I thing ElShaikh & its equivalents can be used as an honorable addition to the name. DGG (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Trying to scan too quickly, sorry! Espresso Addict 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I found to my chagrin in an Australian V-C's AFD, Vice-Chancellor is indeed the Commonwealth equivalent of a US university president. (In the US, the word is definitely a secondary post.) There is strong precedent for keeping all college and university presidents. --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Antorjal 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yuko Aoki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A year after the first AfD, still no assertion of notability, nor any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails all criteria for inclusion. Valrith 20:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No citations from significant publications. Fails WP:Notability. A Train^talk 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm trying but failing to understand the logic of the editors arguing keep. The only two references seem to be citing a publication called "Yuko Aoki Laboratory", which does not sound like an independent source to be discussing Yuko Aoki. If someone could find a source in a major newspaper or (optimally) in a book, I'd reconsider, but right now it looks like the sources that we're attributing statements like "known for her large breasts" to are fan sites. A Train^talk 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seems like people voting WP:ILIKEIT without giving the matter any serious consideration... Valrith 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. She released an album under Universal Music, biggest group in the business. Not to mention the many many covers she has been. There is assertion of notability and coverage of her. She passes, this is a simple case. Mathmo ^Talk 01:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Mathmo: she satisfies WP:MUSIC criterion 5, and only one needs to be satisfied. I am unhappy with the lack of sources but it seems there would be few in English regardless (the Japanese Wikipedia article isn't any better, alas). Tag for sources/citations, but no justification for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm retracting and going with weak delete. Ithought there were two albums, but there's only one, and the new band she's in has only released a demo. So she doesn't pass WP:MUSIC on that basis. --Dhartung | Talk 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about the magazine covers? Even if you want to ignore her music, she still has notability from the many magazine covers. Mathmo ^Talk 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to being the subject of almost fifty cover stories and photo shoots in a large number of magazines in addition to having an album. If someone passes via a combination of multiple notability tests, then they are notable. Maybe not as much as Madonna, but certainly notable enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The article tells us: She has been the cover model for (and subject of major articles in) nearly fifty issues of various magazines in Japan. I clicked on the link, too. I don't see evidence for the claim that she has been the "subject of major articles", in any normal sense. Rather, she's been the model for sequences of, oh, perhaps four-plus pages of photos: grinning, showing some leg, showing cleavage, etc. Have I missed something? If I haven't, she's just one more of thousands. -- Hoary 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TV appearances, commercials, magazine covers, musical album, etc... All with major companies. Notable. Dekkappai 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's made one album, but hasn't done anything else of note. -- Hoary 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough WP:RS coverage to support a Wikipedia article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has started to acquire a certain charm. My favorite: On December 16, 2002, Aoki revealed a chocolate covered statute of David Beckham in Tokyo to generate publicity. Presumably it's a statue, not a statute. Where did she reveal it? (Had it been lurking between her famed mammaries?) Publicity for Beckham (did he need yet more?) or for herself? If the latter, was eligibility for an en:WP article one consideration? Etc. -- Hoary 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Kobayashi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I know it got through last time, but seriously - this lacks evidence of notability, is generally unloved, and I'm not sure how well it currently meets verifiability requirements either. makomk 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails to satisfy any criteria for inclusion, including WP:BIO, WP:RS etc. Valrith 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it most certainly does meet notability requirements with at least 9 books published and 17 DVD releases where she's the main feature. Bunkasha is a major publisher in Japan, and you can't have that many releases (of both books and DVDs) from a major publisher and not be notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bunkasha is a major publisher? You mean, like Iwanami, Misuzu, etc.? Odd that it doesn't have an article in en:WP if it's major. (Actually I was under the vague impression that it was just a major publisher of cheesecake photo books and similar ephemera, but I may be wrong.) In Japan cheesecake models definitely can and do appear in lots of books and DVDs and still not be notable, other of course than to the hordes of innocent young chaps who buy your wares. -- Hoary 23:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of publishers from Japan that either don't have articles here, or the articles that do exist are really pathetic. And yes, Bunkasha is a major publisher. Certainly not as large as Kodansha or Shueisha, but definitely major. As for appearing in books and DVDs, that's not the point: the point is that they are books/DVDs specifically about her (or containing pictures of her) with no other people appearing in them. I know you don't seem to personally like the fact that some gravure models are notable, but the fact remains that there are many of them that are notable for the reasons I keep reiterating to you over and over and over and over. If someone isn't notable, I'm fine with deleting an article about them, but when someone has this much published material published by major publishers, they are notable regardless of your personal opinion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a whim, I looked up Bunkasha's site to see what their annual net income was: ¥12,000,000,000 (about $101 million). That's definitely a major company, even if it's on the mid to lower end of major. Given that they only publish in Japan, that's not bad. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On a related note, Iwanami has an annual net income of ¥90,000,000 (about $757,000, or about 0.75% of Bunkasha's annual income—not even 1%), so Iwanami isn't even in the same league. I can't find any website for Misuzu Publishing. Do you have a link? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right about en:WP's pathetic coverage of Japanese publishers (as of most other non-anglophone publishers). Still there's a Japanese article, and it shows that my picture of Bunkasha was right. (It shouldn't be confused with at least one other publisher called 文化社, in kanji.) I'm not surprised that they make money hand over fist: there's clearly a huge market for comic books, porn and cheesecake. Misuzu's site is here; like Iwanami, Misuzu publishes a disappointingly small number of books of cheesecake (even non-jailbait cheesecake), though it does publish quite a lot of books to be held with both hands. Is this how you measure the significance of publishers, Joe: comparing their income? If so, I'd guess that this outfit would beat the lot, though I see curiously few people actually reading (or deriving other forms of stimulation from) its products. ¶ But let us return to the minor under discussion. The books about her are so notable that (although I may not have polled its OPAC in the right way) the Tokyo Metropolitan Central Library appears to hold a total of zero (0) copies. (It's not that the library is prudish; it has two copies of the Shinoyama/Miyazawa Santa Fe, hea and all.) It's not a matter of personally liking or disliking the fact that some "gravure models" [odd term] are notable; it's one of determining whether this one is notable. Santa Fe actually made headlines outside the world of girly publications, but such a degree of conspicuousness isn't required: has this Kobayashi person made news, or is her product notable in any way? -- Hoary 04:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whether or not a book is found in a library is not a criteria for notability. The fact that she has 9 published books by a major publisher makes her notable. No other arguments need to be made. That alone makes her notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and Mizusu brings in about ¥10,000,000 annually (about $84,000). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm shocked to hear how little money Misuzu makes. Joe, will you send off email to them suggesting that they should start a cheesecake/porno subsidiary, or shall I? Yes, you have made your point that this moppet is the sole sales point of nine published books of cheesecake photos that are put out by a company that makes wads of money, even though no evidence has been presented that anybody aside from the customers seems to be at all interested. -- Hoary 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she actually has a Japanese Wikipedia page, and two other languages (Chinese and Italian)... seems to indicate some sort of fame. 132.205.44.5 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like it would satisfy notability criteria - needs some refs though. Suffers from internet publication bias. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "internet publication bias"? -- Hoary 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability is there without a doubt. The problem is the article itself is poor and has little value, needs a lot of work --Childzy ^{(Talk|Images)} 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see . . . we could get more stuff from the sources. Uh, hang on, no we can't: "Mao's profile at momo mint's homepage" is a dead link. The "Theppn" thing tells you stats (e.g. which bottle (AB!) to use for transfusion), but tells us nothing whatever about her achievements. And the third one is ja:WP. So what's to be done? Shall we perhaps translate her titles? For those who don't know Japanese, let me start: "Mao 12 years old", "Mao II 12 years old", "Mao 12 years old summer vacation" -- thrilling stuff, no? She even appears to have mammaries: see this devilishly titillating display. Careful though: she's jailbait! -- Hoary 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Can be mentioned in main article if desired. CitiCat^♫ 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Post[edit]

Doesn't establish notability. Possible merge with Black Panthers? Neutrality^talk 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per suggested by nominator, unless substantial references are found and the article grows in size even by a few sentences, with the chance of growing into a reasonably sized article at some point. Bungle44 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article as it contains only a single line.--JForget 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V. I found nothing in Google News Archive or Google Books about this publication, which it seems might have had some visibility. The group did have its own newspaper, called The Black Panther. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molly McKay[edit]

Possible promotional article that does not appear to establish notability. -WarthogDemon 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it is, possibly, a promotional article and should be re-written with sources, the notations in the article certainly establish notability. At the very least, time should be given to the article's originator to cite sources and provide further information. LACameraman 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. McKay received national media attention, some of it directly though mostly indirectly. Article appears sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above contra nom, as it desperately needs sourcing, and it is completely unsourced as is. Also needs wikification. Bearian 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Choi[edit]

Non-notable person with only 277 Google hits. PC78 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arirang TV is the English-language major TV channel in South Korea, and is sydicated worldwide. Ms Choi is on for many hours a week. Korean material is poorly represented on Google due to the insular nature of their web presence. Speciate 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that for a second. There are many Korean celebrities who get tens or hundreds of thousands of Google hits. This article has no references, and none of the external links have any significant content (several of them are just mirrors of the Wikipedia article anyway). Furthermore, this article has already been deleted twice before; I see no compelling reason why this time should be any different. PC78 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if people have searched in Hangul, and there are few hits, then I withdraw my "Keep". Speciate 05:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Dana Choi were a celebrity in Korea, her name in hangul would surely generate some Ghits (BTW, what's with the "insularity" of the Internet in Korea? It's one of of the most internet-literate countries in the world). As it happens, neither "다나 최" nor "최 다나" produce any relevant hits. And there's no trace of her, not even a passing reference, on Korean Wikipedia. --Targeman 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 10:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Habits (2006 film)[edit]

Completely non-notable short film. The film was done by a "David Accampo" and this article was created by Daccampo. Clear conflict of interest and an attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise his own work. IrishGuy ^talk 19:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak (as in an elephant walking on eggshells) keep - It seems to just barely be notable, but it'll need a rewrite. -WarthogDemon 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Per WP:MOVIE, it fails all criteria for notability: No national film critic review, no historical value, no major awards (i.e. Oscar, Golden Globe), no National Archive, no teaching in schools. Google search turns up all of 49 results. Also seems to be some self-promotional advertisement disguised as a Wikipedia article. Delete with extreme prejudice. -- VegitaU 01:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Won an award at a notable international film festival. Yes, it may not be an Oscar or a Palme d'Or, but it's still significant in the world of independent filmmaking. JulesH 09:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to [7], 918 films have won an award from that festival just in 2006. 39 films won an award from that festival that year in the category this movie was entered in (Original Drama). I don't believe there were 918 truly notable films in that festival. Festival award is not a criteria in WP:MOVIE anyway, so it's irrelevant it received it unless it matches any of the existing criteria. Karaboom 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete per evidence of lack of selectivity in selection for this award. I'd say receiving a festival award would normally qualify a film for an article, due to the fact that details about such awards are usually published by the organisers of the festival in what would count as significant coverage in a reliable independent source. Most festivals are eager to go into detail about the films that have won their awards. In this case, though, it seems that with so many winners, such detail is not plausible, so I'm not even going to look at it. JulesH 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi-symmetric equation[edit]

I really can't find any information about this on google, save one page: [8]. As such, this page faces serious WP:V, possible WP:OR issues (author may have coined the term himself). The Evil Spartan 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No context. Only cite is a Geocities page, not exactly reliable. Bearian 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it may well be true, but it's unsourced original research and appears to be a vanity article. A little Googling finds Ana Flores to be a math teacher in Uruguay, who funnily enough uses the Yahoo ID Septembrinol. Gordonofcartoon 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources and none are listed, hence it's unverifiable (at least to me). On a first glance, the list of publications mentioned by The Evil Spartan has noting to do with it. By the way, the text of the article has been part of quartic equation for at least half a year. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author closed his account after writing this article on July 29; "Ana Flores" appears to be mentioned only on the website used as a source; and when you get right down to it, this doesn't really tell us anything. It's good for those rare instances where you have a variable called "m" which happens to be is the ratio between two other parts of the equation (m = a3 / a1). I think it's meant to sound impressive, but says nothing. Mandsford 02:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the author is still editing [9]. Paul August ☎ 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of NCIS episodes per recent concensus, not worth deleting. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bête Noire (NCIS)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bête Noire (NCIS)

Non-encyclopaedic plot-summaries of an unpopular TV show. This entire category belongs in some kind of almanac, or, better yet, a personal fanpage. Dbelange 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total agreement, Dbelange. Mandsford 00:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Unless someone is proposing deleting every article from Category:Television episodes by series. Also how does being on the air for 4 seasons match with it being an 'unpopular TV show'? Vegaswikian 07:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have a look at WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:EPISODES, and CSD A1 first. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Empty and meaningless, no sources except primary, not the slightest suggestion of real-world impact or attention. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAS-Be Airlines[edit]

This so-called airline fails WP:CORP as it is not an airline, but a travel agency posing as an airline. The evidence so that others unfamiliar can verify for themselves

The IATA code CZ, belongs to China Southern Airlines not MAS-Be
The website of MAS-Be [10] states that flights are operated by China Southern Airlines or China Eastern Airlines.
The FAQ of the website [11] answers the question "Is MAS-Be an airline" with "Not yet, but we are in the process of planning and working towards becoming one, subject, of course, to the prior approval of the relevant authorities. Meanwhile, we work with airlines to bring you the best deal ever offered by the aviation industry." *code words for we are really a travel agent who books a few seats on a real airline and will use the word 'airlines' to try and fool the public.*

Any company (or individual) can charter an aircraft and sell seats and call themselves an airline, but to be an actually airline is a different thing entirely. Russavia 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like corporate crystalballery to me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 10:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you don't have an IATA code, and you don't own planes, and you don't pay pilots, then you aren't an airline. You might be selling seats on a charter airline, but that doesn't make you an airline. I don't see any evidence that MAS-Be is operating flights, or even wet leasing aircraft. Maybe they should change their name to Wanna-Be Airlines. (Or maybe not.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No assertion of notability as a charter airline or travel agency. Bearian 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is it worth our time to db-spam the article? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonami[edit]

This is an advertisement disguised as a definition. It should either be deleted or moved to wikidictionary. Clerks. 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no transwiki. No verifiable sources, company-generated neologism. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. At best it's WP:V and at worst it's spam. Either way, there's no reason for it to be here. Jeremiah (talk·cont) 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eliz81. Don't transwiki. This is an in-house neologism used exclusively by the employees of the eponymous company. Those 1m+ Ghits are all inflected forms of the Slavic word "ikona". --Targeman 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, especially given the campaign the people involved have been running to get the article kept. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable. --Core desat 05:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YATE[edit]

Organization lacks notability per WP:CORP. It is an article about a project that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Calltech 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMHO, the YATE falls quite in the category of Asterisk, OpenPBX (now called CallWeaver), Bayonne, SER/OpenSER, FreeSWITCH and, or other such software projects, so might want to delete all these too. Moreover, I don't mind even if you suggest deletion of the whole Wikipedia itself :( That's only an opinion and opinions may differ --Dheeman 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC) — Dheeman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I originally deleted this as a spam article but was asked to reconsider and allow the article to improve. As the deletion was marginal I acceded. Clearly, the article has had time to improve and has but it still lacks independent reliable sources for verifiability and help establish notability. Without these, the article is not compliant and should be deleted. Note to Dheeman WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Davnel03 20:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YATE is a powerful telephone engine. I believed you should keep this article. people know about Asterisk and they will learn about YATE! If you delete this article millions of people will miss a great opportunity to learn about YATE. --Madhawa_gnu 3 August 2007 — Madhawa_gnu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I have to admit that i'm a part of the Yate project. What i can say is that Yate is a project made by a romanian team. And is obvious that is not well promoted, even if his functionality is as good as Asterisk let's say, or SER or Nextone. That's because we are more busy on development than on promoting Yate. Since promoting Yate is my job mainly i have to admit i'm not doing it very well, however i do hope that the quality of Yate even if is open source will be enough to make it important. -- Diana Cionoiu 3 August 2007— 83.166.206.79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep YATE is the most friendly IVR I've ever used. It should be a part of wikipedia to let others know more about it. amirghasemi 14:20, 3 Aug 2007 (UTC)— amirghasemi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep YATE is a solid server with a great deal of flexability and ease of use. It is the only solution I have found to connect Nortel phone systems to a carrier via VoIP alone. Cmfrolick 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)— Cmfrolick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I agree that the article needs improving, however I disagree with Calltech on the grounds of notability. Specifically the referenced policy says that smaller entities are unlikely to have widespread coverage. The secondary source covering YATE is O'Reilly. IMO a not insignificant secondary source.--AnandKumria 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yate is deployed surprising widely and therefore has some significance. Most notably yate provides SIP/H323 conversion and is hence deployed in quite some networks for exactly that purpose. gj101 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)— gj101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The author of this article is engaging in a promotional campaign for this project and has posted a message on the YATE website requesting users to support her. Thus the recent flurry of single purpose accounts. This is blatant advertising and promotion. "Help Yate to become known" is the theme here. [12]. Calltech 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the author of this article didn't promote the article. I did it. And since the problem with this article was that Yate is not well known i suppose that having users makes it well known. -- Diana Cionoiu 19.41 , 3 August 2007
Keep Yate is a very robust and strong product with a large user base, and has significance as such. It is not a trivial product, and the Wikipedia entry should not be deleted as such. Simon 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blake venture corp[edit]

While the founder's efforts are laudable, the company itself is not notable and smacks of self-promotion. One reliable source cited, others are own web sites or news releases. Realkyhick 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An anonymous editor attempted to remove the AfD notice from the page, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Realkyhick 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant, but firm delete 51 Yahoo hits and 95 Google hits. There are reliable sources, but most of them talk about awards he's won. Sorry, no dice. Blueboy 96 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Blueboy.--SarekOfVulcan 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any agreement as to whether or not the person behind the company merits an article? Adam Blake as a person might be different from this company, which would be a section of that article. FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I could see that Blake himself might qualify as notable, but it is borderline at best. Realkyhick 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {e/c) The sources listed to demonstrate notability have to do with the founder, not the company itself. The description/history of the company would indicate that its impact is very small; it's simply an impressive feat that such a young entrepreneur got it off the ground.Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete firm is not notable, and the founder would be very borderline, but still non-notable in my opinion. He is a solid young businessman, but little more. with 38 properties, he has a while before he catches CB Richard Ellis.Montco 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article space salted, user blocked. A Train^talk 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Score One for the Little Guy[edit]

Rap group that does not pass notability standards at all. Article is written like a news release, likely copied from another source. No major label, no charting, nothing that can be verified, just the usual collection of Myspace, Youtube and promotional web site links. Realkyhick 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC.--SarekOfVulcan 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Take your pick--A7 (no assertion of notability) or G11 (blatant advertising). Could even nuke this as a G12--the first graph is cut-and-pasted from [13] Blueboy 96 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Just discovered it's been speedied three times--in the last month, no less. Make that a speedy delete and salt, and possibly block the author. Blueboy 96 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per Blueboy96, with blocking of author per 'final warning' about creating pages already given. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and Salt per above. James Luftan ^contribs 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Longo[edit]

The result was no consensus. - the_undertow ^talk 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unreferenced, stands only on original research and has been marked for such (and for cleanup), with no attempt having been made at remedying the issue, since December 2006. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many legit refs at the bottom of the page. It is likely that the gang exists as described. Should the article be deleted for bad grammar/formatting even though it was written in good faith? Speciate 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Speciate. Evidently, quite the problem in the Long Beach part of the L.A. metroplex. Mandsford 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monad Nocensiocus[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable philosophy that has exactly one Google hit — this very article. Dubious at best, hoax at worst. Realkyhick 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can anyone verify the latin translation given, or is the translation the "bad joke"?--SarekOfVulcan 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Monad is really a term in philosophy, math, and physics, and nocens means 'bad', and iocus means 'joke' (per online translators). The philosophical underpinnings of the article don't match the quantum physics bent of the cited author, and all sorts of creative Google searches turned up nada. I think we've been had. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I can appreciate an elaborate hoax, it still doesn't belong here. "Iocus" means "joke" but "nocens" is "harmful" rather than "bad". And as bad as my Latin may be, a word like "nocensiocus" seems grammatically impossible. Plus, in a different article, the author of this hoax attempted to slip in "Monad Nocensiocus" as a synonym for samsara, which totally contradicts his own definition. Nice try, User:Juillet2007. --Targeman 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the speedy tag because this theory is attributed to a blue-link theorist. So although a modicum of notability was asserted denied the speediness, there still is no notability in actuality here so it ought to be deleted. Carlossuarez46 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Links go nowhere. Funny. Bearian 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuball[edit]

COntested prod, Non notable sport at best, possible hoax. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or something someone made up. Realkyhick 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt the earth: Not notable, unsourced nonsense. The links are for tennis, not "Fuball" -- VegitaU 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This has the distinct odor of something made up in school one day. Blueboy 96 18:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I have played this, it's a sport, but it's just a game kids make up. Not notable. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:MADEUP. Talk page contests of deletion say they want to make it popular via the Wikipedia entry, not that it is already popular. If this game qualifies as an article, I'm making a page for Slapbag! :) Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Wasn't actually made up in school, but a bunch of co-students made it up. Close enough for WP:NFT if you ask me. Delete accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete From the talk page, "I would estimate that over 25 people have at one time or another participated in a Fuball match in the immediate area." - little more needs saying. Iain99 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, as violating WP:NFT, WP:V and WP:N. Bearian 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo (content management system)[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, no assertion of notability, no third party links. Jackaranga 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any reliable sources. JulesH 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be terribly happy if sources could be found, because Typo is one of the best known and oldest Ruby on Rails-based projects. Not exactly widely unused either... The sourcing and proving notability otherwise is a major headache without such sources though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the official Ruby on Rails website calls it "one of the oldest and most visible of Rails open source projects". The only quotation is cited per WP:VERIFY, and the rest of the article is not "likely to be challenged" per that guideline - first-party links would seem entirely appropriate for things like a list of features. — ceejayoz ^talk 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable; sources should be found. --Optichan 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable; sources would be good though cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop (software)[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY (no assertion of notability, because no third party links) Jackaranga 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam, not notable. Realkyhick 17:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This software is in use at multiple notable sites (e.g. Kuro5hin, DailyKos), and was apparently influential on the development of Drupal, which suggests some degree of notability. A quick search didn't turn up any reliable sources, however. JulesH 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, limited coverage in several books, tech media[14][15][16] & places like Salon. It's in some ways an order of magnitude more complex than other blogging systems (that are designed to be lightweight and installable) and almost every installation is limited to sites that can either hire Rusty Foster at the cost of the wife's Cadillac or have equivalent experience available. It almost got used by the Dean campaign[17], and I thought it was used by at least one 2006 candidate, but I can't find that now. Its complexity actually means it doesn't get the "Scoop for Dummies" book coverage that other software does. Alternatively, merge with Rusty Foster. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not spam, not as notable as Slash (Slashdot alone gives that notability), but is indeed something that has a presence. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment by JulesH above. Ubernostrum 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After he tagged this article with a PROD notice, I suggested to Jackaranga that it would be better on the whole to spend time improving the article than to spend time getting it deleted; his response was to open this AfD. Due to a potential conflict of interest (I used to do business with the developers of Scoop), I will no longer actively edit this article, but I'll be happy to help others who're interested in improving it if the article survives AfD. Ubernostrum 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, Uber, I don't see anything like WP:COI in this regard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know that officially that's not enough for COI, but I'd still feel icky doing it, and so I'd rather stay out of it as much as I can ;) Ubernostrum 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was really hopping when I tagged it with PROD that someone would address the issues and remove the tag, but the tag was removed without addressing any of the issues. If you can address WP:VERIFY in particular and add reliable sources then there is no need to leave the AfD open, and we can close as keep. If there are issues with the article and nobody is prepared to fix them, then it is normal it will be nominated for deletion. I just think it's ashame when wikipedia becomes a place for people to promote their new product which has not yet had much coverage. Personally I don't think it is notable enough for wikipedia as there are other wikis for software. Most of this article is just a feature list, it doesn't explain why people use this software, what are it's benefits as regards other similar software ? what are it's drawbacks ? Why is it well known ? (is it well known ?) It just reads like the creator's description of it. It's a bit too much like, "our product does this, this and this, it is used by so and so", and it has a token "disadvantages" paragraph, even though there must be many more or everyone would use it, especially as it is free. For example "Thorough and well-written documentation,", if people really do want to advertise their product here they should at least abide by the policies, otherwise it should be no surprise it is nominated for deletion.Jackaranga 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's a shame that you have so much time to spend lobbying for article deletion, but apparently none whatsoever to devote to improving article content. Perhaps you'd consider a change of priorities? Ubernostrum 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I don't feel like writing an article, because it takes time and thought, I'm going through List of content management systems trying to clear the spam. Jackaranga 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I could improve the article but don't feel like doing so" is not a valid criterion for deletion on Wikipedia. Please close this and any other AfDs you've opened for that reason. Ubernostrum 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, when you feel an article does not sufficiently establish the notability of its subject, apply the "notability" template first. If you feel an article does not cite any references or sources, apply the "unreferenced" template. These templates exist for a reason, and are preferable over PROD/AfD as steps to get an article improved. Again, I ask that you please close this and your other current AfDs, and instead make use of the infrastructure Wikipedia provides for improving articles. Ubernostrum 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't take an AfD personaly, if the consensus is for the article to stay, then it shall, that's why AfD exists, because it is too hard for one user to make the decision on his own, and he might not know some of the arguments and technicalities involved. A few of the articles I have been tagging were deleted already, and they were not unlike this one, so I don't think the AfD is unwarranted, perhaps the article does not deserve to be deleted, I don't know, that is what this page is for deciding. Jackaranga 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm trying to tell you is that there is a process for improving articles which do not assert notability or provide enough references, and that process is not "immediately go to AfD". You should have made use of the available templates to place notifications on the articles instead, and solicited help from other users in improving these articles; deletion is the process for an article which you feel has no chance of meeting Wikipedia's standards, not the first thing you should propose when you find a problem. Based on that, I again ask that you close the AfDs you've opened, and re-read WP:DEL, WP:DELPRO and WP:AADD to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines for deleting articles. Ubernostrum 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletionism (the false belief that 'pruning is more important than planting' sucks. -Ste vertigo 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag with ((Unreferenced)), and help clean it up. AfD is extreme and premature.Terry Carroll 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserts notability ("Scoop was originally developed for use on Kuro5hin..."). Needs sourcing, but AfD'ing notable subjects to encourage sourcing is using a sledgehammer on a fly. Vadder 14:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your support. I am managing to get most of the spam from List of Content Management Systems removed. Some articles are less clear cut, which is why I prefered to get more opinions on them by using an AfD, instead of a PROD. (I have started AfDs for others because the PROD tag was removed without improvement in some cases). Jackaranga 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koichi Toyama[edit]

Requesting deletion on grounds that the article fails WP:BLP, the subject ran in an election to become governor of Tokyo and lost, receiving less than 1% of the vote. No reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He gets my vote, but probably not one he would want. Not notable. Realkyhick 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contra rationale; reliable third party sources have been added. Skomorokh ^incite 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to addition of reliable 3rd party sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least the guy has done something (though unsuccessfully) and been mentioned by AFP, which I'd have thought would be more noteworthy than being female and having been photographed grinning and displaying some cleavage. Moreover, he could hardly be a worse Guv'na than the far-right nutball -- er, sorry, scrub that. Hoary 07:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article has been slightly improved, unfortunately the references provided read more like a WP:COATRACK-type article. Agence France-Presse reports on an interesting move by the Japanese to try to suppress Youtube videos but I still do not believe that this person meets WP:BIO guidelines. Third party sources have been added, but can someone explain how they significantly relate to this person? If so, I will respectfully withdrawn my nomination. Burntsauce 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I added the references to which you refer.After scouring the first few pages of google hits for "Koichi Toyama" these were the only reliable third party sources I have found, I don't entirely understand the COATRACK charge. Surely the question is whether the coverage in the sources is trivial or substantial? Skomorokh ^incite 20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Harlowraman 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TikiWiki[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, there are no links asserting notability. Jackaranga 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, could have speedy'd by db-spam--Jac16888 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious spam, plus the name is awful. Realkyhick 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are loads of articles like this about software, I have tagged many with PROD, but people perhaps affiliated with the software just remove the tag without improving, so I have to use AfD, sorry. I am going through List of content management systems to try to remove all the spam, that's why I have got so many AfDs and PRODs going on this kind of article. Jackaranga 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in case's like this you can Speedy delete tag articles, which is much quicker than PROD, giving less time for tags to be removed--Jac16888 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the article claims notability (e.g., an award given by sourceforge.net), none of the Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion apply. JulesH 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear that an article's deletion will be contested in good faith, then it saves time and trouble in the end to take it directly to AfD.DGG (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly popular software, maybe the third or fourth most popular wiki server available. "About" 2.4 million google hits. Distributed with all major Linux distributions (which used to be a criteria on WP:SOFTWARE when we had it). Discussed in articles [18] [19] [20] etc. JulesH 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, reviewed by the Linux Magazine (USA) [21], 180 hits on Google Scholar [22], 23 hits on Google Books [23]. I know some of those hits just reference websites that used it, but some cover it specifically. Karaboom 19:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, I know that its used quite extensively here in the pacific islands. Agreed though that is horribly written and sounds spammy. --Xorkl000 21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Was a nominee in the [http://sourceforge.net/community/index.php/landing-pages/cca07/ SourceForge 2007 Community Choice Awards (most collaborative project). --Ricks99 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have always hated Big Brother with an abiding passion so that makes me the ideal closer! The article has been cleaned up since its nomination. The lack of sourcing is a matter for tagging not for deletion - we delete when an article cannot be sourced and plainly this one can. I see no persuasive deletion argument. TerriersFan 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (UK) contestants[edit]

Another unsourced list. Very poor grammar and prose, frequent spelling errors. Use of fan-slang (eg. BB8). Each series article has its own section on housemates and there is a category for housemates that have their own articles. Just what purpose does this article serve? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete terrible mess Will ^(talk) 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think spelling errors etc are a reason to delete this list, although the existance of lists of housemates on the pages for each series makes this list a bit redundant, which could make deletion necessary. Tra (Talk) 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was for it to act as an index of housemates. If you remembered one character from the past but did not know what series they were from you could check the list and find out more on the individual series page. Maybe not such a good idea as I thought and it was a work in progress. If people don't think it's worth it then I won't object to deletion.Tony Corsini 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. It's a lot better than individual articles about each one. (Yes, some of them merit their own articles.) Barely passes notability. Realkyhick 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed in light of the thorough sections in the individual season articles. Otto4711 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful navigational tool to find the correct series for a contestant without their own article. JulesH 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Only due to the fact someone might be looking for a contestant and can't find which big brother they were on, this would be useful. Each series has it's own section similar to this, though. Poorly written also. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the contestant is notable s/he should have an article. If not or it hasn't been written yet then their name should be a redirect to the appropriate seasonal article. Either way a list is not the answer. Otto4711 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Otto4711, all contestant names should be redirected to the series articles, if anyone still has trouble finding a contestant all they'll have to do is look on Big Brother (UK) (the most logical place to look) and they're all listed there anyway. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i have now put a table in that allows you to sort the information making it a much more useful page. in23065 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Only reason for deletion given is WP:RUBBISH, I think the content of the article is reasonable -81.178.104.145 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - Not that much duplicate info, and could be useful per Tony Corsini, Jackrm. John Hayes^talk 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Will Harlowraman 18:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Cisco IOS. Marasmusine 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Configuration Mode[edit]

This is a single configuration level in a particular line of machines. Is it sufficiently notable on its own to merit an article? There are sources of a sort, but they're merely instructional books on how to access it or things to do when you've accessed it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article, whichever would apply (can't figure that out myself, makes my head explode). Realkyhick 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cisco IOS -- there's already a table with the modes, and this article has only a little more detail than is already in the table. JulesH 18:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to National Treasure (film). Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Poole[edit]

Non notable character, no mainspace articles link to this one. The sunder king 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to National Treasure (film), not even an article about the main character, why have one about a minor character?--Jac16888 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. Realkyhick 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redirect Insufficient notability, only minor character in the movie. Delete and redirect isn't a valid result per the GFDL. Horrorshowj 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Insufficient notability, only minor character in the movie. Sorry thinking wrong direction with second part of post. Horrorshowj 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Frederick Geer[edit]

Can't see any assertions to notability. The lead says "he is noted in numerous county and church records" but this is not sourced and even if it were referenced by the records, it seems too trivial to be considered a reliable source. The rest of the article is full of unsourced info about his ancestry, which for a non-notable bio doesn't really mean much. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable bio. Realkyhick 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and not sourced. Mmccalpin 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the long article isn't actually about him, except for the lede paragraph--the rest is a genealogy of the family, none of whom seem the least notable.DGG (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another attempt to use Wikipedia as annexe of someone's family history scrapbook. Check out William Dudley Geer too. Gordonofcartoon 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Vast red links. Bearian 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the amount of work put into it. It just doesn't meet the notability requirement. Deb 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meh; funny about the sigs. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prosody Creative Services[edit]

Marketing company involved in several notable events, but no indication that the company itself is well-known per WP:CORP. Also, given that author is User:Prosody07, there's a conflict of interest. NawlinWiki 16:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently gathering sources that will support the fact that Prosody is a notable event marketing company. Expect some more sources and information in the next few days. Am I right in believing that unless these changes do occur, the article will be deleted on August 4th? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prosody07 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 July 2007.

If you don't have the sources now, you should wait to post the article until you have them. See WP:V. An AFD discussion ordinarily lasts for five days. NawlinWiki 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete- conflict of intrest, and per nom, see the name of the user that's editing it. The sunder king 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Note also that I have indefinitely blocked the author's username due to its inclusion of the company name. (I made sure it wasn't the user's surname first.) -- But|seriously|folks 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, thinly disguised spam, conflict of interest. Realkyhick 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save: I think the company is noteworthy enough.- LysanderAOP — Preceding unsigned comment added by LysanderAOP (talk • contribs)
- — LysanderAOP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I agree with LysanderAOP. The company worked with Jamestown, plus the page looks pretty good already. User:Gooooba 2 August 2007
- — Gooooba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Failed WP:CORP and it's a WP:SPAM. — Indon (reply) — 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save. I don't think it failed WP:CORP and it is not a WP:SPAM. — theycallmemistapig (reply) — 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- — Theycallmemistapig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Save. I checked the corporations rules, and there isn't anything that would clearly state a reason why this can't be an artilce. Read it for yourself and see! WP:CORP — (reply) — 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- — Rubbadubba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As someone who participated in some of the events listed, I say keep. I went to ANNIVERSSARY WEEK-END and it was beast. — FIGHTING MAN FROM THE BEACH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acalamari 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: I'm suspecting the author created multiple sockpuppets to raise voice here. There are a lot of single purpose account for this topic only. (The funny thing is that these sockpuppets copy pasted my signature literally) — Indon (reply) — 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giles peters[edit]

Having had an article written about him in a daily paper about his starting a business at a young age doesn't seem to meet a reasonable definition of notability. I previously speedied it, restoring for AfD per request. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not highly notable, but non-trivial news storiews in two news outlets seems to me to pass WP:BIO if only just. DES ^(talk) 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, should be moved to Giles Peters, per naming conventions. DES ^(talk) 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not quite notable (yet). Realkyhick 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't thisnk this person has had enough media attention yet to appear on wikipedia. And there are loads of young entrepreneurs that are not actually on wikipedia, so until this person becomes properly "famous" I think this page should be deleted.
Weak keep and rename per DES. Bearian 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kinloch[edit]

Mr. Kinloch climbs mountains for charity. Admirable, but no indication that he's been recognized for this by independent sources. NawlinWiki 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established or verifiable. Realkyhick 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As author of the article I can confirm that the source is accurate and is available to read on the OCD Action website. I will fully accept the article being removed if this is the final decision taken. However, I would like to politely request that you review the source first before making that final decision. Uhurupeak 17:56, 30 July 2007
- Comment: Primary sources — that is, those which are controlled by the subject or those with a direct connection to him — are not acceptable by themselves. Coverage from reliable sources is also necessary. We can't just take your word for it. Realkyhick 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had my eye on this one when it was created a few days ago but held off, hoping it would get expanded/sourced. Not the case. Peter Kinloch is not the subject of any reliable, verifiable, independent secondary sources, nor does he meet any of the other criteria in WP:BIO. He does good work, but he doesn't belong (in article form) on Wikipedia. ~ Danelo 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has twice been speedied (once by me) on no assertion of notability; article still has no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 00:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon stock[edit]

Unreferenced page of a non-notable fighter Thesaddestday 16:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable retired MMA fighter turned bartender. Realkyhick 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is a subjective term - as long as independent sources are cited for this article (certainly needs to be done) then it falls perfectly in line with WP:NOTABILITY. The contributing editors should be contacted and asked to source this article. LACameraman 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, however, the subject of the article is the equivalent of a minor league ball player. He has never competed in a noteworthy organization. Thesaddestday 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Speedy Delete~~'Strong Delete It's a HOAX. "Shannon Stock" MMA only finds WP or mirrors. No "Shannon Stock" on Google News or Newspaper Arch. Same result for all 3 organizations he's competed in. UFA fighter of the Year yields lots of hits due to Unrestricted Free Agent, but nothing that looks relevant. James Manning actually is a fighter w/a 1-0-1 record but Stock isn't on it [24], also all Manning's fights are in England. Using the rest of the fighter's names in quotes with either record, MMA or fighter to narrow it down no one else shows any relevant ghits. There's a Simon James, who's an English fighter/promoter, and a James Simon who writes a bodybuilding column. Lacy Mills is a female, high school Basketball player in the subjects area. He's fought all these guys and none of them even have a Myspace page for self promotion? Then there's the SPA list: Freya's pop [25], 24.217.192.36 [26], Wtmnmf [27], Neverlast[28], Bobo2006 [29], Asprinrox [30], and the articles creator Dg314[31] have all made 0 edits outside this article. Horrorshowj 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we're not supposed to speedy hoaxes. Horrorshowj 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Cincinnati Reds season[edit]

Reason The article has no information. It is doubtful whether any apropriate content will ever be added. Dayleyj 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many season articles are somehow kept regardless, but I'm a fan of Merging these Cincinatti Reds articles to a new page that has all the current seasons from 2000 +, unless it's a World Series team from that year, indviudual seasons aren't notable for its own article. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Jaranda. All seasons that weren't overly notable or successful should be moved to the one place. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular entry certainly needs work, but these season summaries are useful references.69.68.238.142 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Definitely based on independent information that you can verify. If you add more information as to why it is notable, I would even vote keep. Chengwes 07:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was orphaned, adding it now Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and finish), or else Merge into an article about the seasons by decade. Maybe we don't need a game-by-game log, as that can be linked to elsewhere. Realkyhick 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A respectable start on a legitimate topic. Hawkestone 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article now has information added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the recent additions stated above and there are articles under constructions for some from 1950 to today.--JForget 00:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of pages on individual MLB seasons, and deleting just this one seems arbitrary. Employing the same thought process I used in this AfD discussion, having or not having articles on individual seasons is something that should be taken up at the Wikiproject, not AfD, with the decision being a result of Wikiproject consensus. Slic e NYC (Talk) 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dayleyj. Unless someone is volunteering to fix this article, nominator is right.... this was started and abandoned. Delete it, and somebody who cares about the Reds would undoubtedly create a better article, using 2004 or 2006 as their model. Mandsford 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and obviously Expand, Per articles of similar nature. Originator abandoning an article is no validation for deletion.--Truest blue 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 05:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jacob Varkey[edit]

No proof that it fulfils WP:BIO for academics, and googling doesn't show things that make him fulfil it. Nyttend 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Shoessss | Chat 15:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Mgiganteus1 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be much notable outside Humboldt State University.--Sethacus 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to have quite a few noteworthy publications [32] to his name. Won an award (although not exactly a highly notable one). JulesH 15:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please try running the search on MEDLINE using PubMed at [33] and the logic parameters "varkey j NOT varkey jt NOT varkey jj NOT varkey jb NOT varkey ja" you will get 10 publications TOTAL for Varkey J. Based on his Genes and Dev. paper he is Varkey JP. Based on his webpage [34] and wikipedia page, he works on C. elegans. Perform the search again with "elegans" and Varkey J and you get two hits.Antorjal 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this subject meets WP:BIO guidelines, lacks non-trivial third party references. Burntsauce 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May have won awards, but it isn't linked to in the article. Don't make us look it up ourselves, folks. Realkyhick 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources asserting notability are provided, but more than happy to reconsider if that happens. Natalie 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the article showed no signs of being adequate, but a simple web search fills it in. Professors, even full professors, at universities below the Research university level are not necessarily notable, and Humbolt State is not a major research university, so it depends on the publications and so on. There are only six articles, none very recent, but the two best --in very good journals-- have been cited 50 and 33 times respectively. We are here to improve articles, not delete them. I've added what I found--even when I am going to recommend deletion it can be worth improving the article for other people to see, & because they might disagree. DGG (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well known in India. Well tolerated in Humboldt. DrVarkey 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article creator. -Nyttend 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't believe full US-style professors are automatically notable, especially at relatively minor universities. Medline finds fewer than 10 papers for JP Varkey & J Varkey (which probably overestimates his publications as there are several people with a different middle initial), although they are in high-quality specialist journals, and two are moderately highly cited. The award is a subject speciality within his university, and so does not seem enough to confer notability. On balance, I believe the subject doesn't yet quite meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 08:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the standard laid out at WP:PROF. Eusebeus 11:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had Dr. Varkey last spring and will be taking Genetics with him this fall, he is kind of a jackass but he is a well-respected academic within the second tier of California universities and has made several valuable contributions to our understanding of the genome of C. elegans which most people might not realize is a widely distributed, agriculturally significant nematode. I recommend a rewrite to WP:PROF standards but cannot endorse deletion. I don't know if it makes any difference to you people but he brings a LOT of grant money to Humboldt State. 67.55.159.44 02:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG DELETE Varkey doesn't even meet the "more notable than an average professor" guideline, if anything he is less notable than a below-average professor. Don't say Humboldt State University is not a research school, a lot of very good research comes out of HSU, particularly in the field of Humboldt County's unique old-growth ecology which cannot be studied in any other location, you mustn't close the door on professors who haven't sold out to the big Research I (i.e. UC system) schools but still do valuable research in underappreciated fields. Still. However underappreciated nematode genetics may be, Varkey is a two-bit scientist, a poor team player who overestimates his own importance, and in addition he has been causing trouble for his colleagues since he discovered Wikipedia. Stephen C. Sillett 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP KEEP KEEP Sillett has no right to talk! His research is just climbing trees like a damn macaque -- it is scientifically useless and contributes nothing to the benefit of humanityas a whole. My worm work is fighting to tease apart the wonderful details of sperm production -- pioneering research which has great consequences to all men. I may not have starred in an IMAX film, or made love with my comely grad student in a love-swing 300 feet above her peers, but I do bring in a lot of grant money to Humboldt. And my better papers have been cited over eighty times. DrVarkey 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete just see above, Varkey is clueless and keeps posting to his own page deletion discussion. He calls me a "Macaque" which is a crass and prejudiced stab at my physical stature. There is far more important and vanishing research to be found at the top of a majestic redwood than in a manure pile full of microscopic worms but this is not about whose research is more important. I have a web page because I have been the star of an IMAX film Adventures in Wild California as well as the main character in the delightful bestseller "Wild Trees" by Richard Preston, not because I am a noteworthy professor although I am a noteworthy professor. The ad hominem attack on my wife was entirely uncalled for! I do not deny our treetop lovemaking but I was divorced at the time and Marie has always been a strong-willed botanist, also, her classmates were not directly under our Traeolian traverse (NOT a "love swing" NOT a "marital chair" JUST some tree climbing equipment we made work under the circumstances) but several dozen feet laterally distant as well, and under a tarp. Varkey accomplishes little, has no personal life despite an annual influx of female undergrads who seem to think he is attractive, and to the best of my knowledge Richard Preston has never written a book about his nematodes and he has NEVER been in an IMAX movie about anything at all. Why is this even under discussion. Take away his page, I'm tired of staring at his grinning subcontinental mug every time he defaces wikipages important to me. Stephen C. Sillett 04:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepI previously posted as Keep but the above exchange has caused me to revise my opinion. I think Dr Varkey has a point, if Dr. Sillett (whose BOT105 class I failed two years ago, fall semester) gets an elaborate wiki presence to sell his attention whoring mass media projects, then Dr. Varkey, who keeps a low profile and produces valuable, much-cited research, deserves a picture and a brief list of accomplishments. Like I said, I am an HSU student who has worked with both professors, and it only seems fair to include Dr. Varkey if you are going to include Dr. Sillett since both are pretty similar, self-absorbed jerks doing marginal research at a glorified community college 400 miles from anywhere. P.S. I do not believe this is the appropriate forum for these two rivals to "have it out," their mutual antagonism has been well-documented at HSU and there is no reason for it to spill over into a neutral forum like Wikipedia. 67.55.159.44 04:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would it be appropriate to check via other channels (such as emails to the parties involved, or WP:SSP) whether the "DrVarkey" and "Stephen C. Sillett" posting here are really who they say they are? The past sequence of comments by them and 67.55.159.44 gives me the strong impression of a single person trying to stir up controversy via sockpuppets, and none of these users has a contribution history longer than the past few days. —David Eppstein 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited to add: I opened an SSP case immediately, rather than waiting for more evidence or opinions, because of the significant WP:BLP considerations if sockpuppetry turn out to be true. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.55.159.44. —David Eppstein 05:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note the thinly-veiled inflammatory, racist, chauvinistic, and derogatory nature of the comments of the parties involved. Also, note the flippant comic tone in making such allegations. In addition, the points are made without respect for NPOV, civility, or good-faith and are made to obfuscate the issue of whether the article should be deleted or not. All point to a case where sockpuppetry might be involved. I agree that the parties involved might be contacted directly. Also, even if sockpuppetry is not established, emails might be sent to the parties involved and the head of the department. (No head of the department worth his or her salt will tolerate outbursts such as these involving either the parties involved or impersonators). Antorjal 15:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Department chair is Casey Lu. I'd do the contact myself, but disputes etc. aren't my Wikipedia specialty, and I'd rather it be done by someone more experienced in problematic situations like this. Nyttend 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, should this deletion be put on hold, and perhaps the article protected by an admin, until we can be sure that the department head has seen it? Nyttend 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Prequel[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. Otto4711 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Realkyhick 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be plot summary, original research, and non-verifiable. Andre (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, as deletion would be premature at this stage, although I agree that StarCraft Prequel contains too much content which probably should be elsewhere. The Starcraft series has a much more complex backstory than most games, and the sequences of missions are driven by political considerations which can are more easily understood if you know the backstory - for example Jim Raynor starts as a Confederate marshal, defects to the Sons of Korhal and then finally becomes an "independent" in disgust at Arcturus Mensk's callous treachery; and the player's character in the Protoss campaign also changes sides and winds up commanding 2 dissident Protoss factions and allied to Raynor. Hence I think there is a need for plot summaries - but they should be concise and focussed. I've posted a comment "Starcraft-related articles need overall structure" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, to address the fact that the Starcraft-related articles are too long and contain a lot of duplication. In my proposed new(?) structure StarCraft Prequel would serve a specific function. The article is neither OR nor unverifiable - it's based on the game manuals.Philcha 00:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may not be original research or unverifiable, but it's not an encyclopedia article either. WP:PLOT. Miremare 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to http://strategywiki.org/wiki/StarCraft (although I doubt this info would be new there) and delete from here. Besides the fact that there is no game or book called "StarCraft Prequal" ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to StarCraft, under heading Standalone demo. After taking another look the article, I think a MAJORLY trimmed version would be appropriate in the StarCraft article itself. However, the focus should be on the real universe. The fact that Blizzard released a standalone demo with a unique supplementary storyline is and interesting. The over-description of missions is not. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, missed previous clean-up and is copied from SC wiki. Delete ASAP, but a sentence saying it exists should be included into the StarCraft article. StarCraft: Enslavers II should also be put up for deletion on the same principles along with Template:StarCraft storyline because it's redundant next to the much better Template:StarCraft. -- Sabre 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy deleted under A7 notability

87.9 Live FM[edit]

Advertisement of not notable website Joedoedoe 15:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, Notability not established Rackabello 15:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:DerHexer. Non-admin closure. Iain99 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Theta Psi[edit]

Doesn't make any sense at all, incohent mess, unencyclopedic. The sunder king 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A1 and/or G1, so tagged. Iain99 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takshshila Junior College[edit]

Contested prod. Article looks unsalvageable. Makes no particular claim to notability, and most of the information seems unencyclopedic. Pekaje 14:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - no claim to notability whatsoever as far as I can see, and no citation. Lordrosemount 15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy, if possible No claim of notability and, quite possibly, the longest single line article I've read yet.--Sethacus 15:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete but there is enough of a claim of notability to prevent speedy. In general colleges of tertiary education are notable, however weak the article, but this seems to be a K-12 school, not a junior college in the US sense. DGG (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with numbers in the title[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A pretty bad WP:NOT#DIR/WP:NOT#IINFO list. Bulldog123 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate info, although I think the table of contents is my favorite of any article I've seen. Propaniac 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it falls under WP:NOT#INFO as an indiscriminate list because it has clear parameters, however I do believe it is under WP:NOT#DIR as a loosely-associated list. It'd also be hard to maintain and probably never finished (I can think of several that are missing off the top of my head). Useight 15:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics. Note that a list specifically for songs with phone numbers in the title was deleted, so this even more general numbers list should definitely go. The list tells us nothing about the songs past a coincidence of title and Songs with numbers in the title is not an encyclopedic topic. Otto4711 15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Useight and Otto4711. This is an indiscriminate list. Having a number in the title of a song isn't an unusual event (e.g. Take Five). (On the other hand, the time signature is unusual enough and qualifies it for listing on List of musical works in 5/4 or 5/8 time.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, what about Chicago's song 25 or 6 to 4? Should it be listed in the "4" section, the "6" section, or the "25" section? Maybe it should be in a new list, List of songs with multiple non-consecutive numbers in the title. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Oh, good grief! How about "List of songs with words in the title"? This is about as indiscriminate as one can be for a list. Realkyhick 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I honestly am having a hard time thinking of a more trivial criterion for inclusion. The last AfD was an absolute disgrace. --Haemo 18:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- The previous afd was in 2005, WP:ILIKEIT was a good enough reason for something to be kept on afd. Saikokira 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above and per WP:IINFO. Totally indiscriminate list -- who cares that a song has a number in its title? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A list with this title was deleted in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title (second nomination), so in fact this afd should be titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title (3rd nomination). Technically it can't be speedy deleted as a repost though because it's a different list with the same title. Saikokira 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as woefully incomplete list of loosely-associated songs which could never, and should never, be completed. Iain99 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given Saikokira's info, perhaps a block on recreation? Carlossuarez46 21:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by African, Asian, Caribbean and Latin American artists which reached number one on the Hot 100 (US)[edit]

This seems like a pretty good example of an agenda-oriented list. It essentially translates to (or at least intends to translate to) List of songs that reached one on Hot 100 by artists who aren't Caucasian without bothering to address why there should be nobility in such an intersection. Also, the specificity of the list (note this is merely top 100, not a "chart-topper") is unusual. Bulldog123 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom Bulldog123 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a list of Number 1's, however, I think it's a intersection of two unrelated topics and, as the nominator said, could be used as a soapbox of sorts. Useight 15:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above; yet another portmanteau list. One wonders how much Caucasian blood would be enough to disqualify musicians from this "anything but the white oppressors" list. RGTraynor 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Criteria is way too general, resulting in loosely connected list elements. ◄Zahakiel ► 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agenda-oriented list that would be almost impossible to maintain. Realkyhick 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either POV or just plain random. Why this and not List of songs by Eskimo, Belgian, Sudanese, and Paraguayan artists who reached number one on the Pakistani dance charts? What is the reason that this information in particular should be included? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why not List of songs that sold exactly 391,754 records by artists of Luxembourgish origin from countries whose names begin with I? Obviously agenda-oriented. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nom is incorrect on a small point. Article says this is #1 hits and column does list weeks at #1. I could see list of non-US titles as having some legitimacy but this list counts Ricky Martin (Puerto Rico) and excludes Australians....??

Because Australians have their very own List of songs by Australian artists which reached number-one on the Hot 100 (USA), as do Canadians, Europeans, etc. If you are going to delete one list, delete them all. -LoserTalent 23:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canuckle 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ooh, can I make one up, too? Hmm... ::thinks:: how about List of songs by women under the age of 27 who have visited Timbuktu that reached number sixteen or higher on the Canadian pop charts? -- Kicking222 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the upside, I had no idea WP had an article about Here Comes the Hotstepper! What a great song! "Excuse me, Mr. Officer..." -- Kicking222 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quote from above: "It [the list] essentially translates to (or at least intends to translate to) List of songs that reached one on Hot 100 by artists who aren't Caucasian" Eh? Is the nominator suggesting that all the African-American artists who ever had a #1 hit were born in Africa? Big difference between Motown and Mozambique. Granted, the title of the article is silly, but the concept isn't. Most #1 hits in the USA have been by Americans and British artists, and that there have been only thirteen (13) artists who, as you so humorously say, "aren't Caucasian". Sadly, that's the only humorous comment on the board, and for different reasons than intended. I agree this probably should be taken down, and author should think of a different way to package this... other than ABBA, Bjork, Nena (99 Luftballons)... are there that many more Unamerican, Unbritish hit songs that we tolerate over here? Mandsford 03:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the nominator suggesting that all the African-American artists who ever had a #1 hit were born in Africa?
What? There's obviously no restriction on African-Americans born in America. Beyonce and Jay-Z are on it. Bulldog123 12:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if you agree that this page "probably should be taken down," why did you say Keep? If you think the content is important, that can surely be merged into a topic with a less silly title, after all. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether or not this is an attempted grouping by race, it is arbitrary selection, no different than List of songs by people from a country starting with the letter B that reached number one on the Hot 100 (US) to make sure that we get the Brazilians and Bulgarians and Botswanans all together in one place. Carlossuarez46 21:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; merge has been performed. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Point Public Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Has previously been listed on AFD, without consensus to delete - having 12600 books doesn't make it notable IMHO, and there's nothing claimed here to make this library more special - maybe merging into Anchor Point is the best bet. The previous AFD debate is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anchor Point Public Library . Apologigies if I didn't list this AFD correctly --Moglex 13:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anchor Point, Alaska per suggestions in previous AFD. JulesH 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anchor Point, Alaska, per above. A tiny library in a tiny town fails WP:ORG going away. Ravenswing 15:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. James Luftan ^contribs 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anchor Point article. Realkyhick 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real info to merge. -R. fiend 17:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- to make it all nice and simple, I've merged as originally suggested. I'd suggest somebody WP:SNOWs this debate and turns the article to a redirect. JulesH 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. As it probably notable locally, I don't think a local library unless significantly historical deserve an article and especially due to the low content on this article which looks like similar then your typical local library.--JForget 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Anchor Point, Alaska as per the above. This action does not require a deletion debate. Burntsauce 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A story timeline of Another World[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries or bullet-pointed lists of plot summary sentences. Otto4711 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All relevant information is already present in the main article. JulesH 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicates info from main article. Realkyhick 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:NOT#PLOT. Saikokira 19:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close of group nomination by consensus in order to list these unrelated pages separately. Requesting nominator to provide separate nominations. ●DanMS • Talk 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of books by title[edit]

Mmm... all these articles here:

Pure Listcruft, unmanageable if comprehensive. See similar AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese books by title and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black rock musicians David Fuchs^(talk) 12:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These lists are not substantially identical in my opinion, other than being long lists of media, and I don't agree with grouping them together. But my opinions are: Delete List of books by title, Lists of films, List of magazines, and List of poems as articles that would be much better as categories (the former is especially unmaintainable). Delete List of book titles taken from literature as pointless cruft. Keep List of newspapers, as the newspapers available in a country is encyclopedic information. Propaniac 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yeah perhaps these articles should be taken separately rather than lumping them all together. Some could be categorized (especially List of books by title). Useight 15:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
close too many articles in one bundle, in particular lists of films is an entirely different article from the others. It's not appropriate to throw things together, that just leads to too much confusion. FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and seperate The grouping on this AfD is too broad. I think List of books by title, starting with List of books by title: 0-9 through List of books by title: Z should be one AfD, the lists of films by letter and number (starting with List of films: numbers through List of films: X-Y-Z should be one AfD, and then separate AfDs for List of magazines, List of newspapers, List of poems, List of book titles taken from literature. My opinion if this doesn't close as separate AfDs is delete, this is what categories are for, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. --Phirazo 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment List of newspapers and List of magazines should be kept, as they are seperated by country, and thus a useful navigation aid. --Phirazo 17:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful doesn't make a list any less unwieldy or crufty, and is hardly a reason to keep any article at all. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment useful navigation is definitely one of the functions of lists. See WP:LISTS DGG (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close and separate discussions. "List of books" and "List of Poems" should be deleted as impossible-to-maintain listcruft, but the others aren't so clear cut. Realkyhick 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that even they should be lumped together, since the poem list does specify that it's only a list for poems that have articles, while the books list apparently intends to list every single book ever. As said above, I think both should be deleted, but separately, since they have different criteria. Propaniac 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Young clearly meets WP:PROF and probably scrapes by WP:BIO given this source he provided. Concerns about the autobiographic/spammy nature of the article are raised and insufficiently reputed, but the article is still in progress, making these claims difficult to evaluate.

A side note about WP:PROF - researchs who are regularly quoted in multiple diverse newspapers are probably at the top of their field and notable - that's the point. My supervisor has been quoted a couple of times in the Toronto Star - this does not make her notable. If you threw in two dozen or so quotes for newspapers outside of Hogtown, then it might indicate that.

This page in a nutshell: WP:BIO and WP:PROF seem to be at least marginally met - and the concerns about the spamm-i-ness are unresolved.

Let the article evolve a little more and see - don't be shy about making another nomination in a month or two. Wily D 15:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)[edit]

Can I just add, it was pointless to change the template from gerontologist to longevity claims researcher? As a lot of us who have voted for keep, preferred to change the article to a better title. Some of the people whom have voted no, said they'd rather have the title changed to that as well. If you changed the title before the final decision, that's like changing the subject of what we voted for. Neal 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography. Not sure whether it satisfies WP:PROF. Er rab ee 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin: At least a couple of "keep" !votes were asked to vote here (though not told explicitly to vote keep/delete). [35] [36] I don't know if this rises to the level of a Votestacking violation. Abecedare 07:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hopefully final comment from me: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and room exists, like an 'unabridged dictionary', to keep whatever article is 'useful' to the reader. Is this article pertinent/useful? Anyone interested in the subject mattter of finding, locating,and verifying supercentenarians, as well as those interested in the theories of how long humans really live, would find this artcle useful, as it brings together a wide variety of material that one may not realize at first is linked. Past authors have created articles such as A. Ross Eckler Jr, Louis Epstein (supercentenarian tracker), etc which, despite having fewer references and less assertion of notability, have gone basically unchallenged. In this case, we find the challenges initially came from those with 'conflicts of interest'...Errabee was involved in a dispute over 'assessment' of other articles; some others who were involved in the Mary Ramsey Wood dispute, while notably not voting, did contribute comments against. In regards to 'votestacking', one does not see "Robert's mother" or "Robert's friend" voting...a common signal from a 'vanity' viewpoint. Instead, one sees voters who either were familiar with the subject (who mostly voted to keep despite never having met Robert in person and having been at odds with him in the past) and those voting to delete (mostly unfamiliar with the subject). If violations of the rules have come, they have come from both sides (normally a 'nominator' does not vote, for example; the page has been open for over the normal 5-day time used to make a decision). It seems that once the emotions are stripped away, however, we have a core class of similar, relevant articles. Notably, this article, David Allen Lambert, was created by David using a 'sockpuppet' and sourced with sources including his own blog and own work website...hardly the definition of fair, following the rules, or notability. Not only that, the article was created on the basis of newsmedia attention from a single case...the 'oldest professional baseball player' discovered...whose age ultimately turned out to be a mess (either 109, 111, or 113). By contrast, it could be argued that having worked on hundreds of cases, several of which exceeded the press mention of Silas Simmons (i.e. Maria Capovilla, Charlotte Benkner, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, etc), that in the same way that a 'Hall of Famer' in baseball is rated based on 'career achievement', so wouldn't a long track record of success equate to more than just a single "15 minutes of fame" story...

Those that argue, moreover, that this article should be deleted on the basis that longevity-claims verification or debunking is not important have failed to note that such issues have been discussed in the literature for over a century (see, for example, William Thoms) and generally the issue has been championed by a few persons who gained notoriety in the literature. It is important for history's sake to chart the progression of ideas, methods, etc. regarding the approach to the subject of attempting to determine the life-span of humanity.

It should also be noted that the rationale for keeping the article is not merely that Robert is notable for 'finding/debunking claims' but for being a major organizer of efforts to advance the entire field. When scientists turned to experts for their journal articles, often two names especially came up:

Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein .... 27, 1893, Oct. 2, 2003, 110, 128, B, F, Robert Young/Louis Epstein ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages

When France's leading expert (Jean-Marie Robine, validator of the Jeanne Calment case) looked for help, who did he turn to?

[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages

Some FIVE YEARS AGO we see Louis Epstein and Robert Young credited....

Whgen Guinness World Records looked for an expert to hire in 2005, they must have known already about Robert to have offered him the position.

Again, the best argument and summation of the situation:

Wiki says the following: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This is very true of Robert Young, I have read at least half-a-dozen newspapers/online newspapers which cite Robert Young on his subject matter, and thus he meets the Academic notability requirements. I am also somewhat concerned that Errabee appears to have nominated AfD several articles that Robert Young has been involved with in what seems to be a punitive measure for him asking a reasonable question about the assessment of an article. RichyBoy 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted in a local newspaper for a local event is one thing...being quoted worldwide in newspapers, magazines, and journals spanning the globe is quite another. To be quoted from both the academic and public (media) sectors argues that the article could be validated from two perspectives.

It is true that some 'greats' have done things that gained multiple recognition. William Thoms was noted for inventing the term 'folklore' and for beginning the modern process of age validation research. Cal Ripken Jr didn't just play in 2,632 consecutive games; he also hit 431 home runs and had 3,000+ hits. Having achieved in multiple measures is a sign that someone is more than just a 'one-trick' pony. In every endeavor with an organization...from the GRG to Guinness to the Max Planck to the SRF to the SSA to the NECS...the primary motivation for inclusion was 'research,' not money. In each case Robert was asked/invited to participate by those who judged him worthy. Just as the best-qualified to judge a baseball player's career are other baseball players, so a jury of Robert's peers has already recognized him as someone to turn to for expert advice in the field. Surely that should be more than enough to qualify for an article. It seems, ultimately, that the main arguments against come from either one of two angles: A. the person doesn't know/care about the subject or B. an argument about honesty/rules/cheating. Yet we find on Robert's talk page an explanation for article creation as well as no attempt to hide who created the article. Had it not been for the interjection of controversy from other areas of Wikipedia, this article would have been created quietly and no one would have noticed or objected. Hence, it does seem the push for deletion is based on emotion and the rationale for keeping is based on an assessment of the material by those who know about it the best.

Sincerely, Robert Young

P.S.

In protest to the what I perceive as unfair treatment by some, I am not using my main 'Ryoung' moniker until this issue is resoleved. 74.237.28.5 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I find I'm link #2 of the above - it takes me a while to integrate my thoughts. For example, it took me 3 days after that suggestion before I made my vote, and I'm here everyday. The only reason I added the entry in his article without voting was, I, too, was around to see the false 122 year-old claim get debunked to 97, so it was certainly something in my living memory to add to his article immediately. I've known Robert back to back for a little over 2 years now, it's not likely I wouldn't have voted if I wasn't reminded. Neal

Weak keep. I think his positions with Guinness World Records and the Gerontology Research Group are notable. JulesH 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BIO this article does not meet notability as the three sources cited are: this which just lists his name, this which is not independent of the subject and where he only is listed w/o a bio at his own institution (listed as a research assistant which is not a WP:PROF), and finally this which again is not independent of the subject and does not seem to give any info about the subject except that he is a claims investigator. None of these would satisfy the WP:RS needed to demonstrate notability. Aboutmovies 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be a 'scorched-Earth/salt-the-Earth' attack launched because I effectively debunked the claim of Mary Ramsey Wood to be '120' years old in 1908. Note both users 'Aboutmovies' and 'Katr67' were involved in that dispute, so comments here from them seem to be a conflict of interest.Ryoung122 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if adequately sourced. What needs sourcing is the claim to be the chief gerontology investigatory for Guinness and the GRG. Obviously not yet notable as an academic, but as an investigator he would indeed seem to be notable. Even non-academics can be important. DGG (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an autobiography, as Mr. Young didn't write the article. Delete Nominator wasn't clear about that, but Katr67 clears it up, as described below. Sad if you work for Guinness and even they won't promo your work. If the sourcing is there for the claim that he debunks bogus claims of longevity for Guiness, then that's notable. ~~If true, he's the guy who votes "delete" or "keep" for the GBOWR, and probably has better grounds for his decisions than any of us.~~ Mandsford 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ryoung122 started and wrote most of the content of the article. He claims the same credentials. How is this not an autobiography? Katr67 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As a research assistant with no/few publications who only graduated last year, the notability claim rests largely on the work for Guinness, which currently appears to be unreferenced. As Young has edited the article, perhaps someone should ask him to back up the statements? Even then, the investigative work appear to be largely sourcing documents, which doesn't seem sufficiently important to merit an article. (Do other Guinness investigators have articles?) I suggest merge with Gerontology Research Group with removal of unrelated material. Espresso Addict 10:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Very Strong Delete or merge as above (for consensus). Should not be kept as this fails WP:BIO (as indicated above) as well as the COI WP:AUTO issues. (add: based on the comment left on my talk page, this is simply vanispamcruft.) Eusebeus 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCzolgolz 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wiki says the following: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This is very true of Robert Young, I have read at least half-a-dozen newspapers/online newspapers which cite Robert Young on his subject matter, and thus he meets the Academic notability requirements. I am also somewhat concerned that Errabee appears to have nominated AfD several articles that Robert Young has been involved with in what seems to be a punitive measure for him asking a reasonable question about the assessment of an article. RichyBoy 09:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do I agree with his stands in articles I'm involved with? Not at all!!! But I also do not hold grudges when looking at his accomplishments. His name has appeared in newspapers that I have read and articles I have researched. It may not be a strong Keep, but he is noteworthy in his field. Fyunck(click) 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator delete. I've thought about Mr. Young's notability some more, and came back out of retirement just this one occasion to share my conclusion. Mr. Young calls himself a gerontologist; Gerontology is the study of aging on people (not the study of age-related diseases), and the effect of aging people on society. "Debunking" of longevity claims is not per se a part of gerontology, as it hardly serves any academic purpose (at least for gerontology, perhaps it serves a purpose for history). As such, Mr. Young's achievements as an academic are marginal at best and certainly don't meet WP:PROF (please note that this guideline applies to all academics, not just professors, which Mr. Young assumed without checking). Therefore, as a gerontologist he is not particularly noteworthy. His notability arises from his investigations into longevity claims, for which an academic degree is not required (as Mr. Young himself shows on his user page). This position is not more noteworthy than, say, a senior investigator of insurance fraud. I even dare to say that most investigators of insurance fraud have "debunked" far more than 100 cases. If by any chance the article is kept, it certainly should be renamed to Robert Young (longevity claim investigator), as he has no notability as a gerontologist. Er rab ee 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be 'rename'? Also, the argument now seems to question not just Robert Young but also an entire sub-field. Anyone in the field of gerontology knows that it is really am umbrella term, that the only thing that unites it is that the focus is 'old age/senescence' (particularly in humans). Gerontology may emcompass the biological, social, and psychological aspects of aging; gerontological policy includes issues such as financing old age and retirement.

ger·on·tol·o·gy (jĕr'ən-tŏl'ə-jē) n. The scientific study of the biological, psychological, and sociological phenomena associated with old age and aging.

However, it should be noted that the study of 'supercentenarians' involves much in old-age research. Investigating whether someone's age is true is simply the beginning. Why do women live longer than men? Why do thin people live longer than fat people? Why do some people age more quickly than others? Are there any genetic, racial, or national differences in longevity? What social factors are in play? What about urban/rural? A little research shows that there is a discipline within biological gerontology that seeks to answer questions based on studying the extremes of longevity...and for which, the necessary of ensuring that the research is based on accurately reported ages is paramount. I suggest you read this article:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/demography/v040/40.4rosenwaike.html

131.96.70.164 04:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when is citing sources,

http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14550820/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/

when that is what you asked for, vanispamcruft? You simply lowered yourself to mudslinging. Delete or not, you have shown your colors and then are not good. Simply attacking someone for answering the question is ridiculous.Ryoung122 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

To make it fair to readers who may not wish to read everything from one source, I have made a separate section with my response. The debate continues in the next section.

Greetings,

Actually I'm glad this vote came about because in a democracy, we are judged by a 'jury of our peers.' And ultimately the community decides what or who is notable. However, another concept of Western democracy is that decisions be based on the best information available at the time, and that a 'defendant' be able to present his/her case.

So far, this article has been criticized or suggested for deletion based on the following grounds: WP:PROF, WP: BIO, WP: RS and WP: AUTO. As it would make for a stacked-deck argument together, I plan to challenge each one separatley. I start with the argument that I believe is least relevant: 'autobiography.'

1. Reading the policy page, I find this:

This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

The problem with autobiographies It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.

– The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams

Typical problems with autobiographies include:

They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research.

Typical problems with autobiographies include:

They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person). They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. They can contain original research.

It is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden.

So, we see that 'it is not impossible to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and they are not strictly forbidden.'

In fact, read the example entry from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and then read mine. I don't start out with a long discussion of why my birth was special, about my family, or how I got to where I am today. Instead, I presented a collection of short information that, like a news article, begins with the most important first and then fleshes out the point. Third, whether this 'tends to advance me or not' it should be relevant, firstly, because if notations are made to articles about supercentenarian claims (such as Mary Ramsey Wood) and a reader begins to think, 'who is this guy'? 'what does he know about this case?' 'why should I believe him?' then it becomes paramount to have a wikilinked article that leads back to me. Considering, in the constellation of Wikipedia, we have over 200 articles on 'supercentenarians' alone and ones about longevity myths, longevity claims, and past and present researchers such as William Thoms, A. Ross Eckler, Jr and Louis Epstein, I find exlcuding myself really doesn't make a lot of sense.Ryoung122 16:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Wikipedia: Professor. Since I am not a professor, nor have I claimed to be, that comment and policy does not apply.Ryoung122 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Assertions of WP: BIO and WP:RS.

Since the argument seems to hinge on the lack of reliable, independent sources, I plan to lay out some sources here. It would be unfair to assert that there are no sources, when in fact there are plenty.

A. Assertion of being with Guinness:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497251/ (article on Yone Minagawa, world's oldest person; source is MSNBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5293436.stm (article on Maria Capovilla, world's oldest person; source is BBC)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-28-oldest-person_x.htm (USA Today seems notable)

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/29/stories/2006082904102200.htm (The Hindu, a national newspaper for India)

B. Assertion of being with the GRG:

http://www.grg.org/JZaslowWSJ.htm

(Wall Street Journal)

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/24/TampaBay/She_s_America_s_oldes.shtml

(St. Petersburg Times) (this from 2002)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001943934_oldestobit01.html (a major newspaper; this was from 2004)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03327/242936.stm (Pittsburgh PA: this is 2003)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/12/BAG61QV5G31.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

(the San Francisco Chronicle)

C. Assertion of working on the 'Wisdom of the World's Oldest People':

http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/2006/longevityclues.htm

If you don't believe me, you can buy the book on Amazon.com.

D. Assertion of working with the New England Centenarian Study:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547228

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00826.x

E. Other sources

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503?cookieSet=1

(Rejuvenation Research)

NPR : The Secrets of America's SupercentenariansThey're of particular interest to the Gerontology Research Group, gerontologists, ... ELLIS: Robert Young became the senior claims investigator of the GRG. ... www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054195 - Similar pages

(National Public Radio)

[CR] Centenarians, diet vs genes, sex ratio Part 2For a complete validation of the age of a supercentenarian, it is frequently ..... 16, 1889 Living 114* WF Robert Young Spain Spain Joan Riudavets Dec. ... lists.calorierestriction.org/pipermail/cr_lists.calorierestriction.org/2007-January/003499.html - 44k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] grna-59-06-11 579..586File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat the age of a supercentenarian, it is frequently necessary to ..... member is Robert Young of Atlanta, Georgia, a GRG senior claims ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/6/B579.pdf - Similar pages

In summation, I can be found in thousands of sources from six continents. To continue listing more would be a disproportionate response (some might think this already is; however, given that the assertion was mainly lack of sources, it makes sense to provide sources). The assertion for notability/raison d'etre for this article is that I am one of the, if not the, 'world's leading expert' in the field of supercentenarian research. To peg me to just one group when I am involved in so many isn't really the best answer. Proviving a separate article page on Wikipedia is. When others float a controversial claimant, and it turns out to be not true, then others will wonder what credentials I might have to make this assertion. It makes sense, then, to have this article and list everything in the proper place. If others disagree it is their right to vote differently but I believe I have made a case. Some of the articles are from years ago, so there is a consistent pattern over time, not just a '15-minutes of fame' story.

However, it could be said that the story isn't really about me, it's about an idea: how long to people really live? In cases like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Coates

People are continually making up false age claims. Getting the message out there about how long humans really live seems to be the REAL and MOST IMPORTANT issue here.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate continues[edit]

Comment Neither Aboutmovies or I started the Afd, nor have I actually "voted" in this debate. I simply marked the the article as being an autobiography and commented about the article's status as an autobiography in this debate. For my part, this has nothing to do with the Mary Wood article except that when debunking the woman's age, he wrote an article on himself so that he could cite himself as a source in the Wood article. As discussed at length on the Wood talk page, we aren't particularly concerned about the woman's supposed age, but about the methodology used to provide sources, which seems to not follow Wikipedia policy about original research and reliable sources. Katr67 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Ryoung: Please note that your above comment about a scorched earth campaign is not only incorrect, but is a personal attack. Nothing in my comments here are related to the Wood issue, other than you left a link there to your autobiography. Once seeing that article my immediate response is that it does not meet WP:BIO as I have explained above. Thus when someone nominated it for AFD, I weighed in. As a member of the Biography WikiProject, and a frequent AFD person, I am pretty familiar with what should and should not be included along the lines of bios (and corporations too) per Wikipedia guidelines/policies. This autobiography does not meet WP:BIO. Could it? Maybe, but as it is now, it does not. Aboutmovies 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. I find your focus on the need for an article to be solely or mainly about the subject to be missing the point. Wikipedia is not a memorial, yet you are a strong advocate of the Mary Ramsey Wood 'bio' being not just significant but of 'mid' importance. Mid for what? Because she was recognized by the governor? Politicians issue commendations all the time; it's like shaking hands or kissing a baby. When did she 'establish' significance? At her death? If that's the case, you're violating the 'Wikipedia is not a memorial' policy.Ryoung122 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What does the Wood article have to do with this debate? If you have issues with the Wood article, discuss them at the talk page for that article. Please stay focused on the debate here. Aboutmovies 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. From the MSNBC article: Tomoji Tanabe, 111, was born Sept. 18, 1895, and lives in the southern city of Miyazaki, according to Robert Young, senior consultant for gerontology for Guinness World Records. This is the only mention of Young in the article. Thus that is trivial coverage and not “Significant coverage” needed for notability of people as covered here “Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” Wikipedia needs an article on you, not the people you study as are what all of the articles in the section “A. Assertion of being with Guinness” are. Aboutmovies 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about the position, and one can hardly consider coverage 'trivial' when the point of being in there is, ironically, to serve as a SOURCE...an assertion that the newspaper didn't make this story up, someone else out there is 'vouching' for the information to be true. From this perspective, the coverage need not be a 'biography'...Ryoung122 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, out of all of those sources added above, only the one that is a re-print from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution qualifies as significant coverage. It is actually about Robert Young. But I don't think one is enough. Do you have more like that? Had it been an entire biography in book form, that would be enough, but not one article in the local/regional paper. Aboutmovies 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Wall Street Journal article (on page 1). Or perhaps check out the 2007 Guinness Book (hardcover edition) and see page 2.Ryoung122 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned twice in the WSG article that is about the GRG. This would be "trivial coverage". With Guiness, you worked for them, thus not independent. Aboutmovies 18:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is a sad state of current humanity when persons claim notions of unbiased, fair assessments, when in fact we find issues like this:

Greetings,

I questioned the downgrading of this article by 'Errabee':

[edit] Assessment of 'Surviving Veterans' Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I

Greetings,

Please explain your downgrading of this article's rating. I do not believe that the "B" class description is the most accurate, and it should be upgraded or at least undergo 'peer review.'

Ryoung122 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The response was an attempt to list the article for deletion, which failed...and also included listing THIS article for deletion. Thus once again, we see circumstantial evidence for those opposing this article's existence linked to disputes and vendettas, not personal notions of objective assessment.

Note the vote in favor of keep was by an extremely large margin (over 90%). Thus it seems the issue is that Errabee's 'ego' was offended by my questioning of his article downgrade and a request for an article review.Ryoung122 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. This is really rich. I downgraded an article from A-class to B-class, because A-class didn't feel right to me. When Robert Young (Ryoung122), with whom I never had any dealings whatsoever, asked me to explain, I naturally took another look at it to find out why it didn't feel right to me. Because I had to reflect further on this article, this resulted in my decision to put it up for AfD. When I went to Ryoung122's talk page to give my reasons for downgrading it a B-class article and putting it up for AfD, a talk page entry about his autobiography was one of the last entries. It got my attention, so I took a look at it and was unsure if it met the notability guidelines. I decided to put it up for deletion to get it decided one way or the other. Ryoung122 labelling this as a vendetta is a gross overstatement (as vendettas have very long histories whereas I met Ryoung122 on Wikipedia only a day ago); I haven't even had a dispute with him. It's therefore not my 'ego' that is the problem, but Robert Young's hurt ego about the downgrading of one of his babies. It is people like Robert Young with their inflated ego's who take away the pleasure of being a wikipedian, and I am afraid this is the proverbial last straw for me. I am too tired to bother anymore about Wikipedia. I have nicer things to do in real life. Best wishes everybody. Er rab ee 01:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think this hasn't been a trying/degrading experience for me as well? The main purpose of the article was so to provide MORE INFORMATION to the user, NOT write an entire autobiographical novel. In the same way that a 'category' links articles with a common theme, so it made sense that the next step in the 'evolution' of a supercentenarian-research family tree was the creation of small biographical articles that link the work done in that time period...whether the 1870's or the 1990's or whatever. NO ONE would find the article unless they were looking for it. There was no 'site-meter' counter, or a link-SPAM to some article being SOLD. The article was curt and to the point. Also, it seems the whole debate centers on mis-using half-truths. "Triviality" includes things such as 'bank statements'. It does NOT include being listed as the authoritative source for more than 1,000 news articles, research papers, and major media including BBC, CNN, National Public Radio, the United Nations, etc.

Ego? It seems that nearly every objection here was based on ego, such as Traynor's comments like this one: "complaints about the process, Wiki cliques or the like -- are invariably counterproductive to the article's survival." So, after voting for 'delete' and with a page relishing how angry he obviously makes a lot of people (with a disclaimer about don't e-mail him about it, one can only imagine), Wikipedia 'vote for deletion' has become a mockery, a blood-sport. Those that 'kiss the ring' and kneel/submit are spared...I could literally cite thousands of deletable pages that have survived for over a year...but one dare to barge into another's area of 'expertise' and who-hoo, nay-saying at its best. But ultimately I welcome this. It sharpens my focus on what I haven't done yet, and need to do. Clearly, being #1 in the world slaving behind the curtain isn't enough...selling oneself (prostituting) to win a popularity contest is what really counts. Spare me. Wikipedia has already run off Louis Epstein. The literature of age-validation research has been out for 130 years, but it seems that people would rather fall for the claim that Habib Miyan is '137' because that means they can put off until later thinking about their own mortality. In fact, voting on Wikipedia makes one feel immortal. Sorry folks, unless someone figures out how to transhumanize you, you're doomed.

Ok, and now back to this article...it serves its point and it should have passed 'notability' with flying colors. At least three sources? Try 3,000. "Non-trivial?" Being the cited authority is not trivial; being cited in a bank statement is. Not knowing the difference? Complete stupidity.

It is said the ultimate judge of importance in a field is by a jury of one's peers--such as Jean-Marie Robine of France, James Vaupel from Germany, Bernard Jeune from Denmark, Roger Thatcher from England, etc. Clearly, Wikipedia isn't. Other noted researchers from around the world know who I am. More than that, I have helped shape and advance the field in the past decade, pushing it from a backwater to a suddenly front-burner issue. Just wait, you haven't seen anything yet.

When Europe decided to compile an international database on longevity, they asked for the help of two persons in particular...Louis Epstein and Robert Young.

JSTOR: The World Trend in Maximum Life SpanJOHN R. WILMOTH / JEAN-MARIE ROBINE to the Swedish trend in the maximum age at death, ..... Axel Skytthe, Roger Thatcher, Jacques Vallin, and Robert Young. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921(2003)29%3C239%3ATWTIML%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O - Similar pages

[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages

As for Guinness, they ASKED ME to help them, I didn't apply for the job. I was well known before then, which explains why they asked, does it not.

But of course, who needs to know about history, about gerontology, or the truth about human aging? Just turn on your TV and watch "America's Got Talent" and let the mindless display begin.74.237.28.5 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I imagine being a senior researcher for Guinness is a worthy post and all, but I don't see what of the criteria in WP:BIO and WP:PROF this subject passes. Only one link satisfies WP:V, instead of the multiple, non-trivial sources required. Beyond everything else, the extreme defensiveness of Ryoung122 about what he's described as "his" article serves as classic examples why WP:OWN and WP:COI are official policies and guidelines, never mind at least one WP:CANVASS dinger at a talk page. I urge Mr. Young to take both to heart and sit on his hands. As policy suggests, if the article stands on its own merits, it will without lengthy diatribes here and at several other places. If he believes that nom is acting in poor faith (a defensible proposition, although Errabee wouldn't be the first editor to check out someone with whom he was having a dispute and thinking "Holy frack, he's got an article on himself?"), there are other avenues of dispute resolution available. RGTraynor 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, why don't you add WP: POINT to the list of 'offenses'. The below article was started by David Allen Lambert himself, using a sockpuppet, and the sources listed don't seem to satisfy any of the suddenly much-higher requirements now cited for 'this' article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Allen_Lambert

Yet no one nominated that article for deletion, and his 'claim to fame' seemed to be 'discovering/verifying' the age of a single individual...the 'oldest living baseball player.' Yet I find multiple individuals, year in, year out, and that amounts to 'triviality'? Case not made.

But to me the biggest point seems to be how the 'rules' on Wikipedia are selectively enforced, and decisions which should be made by impartial observers often are the result of 'edit-warring' instead...sadly, humanity favors emotion over logic. Further, it seems that 'assertions of notability' are often made by the Wikipedians themselves...akin to having '10,000 friends' on MySpace.

I actually contributed to Wikipedia for more than a year before I started my own 'user ID/talk' page. Wikipedia is a TOOL and the goal should be to educate the world with impartiality and fairness. The assertion that I should 'sit on my hands' and do/say nothing seems silly, especially when uninformed comments are made (i.e. 'no proof of X or Y') when a simple search of Google would show that you can't find one factual assertion to be in error.

I do believe the article would stand alone if an impartial third-party observer came along and commented (or started the article). However, I understand that stacked deck situations usually result in 'sinking'...it's why politicians result to political scandal in the weeks leading up to an election.Ryoung122 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: A few hundred articles a day are AdDed, prodded or speedied. That there are articles which don't meet Wikipedia standards and haven't yet been subjected to process is not remotely a compelling reason why yours must survive. If you feel that the Lambert article fails WP:BIO, feel free to file an AfD on it. In the meantime, while you are touting your credentials, I'll point to my own experience. I've participated in hundreds of AfD discussions, and my experience is that repeated, rambling defenses of articles by their creators and/or subjects -- especially where they stray off the subject to focus on general complaints about the process, Wiki cliques or the like -- are invariably counterproductive to the article's survival. You needn't follow my advice, of course. RGTraynor 20:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I see that as a weakness in both humanity and Wikipedia; objectivity is rarely achieved on AFD.Ryoung122 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep: He is very much notable and a reputable source, just as Mr. Louis Epstein, S. Jay Olshansky, ... . Extremely sexy 09:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard for me not to see this as a case of vanity, and only the subject's claims and the assumption of good faith keeps me from doing so. There is almost nothing in that article that does not distinguish it from a CV or resume -- which is my rule of thumb for inclusion, & based on his numerous responses if such material existed it would be there. As for the need to provide one central location for his references or sources, he is welcome to create a page in his user space for that purpose. -- llywrch 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User pages don't add Wikilinks. Further, the need for a Wikilink (more information) suggests the need for an article. Third, a User Page may include material extraneous to the subject, whereas an article (like a newspaper article) is meant to be succinct and focus on only the material related to the notability. If someone included 'won class spelling bee in 5th grade' that would be vanity. Including material related to why Person X would be in the media in the first place is not.131.96.70.164 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote. I vote to rename this article to Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). He isn't a gerontologist. He could be categorized as a gerontologist if he had a Ph.D. in gerontology or the equivalent of a Nobel in gerontology, but that hasn't happened yet. He isn't the first of this category (longevity claims researcher), this has been going for much longer time, just became increasingly fast in the past 15-20 years. Guinness has been doing this since it's origin in 1955; one of the notable earliest was Alexander Graham Bell for validating the oldest woman in the world during World War I. It basically comes down to, do you think age verification is important? Robert's been in over a thousand articles, news and journal, on 6 continents. However, his biographical article will be part of a new article on age verification, the process of debunking unsubstantial claims, and verifying cases - and then, other people in his field, will have to be listed. Robert Young is particularly responsible for U.S. cases for the Gerontologt Research Group; there are then correspondents for other countries like France, Germany, and Italy (which have their own longevity claims researcher). Robert might have debunkked/undebunked more cases than anyone else mainly because the U.S. has the highest centenarian population of any country, but longevity claims researcher for smaller countries like the Netherlands will have to be listed too. Neal 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. I don't see how this should pass WP:BIO, or how the subject is more notable than the senior accountant for the Guinness Book of Records. Since User:Ryoung122 seems so keen on putting this information onto Wikipedia, I recommend he posts it on his userpage. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't see how Robert Young will pass the WP:BIO? Well, I found 1 example that suits his criteria: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His field? That's longevity claims debunker/bunker. That is, he specializes in validating the age of people.

Comment: Terrific. I wrote the first known compendium of Orczy's The_Scarlet_Pimpernel works; that's a "field" too. I don't figure that gets me a pass on WP:BIO. RGTraynor 05:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anways, I personaly feel Young's article is more relevant than others. Take these 3 for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Pata - Noted for being shot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Blaho - Noted for being in a car accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliana_Ramos - Noted for dying of anorexia.

What makes these people have their own Wikipedia article? For being on a news site, right? Getting media attention? You can find hundreds of those listing Robert Young in the news. Neal 04:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that "Other Crap Exists" is not a valid argument. Please judge this page on its own merits. Canadian Paul 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't an argument to begin with. It was examples of how easy it is for people to get their own biography page on Wikipedia just for having media attention. This meant that, "anyone on the news" can have their own Wikipedia page, and I used that as an analogy to how many times Young has been in the news. Neal 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, then "Other Crap Exists" is not a valid point/example/analogical tool. Just because those articles do exist doesn't necessairly mean that they should. Canadian Paul 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Robert Young is notable in his capacity as Senior Consultant for Gerontology for the Guinness World Records. This is a major role within an integral part of the best selling copyrighted series of books in the world. There is no doubt that Mr Young is an eminent and renowned person in his field. It may be the case that Mr Young has contributed to the creation and editing of the article but what better source of reference can there be? This on its own surely does not constitute a vanity article. The vanity articles I have come across make spurious and exaggerated claims purely for the "oxygen of publicity". The article in question sticks to the facts and makes no vain statements that I am aware of. There has been criticism that the article partially resembles a CV but how does any biographical article avoid this entirely?! There is certainly room for modification and improvement but IMHO there is no valid reason for deletion. Rrsmac 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess it really doesn't make that much of a difference to me whether this article stays or goes, but I think one of the biggest problems that people seem to be having (including myself) is that it was written by the subject itself. WP:AUTO is bad and all that. I think the people who are voting for keep should be prepared to completely rewrite the article - blank the page and recreate it themselves. As linked to in WP:AUTO, everything must be verifiable and no original research is allowed and, from looking at the article, I can see where there are arguably violations to that. Anyhow, if this does stay, people who voted keep should keep it up and people who voted delete should make sure that, at the very least, it satisfies verifiability and WP:NOR. Voting comes with a responsibility. Canadian Paul 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Look, in all honesty I fail to see how being a researcher for a book of world records is a sufficient claim to notability. Almost all mentions in independent external media (with the exception of one) are passing and trivial, often consisting of nothing more than a small quote. Validating and debunking claims longevity claims certainly is interesting, and there should indeed be an article about it, and perhaps the supercentenarians themselves are notable, but in any case, I find it highly doubtful that being the person who authenticates the ages of supercenetarians for a record book can justify notability. Calgary 18:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If persons find me non-notable, so be it. But let me set the facts straight. First of all, Guinness World Records is the #1 best-selling book of all-time (and second-most distributed, behind the Bible). Not only that, but Guinness considers the age record to be one of the most prestigious, and Guinness editions written some 20-plus years ago said this:

As the Guinness Book of World Records stated in numerous editions from the 1960s to the 1980s, "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity."

Hence Guinness World Records has long considered the 'oldest person' records to be among the most prestigious but also the most difficult to verify/research of any record...in part because 'we are all at it' (anyone could CLAIM to be the world's oldest person). Hence, the topic is much more than a typical 'Guinness researcher'. Yet I could cite others...experts on the tallest tree (Steve Sillett) or twins (Craig and Mark Sanders), for example. In my view, if someone contributes a new understanding/way of thinking about a subject in a scientific manner, than it is far more than simply an issue of 'position.'

Second, I also note that user Calgary is involved in the species integration dispute, so once again we see possible conflicts of interest.

Third, one reason I created this article is because the Wiki: AUTO policy stated that, although strongly discouraged, it is not expressly forbidden. If this is not the case, the policy needs to be re-written to state as much.

Perhaps the most important argument, however, is that I am more than just the researcher for the toughest record in the best-selling book of all time. If that were the case, you wouldn't find my name in thousands of citations, such as:

Results 1 - 10 of about 46,700 for Robert+Young+Louis+Epstein+Jean-Marie+Robine. (0.12 seconds)

Deaths for 2003 as of January 16, 20041, 1893, June 1, 2003, 110, 151, W, F, Louis Epstein/Robert Young, ########, ######## ... 7, 2003, 112, 146, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Laurent Toussaint ... www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2003.HTM - 97k - Cached - Similar pages

2004 Deaths, as of February 15, 200711, 2004, 110, 12, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Peter Goldblatt. 11, England (UK), England (UK) .... 21, 2004, 112, 27, W, F, Louis Epstein/Robert Young ... www.grg.org/Adams/Deaths2004.HTM - 45k - Cached - Similar pages [ More results from www.grg.org ]

Aging: The Reality: Demography of Human Supercentenarians -- Coles ...1, 1890, Living, 113*, W, M, Robert Young/Louis Epstein .... 7, 2003, 112, 146, W, F, Jean-Marie Robine/Laurent Toussaint ... biomed.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/full/59/6/B579/TA1 - Similar pages

[PDF] Table of World-Wide Living SupercentenariansFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jean-Marie Robine. Delvina Dahlheimer. U.S. (MN). Dec. 31, 1888. Mar. 13, 2002. 113. 72. w. f. Louis Epstein/Robert Young. Antonio Todde ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/10945450260195667 - Similar pages

[PDF] Supercentenarians Tables Validated Supercentenarian Cases Aged 114 ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Jean-Marie Robine/. Robert Young. tie. U.S. (IL). Wilhelmina Kott .... piled for publication by Mr. Louis Epstein of. New York and Mr. Robert Young of ... www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2006.9.503 - Similar pages [ More results from www.liebertonline.com ]

[PDF] Workshop on Supercentenarians, May 8 2002 Atlanta, GeorgiaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 9:15 a.m. --- Jean-Marie Robine: “The Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality. Countries”. 9:45 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Problems with ... www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/15716.951751709-Workshop%20Program.pdf - Similar pages

[PDF] AgendaFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 9:00 a.m. --- Robert Young: “Age 115 and Beyond: A Closer Look At American Cases”. 9:20 a.m. --- Louis Epstein: “Observed Life Expectancy of ... www.demogr.mpg.de/calendar/files/51736.8836975098-Workshop%20Program.pdf - Similar pages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLouis Epstein and Robert Young. JSTOR: The World Trend in Maximum Life SpanJOHN R. WILMOTH / JEAN-MARIE ROBINE to the Swedish trend in the maximum age at ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academics - 153k - Cached - Similar pages

Robert Young (gerontologist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJean-Marie Robine of France, validator of the Jeanne Calment case, is working with ... Unlike Louis Epstein, Young has provided a list of credits for each ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Young_(gerontologist) - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ..... England and Wales, by France Meslé and Jacques Vallin (INED) and Jean-Marie Robine ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages

Galileo wasn't popular, either, because he espoused views--such as heliocentrism--that contradicted the establishment of the day. Perhaps the best argument for the need for articles on both supercentenarians and supercentenarian researchers is the public's lack of understanding of the subject. 74.237.28.5 05:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, please don't ever make unwarranted accusations about my intentions or my character. As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a user participating in multiple deletion discussions for pages created by the same user. The two articles and discussions are entirely independent of one another, and my participation will not have any concievable effect on the other. If you're suggesting that I'm somehow biased against you simply because I've participated in deletion discussions for multiple pages of your creation, all i'm going to say is that's a very, very, very long stretch. So please, be a bit more considerate before you go around saying "conflict of interest", and think about the implications you're making about both my character and my motivations. Calgary 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Gerontology Research Group is notable, hence so is Robert. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hate to be the policy police, but I haven't voted on this. Anyhow, notability is not inherited. Canadian Paul 21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'll give you some more policy improve, don't delete. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sort of like what I wrote here? To reiterate, if this article can be rewritten from verifiable sources from all these people who are voting to keep, then I have no problem with it being kept. Canadian Paul 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Paul is right. Voting comes with responsibilities. I haven't voted here and do not plan to, because I cannot be impartial; I nominated two of Robert's articles for deletion myself. But this I will do: if the this biography article is kept in the end, I volunteer to help rewrite it from ground up, from references. Just give me the references. Fred Hsu 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My first vote here. Basically same reason Michael C. Price ^talk gives above. The change in the title could be done if that makes everybody happy, but it gets into the problem of whether or not you need a formal title and degree to be called an "-ologist" of anything. I would argue that this distinction should be made by publication. There are any number of world renouned experts on any number of topics, who have no formal degree in what it is they're famous for knowing. This especially applies to new fields. Galileo didn't have a degree in physics, because the field didn't exist. He (as much as anybody) invented it. And there was no degree in planetary astronomy for Kepler. It was called "astrology." The inventor of the steam engine had no degree. Must we stop calling him an "engineer"? Winston Churchill graduated from a military college, but had no degree in history. Must we stop referring to him as a historian? And so on.S B H arris 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do have a degree in gerontology from Georgia State University. However, if it makes everyone happy, we can 'rename' this to Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Even though I do more than that in both gerontology and other fields (I have two degrees in history, so I could be an 'historian' as well), it is what I am best-known for.74.237.28.5 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From reading this discussion, and following the links and references, it seems that this page is far too autobiographical in nature, though I wouldn't see too much of a problem if it was rebuilt with more reliable sources without any autobiographical help.Ravenmasterq 23:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. WP:PROF says "merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable". The Gerontology Research Group appears notable and viewed as an authority on the subject by reliable sources. However, simply being a spokesperson for a notable organization is insufficient for a person's notability. Subject does appear to be a participant in publications in academic journals but it's not clearly demonstrated from independent reliable sources that the individual's body of work is regarded as notable within his field. This appears to be a case of a researcher who is quite possibly notable but who may have to wait for the world to recognize the true scope of his accomplishments. Canuckle 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps - think WP:PROF is relevant as most comparable to longevity researcher. Canuckle 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this situation funny. In my opinion, this article is just about as notable as Angela Beesley (e.g., being a spokesperson or founder of a notable organization, but the notability of the person itself is disputed). However, Beesley article was kept, after six attempts for deletion, despite the subject's wishes to have her article deleted. But now we have an article that is likely to be deleted despite the subject's wishes to keep it! Are we doing it just to spite people? Is this a punishment for breaking the autobiography taboo, which is not even a policy? It shouldn't matter who wrote the article or whether there is a conflict of interest or not. What should matter is whether the article is verifiable and the topic notable enough. Nothing else matters. --Itub 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Canuckle. Robertissimo 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to concerns about notability; most of the links and references provided do not really back up the substance of the article. Possibly worth a merge into Gerontology Research Group, but this might skew that article since Mr Young looks to be a fairly minor figure in that organistation. EyeSerene^TALK 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamla Bhatt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete: unsourced except for non-inline, self published non-RS links, WP:BIO. OTRS 2007072510017517. Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/kamla bhatt -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t11:53z

Keep. I have restored the original content to allow editors a view of the material being considered for deletion. A quick Google indicates sufficent reason to give this article the benefit of the doubt. This interview [37] suggests the subject of the article is well known to the English speaking Indian internet community. Google hits are reasonably high at 144,000 [38]. If she is indeed the first Indian podcaster that gives her some notability. SilkTork 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [39] is not a reliable source for that claim. It reads like a CV/press release/puff piece. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t14:41z
We have a choice of either deleting articles that are doubtful, or of doing some research to tidy them up. I don't see an urgent need to delete this particular article. A quick Google showed there is information out there - enough to give this article the benefit of the doubt. That is not to say that I think the article's subject is very interesting, but that perhaps a notability tag might have been the more appropriate approach. SilkTork 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous discussion was an overwhelming keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/kamla bhatt. SilkTork 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is important because we don't have enough editors to patrol WP:BLPs of non encyclopedic subjects. Voting to include articles, that because they're obviously not notable enough will have unnoticed vandalism for more than 41 days: [40], [41], [42]; is bad for Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t14:41z
An article that attracts vandalism suggests a level of popular interest which in itself indicates notability. Deletion of articles is perhaps not the best strategy for dealing with vandalism, even though I can see it would be very effective! SilkTork 15:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the first podcaster in India is important (being the first of anything major is), and since podcasting is becoming an ever popular phenomenon. The article is referenced to substantiate subjects claims to notability. Ozgod 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not as required by WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t14:41z
Weak Keep: This article's a mess. There are a number of unproven assertions (for instance, the link purportedly backing up that she's the first podcaster is a website claiming that she "might be" the first), the article reads like a promo, there's no verification of her laundry list of celebs. That being said, there are just enough links to print publications to pass WP:V. RGTraynor 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to WP:BIAS issues at stake, being the first podcaster in India is arguably notable. Burntsauce 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can keep articles free of blp once they've been called to attention--to delete because there have been blp problems before they were noticed doesn't make sense. It's not necessary to bring to Afd to get the necessary attention--the BLP Noticeboard is followed very closely by many admins and other editors. DGG (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there verifiable evidence that she is India's first podcaster? All the links I've seen are to personal blogs. Antorjal 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogenfels[edit]

makes no claim to be notable, but has been around since jan 2006 so maybe I'm missning something Moglex 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search turned up a lot of sources that seem to be informative rather than advertisements. Seems notable enough to me. Also on the German Wiki... --GorillaWarfare ^talk 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Places are notable. This rock formation seems to be quite a well known tourist destination. Nick mallory 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hut 8.5 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GorillaWarfare. The unique rock formations add to notability. --Oakshade 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, inherently notable. Bearian 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breather supersolid[edit]

I doubt Breather supersolid means anything - no references, sounds dubious, and search engines have nothing to back it up. Been here since May 2006 Moglex 00:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pseudoscience, at best. Argyriou (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and not yet notable. It appears to be a real concept in physics - Breathers are, in this context, and this page here mentions a talk at the Max Planck Institute Dresden on Breather Supersolids by one Stan Kladko. But it looks so cutting-edge that this the only reference, so no go. Plus the poster is Kladko1` (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Gordonofcartoon 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DerHexer. Whispe ring 11:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chester City (district)[edit]

This page name was created in a page move by myself, and was later found to be named incorrectly (see Talk:Chester (district)#Renaming for details of the discussion including copies of an official letter confirming the correct name for the subject of this article.) It has had its contents recently successfully moved by an administrator to Chester (district), which has preserved all its editing history. There are no important links to this page any more (I have changed them all to avoid a double-redirect problem), and the page with its associated talk page is now superfluous. This page deletion is one of the final steps needed to fully correct an error concerning the entire naming of this part of the UK on wikipedia. DDStretch (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD G6 (non-controversial housekeeping tasks). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - author requested deletion. MER-C 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Shangri-La[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable luxury hotel in major economically important city. Both Forbes and The Independent did an extensive pieces on it [43] [44]. Both very reliable sources. --Oakshade 02:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you but although Forbes and The Independent are reliable sources for news their travel section is just as reliable as Travelocity. The articles you mentioned do not claim any sort of objectivity and the reality is that travel writers are often invited to these luxury hotels and treated extremely well in exchange for a review. In any case, I'm a little bemused that you would call this an extensive piece when it is a simple glowing review about how spacious the rooms are. Pascal.Tesson 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Forbes and The Independent are only selectively reliable sources? Is this a new policy? The Independent piece, this one, is even credited to a reporter. Charging that newspaper and journalist Mark Rowe are equivalent to a travel booking service is quite a slanderous statement. If you're going to compare these very reliable sources travel news to another entity, Condé Nast is the more accurate comparison, not to mention non-slanderous. Sorry to disappoint, but most of us trust a major newspaper over a Wikipedia editor. A reliable source is a reliable source. --Oakshade 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to assert notability. c 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Kappa 08:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shangri-La Hotels. This article provides little if any information worthy of an encyclopedia. Pascal.Tesson 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the hotel is notable, the sources are a bit more independent than Travelocity. Still, the articles' style is a dead giveaway as to their true nature: the absence of critical appraisal (especially in the Forbes article) suggests to me they are not much more than "advertorials" in disguise. If anyone wrote such an article in wikipedia, I have little doubt it will be deleted per WP:SPAM. Ohconfucius 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightclub venues[edit]

Originally siphoned off from the Nightclub article, this essay discussing the pros and cons of various approaches to locating a nightclub appears to be entirely original research meco 15:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOR. Like meco said, it's an essay that seems to be all original research. --GorillaWarfare ^talk 11:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay with a hint of how-to guide, unsourced and probably mostly original research. Been around for over a year with no improvement. Iain99 16:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no real content to be merged. What there is already would suffice. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel, Dubai[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no assertion of why it is notable. Reads more like an advert. Russavia 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to a list at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts Ga rr ie 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 07:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts. Pascal.Tesson 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Vegaswikian Harlowraman 18:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No notability, so this should be a redirect. Hydrogen Iodide 18:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La Hotel, Kuala Lumpur[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. All hotels have an award or two or twelve. Outside of awards there is nothing notable about this hotel, just the same as having a good review in Zagats doesn't need inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Russavia 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the hotel awards it has won. Luke! 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Award winning major luxury resort in very popular resort area. --Oakshade 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Conde Nast Traveler awards are so important in the tourism industry - then why are they not discussed at the Conde Nast Traveler article?Ga rr ie 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to a list at Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts. Fails WP:N as both references are directory in nature to a single organisation.Ga rr ie 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If kept it needs to be merged. No attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 07:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When it says "award-winning "... ? Kappa 07:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable as per far as I can see. Harlowraman 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La's Rasa Sayang Resort & Spa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shangri-La's Rasa Sayang Resort & Spa

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Russavia 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Luxury hotel in major city. The New Straits Times wrote about its re-openning.[45] --Oakshade 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so they paid for a press release. Does not meet WP:N in that there are insufficient independent sources about the subject.Ga rr ie 21:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source and that story is even credited to a reporter. --Oakshade

Delete. No attempt to assert notability. Vegaswikian 07:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami Apocalypse (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Australian heavy metal band, who has released 1 album of 1000 copies (not on a label), and is currently on hiatus. No references establish claims of notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Was already nominated for deletion here and was deleted. I'm also nominating pages on the band members for deletion: Fast Eddie Fast and Jake Van Gyna, and their first band that also fails WP:MUSIC, The Loose Cannons (band). Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete weak due to "In May 2006, Kerrang! magazine voted "Fast" Eddie "Fast" and Jake Van Gyna joint 7th best New Lead Guitarist of 2005." If sources can be provided that these two have been covered, as this suggests, then I'd be for keeping the band article and merging the members' articles into it, but otherwise, no. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. There is mention, but no source for, an international tour (of Japan), which would meet criterion #4 of WP:BAND, if sourced. Otherwise, it's just bandcruft. Argyriou (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woolahra Hotel[edit]

In violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no referenced assertions of why it is notable. Reads like an advertisement Russavia 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - per CSD A7. Luke! 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom's assessment. Pascal.Tesson 04:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like a very nice, but not notable hotel. I liked the missing L story, though.--Slp1 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News Archives shows some sources indicating that the Bistro Moncur is run by a talented chef. [46]. However, it isn't enough for an article. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it may be iconic but that isn't an inclusion criteria here.Ga rr ie 03:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable hotel. Keb25 09:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable Hotel Twenty Years 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant coi spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juno Mother Earth Asset Management[edit]

No evidence of third party coverage, except for a solitary pay-per-view article. Non-notable company. Confirmed (non-obvious) corporate vanity, see WP:COIN#Joseph Di Virgilio. MER-C 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD 11, blatant advertising and spam. This has no references except to the subject's own site. There's no assertion of notability. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Derricotte[edit]

Prod with reason: "Non-notable woman. Dying in a car collision does not raise her to notability required of the encyclopedia." Yet references indicate that this woman has achieved nobility within civil rights due the reasons of her death. Also there has been a book written on her: [47]. There appear to be reasons for a wider debate. My posting is neutral. SilkTork 10:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability more than established by reliable, independent secondary sources linked in the references section. JulesH 11:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead paragraph does not even summarize her notability - there is one reference, but it is not even used as a citation within the article to support or substantiate any of the claims to notability - the rest are just external links. As SilkTork stated, the victim is not notable beyond dying in a car accident and the extreme racist treatment she received. Article does not state or support any lasting impact or effect the subject had. --Ozgod 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure on what basis you distinguish between a reference and an external link here. I note that it was you yourself who separated out the four references other than the book into an external links section. Of these, at least the second is a reliable source that provides verification of the content of the article. The fourth, also, provides verification of some of the information, although I am not certain as to its reliability. JulesH 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:BIO does not require its subjects to have had "lasting impact or effect". That is merely one of 6 standards that are applied, with the general rule being that meeting any one is considered adequate. Of these, we can see that this person meets the first ("subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject") and the second ("subject of a credible independent biography"). JulesH 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are references, and the second reports that the incident triggered several investigations. The article just needs a bit of rewriting. Clarityfiend 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to Amazon, the biography exists, and that's good enough to pass WP:BIO. RGTraynor 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a crappy article, but the subject is clearly notable for accomplishments before her death. Argyriou (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was this brought here in the first place if no one wants it deleted? Burntsauce 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It was proposed for deletion. Under the prod system, if nobody objects within 5 days the article is deleted without discussion. I didn't feel I knew enough to simply remove the prod, so I popped it here for a wider discussion. Also, I have known the prod tag to be replaced after removing it. It was safer to get a consensus for the article to remain or not. SilkTork 14:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is incomplete, but Derricotte was already internationally known as an educator before her death. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Technology Specialist[edit]

not encyclopaedic and not generally true Xorkl000 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while there is no doubt that many companies must have a role called "Web Technology Specialist" its not generally accepted that such a role would universally have these exact activities and responsibilities attached to it. This article maybe true for a small number of specific companies and organisations, but it is not generally true. --Xorkl000 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, original research. Willing to change to keep if someone fixes it. T Rex | talk 11:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - i don't believe it is fixable. This is a specific job description, i just can't see how it can be generalised --Xorkl000 11:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT a job board. Besides, this is probably copyvio of some company's job listing. Argyriou (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it has exactly the same problem (and the same substantial author):

Delete both. Wikipedia is not a repository of job descriptions, particularly ones whose details will vary widely from one employer to the next. --Dhartung | Talk 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:NOT and for non-encyclopedic content given that the description is not generally applicable. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darin Dunn[edit]

Really can't find anything on this guy to indicate notability, other than the standard music-sales sites. The article was previously deleted through prod, but this was disputed by recreation, so bringing it here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like autobio. -- RHaworth 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as remotely notable (per a friend and WP:N), but not shown on this page (per WP:HOLE. Bearian 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see much if any independent reliable sources to assert notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in Google News Archvie. Perhaps some print-only Christian publications. --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the author of the article is Deesquared = D² = DD = Darin Dunn. ●DanMS • Talk 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayola[edit]

non-notable language 348 unique Ghits, most of whose "Ayolas" are names or surnames or people. Only sources appear to be self published. Ohconfucius 10:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, consisting essentially of original research and possibly a hoax. Bearian 23:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Bad Girls (TV series). ELIMINATORJR 23:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls Extra Time[edit]

non-notable Youtube film, without reference to reliable sources. Scores a pityful 23 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 10:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bad Girls (TV series) seeing as the series is notable. T Rex | talk 11:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I would think that this many "keep" votes in a short amount of time warrants a WP:SNOW closure. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving veterans of World War I[edit]

With all due respect to the veterans, I think this list has many problems. Original research for instance, because this list defines its own subject, instead of using primary, secondary or tertiary sources. It also offers totals in the end which, imho, cannot be sourced. All this requires a constant monitoring, and leads me to think this is better served by a category. Er rab ee 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why do you say it can't be sourced? It's got nearly fifty sources. Half the articles on Wikipedia need constant monitoring - every article about living people for a start - and that's hardly an argument for deletion, in fact it's Wikipedia's main strength. I also don't see why it's 'original research' because the list 'defines its own subject'. The article has been constantly updated, hundreds of times in fact, by a wide range of editors and the deaths of the few remaining WW1 veterans are widely reported. Another point is that this article was previously put up for AfD in November 2005, the result being a clear 'keep'. [48]. It's usual to mention a previous AfD when nominating an article. I'm assuming some research was done of course. I also notice that user Errabee previously rated this article as a 'B' in the biography project [[49]]. Presumably his views have changed a lot since then for some reason. Nick mallory 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had indeed noticed the previous AfD which was, as you noted, more than 1.5 years ago and the concerns cited there were not relevant to this AfD. I rated this a 'B' for Biography because it was originally listed as an 'A', which I didn't agree with. Also, the sources are all about the individual veterans, not about conclusions drawn from them, such as that there are 34 surviving veterans. An additional reason for deletion is that there is no such corresponding lists as Surviving veterans of World War II or Surviving veterans of the Vietnam War or Surviving veterans of the Gulf War, to mention just a few major wars from the recent past. The fact that WWI is singled out is also one of my concerns. Errabee 11:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought previous AfDs were cited even if they were all of eighteen months ago and I still don't understand why an article which you yourself rated yourself as a 'B' suddenly becomes one which should be deleted. I don't understand why the lack of an article about other wars means this one is inadmissable. There isn't an article on every first class cricketer, should we then delete Ian Botham and Jack Hobbs? Nick mallory 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you may have noticed, I'm not a regular on XfD. So I'm sorry if I didn't follow the usual rule to cite the previous nomination; it wasn't mentioned in the procedure on how to nominate an article for AfD, and I thought it would serve no purpose because I have totally different concerns than the previous nominator. Sorry again.
    - As for having rated the article, that does not mean anything. I just think the material of this list is of B-class quality; it says absolutely nothing of my opinion whether an article merits inclusion or not. To illustrate (and exaggerate): I could write an A-class article (if my writing skills were sufficient) about all the pets I've had in my childhood, but I doubt anyone would consider them worthy of an article. I hope you understand. Er rab ee 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is singled out because sources find survivors of a war 90+ years ago more impressive than a war only 50 or even 15 years ago. T Rex | talk 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: What makes it notable is that there are so few survivors left. WWII survivors number in the hundreds, I'm sure. Vietnam and Gulf War survivors number in the tens of thousands. -- VegitaU 11:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Article was cited by a news source. Article has many sources. Article was nominated for deletion before and was kept. -- VegitaU 10:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be maintained and is well sourced. T Rex | talk 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The reasons have already been covered by others, but I'd like to add that the reason there's no "Living WWII" or "Living Vietnam War" Veteran Lists is because the wars weren't that long ago. Many countries (including Australia) regard their national experiences in WWI as laying the foundation for their country as it is today, so the remaining WWI Vets are minor national heroes in their own right, never mind being incredibly long-lived. The article is useful and relevant, and I see no reason why it shouldn't stay. --Commander Zulu 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is very well sourced, and the topic of surviving veterans has been covered extensively in sources. A category would not be as useful because there is additional information about the topic which would not be included in a category. Hut 8.5 11:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We've been through this before; the reasons for keeping this article haven't changed. If anything, they have become even stronger as the list dwindles. And WELL SAID, Commander Zulu! Frankwomble 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very well sourced article on an subject that is getting a lot of press attention. There was an article on a veteran just today on the BBC website. Kernel Saunters 12:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The nominator's humble opinion notwithstanding, this is an overwhelmingly sourced article, and I'm at a loss to determine the reasoning in declaring the contrary. It certainly does not "define its own subject," as the article blatantly cites the various (and contradictory) national regulations defining "World War I-era veteran." The nom further makes the common error of presuming that compiling info from multiple sources constitutes original research, when in fact drawing a synthesis from such facts is the violation. As far as the lack of similar lists go, quite aside from the absurdity of maintaining the same (are there as few as a million surviving WWII vets worldwide?), that's rather like saying an article on a particular movie isn't allowable just because there isn't one yet on a similar work. The nom is correct, though, in that the article requires constant monitoring. With over twelve hundred edits this year alone, it's obvious that many editors are quite happy to provide just that. RGTraynor 13:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says, and I quote: "Veterans, for this purpose, are defined as people who were members of the armed forces of one of the combatant nations up to and including the date of the Armistice. Other WWI-era veterans are listed separately. This policy may vary from the policy in actual use in some countries." Especially this last sentence means that this list defines its own subject. It means that people in this list are perhaps not regarded as veterans in their own country, or that people are excluded that are regarded as veterans in their own country. That is what makes this list original research. The unsourced statements I refer to are not the info about the individual veterans (which are indeed very well sourced), but the totals in each section header and in the paragraph in the end. Counting all these veterans is a synthesis, and I doubt very much that these countings can be adequately sourced. Errabee 16:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (coughs) Counting the number of sourced entries is a "synthesis?" There's very little in the way of response I could possibly make to that startling assertion which would fit under civility guidelines; the overwhelming reaction to your nomination must suffice for reply. RGTraynor 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's incomprehensible to me why this article was nominated for deletion. I spent three years (1987-1991) conducting oral histories with American and British World War I veterans. Their stories were being lost then, and they're being lost again today. Spacini 14:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: why was this nominated in the first place? Czolgolz 14:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews: it's not encyclopedic - in about 10 years this article will have to be deleted anyway, so it's more a Wikinews article but then it should have a definite date: "Surviving veterans of World War I as on 2007-07-30", tho checking that all those people are alive on that day may be difficult. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-30t15:29z
Keep - well sourced and it is kept up to date by a wide number of editors. Catwhoorg 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable, very useful, and well sourced. James Luftan ^contribs 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and eventually replace with "Last Veterans of World War I to die" listing the last 100 veterans to die and maybe the last 1 to die from each country if he is not in the last-100 list. If there are not a similar lists for the American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War and other major wars in history where long-term survival information is reliable and long-lived surviving veterans were celebrated there should be. When the WW2 survivor list gets below 100 it should have its own list as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Greatly superior to a category. Hawkestone 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for reasons already listed above and I second excellent suggestion by davidwr. Snappy56 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srong Keep, again for all the reason set out in this and previous AfDs. I can't think of an article which is more thoroughly researched and kept up to date. It is an excellent article. Mithrandir1967 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's only as difficult to maintain as any other list of living people (such as Oldest_people#Oldest_living_people, and it's well-sourced. Useight 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Buckshot06 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:DerHexer (A7, no assertion of notability). Non-admin closure Hut 8.5 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dafin0[edit]

Non-notable, no reliable sources, probably a conflict of interest. Google reveals nothing except blogs and forums. Huon 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this subject. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parasite Eve 4[edit]

Google gives no results for "Parasite Eve: Extinction" and no relevant results for "Parasite Eve 4". Article was created by a new account. Parasite Eve 3 doesn't even exist (there's a mobile game "The 3rd Birthday", but no PE3 officially), so this article's name is incredibly off. It's a hoax. Kariteh 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Likely hoax. Realkyhick 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single reference, per WP:V policy. Some Parasite Eve DIVA sources out there on the web, but drawing blanks for "Parasite Eve 4" or "Parasite Eve: Extinction" even from Japanese sources. Marašmusïne_Talk 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the Parasite Eve DIVA paragraph and some other parts of the article are copied straight from the Parasite Eve (video game) article. The creator apparently simply copied that article to a new page and changed a few stuff to pass it off as a new game. Kariteh 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for "Parasite Eve remake" turns up something called Parasite Eve: Rebirth and fan speculation. Clearly a hoax, with most of the article copied from Parasite Eve (video game). An Xbox 360 game that uses the Dual Shock as a controller? Yeah right. --Optichan 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noob stick[edit]

I previously proposed this article for deletion, but the proposal was objected. Even after the objection, I don't think that it is notable/verifyable enough, and there is nothing which links to the article from another article. It might be useful, but I fail to see a fixed point on the word.

(PS. That I forgot to include the edit summary while fitting in ((subst:afd1)), hopefully it won't matter.) ~Iceshark7 09:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add it to List of online-gaming slang it does not need it's own page. Gorkymalorki 09:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Konman72 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gorkymalorki. Gundato 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete non-notable, unattributable, neologism. Carlosguitar 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Aeroplane Flies Lower[edit]

The article's subject is about an un-official bootleg that was, apparently, only sold in Germany. While some bootlegs may be notable to a band's recording or live performance history, this one has no redeeming features and shouldn't be recorded on Wikipedia. MrHate 08:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this bootleg, unlike some of the others, is not notable. T Rex | talk 11:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this release may be a bootleg, it is still a valuable Wikipedia article. Firstly, people often have questions about what this release is, whether it is official, etc. (it can be found in some record stores, ebay auctions, etc., and folks want to know what is up with it). A Google search of "aeroplane flies lower" yields several message board results in the top 10 of people speculating about whether this is an official release or not, what tracks are on it, etc. The Aeroplane Flies Lower includes a collection of legitimate (i.e. non-bootlegged) CD singles and an interview disc whose origins I know not (something to find out and add to the Wikipedia article). This can be confusing to fans, indpendent music store owners, collectors, etc. A page about the bootleg to explain exactly what it is may be very valuable to these people. Secondly, and this is regarding the argument that bootlegs may not deserve pages at all, some music bootleg releases have had an impact on the musical canon of an artist. For example, Bob Dylan's "Basement Tapes" (later officially released), Dave Matthews Band's "The Lillywhite Sessions" (later re-recorded and released in part as "Busted Stuff"), and Alice in Chains' "Heroin" (which was answered to about 6 years later with "Music Bank," which included most of the unreleased demos featured on "Heroin," and "Nothing Safe: Best of the Box" which included at least one recording featured on "Heroin" as well as strikingly similar artwork on the disc). The Smashing Pumpkins have a number of bootlegs circulating (sometimes, at Billy Corgan's suggestion) amongst the fans (examples include "the Friends + Enemies of Modern Music" (60 min cassette), "Billy's Gravity Demos," and (although some may simply refer to this as a non-commercial release and not a bootleg) "Machina II/Friends and Enemies of Modern Music"). My point here is that fans of the Smashing Pumpkins are tuned in to Smashing Pumpkins bootlegs. While the majority of bootlegs are probably not worthy of a Wikipedia article, I contend, at least for the reasons I stated above, that this bootleg is worthy and that the article should be kept. Idcandy 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree completely that bootlegs can be notable in the history of a band, this one, I believe isn't. It's a collection of singles that already have their own articles. There is considerable interest in it, but I believe that's because it has taken a similar name to the band's actual singles box set, The Aeroplane Flies High. The KZA 11:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —« ANIMUM » 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knox's Korner[edit]

Non-notable website. While Benfer has his fans (who have tried again and again to shove his information into Wikipedia, nearly all search returns are for blog mentions, bulletin board postings, and/or video sharing sites. No reputable third party sources have written about this series. Delete MikeWazowski 08:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as re-creation of previously deleted content (see [50], [51], [52], [53], etc.). In fact, I think this is speedyable, and I'm going to tag it as such. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, g1 hoax. Why do people insist on posting fake film articles? NawlinWiki 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strays (film)[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax none of the main Movie sites have any mention of this film. X201 08:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing in the article at all to assert notability besides an unreferenced cast. Highly suspicious. lone_twin 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax, unreferenced, crystal ballery. T Rex | talk 11:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- is practically empty. --Tikiwont 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 77[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Another unsourced future UFC event. Crystalballing, no verifable information; precedent from several other AfDs. east.718 07:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

d per nom. Already consensus (unanimous) to delete last time. Smite it again. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article (and others "near" it) has been deleted and recreated three times this month already, and the same situation still applies. Indeed, in many ways, this article is of lower quality, and less referenced than some of the old versions. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt if it keeps coming back, protect it from recreation. Totnesmartin 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be due an article at some point (relativity soon) so salting is inappropriate --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep itthis event is GOING TO HAPPEN. It has been announced on the UFC's broadcast of UFC 72 and UFC 73. It is important for MMA fans to be able to rely on Wikipedia to be able to guide them through upcoming events; however, if someone wants to give me some advice on the correct way to reference this so it won't be deleted. I see that some of the previous UFC events have been referenced by the UFC themselves. I referenced the verbal account of this event from a participant, Drew McFedries but obviously when the UFC themselves put out a press release, I understand that would be a better reference source. It is commonly known information for Mixed Martial Arts fans that this event will indeed occur on October 20, 2007 at US Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Oh and the main event is most definately Rich Franklin against Anderson Silva. This is commonly known and accepted information, it will indeed happen, and it needs to be kept on Wikipedia. It has been reported, and referenced to a website dedicated to MMA news, UFCJunkie.com I am, though, open to suggestions. I would like to help improve some of the content on Wikipedia but I want to do it in a way that satisfies the community. Thanks. --MrAdamNJ 09:20, 30 July 2007
Delete Unreferenced and Crystalball Thesaddestday 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd advocate keep were this actually on the UFC schedule. According to the list of events on UFC's own website, it isn't. Barring official and verifiable information, this remains a WP:CRYSTAL violation however many UFC fans wish to be the first to scoop the Wikipedia audience on this. Folks, there is no hurry. RGTraynor 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's not overmuch information out yet, but its existence and location are at least verifiable in this article in the Dayton Daily News (scroll down). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The UFC could change the main event on the drop of a dime. It's 4 events away, and the UFC just recently talked about UFC 76's events. I agree - there is no hurry. I say keep it off until something if officially said by the UFC other than on PPVs. NasDestiny 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an event is not a topic for an article. There is no notability to a future event that is a regular happening within a "sport". Should we have an article for the Super Bowl in 2025 because it will happen? Of course not; nor should this be an article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, we do have articles for numerous future sporting events. The subject of this article is much less speculative, for example, than Super_Bowl_XLV. That particular event is scheduled for a date in February of 2011, and the stadium in which it will be held hasn't even been built yet! For other examples, please see 2016 Summer Olympics, 2008 College World Series, and 2018 FIFA World Cup. In the past, precedent has always stated that an article for a future event can exist once verifiable information on that event is published. Given that information about location and participants is now starting to filter into the mainstream media in a citable form, there's no reason why this article shouldn't exist at the present time. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please look at the re-done version, and reconsider you decision to delete the page. Though it does not have too many facts about the event (mostly rumours), I refereced what is most likely known for the event. Honestly, it's just a matter of time before they release more information about this event, and with the quality of this article looking a lot better, I don't see the harm in keeping it up now. --ShadowSlave 20:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The changes you made entirely had to do with rumors. Referenced or not, you can't use rumors. So as of now the page still is unsourced and crystal balling. Thesaddestday 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, fair enough. Just throwing any hope for those who actually wanted the page up since I'm not exactly sure about all the article standards (like crystal-balling) though it is sourced, just not confirmed. --ShadowSlave 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g6 (duplicate), r3 (unlikely redirect to John Charles Thomas, no incoming links). NawlinWiki 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas John[edit]

No record of such a person's existence; strong likelihood that this refers to baritone John Charles Thomas as many of the details correspond lone_twin 07:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is not even worthy of a redirect, as nobody looking for John Charles Thomas would ever search for "Thomas John". What on earth is this article here for? 221.134.200.223 14:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as a copyright violation. the_undertow ^talk 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thengapattanam[edit]

indiscernible mess. unencyclopedic. Smite it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How may I speedy delete thee? Let me count the tags: G1, G2, A1, and A7 Rackabello 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supersonic Speedy Delete Complete and utter nonsense. Gorkymalorki 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't know where the assertions that this is nonsense, no context, or failure to assert notability come from, but they're patently untrue. Does it need cleanup, yes. Deletion -- no way. As far as I can tell, people saw a massive wall of unformatted text, and opted to delete it rather than read it. I've done some cleanup on this; perhaps it will change your minds? --Haemo 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Below.[reply]

Well, according to this webpage, there is a description of this town in India. Is it possible to re-write this article? However, I am not sure whether this town passes the notability test. Moreover, it must also be taken into account that there are more than 200 google hits for this town. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wont reconsider unless some references are added. Sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep added citations it is a place with a 2000 year history. Harlowraman 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - naturally, one of the links shows it's a clear copy-vio, even with my rudimentary clean up. --07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And after all my cleaning too :( --Haemo 07:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all a7, no credible assertion of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 16:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cacks[edit]

A band that has no notability, let alone being a "Super Group" No hits on google eitherGorkymalorki 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main concern here is that it is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A google search shows up no hits for this band as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no real assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC, just the questionable claim of being a "super group", a claim that appears to have little basis in reality. The band members' articles need to go too. Also, perhaps in a futile bid to demonstrate notability, the creator of this article modified Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time to include one of the members of The Cacks, a claim that is patently false. --Bongwarrior 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this band and its non-notable members. Cack is the right word for this article. Totnesmartin 10:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, redirect to Matthew McGrory. NawlinWiki 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McGrory[edit]

About a musician with dubious notability. No sources, fails WP:V, I smell a hoax Rackabello 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact I think that The Cacks should also be deleted, as I cannot find anything on that either.Gorkymalorki 07:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs, and Google searching suggests that references are nonexistent. Also, a redirect to the article of actor Matthew McGrory might be in order. --Bongwarrior 07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Mall[edit]

Yet another article on a NN mall, probabaly CSD criteria, but want some input. No sources other than simon.com and the barber shop blog, fails WP:V. Rackabello 06:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this mallGorkymalorki 06:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The only reason being a notable deletion case involving many mall articles a while back. The decision came back to keep the articles, even small stubs like Lakeforest Mall. This, in my opinion, set a precedent for saving real malls. Additionally, a Google search of Cape Cod Mall turned up over 30K results. It's a real mall, though the article itself needs a major rewrite and more sources. -- VegitaU 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, its a mall I go to somewhat frequently, considering I only live about 20 minutes away, and its the only mall accessible without going over the bridge and 30K ghits or not, methinks its fairly run of the mill: it has a Sears, a Macy's, a Best Buy, a Barnes and Noble, a Marshals, and a Hoyts movie theater. It has a food court and a bunch of other stores. No notable events (recieved substantial non-local press coverage) have taken place at the mall to my knowledge. I can think of at least five or six other malls off hand that fit that or a very similar description. Rackabello 07:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So... you're not disagreeing with me? -- VegitaU 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And the decision I cited above? Why did all those malls get to keep their articles and this one is deleted? -- VegitaU 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I believe you may be incorrectly comparing that decision to the legal concept of case-law. Although calling on past AfD discussions may be appropriate to advance your argument, please remember AfD discussions are just that, discussions. Each article is weighed out individually and consensus is formulated on a case by case basis. Rackabello 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: True, consensus can change. I'm just arguing my view based on what I've seen in the past. I don't think this article should be deleted. It just needs work and more sources. It looks notable to me. -- VegitaU 07:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable center of commerce with the locality. Would not be opposed to a merge. Burntsauce 17:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to be a semi-notable mall, just needs work. I'll take some time to work on this article. I've removed the store listings per WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Size, scope and history are all consistent with notability. Claims are there, but additional sources should be added and the article expanded. Alansohn 22:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a couple of sources -- there's not a whole lot out there, but I did what I could. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lack of sources that assert this projects importance. Failing that criteria; a mall is a mall and not notable.--Stormbay 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable within the area--the only enclosed mall on the Cape. DGG (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Burntsauce.--JForget 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of any sources to confirm or assert notability. --ForbiddenWord 02:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Agreed this article should be edited so that it fits better in an encyclopedia format, and several more sources exist and should be noted (such as news, which was cited - as this is one of the only TWO malls that incorporated a second Macy's store when Federated took over May's Filene's stores). It is also the only major enclosed shopping center in the area and has had an effect on the population of the greater vicinity. Hardly trivial. -J 19:51, 01 Aug 2007 (PST)
Keep, The mall has been around for many years and is notable for the region. I know not all editors like infrastructure-related articles, whether it be highways, railroads, etc. But I feel articles like that are important to commerce and WP:IDONTLIKEIT / WP:IDONTCARE is not a reason to delete the article. Squidfryerchef 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagraphy[edit]

This term was coined on some guy's blog, and is not in general use. I'd bet it is not in use anywhere except on that blog. Doubtless the guy likes to toot his own horn. Speciate 06:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a made up term, couldn't find anything about it other than that guys blog.Gorkymalorki 06:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Guy has adroitly placed term into many blogs, on myspace, etc. Still not notable. Speciate 06:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's a legitimate art group/exhibition and there's a joint website, but I don't think it passes WP:N. Google News Archive shows nothing, for example. But the website would probably be notable before the term would. --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Rackabello 07:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 07:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN WP:NEO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minneagraphers, and be on the lookout for other similar portmanteaux.--Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Edgar181. Whispe ring 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beark[edit]

I believe this article is a hoax, I have searched for anything about it to no avail. Gorkymalorki 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course it's a hoax, how could a bear and a shark possibly produce offspring together? Nyttend 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, a bear and shark having offspring makes more sense, the article said that the bear got his legs bitten off by the shark, then he beat up the shark and surgically put the sharks fins on himself.Gorkymalorki 06:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't even give it the privilege of being called a hoax, its outright patent nonsense, Speedy Delete G1 Rackabello 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~SPEEDY DELETE~~ STRONG DELETE AND SALT THE EARTH: How fast can we get an admin over here? -- VegitaU 07:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deletion request was vandalised by an anon put it back.Delete and Protect against recreation.Harlowraman 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think this qualifies as a rationale: "Eventually the bear won the fight and the fins of the shark were taken and surgically reattached to the bear to make it a super bear or Beark.". --Haemo 07:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Had to put the Deletion request up two more times, same anon keeps taking it off. Gorkymalorki 08:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IP editor has been warned with ((uw-3rr)) and ((uw-afd2)). If it happens again go to ((uw-afd3)) and ((uw-afd4)) if necessary, but he's over 3RR anyway so reporting it at WP:ANI/3RR can now happen if he does it again. --Dhartung | Talk 10:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazenga LuaLua[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A youth player, made a appearance for friendly not count for a criteria of a professional player, neither just received a senior call up to FA Cup and did not play. Matthew_hk t c 06:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Number 5 7 08:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never appeared in a fully competitive match for a professional team. --Angelo 10:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requirement per WP:BIO is that he should have played in a fully professional league. He has not therefore delete but without prejudice should he do so some time in the future. --Malcolmxl5 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, just change bits that aren't correct. This is a real player.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.241.95 (talk • contribs) — 172.202.241.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody's claiming that he isn't a real player, or that anything in the article's incorrect. But as a player who has yet to get beyond the youth team, he doesn't meet WP's notability requirements.... ChrisTheDude 06:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't played a professional game. Nothing else seems to make him notable. Englishrose 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no compelling reason to keep this A7 (although perhaps salvageable with sources etc.) against the subject's wishes. Kusma (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Lynn[edit]

The person this article is about has requested it be deleted for personal reasons Charleswilliamlee 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. JulesH 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, fails WP:CSD A7, so tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 10:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Hours Formalwear[edit]

NN company who's article doesn't provide sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm not hungry for spam tonight. Very promotional in tone, and the only sources are their corporate website and a link to shareholder information. Needs to go Rackabello 07:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Removed the speedy tag as I got a hit on Google News within the past month. There's also an external link to a third-party news site (which is broken), which at least asserts some notabiltiy. --Sigma 7 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chain with over 500 shops seems likely to be notable to me, and a web search shows no shortage of hits. Described as "the largest tuxedo rental and sales retailer in the U.S." here. JulesH 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a large chain of clothiers in its own right. I'm the original creator of this article, and it appears a subsequent editor turned this into an ad. (The last time I messed with it was before it was bought by Men's Warehouse.) --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment I have excised the sections that made it look like an advertisement. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 11:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - store exists in most malls that I have been to. Phil Sandifer 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable franchise with over 500 stores to speak of. Burntsauce 17:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Burntsauce, Kitch, JulesH, et al. Notable retailer, has plenty of locations nationwide. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely notable company. Article should be sourced and copy edited to eliminate any promotional slant. LACameraman 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galimae[edit]

Software does not appear to be notable according to Google [54]. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost want to say "delete as spam." -WarthogDemon 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Martial Arts Center (AMC)[edit]

Well it was a bit better than the two line entry that was recently deleted but Non-notable school, reads like an advertisement. Peter Rehse 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Strong delete and salt the earth: per G4 and G11. This article was created three days ago and the deletion log can be seen here -- VegitaU 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was an expired PROD so not eligable for speedy, but needs deleting as an advert. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Fairy Tail Villains. ELIMINATORJR 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenwald Guild[edit]

Eisenwald Guild has no reason to have it's own page. I moved the information contained here to the Fairy Tail Villains page. Jinkapo 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You already moved the info, so just redirect the article. No need to AFD it. Someguy1221 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triclavianism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Since the last AfD in April, nothing in the article has changed. I have nothing to say about the actual topic of how many nails were used in Christ's crucifixion, I merely feel that this particular term isn't really a notable term used to describe three nails being used instead of four. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Holy Nails doesn't use the term, and this single Anglican author and creator of the word from the 19th century seems to be the only reliable source anyone has found so far that mentions this specific term. There may be a word that describes the belief that Jesus was crucified with three nails, but so far, it appears this term definently did not catch on as the word, at least not in any reliable source. At best, maybe some of this material should be merged with the word's creator, George Stanley Faber, but for now, I really don't understand why this should be a separate article, if an article at all. Nextly, the "Keep" arguments in the last AfD really didn't seem to me to actually argue for an article on this specific term, User:DGG's and User:Andrel's criticisms would only apply I think if the entire Holy Nails topic was being deleted itself, (And thus deleting the "iconological and the theological aspects" of the topic) and every other "Keep" argument seemed to be either an appeal to WP:INTERESTING or an attempt to ignore Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Homestarmy 04:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if at all possible. If it is not possible, then Merge with one of the others. This sort of whimsical stuff is what makes WP fun. I am sorry I have not put more effort into digging up more material for this article since the last time. But I really think it sounds very interesting.--Filll 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned with the fact that this article is 80% text quoted verbatim from another source, and not really an article at all. --Haemo 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it needs some work. There are a lot of articles here that need work. Put some effort into fixing it, just don't delete it willy-nilly. This is not like an article on a 4th runner up for Miss Shoe Shine in Bupkis, Iowa. --Filll 04:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like i'm trying to nominate this for speedy deletion, AfD debates take time for good reason, and only in maybe the most obvious cases are articles deleted "willy-nilly", though I doubt most administrators go on random deletion sprees of backwater theology articles. Homestarmy 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that a Pope specifically chose to condemn the concept makes it notable. Also Google book search finds several citations discussing the tree-nail-crucification idea:

Short History of the Italian Waldenses who Have Inhabited the Valleys of the Cottian Alps from the ancient times to the prsent by Sofia Van Matre Bompiani (page 38)
A Theological Dictionary, Containing Definitions of All Religious Terms (43MB download) by Charles Buck (page 130) (43MB download)
Catholic Encyclopedia has a very interesting discussion on the three nails and sybology associated with JC on pgaes 421 and 649
The Apocryphal and legendary life of Christ by Donehoo, James De Quincey cites Luke on page 350, "Most painters represent Christ as fastened to the cross with three nails, one for each hand, and one for the two feet."

I am not claiming that the above sources should necessarily be used in expanding the article, but if a 10 minute search throws up so many sources, surely the topic is notable. Abecedare 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the Coats of Arms of Drahovce, Saint Saviour, Jersey and St. Clement Parish, Ottawa, as well as Passion_fruit#Names. Article clearly needs rewriting, but it has great potential. Abecedare 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of those sources actually use the term "Triclavianism" to describe this concept? Once again, i'm not trying to argue that the concept of Christ being crucified by three nails is not notable, but that this particular term identifying it is not. If the term isn't used in those sources, then all of those sources would be excellent for the Nail (relic) article, which is not up for AfD, and is not so long that it would need a whole separate article on three nails instead of four. Homestarmy 17:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Waldenses book uses the term on Page 38 (I have corrected the link in my previous post); while the others only talk about the idea of three-nail-crucification. I think the concept deserves an article and "Triclavianism" is just a convenient article title for it - if editors think another name is more appropriate, that is fine with me.

One problem with merging the material with Nail (relic) is that this idea is, and almost always has been a minority view, and of more interest as a cultural phenomenon than in historical study of how many nails were "really" used. As such discussing it at length at Nail (relic) will perhaps violate WP:UNDUE, while an individual article can properly provide the correct context. To give an analogy, "Flat Earth" theories deserve no more than half-a-sentence in the main Earth article, but rightly have a nicely written Flat Earth article of their own. Similarly "Triclavianism" perhaps needs no more than a short section in Nail (relic), but can be expanded out with discussion of not only the "theological" aspects but also details about depictions in art, association with Passion fruit etc in an article of their own. Of course this assumes that someone with requisite knowledge and interest will put in the work - but isn't that true for all stubby articles which are left undeleted to serve as honey-pots ? Abecedare 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that this AfD is given the full time to run, and that the article can be fixed (by those appropriately interested/knowledgeable/motivated) by providing more sources and having a lower proportion of quotation. However, I'm not sure that it's worth keeping unless this can be done. SamBC 05:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no justification given to delete this. It's an obscure term, so what, it's what an encyclopedia is supposed to cover. There's no suggestion anything in the article isn't true, there's no copywrite violation, I don't see the problem. Nick mallory 05:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frankly, i don't see the humor. Even if one is not a Christian, it's an important archeological question. There are really two questions, of course: what would actually have been done at the time, and the theological and sectarian significance. The article quoted is about one particular take on the theology. I do not think the author cited was being ironic in general, except for his reference to the Pope--but based on the article about him, his views were considered very peculiar even at the time.

Last time, I said "keep-- Both the iconological and the theological aspects are of historic importance; that these questions may not seem to be of much importance to some of us now is just an indicator of presentism." I now see I was wrong. They are indeed important, and were WP not interested in them it would be an example of presentism, but this article under discussion is hopeless as a serious discussion. The first step in improving it would be to remove the entire quotation which makes up 90% of the article. I'm not very impressed by what the old Catholic encyclopedia says about the subject either, there's been a lot of discoveries and a lot of work since then--for one thing, it is clear that in the one known actual skeletal example, two nails were used for the feet, one on either side of the stem of the cross. Redirect to crucifixion--not that it's a very good article itself, but it's better than this, and the word is already present there.DGG (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Nail (relic). The anecdote about the miraculous confirmation of the four nail hypothesis is too interesting to lose. The fact that a pope apparently infallibly decreed that four nails was an article of faith makes this noteworthy. The article on the nails as relics suggests that more than thirty nails were used, though. I'd believe it; Roman soldiers were apparently incompetent. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the specific term "Triclavianism" really a notable and accepted word that should be used to identify the concept that the pope has condemned? Homestarmy 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, following the debate, I'm prepared to say keep, as the article is about the concept, not the term (or should be); if there's another, more common term for the same thing, maybe it should be renamed. SamBC 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But outside of Faber's invention of the word, and the one other source cited above, (Whose link I cannot identify) do any believers of the subject in question actually identify their own belief on this subject as "Triclavianism", or really any specific term at all? I note that the belief that four nails were used in Christ's crucifixion does not seem to have its own separate article, and since the Catholic church apparently believes it, theoretically, an article on "Quadclavianism" or whatever deserves to exist more than this one, since theoretically, far more people would believe it and it would therefore be much more notable. Homestarmy 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the belief is documented and notable. GlassFET 20:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons I gave the last time around. I agree the article can be improved, and have ideas on how to do so, but because of demands of career and family haven't had time to do so. Andrel 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a religious belief noted and documented. Harlowraman 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, arguments for keeping are mostly refuted and are not based in policies or guidelines. --Core desat 05:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply FOBulous[edit]

Not notable enough maybe? It did appear at many film festivals tough, according to the official site. The problem is the lack of external references beside IMD b. Kl4m 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Only SIX votes on IMDb. The tagline made me laugh, though... --Closedmouth 06:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE The film has a national retail distribution deal through Mill Creek Entertainment You can find it online at a variety of places including Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, Silver Platters, Sam Goody, etc. Check out [55] for more information. This is a bona-fide motion picture release with retail distribution throughout north america. it only has 6 votes on IMDB because it was only released as of July 24th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.168 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2007
- Note on above comment: The comment above was made by a anonymous user that became active only a few hours ago. Additionally, it is probable this user is User:Dolphman69's sock-puppet. I recommend disregarding this nonsense. -- VegitaU 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"", Sock Puppet? I forgot to login. Sorry, yes it was Dolphman, but none of this is nonsense, I'm new to Wiki, so sorry if I don't meet all the protocols. But seriously, just do a little research and see for yourself. Here's a list of all the external resources available. Please make your decision ONLY after carefully reviewing the following:
ReelIndies.com - Distribution Company releasing the film domestically in the US to major retail outlets in partnership with Mill Creek Entertainment.
Tahoe World film review...it recieved 2 stars, beating out Jim Carrey's "23".
Washington Post article --Dolphman69 07:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69[reply]
- Well, then, Welcome to Wikipedia! I suggest you begin reading up on policies and procedures; especially this one involving notability for films, which this film in question, fails to achieve. The sources you mention do not review the film. They only provide basic plot points and distribution details. This is from the guidelines on films: Similar cases of "trivial" publications may include: reviews that are part of a comprehensive review of ALL films in a particular festival, that don't assert anything regarding the notability of individual entries; other forms of comprehensive, non-selective coverage; and some web based reviews by amateur critics who have not established their own notability as critics. This film is not notable and, in my opinion, should be deleted. -- VegitaU 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about the fact the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia here: List of Vietnamese actors If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well? One of the reasons for creating this new film page was to link off this list. Doesn't that make sense to you? Here is another film review I dug up, from an acredited and established newspaper: [56]. And yes, Tahoe World did give it a review, 2 stars, and did not simply cover "basic plot points and distribution details", as you say. Remember, the film has just been released (as of Tuesday), reviews are still coming in. Oh, and a film with Sir Mix A Lot in it is not notable? Check IMDB. He's in it. Not to mention, HIS wikipedia page mentions "Simply FOBulous" too, see for yourself: fr:Sir Mix a Lot - so, let's do the math. Wikipedia all ready mentions Simply FOBulous twice. It would make sense then for it to have its own page in my opinion. I think that makes it "notable", if wikipedia has all ready "noted" it to a fair degree--Dolphman69 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)dolphman69[reply]
    - Reply: "If the film is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia in this list, wouldn't it make sense for the film to have it's own wikipage as well?" Uh, no. And it took me a while to find the thing on the list. Most of the films and actors on there aren't even red linked and the assumption that every mote of information on Wikipedia must be given its own special article is absurd. And no, just because some rap star made an appearance in the movie doesn't make it notable either. Well established actors like Robert Duvall still have movies in their filmographies that remain uncreated in Wikipedia. And I've replied to The Asian Reporter review below. Now, as you say, if the film suddenly gets a slew of national reviews, I'll gladly change my position. -- VegitaU 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full-length articles in reliable sources, listed below. cab 09:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lamborn, Karyn Kubo (2006-02-28). "Romantic comedy shows the 'Simply FOBulous' side of mail-order husbands". International Examiner. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
- "Mrs. Mai's potent import". The Asian Reporter. Vol. 16, no. 7. 2006-02-14. p. 13. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
  - Reply: From the notability guideline: full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics... Sorry, but I've never heard of The Asian Reporter (some Oregon newspaper) and the International Examiner, despite the fancy name, is another localized, small circulation (10,000) paper from the west coast. This is opposed to critics like Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, and A.O. Scott published in such papers as The New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times. So, that's down. historically notable... nope. Has the film received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking? Besides some little-known Asian film awards, none. Was the film selected for preservation in a national archive? Ha, right. Is the film "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program? Hm... I think not. -- VegitaU 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to reply above:I noticed VegitaU you did not address my point that Wikipedia all ready mentions "Simply FOBulous" twice, both here fr:Sir Mix a Lot and the List of Vietnamese actors Again, if Simply FOBulous is all ready mentioned on Wikipedia, what will it hurt for it to have it's own wikipage? And, If you think this film is not notable then why are similair films such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_City_Dick:_Richard_Peterson%27s_First_Movie on wikipedia? Maybe this has more to do with what YOUR criteria is for notable, rather than what society thinks in general. Oh, and the asian reporter is not just "some oregon" newspaper. These newspapers are read by tens of thousands of Asian-Americans every day. ALSO, Wikipedia has an article on a film THAT IS MADE BY THE SAME DISTRIBUTOR AS SIMPLY FOBULOUS, entitled "Abby Singer". Check it out here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Singer_%28film%29. Why should Simply FOBulous not have a wikipedia page when this film is on Wikipedia? These two films are both part of the Reel Indies film seriess. They were both released by the same company, the same day, partnered together in the same release. As far as preservation in a national archive goes, I believe the Vietnamese Library Association carries the film. "Simply FOBulous" is also the first film EVER about a mail-order HUSBAND. Is that not noticable? Why don't you go to Borders or Circuit City today and buy a copy and see for yourself? I have a feeling VegitaU has turned this into something personal, and I would like to have more third parties weigh in on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.168 (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2007
    - Reply: First of all, "anonymous", sign your posts so I don't have to sign them for you. Second of all, stop your sock-puppetry. If you have an account, use it! Third, that Wikipedia mentions something, doesn't make it notable... and for that matter, neither do I and neither do you. We have style guidelines and policies that guide us here on Wikipedia. One of these guidelines is the one for notability on films which I cited above. That states that a film must achieve certain requisites for it to be considered notable enough to put on Wikipedia. I cited all of those above in italics and subsequently proved how the film did not meet any of these. One of these is that nationally known critics like Ebert & Roeper must review the film. Whatever the Asian Reporter is, it's certainly not nationally-known when compared to the New York Times and Washington Post. The name of the paper itself goes to show what a localized populace it serves. And no, before you start implying and whining like you did above, I'm not against Asians. As for the other movies, if they meet the requisits for notability, they may stay, regardless of who produced them. If not, well... you and I will be arguing more films here on Articles for Deletion. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 16:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply to above comment: It fails to meet that particular notability guideline, for now. As more reviews come in, that'll change. And, it seems you're more upset with "style" guidelines being met than anything else. Geez. Get over yourself. Look, whether you delete this or not, at some point, as more reviews come in and the film continues to sell througout the world, there WILL be a wikipage eventually created for it. So delete if you want, or save yourself more work in the future.--Dolphman69 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69[reply]
(unindent)Reply to Dolphman69: Be careful, we do have rules on personal attacks. And yeah, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. These aren't my guidelines. If national film critics review the film, then maybe the situation will change. -- VegitaU 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Reply to VegitaU: Good to know, because I consider being accused of "whining" a personal attack too. And it may not meet THIS particular guideline, but it meets others. --131.107.0.73 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69[reply]
Keep This needs to be an all-inclusive encyclopædia, despite your "notability guidelines", this has over 15,000 Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooogle hits. --ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: despite your notability guidelines. I think that pretty much sums up your argument. Oh, and try to follow the Manual of Style when editing. Oh, wait... you don't follow policies. -- VegitaU 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all keep it civil, folks, no need to get snappish with one another. Regarding the film, I have to say delete - it seems to have made the rounds at a few festivals but hasn't really made waves enough to be covered in media outlets that would really indicate notability - small local papers don't really fall into that criteria for me. If there are reviews in major daily papers or similar sources, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it now and remake it later, or just keep it up. Sooner or later, as more reviews come in and the film expands into larger territories, it'll meet whatever notability guidelines exist. I guess I just don't see the value in deleting it when it's all ready mentioned twice on Wikipedia and we make a user's experience more rewarding if it had it's own page. It has been in film festivals AND is distributed nationally via straight to DVD home video.--Dolphman69 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
- Reply: Oh a straight-to-DVD movie? Even less notable. I doubt Ebert & Roeper are going to do a special on that. There are hundreds of straight-to-DVD films and they all seem to end up in that $3.99 bargain bin at Wal-Mart. -- VegitaU 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Reply: Nice VegitaU. Real nice. I have no idea what provoked you to be rude and act so condenscending, but your tone since this discussion began has been despicable. I hope the other editors take notice of this, regardless of their final decision. I hope being an editor here on wikipedia and the "power" it weilds gives you the validation you so desperately need. --Dolphman69 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Dolphman69
  - Reply: Hey, now.... No personal attacks, remember, Mr. Sock-puppet? And you sign your posts by putting four tildes in a row (~~~~). Happy editing! -- VegitaU 03:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ""Reply:"" I admit, we're all very impressed with your extensive knowledge of wikipedia terminology.--Dolphman69 04:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)SockPuppet69[reply]
    - Reply: Hey thanks, man. I love you too! -- VegitaU 06:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and disregard warring between VegitaU and Dolphman69. Wl219 09:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:JUSTAVOTE isn't a good argument. Is there any reason you feel for keeping this movie in, when put up against notability guidelines or not? -- VegitaU 10:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluna time[edit]

Notability. This is an unfunded project/idea that has gotten very little press coverage. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 03:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A project whose official website has been bought out by a cybersquatter is not notable.--Danaman5 03:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website still exists. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 13:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. The website must have expired temporarily, and then been restored by the moon clock project. It comes up for me now. Nonetheless, I don't believe that the project is notable enough to warrant inclusion.--Danaman5 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an idea from a few years ago that never got off the ground. Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nyc addiction[edit]

Delete nn fundraiser, akin to a concert, is each concert notable? contested speedy, would be a contested prod as well, no doubt, so here it is. Carlossuarez46 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notability, even the Times hasn't picked up on this.--Sethacus 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, can't verify, not notable. Realkyhick 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a community bulletin board for one-time events, despite being a well intentioned posting. WP:NN Becksguy 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been repeatedly created and deleted. The original author, Platinumballa9, created numerous identical articles and spammed links to it in various other articles. The editor admitted to being associated with the event which is a clear conflict of interest. After numerous warnings about using Wikipedia as a venue for advertising, he/she was finally blocked...and then returned as the IP 69.123.43.21 and did it all again. IrishGuy ^talk 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 22:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rasa von Werder[edit]

Originally tagged as speedy candidate under criterion G11. That might be a bit of a stretch, though not by much. Still, maybe an AfD will turn up somebody who's wiling to clean this up and include actual reliable third-party sources that establish the subject's notability. Failing that, I'm all for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put up this article and am very new to Wikipedia so if I get a little time I will correct it and clearly put in all the references for the statements made. I am sorry if my inexperience has caused a problem but I will make all the alterations. Michkr1 03:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only "reference" provided for any of the material is Rasa / Kellie's personal web site; independent sources are needed to corroborate the claims. As is, this page is blatant advertising for the subject and her web site. Also note, a WP entry at "Kellie Everts" with substantially similar content was deleted a year or so ago. fbb_fan 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the objections and all I ask is a day or two to supply the requisite references. As I say I am new to this and so some of the required formats are new to me but I am working to get it as required. It will of course then be up to the community to judge. Again I do please ask for a little time to comply. Thanks. Michkr1 11:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kellie Everts did get a great deal of press back in the day during her "Stripping For God" shtick, as well as following that up with a quixotic political run. I'd be much happier were this article under the Everts name rather than her current name, which would be far less notable. The article itself is a bit of a mess, but it's also only five days old. RGTraynor 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media attention was certainly enough, and one does not lose notability. DGG (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank people for their patience with my newness to the medium. I have the new version almost finished. Waiting for permissions to use direct quotes from notable people involved in Kellie's story. Michkr1 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be putting up a new version in the next 48 hours and would welcome all comments. Michkr1 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is the article titled Rasa von Werder when everything in the article is about Kellie Everts? If Rasa is Kelly's birth name, then please state that and how/when it was changed. Or, maybe Kellie Everts is Rasa's stage name. In any case, please explain it in the article. There are also several typos in the article, the most obvious of which is the mismatched '=" signs in the KELLIE EVERTS section heading. Please correct these and spell-check and read your text before saving it. And most (all?) of the links in the References section only take you to the source, not the referenced article. Please remove these links. It's okay to cite the source without a link. If there's a link, the reader expects to see the referenced article and that's not the case here. Truthanado 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. With regard to the references there are facsimilies of all the references at the KellieEverts website but although this was stated in first draft the comments stated references were needed. Any help here would be very useful. Should I just make a statement with the Kellie URL? I would like to change the name to Kellie Everts but am not sure how to do so. This is my first attempt here. I will check all spelling again. Michkr1 13:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, author agrees to deletion (see below). NawlinWiki 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Unofficial TSL Wiki[edit]

Previously prodded, removed by author, still, I think the lack of third-party sources covering this wiki in any form makes it dubious for an article. See WP:WEB for appropriate standards. FrozenPurpleCube 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You took the words out of my mouth. In addition the page has a horrible format. James Luftan ^contribs 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll just wait for Linden Lab to "buy" it from me and then repost it >.> . -Smiley Barry, 14:38 GMT July 30th 2007.

Since you are the primary author, you can request deletion by using ((db-author)) on the page itself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 02:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo Colombian School[edit]

Not notable. There are no secondary sources asserting to the importance of this educational organization, and it is mostly based on original research into this school's history. The article's purpose is self-advertisement, it is often vandalized by disgruntled students, and it clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Guillermo Otálora Lozano 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The propensity of students towards vandalization of an article is not considered a valid reason for deletion. To accomodate such tactics would be highly inappropriate, and even censorship. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right on that point. Still, non-notability is a valid reason for deletion. There are no secondary sources covering the subject of this article.Guillermo Otálora Lozano 02:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not the subject of this article merits inclusion, I profess ignorance. I'm not even sure of the current working agreement regarding schools. But given that I have seen the argument made many times that a school article should be deleted because of vandalism concerns, I felt it appropriate to point out that it was an invalid grounds to argue for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school. Hawkestone 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unsupported assertion. How is it notable? Who has noted this school? FrozenPurpleCube 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" means "worthy of notice". According to WP:NOTE: Notability "is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'." -- DS1953 ^talk 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That very same guideline you cited goes on to say "[a] topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Are there any such sources in this case? Only the school website.. Guillermo Otálora Lozano 04:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable alumni-- not a well-written list, and most dont have articles, but some clearly would qualify for them. DGG (talk)
Keep this school which is clearly notable on many levels. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is the presence of the subject in secondary sources. Unless someone brings up a secondary source asserting to the notability of this school, it should be deleted. The user DGG says that it has "notable alumni". If some of the alumni are notable, they should have their own articles. But the school itself is not worthy material for an encyclopedia. This should be the criteria used for organizations on Wikipedia, as we run the risk of having Wikipedia used for self-advertising, which is clearly the case in here. Guillermo Otálora Lozano 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in lacking secondary sources that attest notability Corpx 20:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The problematic components of this entry should addressed through normal editorial process, outside of AfD. El_C 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking fetishism[edit]

uncontested prod, but some editors think that these sort of articles merit keeping, so I'll bring it here rather than just delete as expired prod; Note: the German WP has an article on this, and given our Monicagate on this side of the pond, I'll take no position, but we should discuss it. Carlossuarez46 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but probably clean up to remove OR. A cursory Google Scholar search [57] lists 9 articles, including a couple by the British Medical Journal, that mention it (albeit usually in the context of a larger article, particularly on various forms of online cigarette advertising), and Google News [58] shows some more promising articles on the subject, including at least one from the Boston Phoenix and a couple on Salon that cover the subject in some detail. I can't access the articles myself right now, but as far as I can tell they're valid sources for a decent article. Confusing Manifestation 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Confusing Manifestation.--Danaman5 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known fetish. Could be stubbed since much of it is unconfirmed original research and inherently speculative, but this is a fetish about which some documentation exists sufficient to pass WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but man, oh, man prune the heck out of that. I'll just note that the book The Pin-Up by Mark Gabor, link here, specifically discusses this along with an image of a model smoking. --Haemo 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well known sexual fetish and even the nominator has given no reason for deletion. Nick mallory 06:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The prod's reason was original research; rather than make a unilateral decision, I decided to bring it here as a procedural matter, I still have no real opinion whether it's kept, is it WP:SNOWing? I won't close a nom I initiated, but it seems like it'll be kept in some fashion. Carlossuarez46 06:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Siege of Atlantis[edit]

uncontested prod, but some editors think that these sort of articles merit keeping, so I'll bring it here rather than just delete as expired prod; IMHO delete as fancruft. Carlossuarez46 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I prodded it and of course agree it should be deleted, per WP:PLOT. No significance established by reliable sources within or outside the fictional universe. Otto4711 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with comment usually I prefer waiting until the prod is either contested or expired. However, this is a clear cut violation of WP:PLOT and WP:NOT#INFO.--Sethacus 02:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Just a note: all of these prods had expired, this included, but rather than just going ahead and deleting these closer calls, I brought them here for consensus. Carlossuarez46 02:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft. We appreciate the consideration, but you should have gone ahead and axed these when the prod expired. Realkyhick 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Sawyer[edit]

uncontested prod, but national on-air personalities should probably go through Afd rather than prod. Carlossuarez46 01:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of any references or sources to support or verify notability. Ozgod 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment Usually I like to wait until a prod is expired or contested. However, there's no assertion of notability within the article and research turns up very little, if anything. One of a number of Sky TV personalities. Not distinguishable.--Sethacus 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been up long enough to flesh it out a bit more, but that hasn't been done. Realkyhick 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though, if nothing further can be found to expand this beyond a stub, then eventual merging isn't out of the question. But you don't need AfD to hash that out. — TKD::Talk 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council Grove High School[edit]

uncontested prod, but deletion of high school articles is controversial so I'll bring it here. IMHO, there is no assertion of notability in this article and so it should be deleted. Carlossuarez46 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I browsed the school website and couldn't find anything that made it notable. That being said, I never went to this school, so I wouldn't if they have some special magnet program or partnership with some academic or technology firm. Based only on the very little that has been written, I have to make a motion for deletion unless some substantial improvement is made to this article. It simply isn't notable enough. -- VegitaU 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Council Grove, Kansas since that is where this article actually belongs. Burntsauce 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep, I do not believe that all high schools are notable (most should be merged) but this particular high school now fairly demonstrates notability with the sources provided. Burntsauce 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we've established that high schools are pretty much automatically notable, haven't we? Realkyhick 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or merge into town article. (Criteria.) — RJH (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is obvious from the title alone. Hawkestone 19:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but even my Mensan brain is missing something here: I think there are only a small percentage of articles that can survive on that reason alone. They would be something like President of the US, Queen of England, etc. Based on titles alone, assuming the text is actually about the title and is not some nonsense, how in the world do you justify keeping it simply based on it's title?

Perhaps your Mensan brain could add four tildes to the end of your comments. It's easy: hit the shift button, then the button on the far upper left-hand corner of your keyboard. Four times. Noroton 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any additional source material on this. (And nothing is kept based on the title alone, and nothing is automatic. It's sufficiently independently sourceable or not, this appears to be "not"). No objections to merge/redirect to a suitable parent article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not that the contributions of mere editors matter, because some closing admin will simply come along to impose that admin's opinion, although all high schools are inherently notable as I argue here. Noroton 12:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasonable admins and reasonable editors may differ on that point, so rather than randomness injected by whether someone notices a prod within 5 days and one gets a sympathetic (to deletion) admin on day 5, it ought be brought here, IMHO, and that I have done. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established by multiple, non-trivial references and several state athletics championships. TerriersFan 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable school. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article makes claims of notability supported by reliable sources. Article would benefit greatly from additional expansion and sourcing. Alansohn 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Acton[edit]

uncontested prod, but from the articles on his teams, I can't tell whether they are fully professional or what, some folks with knowledge of English football/soccer should weigh in. Carlossuarez46 01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a google search of Darren Acton and was scarce to find any articles relating directly to this Darren. With a lack of references to support his notability and press coverage, I would suggest a deletion of this article. Ozgod 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fully professional leagues in English football are the Premiership, Championship, League One and League Two. The Conference National is not considered a fully professional league since it allows semi-professional teams to enter. Darren Acton has never played at a level higher than Conference National and has therefore never played in a fully professional league, which is why the article should be deleted. See here for more info on notability of footballers. Simon KHFC 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Football League also allows semi-professional or even amateur teams to enter, just that there haven't been any for half a century or more. fchd 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comment. --Haemo 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. --Angelo 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't play at high professional level and therefore not notable. Realkyhick 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Milhous Nixon[edit]

uncontested prod, but likely to be controversial or of interested to the broader community, so instead of deleting, I bring it here. Personally, I don't think being the parent or other relative of someone notable gives one notability, but I know others here probably disagree on that point and there are lots of other famous "moms" and "dads" articles, so let's talk it out. Carlossuarez46 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Richard Nixon.--Sethacus 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. Although some of her children are notable, (with all due respect to the dead) she is not. This is like creating an article on one of Eddie Murphy's parents. James Luftan ^contribs 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Richard Nixon as sufficient family information is already contained in that article. This is just genealogy. --Dhartung | Talk 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are enough sources to expand this. For example, there is a chapter of a book called Faith of Our Mothers: The Stories of Presidential Mothers from Mary Washington to Barbara Bush devoted to Hannah Nixon see [59] Capitalistroadster 04:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to expand per Capitalistroadster, the are ample sources to improve this article. Burntsauce 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must be the only person old enough to remember Nixon. For those of you who were born after Watergate, I recall his maudlin final speech at the White House, where he remarked "Nobody will ever write a book about my mother." Little did he know that they couldn't get away with writing a damn Wikipedia article about her either! History has proven him to be correct... Mandsford 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is a decent chance of eventually adding significant biographical information on Mrs. Nixon. RandomCritic 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability requirements.--Lovepush 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster, Randomcritic, Burntsauce, and Mandsford. Normally, notability is not inherited, but this is a solid exception. The movie Nixon (film) had an extensive sub-plot about her. Richard Milhouse Nixon was wrong; his mother has been the subject of books, due to the important influence on her son, who -- mostly for the worse -- was a major World leader of the post-WWII-war era. Note that I am not a partisan of him or his party. Lots of souces exist, see over 900 Ghits (Google hits): [60]. Bearian 15:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started a reflist on that page. Bearian 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Band appears to be notable, but the album lacks substantial independent coverage, as noted below. Albums of notable bands are not automatically notable. Relevant details (e.g. track listing) can be merged into band article, per WP:MUSIC#Albums. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arctopocalypse Now... Warmageddon Later[edit]

No assertion of notability. Band's article was recently deleted. —« ANIMUM » 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If the band is not notable, neither is their album. the_undertow ^talk 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

~~I don't want to cut and paste this comment 3 more times. Perhaps this would go better under a multiple listing, as fruits of a nn band are nn as well... the_undertow ^talk 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy - no need to cut and paste the comment. No assertation of notability beyond being released by a non-notable band. This fits in with my understanding of the CSD A7 criteria. --Action Jackson IV 00:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further research, it seems this band may in fact be notable. At least one album was reviewed on All Music, passing WP:BAND #1, and Colin Marston is a member of Dysrhythmia, passing WP:BAND #6. Speedy tag removed. --Action Jackson IV 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh). If you are correct, then the speedy deletion of the band page may not have been warranted. In order to have these albums exist, we are going to have to recreate the band page. I hope you're up for a stub - you sort of opened a can of worms, haha. the_undertow ^talk 01:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the band seems to be not notable, I guess that the album article is even less and anyways doesn't look to have lots of songs there.--JForget 23:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of songs has very little to do with an album's encyclopedic merit - check any EP by a well known group. As I stated above, the band does seem to skirt on the "good" side of notability, specifically by being included in the All Music Guide, and by virtue of Colin Marston being a member of this band. The band's article should be un-deleted by the admin closing these AfD's. --Action Jackson IV 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DES ^(talk) 01:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that a page has been made on the band, and the band seems to be semi-notable. Pervious votes above might be disregarded, as a page on the band did not exist at the time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albums of notable bands are notable. the_undertow ^talk 01:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though sadly the band page is under attack again, though this band IS notable. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An album can be notable on it's own merits, regardless of the notability of the band, Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. (from WP:MUSIC#Albums). At present, the article has only one item of coverage, a review from troublee.com. I don't speak that language (is it Czech?), but I'll give the benefit of the doubt in calling it a professional review. However, multiple reliable sources is the preference. Marasmusine 09:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Marasmusine and nom Harlowraman 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Mothers Italian, My Fathers Jewish and I'm In Therapy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Mothers Italian, My Fathers Jewish and I'm In Therapy

Page doesn't make any sense, doesn't make any sense and isn't notable Lewispb 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, blatant advertisement. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 ~~and A7~~ Blatant advert posted by a PR firm for a ~~non-notable~~ play. —Travis ^talk 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, on further digging, that the play may actually be notable, but how is one to tell from an advert of this quality? —Travis ^talk 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11. Obvious ad. I love the last line listing the address and phone number (and company name). Anyone up for a prank call? James Luftan ^contribs 02:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Century Consumer Mall[edit]

Yes, I know I'm doing a lot of AfD's today, but I"m doing my research first. This is just another non-notable dead mall that fails WP:RS and WP:V. Page has been mostly the same from the start, with no references or significant info being added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete ~~You're not likely to find any refs on this. "Century Consumer Mail -wikipedia" yields zero ghits~~. Apparently, my glasses need cleaning as that says mall not mail. Still, delete. Defunct mall with no reliable sources, nothing to establish notability.--Sethacus 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete doesn't assert notability Rackabello 06:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think all are agreed a great deal of clean up is carried out, and if this doesn't take place, no prejudice towards re-evaluating this article in a subsequent AFD. Neil ╦ 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosticism in popular culture[edit]

Delete - what isn't indiscriminate and loosely or unassociated info is original research. A list of every time a Gnostic idea supposedly appears in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the ideas or the fiction in which they appear. Oppose merging nything to any other Gnosticism article. Otto4711 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. WP:NOT. The ridiculous and erroneous claims (Anatale France, eg) could be cleaned up, but the entire article is flawed. Eusebeus 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid research topic threatened by list-deletion mania. Defects of substance or completeness can be emended by editing the article, but hardly by deleting it. RandomCritic 14:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the title ends in "in popular culture," I'm against it. Realkyhick 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the minor mentions--there are quite enough books & art where it is a major theme--I cant judge the other fields as well: but Blake, & Eco, & Lovecraft, & Pullman, and Anatole France, and Philip Dick, and John Crowley, and Borges, and Bloom & Dr. Who, --all these have works with this as the major theme. For a work to have the major theme of gnosticism is closely related, and the list just needs to be a little more discriminating. There are even some actual sources, and more can be found--the reviews and literature about each of the authors mentioned will discuss this.

I ask Otto to explain what he considers as loosely associated, and what as closely? If main theme isnt closely, then what is? Let's try to see if we can find some actual point of separation. DGG (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider an article full of unsourced items that in the opinion of an editor "may be seen as" or "could be considered" as having some bit or another in it that sounds kind of like some Gnostic philosophy to be loosely associated and original research. Otto4711 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize relevant articles into Category:Tradition of Gnosticism in the arts (or something similar), then rename this article to an identical name, blank it and start over from scratch. There is definitely a well sourced article (once again, that is not a list) to be written on the influence of Gnosticism on the Western canon of art. CaveatLector^Talk 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one seems to actually look at the depiction of the subject in media, rather than the usual IPC list which lists every bit of dialogue that refers to the subject. Mandsford 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There exists quality sources for many of these claims. Just because an article needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean it should be deleted. I've just found the article very useful. Cmouse 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia and OR. --Eyrian 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep as above. user:Arthur_B
Keep - the function of "Popular Culture" articles to to defend serious articles from being cluttered up by users, who want to add every passing reference that they have found to a subject. This keeps trivia and WP:OR off articles where it should not be. This also applies to a subsequent AFD nomination. Peterkingiron 23:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Better here than there" is not a good argument. There are not two tiers of articles—"serious" and "in popular culture." This is an article for deletion, and must be consistent with our policies for articles, including LIST, N, and OR. Since it's a hodgepodge of whatever nameless editors think might be related to gnosticism, it fails. Without a secondary source about popular portrayals of gnosticism, there are no sources to establish N, and nothing to guide us away from OR. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 08:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is definitely a legitimate topic, and I'm sure sources can be found. The page needs some work, of course, but it's much more solid than most "in popular culture" pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. --PEAR (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hare Krishna in popular culture[edit]

Delete - Directory of loosely associated items. These references of greater or lesser triviality drawn from, well, anywhere that someone in a robe and a bald cap wig shows up in anything, tells us nothing about Hare Krishna, nothing about the things the references are drawn from, nothing about their relation to each other and nothing about the real world. Oppose any merger of any of this to any other Hare Krishna article. Otto4711 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hare Krishna. James Luftan ^contribs 02:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and no merge. Oysterguitarist 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Harlowraman 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has become a long list of trivia over time, but also contains relevant information. I have just trimmed the article down to contain only the useful details regarding the Beatles and Straight-edge culture etc... as suggested by another editor. Gouranga(UK) 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining items are still trivia and unrelated to each other. Otto4711 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The items all have a common theme in that they include the Hare Krishna mantra, or discuss artists who have been particularly inspired by the mantra or associated philosophy within their songs. This is especially noteworthy in regards to George Harrison of the Beatles for example who had a no. 1 Hit song in the UK based on Hare Krishna. This can hardly be considered trivia, but I agree that other items such as mentions in The Simpsons etc... is not encyclopedic, and ones such as this have since been removed. Gouranga(UK) 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per GourangaUK. Siyavash 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. It appears that the article has been improved since the nomination, and deserves the benefit of the doubt. RandomCritic 14:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A more substantive, non-list article would be better, but the items on this list don't seem trivial, they're explicit (as opposed to "This character on this TV show said something about something that sounded kind of like this one thing that's connected to Hare Krishna"), and I guess I feel kinder towards this sort of article when the central topic isn't a piece of pop-culture media itself. Propaniac 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Culturecruft, yet again. A pox on them all. Realkyhick 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per GourangaUK, article is much improved. Chopper Dave 18:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hawkestone 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common theme is close association. or what does the nom. consider close association to be, if theme is not enough?DGG (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article, in its newly edited format, has a sufficient level of importance and relevancy.--Stormbay 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, theme is not enough. Why should it be? What purpose does this article serve? Anything that is contained here is better suited inside the articles linked. Is Hare Krishna important various Beatles songs? Of course. Put it in the articles for the songs. If there are enough verifiable references to Hare Krishna in pop culture elements, create a category. If there is an ongoing tradition in the arts that revolves around the Hare Krishna's influence, create an article on the tradition and not merely a list of items which teaches its reader nothing. CaveatLector^Talk 03:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The common theme is both notable and interesting enough to merit a page.Baka man 15:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is much better than the usual IPC articles as it concentrates on the most notable examples. Of the last 20 articles of this type listed at AfD, this is the only one that does it properly. Crazysuit 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at least GourangaUK has made an effort to improve the article, and it's more than the usual laundry list of trivial references in these In popular culture articles. Saikokira 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As there is no concensus to delete this article can we now consider this discussion closed? Gouranga(UK) 08:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a separate subject; optionally merge some content to Robert Prechter. Redirecting there in the meantime.

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

For the reasons laid out at WP:ATA, I am also discounting the pure votes of Chrislk02, Rocksanddirt, Jossi and Piotrus (keep) as well as Sdedeo, Ghirlandajo and Orangemike (delete).

The remainder of the discussion circulates around whether "socionomics" is a sufficiently notable topic of discourse, as measured through the extent of its coverage by suitable reliable sources. Given the ream of citations that have been provided, it is appropriate to gauge consensus on the basis of those editors who indicate in their comments that they have actually attempted to check up the sources, and discounting those who simply say "it has many sources" (JulesH, Alansohn, Robertknyc) or "it's a fraud / it's COI" (Realkyhick, Gavin Collins, Smerdis of Tlön, Guy, Haemo)

Based on the editors who say that they have looked more closely at the sources, we have a preponderance of opinion to delete (trialsanderrors, THF, EdJohnston, Cool Hand Luke, John Carter, Ministry) versus keep (N2e, BenB4, Sposer). Other policy-substiantiated opinions for deletion include those of TheOtherBob and Calton. This is a determinative consensus to delete.

Finally, several editors advocate a strongly reduced merge to Robert Prechter, which does not appear to contradict the present consensus outlined above, i.e., the topic is insufficiently notable for its own article. Accordingly, I am closing this debate as a "delete", but I am redirecting the article to Robert Prechter to allow for a merger to take place, if consensus should develop among editors for such a move. Sandstein 07:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socionomics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of an article that was deleted after the first AfD. The text is sufficiently different to require a second AfD, but the fundamental problems are unchanged: CoI-authored article on a financial neologism with insufficient currency in the financial market literature, essentially trying to piggyback on the emergent behavioral finance literature (e.g. Robert Shiller) to create the impression that this is a notable new concept in finance. The evidence (keeping in mind that contemporary finance produces massive amounts of academic and professional literature} is still extremely sparse and most sources are either unrelated or lead back to Robert Prechter and his Socionomics Institute. In short, a big smokescreen for a fringe concept with the flimsiest of scientific backing. ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Attempt to evade AfD process. Suggest author be blocked for this violation, as bad faith is obvious. (Sorry I added this at the top, but I was just too tired to wade through all the crap to get to the bottom.) Realkyhick 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I respectfully ask that this editor’s remark and vote be discounted. He does not contribute to the discussion, offers no relevant comment about the article, and plainly violates Wikietiquette.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by rgfolsom (talk • contribs) 30 July 2007 18:56.

Keep. This new version of the socionomics article addresses in full the relevant issues raised in the first AfD. Phrases like “trying to piggyback” and “create the impression” deprecate the topic, and ignore the chronology of ideas that are fully sourced in the article.

Editors who read the article and the facts below can judge for themselves whether the evidence is “sparse.” They can also decide if dozens of sources (not related to Prechter) can in fact amount to “a big smokescreen.”

The administrator who closed the AfD said it was "principally about whether 'Socionomics' is -- currently -- a sufficiently notable scientific concept (or term) to be included in Wikipedia." When challenged regarding "scientific concept," he said: "At issue was not mainly WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, but whether the subject was notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it was a nonnotable neologism used almost exclusively (and promoted by) your employer."[61]

Thus the two relevant criterion are notability and neologism:

Notability says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
Neologism says, "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

(The closing admin did not mention an argument made repeatedly in the AfD, namely that socionomics fails to meet undue weight. This criterion does not apply to article topics as such. NPOV undue weight addresses differences of opinion within an article -- as in, the lesser weight of minority opinions vs. the greater weight of majority opinions regarding the same topic. The example used in the undue weight discussion makes this obvious, namely that the earth article only very briefly refers to the flat earth theory. To underscore the point, NPOV undue weight also says: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.")

The evidence below shows “significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject,” including “results published in a peer-reviewed journal” and in “reputable news outlets.”

Books with a non-trivial mention of socionomics

Behavioral Trading, p. 26.[62]
Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128.[63]
Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151.[64]
The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle p. 269.[65]
The Irwin Guide to Using the Wall Street Journal, p. 354.[66]
Applying Elliott Wave Theory Profitably, p. 179.[67]
Hot Trading Secrets: How to Get In and Out of the Market with Huge Gains, p. 7, 35, 53.[68]
Secrets of the Underground Trader, p. 273.[69]
The Book of Investing Wisdom: Classic Writings by Great Stock-Pickers and Legends of Wall Street, pp. 263-272, Peter Krass Editor (Prechter essay, "Elvis, Frankenstein and Andy Warhol").[70]
How Do We Create a Philosophical Cosmos for Acting Socially and Being Happy? [71]
The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics,[72] Robert Prechter.
Pioneering Studies In Socionomics, [73] Robert Prechter.

Peer-reviewed journal papers dedicated to socionomics

Robert R. Prechter Jr. (2001), "Unconscious Herding Behavior as the Psychological Basis of Financial Market Trends and Patterns," Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, Vol. 2, No. 3: pages 120-125. (document here)
John Nofsinger (2005), "Social Mood and Financial Economics," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 6, no. 3, pages 144-160. (The author's use of "social mood" is synonymous with socionomics document here.)
Kenneth R. Olson (2006), "A Literature Review of Social Mood," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4 (abstract here), pages 193-203.
Robert R. Prechter Jr. and Wayne D. Parker (2007), "The Financial/Economic Dichotomy in Social Behavioral Dynamics: The Socionomic Perspective," Journal of Behavioral Finance, vol. 8 no. 2 (abstract here), pp. 84-108.

University lectures and Conference papers/presentations

by Robert Prechter

The Kenos Circle: Oil Puzzle Conference
March 16-17, 2006, Vienna, Austria
“Peak Oil Or Peak Prices?”
The Socionomics Institute
SUNY College at Plattsburgh
November 3, 2005 - Plattsburgh, New York
"The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
Canadian Society of Technical Analysts
Montreal Annual Conference
October 15, 2005 - Montreal, Canada
"The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
Market Technicians Association
MTA Education Seminar 2005
May 19-22, 2005 - New York City, NY
Two-part introduction to socionomics
The Socionomics Institute
April 8, 2005 - Cambridge, MA
"The Socionomic Model of Financial and Social Causality"
Georgia Tech University
April 6, 2005 - Atlanta, GA
Prechter addressed the university's Quantitative Computational Finance students.
First International Workshop on Intelligent Finance - A Convergence of Mathematical Finance with Technical and Fundamental Analysis (IWIF)
University of Ballarat
December 13, 2004 - Melbourne, Australia
International Federation of Technical Analysts
5th Annual Technical Analysis Expo
March 19-20, 2004 - Paris, France
"Fundamentals of Socionomics."
London School of Economics and Political Science
March 18, 2004 - London, England
"Socionomics - Social Mood as the Engine of Social Activity."
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Financial Engineering, Sloan School of Management
September 12, 2003 - Cambridge, MA
"Fundamentals of Finance and Socionomics."
Neuro-economics Conference
September 18-21, 2003 - Martha's Vineyard, MA
Emory University, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
February 2003 - Atlanta, GA

by John Casti, Ph.D

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
A seminar sponsored by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation titled: “Globalization as Evolutionary Process: Modeling, Simulating, and Forecasting Global Change”
April 6-8, 2006, Laxenburg, Austria
“The Decline and Fall of Globalization”
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich
Teleconferenced lecture broadcasted from SHARE/Consulate of Switzerland, in Cambridge
April 20, 2006, Boston, USA
"Why the Future Happens: Socionomics and the Science of Surprise."
University of Warwick, Socio-Dynamics Seminar
May 9-11, 2005 - London, England
Economics Department, University of Otago Departmental Seminar
July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
University of Nevada, Economics Department, Departmental seminar
July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
9th Annual Meeting on Artificial Life and Robotics
July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
Conference on Philosophy and Complexity
July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
London School of Economics and Politics, Complexity Research Programme meeting.
July 21, 2004 - Hamilton, New Zealand
Brazilian National Super Computer Center
August 21, 2003 - Petropolis, Brazil
Massey University seminar in Applied Math Department
July 23-25, 2003 - Albany, New Zealand (Auckland)
Australian Center for Industrial Research and Operational Management
July 11, 2003 - Melbourne, Australia

by Michael K. Green, Ph.D., SUNY College at Oneonta

The Economic History Research Area of the European Association of Evolutionary Political Economy (EAEPE)
and the Economic Policy Laboratory (EMOP-Athens University of Economics and Business) Joint Colloquium, May 12-13, 2006, Athens, Greece
Athens University of Economics and Business
"The variety of economic institutions under the many forms of capitalism"
Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture Conference
April 22-23, 2005 - Binghamption University, NY
"Social Ontologies and the Basis of the Social Sciences"
Association for Institutional Thought (AFIT) 2005
April 13-16, 2005 - Albuquerque, New Mexico
"Institutions and Social Ontologies"
Northeast Popular Culture Association Conference
October 30, 2004 - Newbury College, Brookline, MA
"Finding Nemo and the Social Expression of Optimism"
Second International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities
July 20-23, 2004 - Monash University Centre, Prato, Tuscany, Italy
Conference Theme: New Directions in the Humanities
"Humanistic Economics: Placing Economics on Ancient Foundations"
2004 Annual Conference of the International Association for Critical Realism (IACR)
August 17-19, 2004 - Cambridge University, England
Conference Theme: Theorizing Social Ontology
"Mechanistic, Teleological, and Formological Ontologies"
Association for Heterodox Economics Annual Conference 2004
July 16-18, 2004 - University of Leeds, UK
Conference Theme: New Directions in Economics
"Formological Economics and the Coming Collapse of the American Economy"
Association for Institutional Thought Annual Conference 2003
April 11-14, 2004 - Salt Lake City, Utah
Conference Theme: Institutional Economics
"Formological Economics and the Collapse of the American Economy: Veblen and Emulative Desire"
The International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics
June 5-7, 2003 - University of Missouri at Kansas City, Kansas
Conference Theme: New Directions in Economics
"Orthodoxic Inversion, Multi-State Stability, and Economic Pluralism"

by Wayne Parker, Ph.D., Emory University (inactive status)

International Conference on Cognitive Economics
August 5-8, 2005 - New Bulgarian University
"Herding: An Interdisciplinary Integrative Review from a Socionomic Perspective"
Association for Heterodox Economics
July 14-16, 2006, London, England
"The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood"
Joint Annual Congress of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE)
July 5-8, 2006 - Paris, France
"Methodological Individualism vs. Methodological Holism: Neoclassicism, Institutionalism and Socionomic Theory"

Further academic recognition of socionomics

Citation of Prechter's socionomics research paper[74]
Citation of Prechter's socionomics research paper[75]
Citation of Casti's socionomics research paper[76]
American National Election Studies, a collaboration of Stanford and the University of Michigan, selected the Socionomics Foundation's proposed questions regarding social mood for inclusion in a study funded by the National Science Foundation. The social mood proposal was one of thirty proposals chosen from 1,100 submissions; other selectees are from universities such as Columbia, Princeton, Harvard Law School, Brown, NYU, UC Berkley, and MIT. The Socionomics Foundation was the one non-university selected.[77]

Reliable and extensive secondary source coverage of socionomics

"I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002, p. 32.
"Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," Futures magazine (cover), Nov. 2004.
"Social Mood and the Markets," Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, June 2003, p. 50.
"Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter," Stocks Futures and Options Magazine, July 2003, p. 42.
"Is Prechter's bearishness permanent?", Peter Brimelow, Dow Jones MarketWatch, 30 June 2003.[78]
"Not waving but drowning in financial theories," John Authers, Financial Times, 6 October 2006[79]
"How History Happens," John Casti, Complexity, vol. 8 issue 6, 1 Dec. 2003, pp. 12-16.
"The social mood as a source of friction that can boost stocks and corporate profits has been extremely well analyzed by Robert Prechter in a very insightful report entitled `The Socionomic Insight versus the Assumption of Event Causality' in The Elliott Wave Theorist of June 1, 2002…. While I am less dogmatic than Prechter is about the social mood as the cause of political, social, and economic events, and while I believe that the cause and the effect are frequently difficult to discern and, in any event, tend to reinforce themselves, I certainly do agree with him that when the social mood is optimistic and full of confidence, as it was in the late 1990s, reality is lost touch with, and careful analysis and caution are thrown to the wind, which leads to expanding P/Es and excessive valuations, and that when the mood deteriorates, a phase of sobering up and skepticism follows the preceding euphoria, which leads over time to significantly lower valuations." Contrarian Investor Column, Marc Faber, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, 6 August 2002.

Search engine A Google search for "socionomics" brings some 52,000 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability.

Socionomics in practice

Vox Day's column.[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33784]
Minyanville applies socionomics.

Motor Age on socionomics essay on car colors.[84]
Slashdot review.[85]
Hackwriters review. [86]
Film review of socionomics documentary related to horror genre.[87]]
Blog entry about socionomics.[88]
Market analysis using socionomics.[89]

--Rgfolsom 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break for non-Folsom remarks[edit]

Neutral, at the moment. The notion cannot be ignored, as it is rather known, like various other cults (seems that all those creeds push us back to the dark ages), thanks to Prechter's spin. But the article would have its place here only if presented as an esoteric theory, akin to mysticism and numerology, as it refers to some unproven universal vibration, with some rules of thumbs (representativeness heuristics) added to make it look practical. It is not encyclopedic in its present form which tries to make it perceived as something linked to economic laws and social psychology findings. --Pgreenfinch 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whilst there is no denying the existence of articles and books promoting the subject, I don't think anyone can claim that socionomics actually exists per se. The content of this article could easily be classified as a topic within sociology, psychology or economics, but it delibterately distances itself from mainstream social science, leading me to believe this is original research dressed up as pseudo-science. The only reason why the authors would want to distance themselves from the mainstream is to promote their books or lecture tours by making them appear to be the 'new wave' in social science. As trialsanderrors suggests, this is original research dressed up with the flimsiest of scientific backing, and as such as no place in Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment - Whether it can be proven to exist or not is not up to us to decide. There are many topics on physics that cannot be proven however have an article. Once we take it upon ourself to prove the content of a reliable source, the whole concept of WP:CITE and WP:RS fall ino WP:OR. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Per -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider), WP:OR refers to “unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories.” I respectfully point out that whatever else may be said, the sources in the article and on this page make it obvious that the socionomics article cannot be accurately described as original research.--Rgfolsom 14:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It is up to us to decide about whether socionomics actually exists. What sets this article apart from a speculative topic in physics it that it claims the existence of an entirely new science altoghether, like claiming the existence physionomics. In a scientific test, this article would be shown to be 24-carat neologism. --Gavin Collins 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I’m sorry, but wp:neo says nothing about whether a topic “exists” – what it does say is, "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner." Our task here is to either acknowledge that the article meets that standard, or explain why we believe it doesn’t.--Rgfolsom 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Rgfolsom. He has linked a huge number of third party, independent, reliable sources on this subject. I fail to see how this article, with 28 references to apparently reliable sources, could possibly be considered "original research". Articles have been published on this subject by leading popular science press magazines. Yes, it's a fringe theory. But it's a well-known fringe theory, so not covering it would be a tremendous failure. JulesH 10:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for abuse per WP:CSD#G4; in the alternative delete or merge with Robert Prechter. WP:NEO ("An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material"), WP:SCI ("publication by itself is not a sufficient (and sometimes not necessary) standard for encyclopedic notability."), and, most critically WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Severe WP:COI problems, too. As the first AFD nomination documented assiduously, the "third party, independent, reliable sources" are largely imaginary or neither third-party nor independent, and, in any event, too rare to qualify as notable. WP:CRYSTAL, too. Per WP:WEIGHT, there already exists an ancillary article, Robert Prechter: every single one of the supposed reliable sources mentioned that I've checked so far was really about or by Prechter (or not about socionomics at all). And I'd like to see some administrative investigation: why was the same editor with a severe COI who disruptively and decisively lost an AFD after being found to have faked evidence allowed to recreate the same article without going through the administrative processes for reversing a decision or notifying the people who voted for its deletion? THF 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Remarks by THF were made after this AfD was brought to his attention on his talk page by Smallbones. Smallbones is banned from this discussion and any pages or articles related to Prechter, per this this Arbitration case. In other words, Smallbones has solicited and gotten the vote by proxy that he is forbidden to cast himself. Every one of the accusations made here by THF came to the attention of the Arbitration Committee (COI abuse, “faked evidence,” etc., etc.), and the Committee rejected all of it. THF’s rant about me here is in keeping with similar rants about me on several other pages, as a check of his history makes clear.--Rgfolsom 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Readers can see for themselves which of the two of us is ranting and violating WP:NPA; Rgfolsom has repeatedly reverted my edits that corrected his POV-pushing, has lost every time a third opinion was sought, and has already been blocked once for edit-warring as a result. Rgfolsom's comment misrepresents an arbitration decision, and the comment's concern for precedent is contradicted by the fact that he recreated and is defending an article that was already deleted, despite existing consensus. WP:CCC, but it is certainly not a one-way ratchet. THF 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: Per the Guide to deletion:
      If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies….If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.

Remarks about WP:NPA from THF should be seen light of his recent incivility, name-calling, and unfounded suggestions of bad faith.--Rgfolsom 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - what appears to be a well written well cited article. Sure a bunch of citations may come from a COI, however there are plenty of others that also corrobrate the content. I see no reason why this should be delete. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep' A well-written and thoroughly documented article that uses ample independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability under the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Administrative measures should be taken to address those who have used malicious and patently uncivil language to try to impose a viewpoint that simply boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn 14:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Robert Prechter, which appears to be the person touting the term, or move to "Socionomics Institute" provided that foundation has notability independent of Prechter's. This appears to be some specialized theory concerning a concept called "social mood" -- which we do not seem to cover at all. Maybe some parts of this article can be refactored and moved to social mood to better explain what this is even about. I daresay the wisdom that "changes in social mood produce changes in the character of social action" is as old as the hills, but I see no reason to discuss the concept under a cheesy neologism apparently touted for vanity reasons.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

dab (𒁳) 14:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear neologism. It harms the reputation of any encyclopedic project when it used, manipulated and gamed to advance the theory or research of any individual, no matter how many papers havve been presented. WP:RS is not the issue here: whether it is an accepted term that merits encyclopedic tyreatment per WP:N is the issue. And reviewing the citations provided above, this doesn't pass. Eusebeus 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Eusebeus, this is a neologism: a neologism with a commercial agenda, I might add. Passages such as this:
The socionomic model of social causality posits four principles regarding self-organized, complex human systems:
1. In contexts of uncertainty, people share an unconscious impulse to herd which is manifested in social mood trends;
2. These social mood trends reflect self-similar fractal patterns and thus are predictable within a range of probabilities;
3. Endogenous processes (not exogenous causes) create these patterns of collective behavior; and
4. Social mood trends both cause and govern the character of social actions in financial markets, economic production, fashions, politics, climates for peace and war, and other domains.
strike me as the sort of jargonized, heavily abstract, buzzword-laden prose I have so much fun with here. Stated in plain English, it seems to say that societies have mood swings and that these mood swings affect the behaviour of people in them. This is as insightful as Miss Anne Elk's theory about the Brontosaurus. We have blindingly obvious platitudes given a thick coating of Latinate words to give them the appearance of rigour and conceal their obviousness. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, the article has passages with language typical of academic journals, but that reflects the fact that it has indeed been written about it academic journals. Other of the article’s passages reflect the coverage in more general publications. It’s not very sporting to require WP:NEO and WP:N, and then say “everyone knows that” because it successfully meets the face-value definition of those requirements.--Rgfolsom 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes, some academics write badly. While there are a variety of reasons in the sociology of language why this is so, and some believe (falsely IMO) that writing bad prose is necessary to convey an impartial and impersonal tone, it is beside the point. It is to be hoped that real information can be gleaned from their texts, that they are genuine advances in human knowledge, not merely trivial, tautological, or truisms couched in bafflegab to lend an appearance of mystery to the commonplace. If you don't disagree with my proposed epitome of this passage, I'll go ahead and make the edit myself. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough fringe theory. --Rocksanddirt 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- --Gavin Collins 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of the article's content seems to be misleadingly out of place. A majority of the section titled Similar research and analysis is simply a listing of cited research about "herd behavior," but it does not provide sufficient links back to the topic of the article. In and of itself, this is valuable information for herd behavior or social mood, but I fail to see it's importance in this particular article, other than the mention that Pretcher's theory is based off of it. That being said, this removes a chunk of third party sources that are contained within the theory, leaving Pretcher's arguments (as outlined in From the wave principle to socionomics) alone to prove the interaction between the elements of his theory. Thus, it would seem that this article does not pass WP:NEO. Therefore, I would recommend delete. — Scottjar → Talk 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inherent COI and for improper recreation but Merge (in condensed form) any relevant data to the main Robert Prechter article. While I'll grant the references seem to indicate that there are enough mentions of the term in reliable sources for it to be noted on Wikipedia, it seems clear that the concept is a direct extension of the academic author and not a widely researched beyond him. Pretcher's article has passed wikipedia's guidelines on notability for a scholar. That's great and I'm sure a paragraph summarizing his theory would enhance that article. But it seems unnecessary for the article author to insist (against previous AfD consensus) that a concept that he profits by MUST have an independent article. Wikipedia does its best to try to reflect the notability of concepts out in the world, it is not a place to try to build that notability. -Markeer 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for the civil tone of your comment, though I must point out that I have already quoted and twice posted the guide to deletion link on this page -- it explains how an editor can indeed recreate an article. COI violations are invariably evidenced by other policy violations, usually NPOV, which no one here has said about the article; I don’t insist that socionomics “must” have an article, only that it be judged by its notability. You seem to suggest that it is notable, and if so I trust that you will please reconsider your opinion.--Rgfolsom 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite simply, the citations support an adequate degree of notability for a theory in the social sciences. Socionomics is being discussed in peer-reviewed journals. It has a small following in the academic community and, it would appear, the financial markets community as well. The article is well written, and seems to have recently picked up more edits from a larger circle of wikipedia editors. We must be careful not to use Wikipedia as a tool to promulgate a new orthodoxy on what is and is not a valid theory in the social sciences. Since Kuhnian 'scientific revolutions', or paradigm-shifts, emerge gradually out of scientific work that was not, in general, intending to produce them (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 62), I think it is best if an online open encyclopedia like Wikipedia sets a reasonable, but not excessively high, bar for topic inclusion. This is especially important in any of the relatively 'fuzzy' fields of the social sciences. I believe Socionomics meets that reasonable bar as to notability.

Full disclosure: I work in and read a lot in the field of heterodox economics, I was aware of the socionomic hypothesis from several years back. I made a couple of edits to the 'orginal' Socionomics article in the past. N2e 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of ostensible reliable sources above extremely misleading[edit]

Comment. Rgfolsom's lengthy list above is extremely extremely misleading. The first four books listed above that I was able to check through a full-text search do not discuss socionomics, or simply footnote Robert Prechter's book: Behaviorial Trading p. 26 only mentions the Prechter book once and does not discuss socionomics except as the title of the book (despite the false characterization "Books with a non-trivial mention of socionomics"); Technical Analysis: Plain and Simpledoes not mention Socionomics at all according to Safari; New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle does not mention Socionomics at all according to Safari; The Irwin Guide does not mention socionomics at all according to Google books; and I stopped checking after that first four-for-four strikeout. Administrators and other editors should completely discount the above list (and any remarks based on that false list) except to the extent they were able to check matters out themselves. I encourage others to double-check the list also and include their findings. THF 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Reply THF’s accusations are false. On the talk page I’ve posted the quotations regarding socionomics in the four books he mentions, including the quotations that he claims are not there at all. If he had asked me by email or talk page, I could readily have explained how to use the Amazon and Google book searches -- it's clear that he prefers to call my good faith into question instead of checking facts first. I’ll continue to check that list and post the quotes on the talk page as I retrieve them.--Rgfolsom 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surreply Yes, please look at the talk page, because the quotes there confirm that it is simply not true that the books listed by Rgfolsom have a "non-trivial mention of socionomics" -- and the only one that arguably does treats socionomics as indistinguishable from Prechter. (The others don't mention socionomics at all, or only mention the website or only in referring to he title of one of Prechter's books.) And keep in mind that Rgfolsom was the one who chose these quotes as support for his claims; presumably the books he didn't list are even weaker. THF 21:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Given that socionomics is in the books that you said don’t mention it "at all," condescension is probably not the wisest response.--Rgfolsom 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, sir, I said that according to a particular search engine available on the link you provided, the term isn't in the book at all. Which is 100% true. Meanwhile, as of 1:24 31 July, you've listed quotes from seven books on the talk page, presumably your seven most persuasive examples, and not a single one of them is a "non-trivial mention of socionomics", (and, more relevant for this discussion, none of them refer to socionomics as a discipline separate from Prechter's head) though you falsely represented that all of them were "non-trivial mention of socionomics." THF 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluster and accusations aside, the face-value meaning of “non-trivial mention” is pretty simple.

Nontrivial is the opposite of “insignificant.”
Mention means “cite” or “reference.” So,
“Non-trivial mention” means a significant reference to or citation of.

The authors of those books consider socionomics significant enough to cite or refer to, per the quotes on the talk page. See how simple?--Rgfolsom 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Seriously, this is re-hashing the same debate from a few months ago - do we have to have the same incivility, too? In any event, your argument misses the point. A non-trivial mention is a mention that's not trivial. Your point seems to boil down to "they mentioned it, therefore it's significant enough to mention and therefore a non-trivial mention." Respectfully, that's a non-sequitur - it's only a non-trivial mention if it's a mention that's. . . not trivial. (Otherwise we'd just call them "mentions.") --TheOther Bob 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't pleased with incivility then or now. I know how this process works. I'm fully aware that all sources can and probably will be checked. I included all the sources on this page in good faith, deliberating trying to make verification as easy as possible. I'd be an idiot to try to mislead other editors – but exercising good faith means giving the benefit of the doubt, which is certainly not the case with THF’s attack: “extremely extremely misleading,” “false list,” etc. A trivial mention is one that appears in a list or chronology or some such – in my view that is different than an author drawing attention to a topic or issue in his text, or in the book’s references. And in none of the books I cited do I believe the author would consider their inclusion of socionomics to be “trivial.”--Rgfolsom 04:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm talking to both of you in that. --TheOther Bob 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only a re-creation by an editor of the original deleted article, an end-run around deletion process, but also a flagrant conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter. A redirect to Robert Prechter would be unproblematic, but there do not appear to be any properly independent sources for this theory. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Arbitration case you mention did NOT find that I violated COI, as anyone who actually reads ruling will see – the other party was banned, no me. I’ve also already posted the Guide to deletion link above, which plainly spells out how an editor can recreate a deleted article. Even the editor who nominated the article this time has acknowledged as much. As for independent sources, I have provided a great many of them above. Perhaps you (or anyone) can please identify how the books, journal articles, and secondary source coverage not produced by Prechter fails WP:N?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by rgfolsom (talk • contribs) 30 July 2007 18:44.

Delete A Wikipedian's time is valuable, and I'm against re-arguing the same point every six months. The only question I see here is "what changed since the last time we deleted this?" From the above, it appears very little. These are the same citations we hashed through and rejected in January - for very well-argued and detailed reasons, and with strong opinions and input on both sides. This received a lot of time and effort on all sides (and some small amount of bile and venom), and I'm strongly against forcing people to re-do all that. My concern is that stuff like this gets re-created and re-created until eventually the people who oppose it tire of spending valuable time on it - and the people who are using it to self-promote "win" by sheer persistence. To prevent that, I think we must limit ourselves to looking at whether anything changed since the last iteration. I don't see a sufficient change in the notability of the term in the past six months, and therefore would argue in support of re-deletion. --TheOtherBob 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An Idea On the talk page, there's a discussion of new citations - the most significant being one from the "Journal of Behavioral Finance," which I understand influenced the author to re-add this article. Perhaps we could shorten this debate by just asking whether that new citation is sufficient to put this into notability. For me, I'm not sure it would be - particularly since it's still Robert Prechter writing the article, so not a third-party use. But I can see arguments both ways, and it may be a more profitable use of our time than going over the same citations as last time. --TheOtherBob 04:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don’t know either if one journal paper can carry the day for topic like this, but I appreciate the good faith behind the suggestion. If other editors want to see excerpts from the paper, please say so and I’ll figure out how much I can include under fair use and put it on the talk page. The link to the abstract is in the reference above, information about the Journal of Behavioral Finance’s editors is here. I’ll try and answer any questions editors have.--Rgfolsom 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per THF and the other Bob. Not much has changed. Sdedeo (tips) 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't take a position on whether the re-creation of the article was against policy. It is understandable that editors are slow to grant the imprimatur of Wikipedia to what seems to be an entire new scientific field. I'm guessing that not all the editors who voted 'Delete' above would object to inclusion of similar material in the Robert Prechter article. Rgfolsom's table of publications is stretching to include some pretty thin evidence, in my opinion. Take a close look at the claim of NSF support for socionomics and you'll need a microscope to figure out whether NSF endorsed anything at all. I don't see that the burden of WP:NEO has been met, and I don't see the granting of general respect by scientists that would entitle socionomics to have its own article. EdJohnston 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The NSF didn’t endorse socionomics, in the article I tried to be careful and say that socionomics "gained attention" in "research funded" by the NSF. I do think that WP:NEO and the point you raise about “general respect” is answered at least in part by the recent Journal of Behavioral Finance article, as TheOther (may) have been suggesting. Behavioral finance is where finance, economics and psychology intersect, and the publication of Prechter & Parker’s recent paper did earn socionomics a measure of respect that it did not have previously.--Rgfolsom 05:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, this looks like re-created previously deleted material by an editor who not only has a conflict of interest, but was involved with the previous deletion debate. I am far from convinced this is anything but a fringe theory. --Haemo 05:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:This is an abbreviated rehash of claims already answered, an argument without argument – the comment and vote should be discounted.--Rgfolsom 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Certainly fringe, but notable enough fringe to have it's own article. If the article has COI or NPOV problems fix those, they are not enough to require deletion. --Rocksanddirt 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from talk page) Merge into Prechter article - Socionomics seems to be pretty much a one-man band. All these cites seem to identify it as Prechter's name for his theory of financial market behavior. A pretty good case seems to be made here for simply merging Socionomics into the Prechter article. This has nothing to do with the validity (or lack thereof) of his ideas. --Orange Mike 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the arguments above. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I respectfully point out that this is another argument without an argument, specifically per nominator, etc. – “It is important to keep in mind that every listing of an article for deletion is not a vote, but rather a discussion.” This “Keep per…” amounts only to a vote to be counted, hence it should be discounted.--Rgfolsom 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break (synthesis problem discussion)[edit]

Merge or failing that, delete per WP:NEO. Some comments don't seem to appreciate that WP:N and WP:OR are separate guiding principles, and that thickly annotated prose may still be original research—especially when the citations are only trivial mentions of a topic linked with new synthesis. I'm also concerned about the problem Bob mentions above: allowing such recreations will encourage users to perpetually recreate articles on every contentious deletion in hopes of a different result. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed. The article itself has extensive quotes from Freud, Mackay, and others who have nothing to do with socionomics; there's a severe WP:NOR (or at least WP:SYN) problem. This is not an independent reason to delete the article (there are plenty of those noted above); it is, however, reason to note that the extensive sourcing in the article if one were to glance at it is largely illusory, and will disappear should editors without a COI give the article the severe scrubbing it needs. I've attempted to add tags, but Rgfolsom is edit-warring, so the tags may not be there at any given time. THF 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I respectfully point out that there is no synthesis in the socionomics article. WP:SYN forbids an editor taking two reliable sources (A and B) and joining them “to advance position C.” But in the socionomics article, each instance of the so-called “synthesis” describes the work of one source alone, complete with quotes. There is no joining of a second source, hence no “synthesis” to advance a third position. As for WP:OR, there are no "arguments" or even "analysis" in the article that is not properly referenced. Observation of facts is not original research, so perhaps Cool Hand Luke can explain where he sees SYN and OR.--Rgfolsom 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A = "Prechter calls Socionomics is the study of social mood." B = Freud related herd instinct to separation anxiety. Impermissible statement C = Freud's research is similar to socionomics. B can't be cited unless it is specifically about socionomics. THF 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

The article observes that “socionomics posits that social mood trends result from humans’ unconscious impulse to herd in contexts of uncertainty,” because that is what Prechter and Parker published in the Journal of Behavioral Finance.
The articles observes that Freud said, “Opposition to the herd is as good as separation from it, and is therefore anxiously avoided....The herd instinct would appear to be something primary...”
The article observes that those two observations are similar – but a “similarity” is not “C,” a third position. To observe similarity is not even “analysis,” much less an “argument.” How on earth does noting the similarity of two observations amount to joining those positions into the third position mentioned in WP:SYN? If noting a similarity really is a “synthesis” that amounts to a “third position,” in what way does this third position “C” differ from A and B? If C is not different from A or from B, then where is the synthesis? Answer the question(s), please.--Rgfolsom 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is the editor noting the similarity, not an verifiable reliable source. That's the very definition of original research; the C claim is merely the editor's unsourced analysis. (Indeed, the WP:SYN example is an editor noting the contradiction between sourced claim A and unrelated sourced claim B.) You would surely (and correctly) object if I noted the similarity between socionomics and biorhythms and put that in the page, though I could surely find a biorhythms book that says stuff indistinguishable from Prechter -- indeed, you did object when I noted the similarity between technical analysis and financial astrology, even as that was able to be sourced. One can add Freud to the See also section, but putting it in the main text without sourcing is a synthesis that violates OR. If a verifiable reliable source made the observation, then one could add "Dr. Quackenbush of Huxley college noted the similarity between Freud's theory of herd and socionomics," but that's not for editors to do. THF 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I do not believe you have answered my questions: There was Parker and Prechter’s position on herding (A), and there was Freud’s position on herding (B). What, exactly, is the third position (C) on herding that came from the synthesis of A & B? How is C different from A & B?

Any editor who goes to WP:SYN will see an example of a real (and unacceptable) synthesis: Smith takes the position (A) that Jones committed plagiarism. Jones takes the position (B) that he did not commit plagiarism. In an article about the controversy, a Wikipedia editor comes along and in the article and takes the position (C) that Jones is right because of the what the Chicago Manual of Style says about plagiarism. The synthesis is in the editor joining Jones’ position (B) with the Chicago Manual of Style to produce position (C), that Jones didn’t do it.

This has nothing to do with your description of the SYN example, “an editor noting the contradiction between sourced claim A and unrelated sourced claim B.” The real example also has nothing to do with the socionomics article observing that A and B are similar. There is no C.

As for your hypothetical, if you have a reference that satisfies Wikipedia’s definition of reliable source, and the source includes quotations about biorhythms that are plainly similar to quotes from reliable sources about socionomics, then I have zero grounds to claim WP:SYN if you include those quotes (and sources) in the article.

Finally, you produced no reliable sources whatsoever to back the claim that financial astrology is similar to technical analysis, and you cannot produce a diff showing otherwise. What you did was type “financial astrology technical analysis” into Google, and expect other editors to regard the search results as “evidence.” My objection was RS, not SYN, although I can’t overlook what you yourself imply here -- namely that your comparison was SYN and OR of the very sort you so emphatically object to now.

Please answer the questions.--Rgfolsom 05:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, the example at WP:SYN says that the second source (from the Chicago Manual of Style) cannot be introduced unless someone has previously concluded that it was relevant to the first source. Notice how proposition "C" is not stated either in the example or in this article's synthesis—it doesn't say Jones is wrong, just that he is speaking contrary to another definition. Besides, we have trivially obvious synthesis in the section headings, which claim a heretofore unpublished similarity between Socionomics and earlier ideas. Cool Hand Luke 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Excuse me Luke, I think you’re mistaken. Proposition “C” certainly IS stated in the WP:SYN example, exactly as I explained it: the example’s conclusion says that the editor’s comment is “original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it.”

I have rebutted the argument that “similarity equals synthesis,” and my rebuttal is unanswered. For you to merely repeat that argument is no more of an answer than is THF’s silence. If the synthesis is “trivially obvious,” it should be “trivially easy” to answer this question: What is the third position (C) on herding that came from the synthesis of Prechter/Parker (A) & Freud (B)?

This AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a series of gratuitous assertions. Please advance the discussion, Luke.--Rgfolsom 08:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are turning this into Argument Clinic. I didn't respond because Luke covered the waterfront. As has been noted several times on this page by three different editors, the improper synthesis/OR is the section title claiming that Freud is "similar" to Prechter. That's an unsourced claim, based solely on the synthesis of two sourced claims that do not relate to the topic "similarity between socionomics and Freud." Neither Freud nor the synthesis should be in the article. That's a straightforward application, and your only response is "No, it isn't." This is getting tendentious and disruptive. Please take it to the Talk:NOR page, where you can find many more people to educate you about Wikipedia policy, since you don't want to listen to the three people who have repeatedly explained it to you here. THF 11:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ted and Luke on this - the synthesis they're identifying is the assertion of similarity the article makes. No one is claiming that "similarity" and "synthesis" are the same thing, anymore than an argument that says "your discussion of a trout is a non-sequitur" means that trout are non-sequiturs. (Which they're obviously not - they're red herrings.) And now for a meta-argument ("no it's not!") - "I already rebutted X" isn't an argument - it's a claim. Since a claim doesn't actually present any argument for itself, the only logical response is "your claim is false." I see this all the time - someone will say something like "I already established notability, so how can you continue to argue for deletion?" Well, the answer is that the person did not, in fact, establish notability...that's what the debate's about. -TheOther Bob 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see the talk page about this, I hope you'll find my comments there helpful.--Rgfolsom 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about the topic or the sources to comment on delete or keep... but I do detect SYN and OR here ... the synthesis enters in through the section header, which claims that these other theories are all similar to socionomics... that header advances a position. And without a reliable sources that make the connections between Socionomics and those other theories it all equates to OR. Blueboar 02:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:SYN doesn't appear to be a problem in this article. Rather, it's just misplaced information. The article does not used the cited information to advance an opinion, as WP:SYN would imply, it just implicity states (somewhat) revelant background information. However, it appears that Rgfolsom is using said information to include credible third party information, and henceforth justify the existance of this article, when they do not have any link back to the topic of the article. This would be similar to having an article on, say, psychoanalysis, but only using credible information that speaks on Freud's childhood. Yes, Freud was a huge contributor to psychoanalysis, but you have to explain WHY he was a contributor, not just talk about him in general. This article uses third party information to describe "herd behavior," but fails to relate it more back to the article other than saying it's based off of it. There needs to be more connection than this. — Scottjar → Talk 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suppose misplaced content is a plausible interpretation, but I wonder why all of this spurious material is in the article to begin with if not to advance original ideas. The headings suggest synthesis. In either case, we can agree there's far fewer reliable and independent sources than meet the eye. Considering the previous AfD's concern about the paucity of such independent sources, the new annotated sections about supposedly similar ideas doesn't improve the article. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. They could be in the article in order to justify that the article should exist because it has credible third party sources, which appears to be the case. — Scottjar → Talk 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Yes, Scottjar, the quotes were there to "justify" the article, but only in the sense that it needed to acknowledge the history of thought about social mood. I made my case for why the quotes belong, but they're gone now and the article can stand on its own without them. Please look at it in that light, and at the sources I've included on this page that are independent of Prechter. It really does add up to satisfying WP:N and WP:NEO.--Rgfolsom 05:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break (August remarks)[edit]

Comment. the debate about references is important, as most of those references are irrelevant to the topic. But the debate strayed from the topic itself, which I mentioned from the start. How comes this article does not mention the esoteric / mystic aspect on which socionomics is based? This kind of universal vibration (which I consider bunk and close to religious cults, but it is a personal opinion). If the article was complete and showed clearly this aspect, hidden behind the scientific pretences, I would consider it as encyclopedic, as fully informative and allowing wikipedians to make their own opinion on a topic that has its own notability, that cannot be denied. Until this debate on the nature of socionomics, and on how the article presents it, does not take place, I stay neutral. --Pgreenfinch 08:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I wrote the article, so I'll try to reply as best I can. I'm truly unaware of the mystical element in socionomics that you're asking about. I've known Prechter a long time -- apart from the topics in his books and writings (markets, socionomics), the only thing that I know he's hard-core about is libertarian politics. He's not into esoteric, way off-beat stuff.

I don't want to seem like I'm dismissing your question, so maybe you could briefly explain here what you have in mind about mentioning the mystical aspect, or in more detail on the talk page. I agree that the debate about the sources is important: perhaps you've noticed that I'm dancing as fast as I can to answer editors and the points they make, whether good or silly. Obviously some of the references are more relevant that other, but I figured too many was far better than not enough, in part to show that socionomics is being noticed and discussed in many places. Hope this helps,--Rgfolsom 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The same ratio governs growth and decay processes found in nature and expanding and contracting phenomena found throughout the universe" in http://www.socionomics.net/archive/social_progress.aspx ? --Pgreenfinch 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the socionomics article includes a similar quotation from Prechter: "In humans, an unconscious herding impulse impels social mood trends and changes that are specifically patterned according to a natural growth principle [that] is the engine of cultural expression and social action." The “Current Research” section of the article also quotes Prechter and Parker’s paper in the Journal of Behavioral Finance: “…uncertainty about valuations by other homogeneous agents induces unconscious, non-rational herding, which follows endogenously regulated fluctuations in social mood, which in turn determine financial fluctuations.” That’s a mouthful of academic prose, but the idea is precisely the same. So I hope you see that while the article doesn’t dwell on the idea in great detail, it clearly is included. Hope this helps.--Rgfolsom 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the fact that having reviewed some of this earlier I see few if any sources other than Prather that actually use the word "socionomics", and on that basis I believe the article may well qualify under the neologism provision, unless specific outside instances of the use of the word itself are found. John Carter 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are several mentions and discussions of socionomics in the citations I provided above – on the talk page I’ve also just added quotes from a recently published book by Michael Green, Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York. Green and John Casti have spoken frequently about socionomics, and they are academics in their own right. Please also check the links under “Further Academic Recognition,” “Reliable and extensive secondary source coverage of socionomics,” and “Socionomics in practice.” Several of those are independent of Prechter.

still Delete - A case may be made for the need for an article on "social mood in economics" with socionomics as one of the terms for it; but that would be Original Research. --Orange Mike 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, moving desired content into behavioral finance, social mood, or prechter articles as necessary. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an employee of the company, Rgfolsom clearly has access to the clippings file which records every mention of socionomics in every venue, no matter how anodyne or banal. Remove from this what Prechter has self-published (New Classics Library is one of his enterprises) and you're not left with much. Above, Rgfolsom cites four peer-reviewed articles mentioning socionomics. Four articles in six years? That is nothing, even by itself. But two of the four articles are by Prechter himself, and in the same journal. One of the four conts only if we allow "social mood" to be equivalent of "socionomics". Finally, there is mention in the "literature review" of Olson. But Olson's review, according to Ebsco, includes 103 references in its 20 pages, so this can hardly be non-trivial. All told, the article is little more than spam or a monument to someone's boss's intellectual vanity. Either way, it needs to be deleted. Ministry of random walks 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I can only wish that I had a couple of research assistants feeding me clips on command. The truth is that many or most of the citations come from the time I spent on Google and other archive searchs, because I wanted to make it possible for editors to check those sources. That duly noted, all I can say in addition is that if you have a problem with me and Prechter, please make your decision based on the independent sources. You mention Olson’s paper; the link to the abstract is there with the cite, and he does talk about socionomics:
Emotions exert a significant influence on financial behavior. The "socionomic hypothesis" posits social mood, the collective mood of individuals, as a primary causal variable in financial and social trends. In order to provide a scientific basis for the study of social mood, this article reviews psychological research on major mood-related elements of personality: affect, motivation, and personality traits.

Please take these facts into account and reconsider your decision.--Rgfolsom 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject. The article needs a good cleanup, though, to remove the large amount of OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I picked a couple of the academic web links at random and found a clear discussion of the subject with plenty of citations in turn to peer-reviewed journals. Someone is going to need to look it up. Might I suggest that the horde of people arguing to delete instead focus their energies on the cesspool that is Special:Newpages? ←Ben^B4 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSocionomincs is not a neologism. I referenced it in my book, which was written five years ago and published four years ago. The actual term was coined before then. Papers written by academics have referenced the paper, meaning to me, that it is noteworthy enough for academics to consider the theory. To suggest that the theory is fringe is questionable at best. The Journal of Behavioral Finance is an exceptional academic peer-reviewed journal. Although the article being published is written by Mr. Prechter, the fact that it meets the criteria of the journal adds considerable weight to the argument for keeping. For disclosure, I am a former technical analyst and wrote a book on Elliott Wave. I do not think whether we believe Socionomics works or is valid is relevant to this discussion (I am not sure myself, but I am no expert in Socionomics, even if I am in Elliott, as I've never made an attempt to apply it that way). The simple fact is that it is a notable theory and is gaining substantial steam. Keep it.Sposer 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to read the Prechter/Parker 2007 paper that formed the basis of the rewrite of this article and comment on its scientific value. My verdict is this: the authors display an ignorance of economic concepts at such a fundamental level that the inclusion in the journal shows that the Journal of Behavioral Finance lacks the editorial oversight we require to consider a source reliable. A key thrust of the paper is the argument that financial markets are fundamentally different from standard economic markets and that economic analysis fails to incorporate the differences. The authors support this with graphs of long-run ownership of computers vs. stock compared to their respective price levels, showing that computer ownership increased over time while prices dropped while stock ownership increased even though prices increased. The computer graph holds a vague resemblance to the standard X-shape of the common supply and demand model in economics, while the stock graph does not. In addition, the authors note that since anyone can buy and sell stocks at any given time, everybody is a buyer and seller, so distinguishing those types does not make sense. As an alternative they offer a model with only a demand curve, which is upward-sloping. All of this is of course nonsense. For one, the computer graph has nothing to do with a supply-and-demand graph, which captures intentions at a moment in time, while the computer graph captures transactions over a long time period. Changes in ownership over time are usually triggered by changes in wealth and changing consumer preferences more so than changing prices. Also, the X shape is not particularly typical for "standard" economic markets. Car ownership has increased over time even though cars have become more expensive. Similarily, gas consumption in the long run has increased with increasing gas prices. For two, the idea that someone can be a seller and buyer is nothing special in standard economics, it's known as a durbale goods market. I can buy a house at time t, own it for n periods and sell it in t+n. As a real estate speculator I can do this with multiple assets at the same time. I will still only be a buyer or a seller for a particular asset X, as I either own it or not own it. For three, the theoretical case of an upward-sloping demand curve is known as a Giffen good and is generally considered a hypothetical form, although under extreme market conditions (e.g. severe famine) it might arise. It certainly does not arise in financial markets. It implies that at the same time I would sell my asset at $40 and buy it at $60, losing $20 without any change in ownership. The JBE is a mainstream journal, but it lacks the history, selectivity and oversight to be considered reliable, and it certainly does not meet the "widely cited" requirement for inclusion. ~ trialsanderrors 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It doesn't surprise me that Prechter's paper is hogwash (as it is not an "independent" reliable source, it shouldn't have any WP:NEO weight anyway), but I wonder if it goes too far to knock out the entire Journal from the WP:RS on the basis of one pseudoscientific article. I can think of lots of journals that have published absolute garbage, from the Harvard Law Review to Lancet to Journal of American History and beyond, yet surely qualify as reliable sources notwithstanding the occasional bad apple. JBF has some surprisingly prestigious editors for a journal that prints so much krep. But perhaps it still flunks the "widely cited" criterion. THF 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wasn't commenting on the value of the article, just the journal. However, I would point out that there is academic evidence for an upward-sloping demand curve in the case of stocks, as per papers finding a momentum effect (although I don't remember how long-term the momentum effect is estimated to be). As prices rise in a stock, more people are drawn in to buy it. In fact, it is a basic tenet of TA that volume should increase as prices rise. I am not anything like an expert in Behavioral Finance, but since TA is, IMO, the application of behavioral finance to trading data from the markets, I would assume that Behavioral Finance recognizes this phenomena as well. There are specific strategies that buy breakouts. I do not know if this is what Prechter is getting at, but this is absolutely reasonable. Beyond that, there is certainly a relationship to wealth, but much of the wealth that was created (and destroyed), for example, in the mid-1990s to early-2000s, was via the equity market. Commodities were falling, and real estate did not take off until stocks cracked.Sposer 23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: trialsanderrors can take up his problem with the editors who administer the peer review at the Journal of Behavioral Finance. The socionomics article plainly satisfies the face-value language of WP:N and WP:NEO.--Rgfolsom 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: All of us agree that "flimsy" science cannot advance human understanding. The question is, "Which is the flimsy science?" trialsanderrors's comment represents the conventional economic thinking that has been embattled for three decades because it fails to answer crucial aspects of economic and financial behavior. He also seems to be arguing against the distinguished editors of the JBF, which is fine. But their decision to run the paper on socionomics means that the subject is open to academic debate and therefore is notable at the highest level.--Rgfolsom 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re THF, I would not trust any theory that is sourced to a single journal article, even if the article is in a first-tier journal. The difference is that articles in first-tier journals usually trigger a response, especially when they contain garbage. Crappy articles in fourth-tier journals are usually ignored. Hence the "widely cited" requirement, which this article clearly doesn't meet. Re Sposer, what you're talking about is an upward shift of the (downward-sloping) demand curve (aka Veblen effect), not an upward-sloping demand curve (aka Giffen good). ~ trialsanderrors 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To get back to the issue:

WP:V: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.”
WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
WP:NEO: "If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."

The socionomics article hits the bull’s eye of all three targets in multiple instances. Now to claim that the references themselves must be “widely cited” (etc., etc.) amounts to moving the targets.--Rgfolsom 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: the nature of this argument will make it very difficult for the closing admin to decide the question. Can we not agree that the article should either be kept and cleaned up for mainstream opinion (maybe classed as Category:Fringe science), or failing notability be a simple redirect to Robert Prechter? In this case, we could take this off Afd and make it a matter of dispute resolution (redirect vs. separate article). Personally, I would opt for redirect until notability is established, but I see no reason why this should be deleted instead of redirected. dab (𒁳) 12:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the above. I can see adding much/most of the content of this article to either the Prechter article and/or an individual user's userspace, and then file for dispute resolution regarding the matter of this existing as a separate article. I get the impression, with all respect to both sides, that the crux of this problem is the number and strength of independent references to the concept by this word, and this is not the appropriate place to hold such a discussion. John Carter 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with mentioning Socionomics in the Prechter article, as long as it doesn't turn into Vanispam. ~ trialsanderrors 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I appreciate the good faith comments from dab and John Carter. I would love to find a less heated and less-high stakes forum to discuss the issues that other editors have with the socionomics article. That is what the talk page is for, and anyone who reads the first AfD will see that my principle objection then was that the nominator made no attempt to follow the steps spelled out in WP:AFD, such as first adding a cleanup tag or sharing reservations about the article on its talk page. That applies this time as well. There was no discussion about the article or my considerable attempts to improve it. It’s a death penalty case from the start, complete with pejoratives from the nominator like “piggyback,” “smokescreen,” “flimsiest,” etc.

Almost five days later we’ve come full circle, with the quality of the discussion deteriorating to the point that some editors see fit to claim that a respected, peer-reviewed academic journal publishes “crappy articles” and “pseudoscience.” I don’t see rolling socionomics into Prechter’s bio as an option -- at least one knowledgeable admin has said that is not acceptable. I do not own the article, and I’m all for edits to make it better (per dab), as well as for a discussion of the article’s merits and sources in dispute resolution (per John Carter). What I’m not for is taking it down when it plainly satisfies the language of V, N, and NEO.--Rgfolsom 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rgfolsom misrepresents yet another source. The admin who said a merger was not acceptable mistakenly thought that the proposal was to delete the Prechter article, and hasn't even seen the reasoning for a merger of the Socionomics article discussed on this page: "I do not see such a discussion. In any case, this article is a biography, and if the person passes the notability test, a bio should be kept and not merged." The critical language in the WP:N policies Folsom quotes is independent and significant, and that Prechter keeps writing about his unusued neologism is not independent, and, as the detailed discussion on the talk page to this AfD shows, the independent coverage is not significant. Editors can make a mistake from time to time, but Rgfolsom's mistakes in characterizing other sources are so frequent, and invariably in support of his COI, that, at a minimum, assuming the most good faith, his arguments suffer from severe confirmation bias. From improperly recreating the page to sending dozens of editors on a wild-goose-chase figuring out that his cites are faulty, Rgfolsom's COI-related edits have been severely disruptive, and admins should take action if WP:COI is to mean anything. THF 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Jossi can more than speak for himself, but the time stamps show that he came to this page and voted “Keep” well after dab, orange mike, coolhand luke and scottjar had already suggested a merger. Editors can check the time stamps for themselves, and check Prechter’s bio and talk page for what Jossi said. As for a confirmation bias, I am not the editor who claimed that books don’t include a word when they do, whose own biases (and incivility) are reflected by words like “pseudoscience” “hogwash” “crap” “quackery” and “astrology,” who calls other editors “snake oil salesmen” and “astrologers,” who levels frivolous accusations of “vandalism” and “faked evidence,” plus -- and least surprising of all -- has the chutzpah to ask administrators on this page to “investigate” another editor for conduct unbecoming.--Rgfolsom 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COOL, I won't waste everyone's time by repeating the refutations of the false accusations levied at me here since they already appear on this page. I apologize for my anger at the dishonesty of others, but I sure hope persistence and kitchen-sink tactics do not overwhelm the sound Wiki policy for deletion. THF 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly this subject is out there beyond Prechter. There are plenty of cited articles and 50,000+ google hits. The concept is relatively new but that does not mean that it doesn't exist and should not be found on Wikipedia. It seems to me that most of those arguing for deletion are basing it on the idea that it's a "fringe theory," i.e. that they see it as crackpot, or conversely, something that "states the obvious," or they have an axe to grind with the author. It is a subject that is out there enough that it should be there when people look it up on wikipedia. --Robertknyc 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term is clearly notable, but the article may not tell the full story. A 1986 review of The Moral Order (1983, by Raoul Narroll) states that "The method of looking for a better society is named 'socionomics'." I don't have access to the book, but I wonder if either Narroll or Veenhoven (the reviewer) refer to Prechter's work (doubt it), or if the term had an established meaning already. The term was also mentioned in 1965 in "Towards a Synthetization of the Sciences" by Matthew L. Lamb, apparently to denote a cross of sociology and geology. – Therefore, I'd rather have a better article than a redirect to Prechter as if he owned the term. Rl 13:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RI is correct, I too saw the word used with different meanings during my searches, and perhaps the article should include a sentence or two to that effect. That said, the quotes and sources in the socionomics article do show that Prechter’s view of the concept was before a national audience in 1985 (Barron’s), and in Prechter’s own publications in the late 1970s.--Rgfolsom 15:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: More accurately, Rl's cites shows that it flunks WP:NEO, as none of the people pushing their wildly different and inconsistent personalized definitions have achieved any measure of notability for their preferred definition. THF 16:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: The notability of “socionomics” as used in the article under discussion is manifest: four papers in an academic journal with a blue-chip list of peer-review editors; university lectures at Harvard, MIT, London School of Economics, Emory, Cambridge (et. al.); numerous academic conferences; selected for participation in research funded by the National Science Foundation; extensive coverage in numerous professional and trade-related publications and a respected science periodical; 50,000+ results on Google; and yes, ten books not written by Prechter (let’s ask Sposer if he thinks the mention of socionomics in his book was “trivial”).--Rgfolsom 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If I had considered socionomics trivial, out of the mainstream of behavioral finance and not noteworthy, I would not have mentioned it in my book. That I refer to it as something of Robert Prechter's, is because it is his extension of Elliott, but it has clearly gone beyond that now. I would not refer to the development of relativity via anybody but Albert Einstein, even if others added a huge amount to the body of knowledge. Note that my mention in the book does not mean an endorsement of the theory either, but rather that it is something that is worth referring to. I do not know enough about it myself to argue its validity, but that is not the discussion here either. It is notability, and it belongs in Wiki in my opinion. As I've been told before, it is not up to us to decide validity.Sposer 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding to the discussion of trivial vs. mainstream/notable, two editors had earlier disparaged a reliable source by claiming it failed to meet the “widely cited” criterion – which I think refers to the proposed science notability guideline. I mention this because the community has rejected that proposal; a strong critique from the proposal’s talk page helps explain why. Thus the language of WP:N alone governs notability in this case, specifically the general notability guideline that requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (such as the Journal of Behavioral Finance). WP:V is also on point: "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."--Rgfolsom 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, hence encyclopedic. If it needs rewrite, NPOVing or whatever - this is not the reason for deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen no sign that this actually IS notable, and many many warning signs that it isn't, what with the suspect sourcing and utter lack of demonstrating any actual real-world impact, the conflict of interest of the principle author, the overblown arguments, and the intense level of special pleading. At best it should be blown up completely and rewritten from scratch by someone other than Rgfolsom or Sposer. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It’s not reasonable to see this comment as more than a transparent case of I don’t like it, and should be discounted as such.--Rgfolsom 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just me, but I think it's disruptive to have someone respond to each and every comment with which they disagree -- particularly with something as, well, rude as "ignore this person's opinion." To my mind such editing appears tendentious. Calton's comment was well-supported, and was in no way "I don't like it."

By my count, Mr. Folsom, you've now commented 45 times in this discussion, including several calls to have other peoples' views "discounted." When Calton says that the arguments are overblown, that's what I think he means - that it sounds like a tendentious editor with a big COI who's willing to devote large amounts of time to this issue. (And you have to wonder if people who otherwise would have joined this discussion, on either side, have stayed away from it because they just didn't want to get involved in that type of exhausting argument.) Calton's !vote will not be discounted, nor will anyone else's. I think we've all heard your position, I think it's clear, and now I'd encourage you to please allow other editors to express theirs. --TheOther Bob 04:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muggle Quidditch[edit]

no sources = nn Will ^(talk) 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. James Luftan ^contribs 02:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable game. Oysterguitarist 03:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fad that looks like it was recently invented. No sources. Non-notable.--Sethacus 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is close to "wikipedi is not for stuff made up in one school day". The Placebo Effect 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say weak keep. It's not the most well-sourced topic in the world, but if Borders is willing to sponsor a Muggle Quidditch tournament in Phoenix, then there's hope for an article out of it. I think the creator(s) of the page should be given the chance to clean it up and expand the article first; otherwise, it can be merged with the existing Quidditch article. Sidatio 16:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable made-up "sport." (Some people really do have too much time on their hands.) Realkyhick 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a Reuters article on it. Andjam 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not made up, seems to be a legit offshoot of Harry Potter fandom. Wl219 09:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not made up, as others have said. Maybe it should be merged, but it should not be deleted. Carcharoth 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Some nerds become Wikipedians, some Muggle Quidditch players. :-) Bearian 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has good references. --Epaphroditus Ph. M. 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 02:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto student groups[edit]

This is a glorified list, which should have that in the title. Aside from that, it's a long list that needs a lot of maintenance and isn't verified. It fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory of information which falls short of encyclopedic standards. Student groups are almost always unnotable (not to mention ephemeral), and the few that might be are best handled in the school's main article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Agreeing that they are very very rarely worth individual articles, I think a list of this sort is a better way to deal with them than including them in articles. I think it's easier to maintain. DGG (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagining worse case scenarios does not justify a directory in clear violation of WP:NOT. Skeezix1000 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter whether these groups are individually notable or not. What matters is that Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, it is not a student guide, and it is not a directory. This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. Skeezix1000 12:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. (My favorite all-purpose rationale). Realkyhick 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above. Luke! 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkville University[edit]

The article is a giant ad. No proof this University actually operates. Fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not giant, and it definitely exists. Nyttend 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school has degree-granting authority from New Brunswick, and the statements in the article seem to be fairly descriptive of what a university offers. Alansohn 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Viable stub of a real university. I fail to see how the article is an ad, even at the revision where it was nominated, and unreferenced is not synonymous with original research. Resolute 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm more or less of the opinion that bona fide universities are inherently notable. — mholland (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't an ad, and there is proof it operates. No reason to delete. T Rex | talk 11:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. And I'd rather see a stub for a university than one of those huge articles that just transcribes the entire school handbook. Propaniac 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga[edit]

Almost everything in here is mentioned in the plot summary in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. — Malcolm (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also? PiT was redired as having no content. Anyway, keep until the Plot summary actually DOES adequately cover the characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chrachters can be sumerized in main article like in Spider-Man 3 The Placebo Effect 14:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game-guide stuff, and most of the "character description" is just redundantly describing what the character does in the plot. Propaniac 14:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete There is no possible way to write about the topic in a real world light, so the plot section can easily cover it. TTN
Comment What content is this article redundant to? It's easy to say that "this content is redundant to the plot", but it's not. It's more like "this content could hypothetically one day be redundant to the plot if someone bothers to flesh out the plot section and cover more than the basics." - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe not every video game needs a seven-thousand word synopsis. Propaniac 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe every article needs more than a bare bone plot. For instance, a primary character (Popple) isn't even mentioned in the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why don't you just fix the plot? We don't add crap just because something else is crap. TTN 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you admit that the content is not redundant? There's no purpose in deleting content that undeniably needs to exist in some form. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm just responding to your strange form of content management. If it needs to exist, go fix it in the main article. Keeping this around just because that is crap is just a form of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. TTN 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Named settlements are generally notable, needs expanding. ELIMINATORJR 10:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bounard[edit]

Seems to be a small area in Ireland, with a few businesses. It may even be a housing estate, but I can't tell - I beseech Irish Wikipedians to comment, and prove me wrong. Moglex 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The consensus seems to be that all named habitations including villages are notable. Espresso Addict 00:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES settlements are notable. --Oakshade 00:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hooray! You've almost made it through the "B"s. Actually, I commend you, Mog--- that's a lot of work. Mandsford 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bragdyr Bryn Cyf[edit]

A small brewery in Wales - no claim of notability, but there are quite a few breweries with articles on Wikipedaia, this might be an issue for Deletion Review Moglex 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'd have tagged as not asserting notability: A7. Does not demonstrate WP:N nor WP:CORP.Ga rr ie 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bratwurst Glöckl[edit]

Claims to be a famous restaurant in Germant, but there's nothing in the article to differ it from the average kebab house Moglex 00:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like it would qualify for a "speedy delete" as not even asserting notability. On a personal note being from Munich - I'd rather go to Nürnberg if I'd want a decent Bratwurst Agathoclea 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable restaurant. Realkyhick 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Tikiwont. Otherwise, Delete: this is not a travel guide and the article consists entirely of directory information.Ga rr ie 04:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Laces[edit]

Had a read through the article, and through WP:BAND, but nothing clicks - non-notable label, small tour, no charting, no appearances in other media, no famous members of band Moglex 00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some very thorough searching on this one, while I did find some reviews, most of it was blogs or music selling websites. I tried to look for more bands on the label they say they are on, but I cannot find anything. As for their claim to be on CMJ's top 200, a search of CMJ produced nothing. Gorkymalorki 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gorkymalorki, and also because any article that includes the line "In June of 2003, they met at Masarsky's house to practice the songs" is likely about a nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band. It amazes me how some of these bands can write articles with such a detailed history. You'd think they were The Beatles. Realkyhick 18:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another myspace band article.Ga rr ie 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (somewhat): They have been mentioned in print [90], confirming two CDs on CMJ's Top 200, although it appears to be impossible to find archived charts from only a year ago to confirm this. — Scottjar → Talk 12:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy deleted under G11 - Spam - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeway Community Church[edit]

Seems like an advert, or was written by someone in this church community. 2000 ppl in a congregation doesn't make it notable Moglex 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G11 and G12 Not only is this blatant advertising, but it's a copyvio--nearly all of the page content is cut-and-pasted from the church Website. And this has been around for more than a year? Kill it quick. Blueboy 96 12:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- per Blueboy96. --Boricuaeddie 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I do understand the concerns of the sourcing and they should be adressed. But references should be abundant (at least in French) and this is not sufficient grounds for outright deletion so prematurely, especially since nobody is disputing that the subject itself is ok. The fact that edit wars might come from this article is also not an argument for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 07:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breton nationalism and World War II[edit]

Firstly, yes I know that the author of this had a huge task translating all of this. However, there are many problems here: number one - the French Wikipedia is not a reliable source. number two - don't trust anything on Breton nationalism from French Wikipedia, as there's been a hugh polemic about it there. Thirdly, it is completely unsourced. Fourthly, (minor point) the title is wrong - should be Breton nationalism during World War Two or Breton nationalism in World War Two. And nextly, it is one of Wonderfool's creations, and (s)he's a bit of scoundrel too. Moglex 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard of assume good faith, right? Nick mallory 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, it is completely unsourced.

Indeed, this is a significant problem.

Fourthly, (minor point) the title is wrong - should be Breton nationalism during World War Two or Breton nationalism in World War Two.

The title is just a translation of the title from the French article, though I agree that either of the alternatives you propose would be better.

it is one of Wonderfool's creations, and (s)he's a bit of scoundrel too.

What? I don't know how Robdurbar was involved in it at all, nearly all of the translation was done by me and Itsmejudith

I agree that it needs sourcing badly. But I don't see a reason why it should be deleted rather than simply left as is with the warning about unsourced material. When I translated it, I had hoped that the French article would be improved soon, that hasn't happened unfortunately. Nonetheless, it's a fairly length article on an interesting topic and I wouldn't be quick to delete it. MOXFYRE (contrib) 15:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, heavily POV, no sources. Please don't bring French WP wars to us — we have plenty of our own, thank you. Realkyhick 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. Highly notable subject, and a collective effort should be done to weed out what can be referenced and what should be removed. I could give a hand, if needed. --Soman 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at "historique" and the discussion page for the French article "Nationalisme breton et Seconde Guerre mondiale" and as well as the main page which describes French Wikipedia as "l’encyclopédie librement distribuable que chacun peut améliorer" Since chacun peut ameliorer their site, just as anyone can edit ours, and the historique shows that a bunch of people have been ameliorering the article, I don't agree that the source is unreliable. Mandsford 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:V is policy. The article has no secondary sources of any description. The French WP is a tertiary source and should not be used as a reference. Marasmusine 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mandsford Harlowraman 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As sourceable. Note that the French WP cannot be used as a source, but any sources they find can of course be used here. The material on the individual collaborators is sourced by the articles on them, but some WPedians would insist that at least the key sources be repeated onto this article as well. It would solve the sourcing problem to a considerable extent. DGG (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ELIMINATORJR 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gildencroft Quaker Cemetery, Norwich[edit]

A non-notable ceremony Moglex 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The burial place of writer Amelia Opie. Nick mallory 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only Opie's grave makes this pass notability. Realkyhick 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is enough. Nick mallory 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Gurney's bank was a notable early bank, so that the burial of its partners there also makes the cemetery [not ceremony] marginally notable. Peterkingiron 00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 06:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia bears[edit]

This crappy article has been here since June 2006, and contains raw text about British Columbia, about a few species of bear, and about how few forests are left in the world. All in all, it is redundant. This has slipped through the Wikipedia quality-control net (as with hundreds of articles I'm in the process of AFDing. Moglex 22:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: only the first two sentences of the article are actually about both bears and British Columbia, and nothing's referenced. Propaniac 14:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything good, then Delete. Unreferenced with very little relevance to the title. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article doesn't match title. Realkyhick 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like someone cut-and-pasted a class paper in. Stuff about bears is already in those articles, I suspect, and stuff about B.C. is probably already there. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Bootsy's Rubber Band. NawlinWiki 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootsy's Rubber String Band[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something, but there's no trace of this band on the www Moglex 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really? A simple Google search reveals these links, albeit some more tenuous than others I suppose: [91], [92], Warner Bros discography, [93], Rolling Stone bio of Bootsy Collins in which it states "Bootsy's Rubber Band was the most entertaining and longest-running spin-off of George Clinton's eternal P-Funk circus...", [94], and there's more... So I'd say that, yes, you're missing something. Craw-daddy 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Upon further examination, it seems that this band is really known (or better known?) as Bootsy's Rubber Band (and yes, the WP article already existed before now). So this article should be redirected there. Craw-daddy 01:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Boone Trail. --Core desat 06:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Trail Highway Markers[edit]

Kinda cool, following in the footsteps of Mr Boone, but this "event" seems to be just a fad. OK, so it is incredibly cool, the sort of thing I'd do, but Google doesn't like it! Moglex 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though "Boone Trail" would be a more appropriate title. Realkyhick 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Figures that we Kentuckians stick together on this. I agree that since there's no article entitled "Daniel Boone Trail" or "Boone Trail", it should be retitled. Mandsford 00:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7.Chaser - T 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boo2Boo[edit]

An underground foortnightly Belgian radio show - the tone of the article is so informal it doesn't seem to be worth researchin further Moglex 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, and possibly even G12. The text is copied directly from their singular "source." Google returns less than 600 hits, only one of which appears to actually deal with this radio station. — Scottjar → Talk 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not even close to being notable. Realkyhick 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW, yes, lakes are notable. NawlinWiki 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolagen[edit]

One of many lakes in Norway. Lakes are notable right? Just checking Moglex 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course lakes are notable. Please do some research before you start nominating 'hundreds of articles' as you threaten to do on another AfD you've just nominated. You are going to waste a lot of people's time if you don't research what you're doing here. Nick mallory 12:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, lakes are inherently notable. Hut 8.5 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. --Targeman 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 relevant material into Amiga and redirect. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boing Ball[edit]

So this unsourced orphaned page is about a computer screen-saver? OK, so it was a kind of "unofficial" logo of Aminga which might be important, but this info belongs at Amiga if anywhere Moglex 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not merge not just a screensaver but an important and recognizable symbol of the Amiga platform for over 20 years. But it does need sources. Miremare 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 23:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - looks good enough for a subsection. -WarthogDemon 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all verified information - which appears to be none of it - to Amiga. Marasmusine 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, still commonly seen even now. Mathmo ^Talk 10:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge feel it is only a subsection not sourced and orphaned Harlowraman 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notable per WP:BIO for sportspeople. ELIMINATORJR 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Issazadhe[edit]

Raced a couple of formula 3 races, does that make him notable enough? I'm guessing it's on a par with formula One test drivers, and some of them have their own article Moglex 21:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as professional driver. If you have questions about notability standards, please ask people or post on the talk page at WP:N. Don't post "test" AFDs. NawlinWiki 17:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No, he doesn't. Daniel →♦ 05:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Izzard[edit]

Played 5 games for the North Sydney Bears in the 1930s? The guy must do more to get a Wikipeida article Moglex 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you spent even a moment reading the notability criteria? Anyone who's played even one game in a fully professional league is notable. The North Sydney Bears played in the New South Wales Rugby League competition so they count. Rugby League is THE sport in New South Wales. It doesn't matter that it was only five games, or that it was seventy years ago. Nick mallory 12:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, athlete who appeared in a fully professional league at the highest level in a country. NawlinWiki 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, barely attains the notability try-line. Realkyhick 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Nick mallory, played in a professional league, therefore noteworthy. Gorkymalorki 03:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The benchmark under WP:BIO is one game so he qualifies. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One game. Qualifies. Twenty Years 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qualifies Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 10:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BloomingOUT[edit]

Seems to borderline importance i.e. a few years ago would never have made it in, but now the boundaries have been blurred who knows? It deals with a radio show making a splash in a (to be fair, reasonably-sized) community in USA. Moglex 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not sure about notability, but there's a whopping 2,620 hits on Google (which is not necessarily a reason to keep, I know) - and seven on Google News: [95] (all subscription or pay-per-view, sadly). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a local radio show and podcast. It's not syndicated or anything like that. Not notable. Realkyhick 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added Chicago Sun Times article which mentions the show and also a bit of context about Bloomington's surprising gay tolerance. Notability is not established by syndication, or lack thereof, by being local, or by being a podcast, but by non trivial coverage by independent sources. Scarykitty 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This sets a bad precedence for allowing very obscure local shows and pod casts to use wikipedia as a platform to promote their shows. I don't see it's notability.--Amadscientist 06:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Zigzig20s 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable - hits on Google news and article in Chicago Sun Times. --Beloved freak 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Harlowraman 23:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even the nomination suggests merging rather than deletion. NawlinWiki 00:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block and bleed manifold[edit]

Possibly merge to Hydraulic manifold. I'm not familiar with this subject matter, but there's glaring notability concerns Moglex 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can you tell if there are 'glaring notability concerns' if you admit you're not 'familiar with this subject matter'. A google search shows that it's commonly used engineering term. Nick mallory 13:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi the Child-Strangler[edit]

Is Bibi the Child-Strangler real? Or is this a hoax article Moglex 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Aside from the two links provided (one of which doesn't seem to mention Bibi at all), I couldn't find any information on this topic. As it stands, there's little in the way of context and no realistic chance of adding anything verifiable to this piece. Sidatio 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, likely hoax. Realkyhick 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a charming bedtime story. Mandsford 00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It may be a real Romany story, but it is just NN. Bearian 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blobotics[edit]

Jelly robots? Appeared in one publication of new Scientist? By a scientist who's not even famous enough for Wikipeda? Moglex 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a speculative concept but it's based on real science. ABC Radio in Australia covered this term [96] as did New Scientist [97]. You did research this before nominating it, didn't you? Nick mallory 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory. Hut 8.5 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory. Not too many google hits but then again g-hits don't necessarily mean notability. Research seems sound, thus keep. -WarthogDemon 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real published research in an interesting field, and the name has caught on per coverage of New Scientist, ABC Radio, Chemistry Daily[98] & several blogs etc. As for 'By a scientist who's not even famous enough for Wikipeda', it's not my area, but the papers/books listed on his publications list (linked from [99]) look to support notability, so perhaps he should have a bio article? Espresso Addict 09:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Real area of research. Tim Vickers 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kinghorn. No consensus to delete, but no article can be sustained in the absence of independent sources.

Black Rock '5' Race[edit]

A small tiny running race in a small crappy village in Scotland (Kinghorn) - not nearly famous enough for Wikipedia Moglex 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You really should watch your tone. There's no need to use language such as "a small crappy village". It's rather inappropriate for this kind of discussion. Craw-daddy 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'small crappy village'? Charming. Anyway, this event has been going for over twenty years and has hundreds of participants. Nick mallory 12:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless some good references surface at low tide, I'd suggest a slight merge into Kinghorn of which it supoosedly is a visitor attraction. --Tikiwont 12:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom not notable Harlowraman 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Kinghorn. The content is worth saving, but a separate article doesn't seem necessary. PKT 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Wire Gauge Company[edit]

No signs this ever existed Moglex 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, unable to verify. Realkyhick 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (it comes from an IP address 195.92.67.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a history). Birmingham Wire Gauge isn't a company but a moderately obsolete wire gauge measurement system. This article appears to be based on the history of Webster & Horsfall. Gordonofcartoon 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a pointless hoax... McLarenJAB 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funagain Games[edit]

Not-notable enough for own article. Moglex 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case anybody wants to read the NYT article, the full text is available [100] free of charge. As far as the article goes, in the world of board game hobbyists, Funagain is one of the oldest and best known online retailers. They've had a significant role in the development of the hobby. I realize that the article needs additional secondary sources and I'll try to turn some up. -Chunky Rice 19:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is it the notability standard for web content that's being cited in the AfD notice, and not the (somewhat less stringent) standard for companies and organizations? -Stellmach 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually a close call. The criteria I'm going by is from WP:CORP "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I don't believe the NYT article quite meets this standard. The NYT is certainly a reliable source, and independent of the subject, but the depth of coverage is shallow. It looks like it appeared in a less "newsy" section of the paper. Certainly not in the business section. For that reason I think it should take multiple sources to establish notability for this article. If someone can come up with more sources I'll change my opinion. Bgplayer 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google news archive search comes up with several dozen references; most of them aren't substantial, but together I believe they satisfy notability standards. Propaniac 15:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable retail shop. Fails WP:CORP as much as its website fails WP:WEB. —ptk✰fgs 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explicatus[edit]

This is all bullshit. It is just part of the name of a Rutman book. Been here since October 2005 too Moglex 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "explicatus" is a Latin word which means explanation or exposition. Far from being 'just part of the name of a Rutman book' it is indeed, as the article says, an archaic literary term. Gilbert Clerke, a mathematician and sundial maker, published a book in 1682 called "Oughtredus explicatus" - an edition of William Oughtred’s famous 1647 algebra textbook Clavis Mathematica. Of course the nominator might consider Latin and old books bullshit too. Nick mallory 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It is certainly a valid term, but some indication that this will amount to more than an albeit long dictionary term would be needed. --Tikiwont 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep It has factual information, but it's not too large and would take someone who knew about it. I think it's slightly useful so, keep.--Kkr ou ni 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can use help from the Deletion Deleters. Marlith 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found no evidence that the definition advanced in the article—"a section (or often, an entire volume) of a written work that explains the methods used to collect and analyze the data or research presented in that work"—has any applicability apart from the Rutman work the article cites. Oughtredus explicatus ("Oughtred Explained") and similarly titled books are commentaries on the works of other authors and do not support the usage the article describes. Deor 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....Strong Keep? Much like explication de texte, all this really needs is to be expanded. Explicatus is indeed a Latin word and can even be called a literary genre of its period to some extent. I do not know, however, what the relation to explication de texte is, and if they might perhaps refer to the same thing. Redirect to explication de texte. After searching for a source in Annee Philologique and the OCD and tearning up nil, I'm starting to think the author of this article confused the two terms. CaveatLector^Talk 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm … Who exactly is denying that explicatus is a Latin word? The question is, Can you cite any uses of it as a noun (rather than a participle) that would justify the existence of this article? Where is the evidence that it "can even be called a literary genre of its period to some extent"? Deor 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of this article called it 'bullshit' rather than a "latin word" for one. Nick mallory 03:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the AfD is about the article, not about the nominator. Deor 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I oppose the redirect suggestion in CaveatLector's revised opinion above. There's no evidence in the article or elsewhere that explicatus has ever been used in a sense that matches the use of explication de texte in literary criticism. Deor 01:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Explicatus is a Latin noun, but I see no evidence that there was a literary genre by this name, or that there is a group of texts referred to as explicatus (the noun is 4th declension), or that explicatus has been used as an equivalent of explication de texte. In short, I doubt anyone will search for it, and see no point in keeping it around. (BTW, I was asked to take a look at this AfD in a message on my talk page.) --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blas Hir Hel[edit]

A non-notable autobiography written by a non-notable person who himself hasn't even got a Wikipedia page. Been on Wikipedia since March 3 2005 Moglex 19:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has been mirrored around, but no trace of notability. --Tikiwont 12:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Montco 23:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book and author are genuine but I agree about notability. The author is not an established writer - as far as I can see its his only published work - and whilst the book may well be of interest to people with an interest in sea-faring in Llŷn (a red link in the article, by the way) it is by no means a well-known or notable book (never heard of it before - and I speak as a student of Welsh literature). Here's a link if you're interested: [101]. Summary: not a hoax but certainly not notable. Suggest delete as it seems unlikely to be expanded. Enaidmawr 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - neither the book nor the author have articles on Welsh Wicipedia either, where I would expect to find more information if there was anything more notable to add. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brachylaima. Singu larity 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brachylaimiasis[edit]

I thought this was real, had a little search, and the only links were to Wikimirrors and, err, bisexual porn sites. A shame for us Moglex 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found only one ref [102] for the term itself, but it seems to be a rare way fo referring to a Brachylaima infection, where Brachylaima would rather be the name of parasite itself, so I'd say redirect and clarify there.--Tikiwont 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tikiwont. There's another mention on this page, but the relevant information already exists at Brachylaima so this dicdef is unnecessary. (I would, however, clarify the distinction between the organism and the disease as Tikiwont suggests.) Deor 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Medline is finding only the single paper noted by Tikiwont, but as it appears to be a real medical usage, the redirect is probably worthwhile. Espresso Addict 08:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If you want to keep track of Barry's progress, the article's creator is keeping an updated, userfied version at User:TonyTheTiger/Barry Bonds home run watch. — Caknuck 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Bonds home run watch[edit]

Barry Bonds home run watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is nothing more than an overly detailed list of statistics that is not going to be of encyclopedic interest to anybody in two month, little yet in two years. Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and we ought not be recording every minute of this. Phil Sandifer 12:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oddly, baseball fans love statistics and view the availability of more stats as a plus (and encyclopedic). They will view this page as useful information that they want to know and have at their fingertips.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a play-by-play record of every game Bonds appears in as he ties and beats a record? Phil Sandifer 13:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I'm a baseball fanatic and a stat-head, but this is just not encyclopedic. --Fabrictramp 14:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Waaay too newsy and now-ist of a subject. An at-bat by at-bat account is far too detailed. Wikipedia is not Retrosheet. Also, this information is already at baseball fans' "fingertips" - what sports news site doesn't have this plastered all over their front page? Wickethewok 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This info is not available anywhere else in a unified format like this to my knowledge.
Delete wikipedia isn't a stats alamac, wikinews is the better place for this article. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete also as per nom. This realy contributes little to nothing at all to the project and there are probably hundreds of webpages with this info. Plus alot of people write this stuff down or memorize it.--Kkr ou ni 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In violation of WP:NOT#INFO Chris! _{my talk} 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the Elias Sports Bureau. Realkyhick 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Well-intentioned creation, but better as a short paragraph on the Barry Bonds page. However, considering the creator was the primary editor, effort to discuss this with him should have been made first, and he might have willingly merged the article today. Now we have to wait up to a week to get rid of it. - BillCJ 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- BillCJ 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Seems to be a collection of random information; additionally, it is EXTREMELY unimportant to list every single at-bat. You might as well go as extremely as saying that every home run from #1-#754 are a part of this watch... what, are you gonna list every single plate appearance since his ML debut? It's not an important event; it isn't any special event that has any additional importance from any of his other home runs. I can't believe it's an article to begin with. Wikipedia isn't the place for play-by-play information. But the MAIN REASON is that this article is crystal-balling. The article states, "...a comprehensive list of plate appearances made by Barry Bonds between his 754th and 756th career home runs..." He might not hit home runs number 755 and 756, so this is crystal-balling. Ksy92003(talk) 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply When the tell you there is a 95% chance of rain do you leave your umbrella at home and go back to get it when it rains.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't mean anything. Can you prove that Barry Bonds will hit one or two more home runs? After all, Jason Tyner of the Minnesota Twins went 1,220 at-bats career before hitting his first MLB home run in the past week. Who is to say that Barry Bonds won't have a similar stretch? You can't guarantee that Bonds will ever tie/pass the record.
  - As far as your "rain/umbrella" comparison goes, that itself is a weak comparison because even a 95% chance of rain doesn't mean that it will rain. Nothing is 100% sure to happen unless it's 100%. If there is a 95% chance of it raining, there is still a chance (5%) that it won't rain. Long explanation short: can you prove that Bonds will hit another homerun, TtT? Ksy92003(talk) 06:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you saying that you would support the page if I prove he hit 755 and 756 (I.E., after he does so).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No... the event still isn't any more notable than Alex Rodriguez home run watch would be. I'm not sure if you understand that this is Wikipedia, not WikiNews, and that there shouldn't be an article documenting an event that will no longer mean anything when/if he does pass the record. This isn't worth anything more than Miguel Tejada's consecutive game streak watch. Even if it is something that baseball fans are interested in, you can't tell me it's something you'll find in an encyclopedia. Remember: we are an encyclopedia, not WikiNews or ESPN. Our job is to provide accurate information about things that have happened or that will happen, not to provide statistics about something leading up to an event that isn't even guaranteed to occur. And as far as after the record is broken, if it is, this article won't really mean anything any more. I'm not denying that the chase is something that means nothing to baseball fans such as myself, but it's hardly something that could be called encyclopedic information. The article, in its present state, consists of nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of numbers, something which is to be avoided at all costs per WP:NOT#INFO. Ksy92003(talk) 06:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Clearly doesn't meet the criteria for own page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. Some of this bears mentioning in Barry Bonds, but not in anywhere near this level of detail. I agree with BillCJ that this should have been discussed with TonyTheTiger before going the AfD route, but what's done is done. --Sanfranman59 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, are you freakin kidding me? This is very non-notable. If you want this, then keep on your word document at home. Soxrock 01:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well the people have spoken. "Let them eat cake".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has no encyclopedic value, and is really just a non-discriminitive list of information, that won't even be useful when/if Bonds hit 756. Actually, the list isn't really useful right now to begin with. Bjewiki 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not much longer until he hits 756. Wake me up when that happens. Mandsford 00:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with nominator as well. Xtreme racer 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Truest blue 06:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Look, I actually like the list, but for Wikipedia, this is not encyclopedic. Soxrock 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This an encyclopedia not a sports almanac. IvoShandor 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I enjoy the stat keeping and it pleases my inner baseball nerd, wikipedia doesn't need more listcruft. I would hope that someone would save this somewhere for future use and continued addition.Ravenmasterq 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN USERFIED Closing admin may want to note such. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Userfication doesn't preclude it from deletion. User space is mainly for use in improving the encyclopedia, unless I am mistaken. Also, should the AfD tag have been removed from the page, even if it was userfied. I still say delete because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. IvoShandor 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to do anything has been established, although merging can be discussed on the various talk pages since it is an editorial decision. --Core desat 06:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Hopeless WP:OR and listcruft which has no place on Wikipedia. Will ^(talk) 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I admit when I made these I was very unaquainted with policy, and felt it was okay just to dump all my knowledge into an article. However, not all of it "has no place" on Wikipedia. There's an article by DigitalSpy that discusses changes to the films and reactions from fans to them, which is important. I would say that the changes in casting between films is already visually covered at List of Harry Potter films cast members, and it is trivial to list every single character that appeared in the book and not in the film, but some of the really significant plot changes are obviously notable, and can be referenced to that article, and those are the bits of information which I think should be kept in a very limited merge to the appropriate film article. ~~Incidentally, can we merge all five AfDs together? I have the same comments for all of them.~~ Never mind, I see that's what this is. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research, this is research from a book and a movie and thus deserves it own article.→041744 13:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN. Will ^(talk) 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Is a novel position being advanced? I don't see any position being taken. Looks like a collection of verifiable facts to me. RandomCritic 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Thing X happens in the books while it doesn't in the film, therefore it is a difference." is an obvious "A and B, therefore C" synthesis. Will ^(talk) 14:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What position is being advanced in this case? Zakolantern 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR - "The only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." There is no reliable source that directly covers the differences between the book and the film, only the separate sources of the book and the film. These separate sources have been brought together by editors who contribute the results of their analysis, so this article's contents fails verifiability. Even if there was a reliable source that covers the differences, the article should be limited to what that reliable source covers. It is still original research to "pad" the topic with one's own personal observations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to movie articles. A whole article dedicated to this isn't neccesary. It could just be a small section in the movie article. The Placebo Effect 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nice compromise The Placebo Effect. I agree, would be a great addition to the articles. Shoessss | Chat 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with RandomCritic that no position is clearly being advanced by stating as facts the differences between the books and the movies, and while it is true that those differences don't need their own article they should be included in the movies' articles. --Edward Tremel 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think that these articles are helpful to people who don't care about reading, and will probably be edited to the point where the added text will be deleted completely over time. I agree that it is 'kind of' useless to have these extra articles, but they would have a hard time fitting into the articles and what a waste if they were deleted--Kkr ou ni 16:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are well-written, are definitely not original research, and should be very useful to anyone who has read the books without seeing the movies or vica versa.Zakolantern 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:USEFUL. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft and original research. Gnfnrf 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave my (brief) opinion above, but I wanted to ask someone to explain what exactly is OR or SYN in these articles. I read them as a series of facts, that does not conclude or suppose anything at all. It is a verifiable fact that a given event was or was not written into a book or movie. As for Synthesis, I don't see the issue. If the articles proposed that because the given items are present in the book and not the movie, the movie is worse, that would be one thing. If it included unverifiable discussion of dialogue between Rowling and the script-writers, that would also be bad. But I don't see the problem here. Zakolantern 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge Since the article is about an intersection of two articles, it should be in its own article space, and not merged with the film or the book, but be easily accessible from both. Listcruft? The article doesn't even have a list, it contains a table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge This is a well written article. It's arguable that this is excessive information for Wikipedia, however, it is doing no harm here - and unlike a physical encyclopedia, wikipedia is not constrained by space limits. Although this is somewhat esoteric, that's not really a problem per se; while I'd like to see a more balanced wikipedia (eg improved physics articles), pruning one part of the "tree" won't make another part suddenly grow!--RichardNeill 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't do any harm" is not considered a valid argument to keep. The article contains no real-world context that would be suitable for an encyclopedia; it is original research drawn together by the editors themselves without any use of independent significant coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the film articles. Yonatan ^talk 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is pure bullying. This is a fantastic topic for an article and it nicely highlights some crucial points relating to both movie and book. It should not be merged with the movie article, which would suggest that this concept is merely an anomaly. Harry Potter novels are not like any other novels -- they are read and reread in almost cult-like fashion, and the media storm that surrounded each preview and publication date and movie release proves this point. Should it be merged into the movie, it will be lost. These stand by themselves. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith, DRosenbach. Nobody is "bullying" anybody. --Phirazo 04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Great work on this but I think this should be merged with the artical specifically discussing the movie. User:Fabboi03Fabboi03 07:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this needs to be pointed out, but the above recommendation is the only contribution by the editor on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete because these articles are written with original research. The topics fail notability standards because there is no independent, significant coverage from sources other than the editors themselves. Without this coverage, the editors are able to take it upon themselves to report any difference, major or minor, resulting in a compilation of indiscriminate information which has zero encyclopedic bearing. It is very obvious that when one medium is translated into another, many items will change for conventional or creative reasons. What should be reported in an encyclopedic context are explanations why the changes were made, because these differences will have real-world context. These articles have zero real-world context and fail notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and don't merge. These are very useful pages that, if merged into their film articles, would have to be shortened and reduced in detail and size in order to fit within the film article appropriately. Thus I think it's good to have a separate article for each of these. I also believe that no matter what happens, the bigger books (i.e. Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Deathly Hallows in particular) will more than likely need their own article for this anyways, because much more was cut or altered. Might as well keep them all, then, IMO. --midkay 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "It's useful" is not considered a valid argument to keep. Editors personally wrote the content themselves without drawing upon independent significant coverage. The articles are completely subject to the original contributors' whim and has no real-world context, which Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is supposed to contain. This information is fine in a Harry Potter Wikia or a fan site, but the content has no encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Not only is there a bit of original research going on, but it's dangling awfully close to a copyright violation. I just pulled this from the "plot differences section".
Novel
The Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a place called the Railview Hotel, but are soon bombarded with the same letters. They move to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley, and returns Harry to the Dursleys for about a month before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.
Film
The Dursleys leave their house at Number 4, Privet Drive to escape the horde of owls delivering letters to Harry. They travel to a desolate hut on a rock, far out to sea, when Rubeus Hagrid breaks down the door on July 31, Harry's birthday, and hand-delivers the letter, an acceptance letter to the Hogwarts school. Hagrid takes Harry shopping for his supplies at Diagon Alley. It is assumed they spend the time at The Leaky Cauldron before he is to board the Hogwarts Express on September 1.
You can't just copy huge exerts from the book, or a script. I can't verify that they aren't word for word copies, which would be even worse then simply writing it yourself with such details. You need reliably published sources that discuss the differences in the novels and explain why they are important. Anyone can quote a site the lists all the differences. This is merely an indiscriminate collection of copyrighted information. Not only are you not even citing the novel and film (which wouldn't help the situation other than proving that's where you got it), but nothing says why any of this actually matters, except maybe to fans of the books. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I can't quite see how this would be a copyright violation at all. While I'm not saying that the writing of plot details in such intricate detail isn't in violation of other policies like WP:NOT#IINFO, it certainly is not a violation of copyright. The paragraph under the Novel header takes about two chapters in the book, and I can guarantee you on good faith that when I wrote that paragraph it was entirely in my words. The paragraph under the Film header takes approximately seven or eight minutes in the movie, amidst much dialogue. Why would it be a copyright violation for recounting details of a plot? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole is not suggesting that the excessive detail is a copyright violation in the strictest sense of copy-and-paste. However, per WP:FUC #2, 3, and 5, the detail is potentially too excessive, especially per the various arguments that have been presented about the articles failing to have encyclopedic value. In addition, per WP:IINFO #2, the details in the tables can be considered plot summaries as they lack any real-world context or sourced analysis (which does not mean an editor comparing the book and the film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to copy and paste something to be a copyright violation (b/c that would be plain plagarism, since there isn't a source for any of it listed...in this case it would have to be the page you got the information from). But, excessive detail, when you have supplied no justification for fair use (as the book itself is a copyrighted piece of material), you can be subjected to a copy vio lawsuit. A gent was successfully sued for having Seinfeld quotes in a book he wrote, those are one-liners (though he had a lot, which is why he got sued). This page, and the others are entire scenes which are mapped out, detail for detail. You couldn't publish a book that simply laid out detailed scenes from another book, and detailed scenes from a movie and leave it at that. It's not even as simple as one-lined information, there are fully paragraphs of information that do nothing but detail scenes, all the way down to a street name (even when it isn't any different in the film). That's infringing on Rowling's rights, because there's no critical commentary to go along with it to suggest a reason for the comparison. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an adequate description of American copyright law; I can't speak to the laws of other countries. In America, to violate copyright you have to reproduce the text or create a work derivative of it (other than parody, commentary, etc.). Merely providing a description of the content of a story is not a violation of copyright. Copyright protects the rights of an author to the text he or she produces, and the right to create new works derived from the original work. It does not protect the ideas, concepts, facts or pseudofacts mentioned in the work. RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, your have to directly reproduce the text to violate the copyright. Descriptions of copyrighted material do not violate the copyright. Case in point: CliffsNotes. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be considered an infringement, considering how detailed the replication of the book is, and of the script of the film. It's one thing to say "Harry went here in the book, but in the film he went here", and another to start writing out entire scenes in a book, and entire scenes in a film, with no "original commentary" attached. If someone published a chapter of "the Philosopher's Stone", that would be infringing on the rights the copyright. It isn't the whole book. It's created a derivative. Considering this page is a list of "all differences" in these books, and these huge scene descriptions, you could classify the sum as a derivative work. The fact that so much of the text is reproduced, simple to line up with the film scenes, you could (as I said before, "it is dangling awfully close", not it is violating) get pinched for it. It's harder to explain the encyclopedic purposes of that much detail, when the actual difference in the two versions is only a single sentence worth of information in most cases. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, Eric and Bignole. This information has no place in an encylopedia, especially one that is supposed to be free content. Seraphim ^Whipp 14:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Erik and Bignole. I've long felt iffy about this series of articles, but what it comes down to is that these articles are original research by synthesis. It's a great place for nitpicky Harry Potter fans to compare and contrast trivial chunks of passages with the corresponding movie, but it has absolutely no encyclopedic value. I would also argue that it borders on WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INFO violations. María (críticame) 15:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've already made my recommendation a few entries above, but I believe that another argument for deletion is that these articles violate WP:WAF criteria. "Articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, events, or locations should discuss their authorship and their significance outside the narrative." This is not done with these articles. Another WP:WAF criteria: "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information." (Boldface is not mine.) Primary information includes the plot, which is acceptable here, but there is no usage of secondary sources in this article, which is required in dealing with fictional subjects like the books and films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless you use the book as the primary and the movie as the secondary! Shoessss | Chat 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF#Secondary information does not include the film as a secondary source; it is just another primary source, since plot information is being drawn upon from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commenter fails to mention the following:

"Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

This article makes descriptive claims whose accuracy is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; it also makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.RandomCritic 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll yield to this wording, as I did not notice this. However, the wording states for rare occasions, so why again should this be kept? As it's been said before, the translation from one medium to another will obviously have conventional and creative differences. Such changes are widespread among adaptations and do not seem to be considered "rare occasions" of depending on primary sources. There are other arguments that have been presented as well: WP:WAF denotes writing about fiction should include primary and secondary sources. WP:IINFO denotes that writing plot summaries (multiple summaries of multiple parts of the plot here) requires real-world context behind them as they are otherwise indiscriminate information, and WP:NOTE reflects that these topics would only be permissible with the independent coverage of secondary reliable sources, with zero reliable sources existing in any of these articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As Harry Potter is one of the most successful series and franchises, the differences between the books and the films have received much coverage in the mainstream media, from film critics and fans. These articles cover a notable topic, in addition to being well-written and well-organized. The articles may need more sources and references, and those can be found and added. I would not consider the current state of these articles to be WP:OR; all the information presented is directly taken from the books and the films. The articles do not analyze any of the differences or draw any of their own conclusions; all the information is factual. It is verifiable and does not promote any particular point of view. These pages are a good resource for Wikipedia readers researching film adaptions or the Harry Potter series. --musicpvm 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of a topic does not permit one to add their own analysis of two separate sources. This is synthesis, and the lack of independent, secondary sources in all of these articles (except for one, which only cites sources in a small table for the exclusion of characters from a preceding film) fails to grant notability to the entries that the editors have included themselves from their own deduction. With such a system of original research in place, there is no criteria in the form of reliable sources (independent and secondary) to narrow the scope of differences between the books and films to those that can be considered encyclopedic. Here's an excerpt: "The forest in which Harry, Hermione, Neville and Draco serve their detention is called the Forbidden Forest," and "The forest in which Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco serve their detention is called the Dark Forest." There is zero real-world context or notability in such a context because an editor originally contributed this comparison after deducting on his or her own that including the difference was relevant. It's been argued that it is not original research to present information from two sources for the reader to deduct, but it is original research for the editor to subjectively determine if a difference is appropriate for inclusion, void of any backing by any independent, secondary source. Such differences, such as the difference between the names of the forests, teach readers on Wikipedia nothing of their real-world context or notability. I can contest this difference about forest names because it has zero backing, but if there was a reliable source from the screenwriter who explains why the change was made, that is generally impervious to criticism of lacking real-world context/notability. The differences in writing for the film, in my opinion, should be similar to what can be found at Road to Perdition#Writing, a personal example. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous criticism. Deciding what is important to talk about and what's not is a characteristic, not of "original research", but of writing. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia where an editor has not exercised some choice in deciding what to mention on a topic and what not. Are all Wikipedia articles original research then? By commenter's criteria, yes. So let's delete the whole thing.RandomCritic 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not choosing from reliable sources about the topic to include in the article. The editors are dictating the information from their own comparisons of two primary sources when there was none to be had before. Frivolous argument. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However, I would like to see the differences linked to sources. For now, it looks a little like WP:OR. Hervegirod 20:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alot of work went into this and it is all verifiable. I truley don't see the objection to this article!!71.241.249.190 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:EFFORT. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteIt is acceptable to assume that a novel and its movie adaptation will have differences regarding to the plot. However, these differences are prone to original research and do not need an entry in an encyclopedia. Tomj 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another option: I'm fairly sure I've read something about this on [103] or [104], which are "real" sources, and have passed the point of being just fansites, in my opinion, by virtue of being cited as valid sources in multiple major news outlets, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and being referenced positively on the author's own website. I don't have the time or expertise, but someone might want to try to pull information from them to source the articles. NOTE: to verify this, just search for their names in the NYTimes search engine for example. Zakolantern 00:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we definitely rely a lot on the reporting of Leaky and MuggleNet, the reliability of which is explained at Harry Potter fandom. The Harry Potter Lexicon also has a page on changes. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish they'd had something like this when I had to write a book report in junior high. Mandsford 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original argument for the deletion is "original research", but everything listed is fact. There is no room for opinion on the page - scenes were either kept, changed, or eliminated from the movies. Supertigerman 02:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple arguments for deletion, not just the basis of original research. These articles have been explained to fail WP:IINFO, WP:NOTE, and WP:WAF criteria. The information, without real-world context, are indiscriminate plot details, have no independent, significant reliable sources to determine the notability of the information included, and only primary sources have been used in these articles. The usage of solely primary sources referring to each other to convey information about a topic is original research. The simple fact is that Wikipedia should not contain originally contributed indiscriminate information drawn from primary sources instead of verifiable information from independent, secondary sources that address the information's notability and real-world context. That's the argument in a nutshell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep These are helpful articles. Using primary sources is not original research. I think this would be cut from a paper encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia. Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:USEFUL. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Would merge all into a Harry Potter canon article if you want to just keep the major plot and character differences, articles on fictional canons exist for Star Trek and Star Wars. Wl219 09:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You haven't actually given any specific reason why these articles should be kept. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response If people can "delete per nom" then why can't I "keep per other keeps"? Wl219 12:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahh. Ok, that makes more sense then, but it looked like WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote would be more insightful if you explained your views/a good reason for keeping the articles because a few of the other keep votes (for which you are basing your vote) have got very little basis for keeeping the article. Seraphim ^Whipp 12:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response In fact, people can't delete "per nom" as per WP:PERNOM Tomj 13:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well whup-tee-doo, that hasn't stopped those from appearing in AfD. Fine, change my vote to merge to Harry Potter canon. Wl219 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm starting to see a lot of straw men arguments in this AfD, with arguments such as "It's useful, don't delete" and "People put effort into it, don't delete". These types of fallacious arguments don't address the fact that the articles have little or no sources, are collections of indiscriminate information where the writer has used bias/subjective about what to include and there is no critical analysis to justify the use of word-for-word copyrighted material or plagiarised content. Seraphim ^Whipp 10:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not every change is notable, being there will always be differences between medium, and what's important is the why behind the fiction. Alientraveller 11:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they all belong on a fansite and not here. Lugnuts 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Zakolantern. --Philip Stevens 21:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as above this is just lots of original research and in many places seems to try and hilight why the changes for the film create plot holes. Again, belongs on a fansite. Tnomad 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Rewrite: This is not original research, this is merely stating the key differences between the movies and the books. Of course rewriting the articles to shorten it and merging them together would hurt either because it would avoid using too much information for a mere explanation. Just to be clear on things I am the type who would prefer to think on redesigning plans and ONLY use a proposed deletion as a last resort. -Adv193 00:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, after reviewing I would say to just rewrite the articles and remove all side comments to the DVD's and anything that sounds like a simpleton's theory and make into smaller summaries with the least amount of wording possible such as avoiding on explaining it like a book and just explain the plot differences only. -Adv193 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - Individually, they aren't much, but when you take the lot they are kinda notable. So merge everything REALLY worthwhile into one article. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should ofc be keept... They show the differences which are fun to read if you've missed any and shows how sucky the movies are, changing storys and cutting everything out :) ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Merge All - I like the suggestion of either merging all these differences articles into one. Otherwise, merge the information back into the article about the film. Aexia 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does the fact that some of these articles exist in other language versions of Wikipedia have any bearing on this, or any, AfD either for or against? (I preseume a deletion in one article does not cascade to another language, but would rather be AfD'd there.) Just wondering. Thanks. --EarthPerson 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Different projects are allowed to set their own local rules for inclusion. Other than NPOV and adherence to copyright and free content rules, the Foundation does not set content policies, each local project does, so it's entirely possible that a subject could pass one language's inclusion rules but fail another's. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced items to the parent article. WP:NOT a fansite. (That might technically not be in there, but it should be.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason why I also want to go for rewrite in addition to a merge to the film articles is because the current format is too much like a plot summary and may as some people state contains speculation. Instead by trimming it down and only state the main facts it will help put down these problems. -Adv193 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge Per Wikipedia is not for original research. Whispe ring 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is very useful information. I came specifically to this article to refresh my memory of differences between the book and the film. 68.166.88.10 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:USEFUL. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Ursasapien and Zakolantern. Also the articles are really useful and clearly show many differences between the films and the books. - Nick C 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: WP:USEFUL. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge Though not OR, most information in this article is trivial. Anything you can source should be put on the movie's page. There are going to be many minor changes in any book to movie or movie to book translation, as they are different mediums. Unless the director specifically mentions why he made the changes, there is no reason to keep them on Wikipedia. TDS18 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced material into the appropriate movie articles. —« ANIMUM » 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentS. I don't like the form of replying to a whole lot of comments with one liners, so I'll put a lot here. First off, in response to a lot of citing of WP:ATA against "keep" arguments, that same policy includes WP:JUSTAPOLICY which would include the comments by User:Hervegirod, User:Whispering and User:Gnfnrf, as well as to a lesser extent User:Lugnuts. That essay cuts both ways. Next, User:Erik cited above WP:WAF as one of his reasons to "Delete". A badly written article does not mean you should delete that article. Finally, while they are insufficiently sourced now, they CAN BE sourced - User:Fbv65edel above linked to the Harry Potter Lexicon, a valid source, where the site gave a similar comparison. Zakolantern 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These lists are informative, can be sourced, aren't too trivial; no compelling reason to delete. They are way too long for merging, and merging is not a substitute for deletion. Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 01:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabien baron[edit]

Sketchy notability, poorly written Will ^(talk) 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Apparently has some information, but extremely sorry formating. Might be saved but it would take more work than it would be worth.--Kkr ou ni 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probable autobio and essentially an advert. -- RHaworth 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than a resume for a non-notable individual. Maybe he can post this to Monster.com.Montco 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Violates WP:AUTO - the creator's name is BaronBaron. Bearian 13:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, rename to more accurate title recommended. Until (1 == 2) 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK out of town shopping centres[edit]

WP:NOT#DIR, WP:NOT#INFO Will ^(talk) 17:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable directory. Realkyhick 18:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A few facts, which few non-British people will be aware of. There are only about eight out of town enclosed shopping centres in the UK (as opposed to open air retail parks, which do not count as shopping centres in British English, even though they do in American English) - all other British shopping centres are in town and city centres - and under current policy, no more will be built. All of them are notable. A list of them would be useful, as would a discussion of the context in which they are built, and why the were halted. That is what this article is getting at, though it is not quite there. Hawkestone 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added two more, so if I am right about there being eight, only one is missing. It is probably in the Midlands. Hawkestone 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Westfield Merry Hill? However, I would have though Braehead would qualify as well? Pit-yacker 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added both. It must have been eight in England plus one in Scotland. Hawkestone 10:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The title is mis-leading, as out of town for some people will mean not in the town/city at all. The meaning of the word Town can mean either Town Center or the whole city in itself. It mis-lead me at first. I'm from Sheffield and nobody says Meadowhall is out of town. Perhaps it needs re-naming. JacќяМ ¿Qué? 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct title would perhaps be Regional shopping centres in the United Kingdom, as I believe that is what they were referred to when built. However that is also open to misinterpretation, as the largest city centre shopping centres also attract people from a wide region. Hawkestone 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps, i nearly put Delete due to the fact Meadowhall isn't out of town- in Sheffield speak anyway. The title i'd suggest is something along the lines Hawkestone previously suggested, but Regional? Again, this would be mis-leading as the article is about Shopping Centers which are out of the city center. JacќяМ ¿Qué? (My account is playing up, whenever i click edit it is asking me to save it >.<)
Delete, listcruft. GreenJoe 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the current, ill-chosen title includes the word list should not be held against the article. Please judge the topic, not the title. Hawkestone 10:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I think yet another list article isnt the right way forward. We already haveList of shopping centres in the United Kingdom. I think List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom could also, perhaps also do with a little bit of trimming down. How many of the centres mentioned are truely notable? Perhaps one way to go would be to divide off the shopping centres with over say 1m sq ft of retail floor space in List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom into their own section within that article. Pit-yacker 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No, that misses the point. The out of town regional centres are quite different from large city centre shopping centres. They represent one of the most significant stages in the history of retailing in the United Kingdom. They are a topic in there own right. There should be a separate article so that people will understand that they are a discrete topic. Bunging everything together and then imposing irrelevant subdivisions on arbitrary criteria that show a lack of understanding of the topic is the last thing we should be doing. Hawkestone 10:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom if there's anything worth salvaging, otherwise Delete. Other shopping centres, such as the McArthur Glen Designer Outlets chain are as much out-of-town as the bigger ones noted under this article, so even the premise of "there's only eight" is wrong to start with. - fchd 05:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is absolutely right. The McArthur Glen Designer Outlets chain is not the same sort of thing at all. I'm no expert on retailing, but I know for a fact that the group covered in this article is well-defined, and marks a major stage in UK retail history, which was subject to specific government policies. I see no evidence at all that anyone voting delete has any knowledge of British retail history. All the deletion arguments are knee-jerk and generic, based on a lack of understanding of what this article is really about. It's a pity that the original writer wasn't a subject expert either, but that's wikipedia. It would be a travesty of systemic bias to lose an article on a major social and economic trend just because Wikipedia doesn't attract many people who have a good knowledge of business and economic issues (they're all too busy working), while keeping all the pop-culture trivia due to the nature of the user base. I don't read business books, or urban and economic geography texts, but this subject must have been discusses extensively and in isolation in serious publications. I read an article or two about it myself in the serious media, but that was years ago.Hawkestone 10:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Under what criteria? The McArthur Glen outlets, etc. are just as much, if not more so, "Out of town shopping centres". How, under any justification, is Brent Cross or the Metro Centre "Out of Town"? McArthur Glen Bridgend for instance, is out of town, it is a shopping centre, and it is enclosed and not a retail park. There may be a sensible article detailing the history and context of large shopping centres, but a) this isn't it, and b) the criteria would have to be severely re-defined. There isn't any !voting based on British retail history because there's virtually no reference to the history in either the title of the article, or the content. - fchd 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Keep There is a legitimate topic here, the article just needs to move up a level. I will add an "expert needed" tag. Abberley2 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkestone. LukeHoC 23:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of WP:POV fork from List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom highlighted by Pit-yacker . The fact that Brent Cross is classed as out of town when it is in situated in Greater London suggests that this article should be deleted on grounds of original research. --Gavin Collins 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In British retailing "Out of town" means "Away from the town centre shopping district". It has nothing to do with whether or not the location is in a built up area. RegRCN 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments put forward for deletion all seem to be based on ignorance of the structure and terminology of the retail industry. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to dispel ignorance? This group of centres, whatever one wants to call them, certainly exists, has been discussed extensively in serious media as a discrete topic, and occupies a unique place in British retail history.RegRCN 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Out of Town Shopping Centres in UK. Meadowhall is correctly included - while it is in the city of Sheffield, it is not in the city centre. "Out of Town" should be construed as "Out of Town Centre". The article is more than a list, and is largely complete. Peterkingiron 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron. I think this direction sounds much more useful than another list of article. Only one last issue, the traditional wisdom is that no more such centres are to be built. However, where do centres such as Westfield London and Westfield Stratford City come under this definition? As I understand these are both more or less creating new shopping areas that are away from established shopping areas. Pit-yacker 00:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge & redirect. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Maas[edit]

Failed candidate. Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is he better placed on Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election? Canuckle 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election Montco 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 04:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. Ground Zero | t 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge & redirect. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willcott[edit]

Failed candidate. Article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he set a record for the most lopsided loss in a Canadian election.Montco 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Merge and redirect per Bearcat. Montco 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Merge. Bearcat 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. Ground Zero | t 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to keep. Until (1 == 2) 15:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila White (politician)[edit]

Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not inherited. No assertion that multiple failed candidacies are notable. Canuckle 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing more than a career party functionary who lost. Montco 00:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Merge and redirect per Bearcat. Montco 05:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cite specific paragraph and sentence in WP:BIO. Just saying it doesn't meet notability based on WP:BIO is insufficient. Maybe this person did receive a lot of press, which according to WP:BIO#Criteria for notability of people, under the section for politicians which states, "[m]ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage[,]" means she would be notable. To my limited knowledge, she has received such coverage in numerous print TV and radio media, which means she meets the criteria for being included in Wikipedia. I'm not commenting on the quality of the article, as I have had to revert blatant POV on it recently, but that does not mean that you should throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. --Abebenjoe 04:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election (the fact that she was a byelection candidate after the election isn't relevant; we still put those into the articles on the preceding general election.) Bearcat 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perennial candidate. Failing that, merge per Bearcat. Ground Zero | t 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I think Abebenjoe may be right about her coverage in the Toronto media, although the only article I can dig up at the moment is this. --Paul Erik 06:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Sader[edit]

The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Failed candidate. ~~Delete~~ GreenJoe 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) I am amicable with Merge. GreenJoe 04:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a party candidates list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Merge. Bearcat 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is beyond candidacy. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Earl. Ground Zero | t 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 04:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GreenJoe 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable; sources would be good though cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written and informative as well as notable --Childzy ^{(Talk|Images)} 13:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Heath[edit]

Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Published author, major figure in the New Democratic Party and Greenpeace Canada, media commentator, and failed candidate for the Parlimant of Canada. The sum total of these activites makes him notable. How about deleting one of the 36 articles that we have about Category:Star Wars video game characters instead? Ground Zero | t 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; keep. Being a failed candidate for Parliament may not notability make, but it's not Heath's sole claim to notability. DS 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He isn't simply a failed candidate, but is notable for reasons other than his candidacy in Ottawa Centre. Besides the reasons given by Ground Zero, a quick internet search shows that his book appears to have been fairly extensively reviewed/covered in the media (such as the Globe and Mail ([105]), This Magazine ([106])), CBC Radio ([107]), The Ottawa Citizen ([108]), The Hill Times ([109]), Macleans ([110]), tvontario ([111]), etc.). He's been a columnist in a large-City daily, he was the subject of his own media coverage when he worked for Jack Layton (see [112]), and for awhile he was a member of the Macleans 50 ("A diverse field of Canada’s most well known and respected personalities from journalists to politicians offering their comments on the issues of the day, everyday." according to the magazine). I've also seen/heard him on TV and Radio as a "talking head", representing the left on political discussion panels. He's been the subject of published secondary sources, and he's written a book that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews, so he meets WP:BIO. Skeezix1000 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, lack of references means that fails WP:V, not necessarily that it fails WP:OR. Skeezix1000 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Roles and published book do make him notable enough. And even if he weren't, Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 04:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable activist. Abberley2 12:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very active and well known in Canadian politics and green issues. I've added some references, could do with a few more, but there's plenty of stuff written on him and he is clearly notable. --Beloved freak 14:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEak keep Several siginificant positions, significant activist and has sources which means it passes just the notability line.--JForget 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Lavigne[edit]

He's a big nobody! Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the question of whether Mr Lavigne meets notability standards, I don't see how this would count as Original Research. DS 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources cited. GreenJoe 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's WP:V, not WP:NOR. Bearcat 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Does the position as Communications Director mean that the subject will be constantly in front of the media or does it mean that he writes press releases in a back room in Ottawa? The chairmanship of the Canadian Federation of Students could confer notability as the head of a significant national lobbying organization. It would be nice to have references to show any notable actions taken by the organization while he was in charge. Montco 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs improvement, certainly, but his current role and his past as chair of the Canadian Federation of Students are both notable enough for a keep. Bearcat 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as communications director has a very public role. - SimonP 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EarlAndrew, Bearcat, and SimonP. Obvious public figure. Bearian 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bearcat. --Paul Erik 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WEak Keep per Bearcat, this is just (by a hair) passing notability.--JForget 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per unanimous vote except the nom. Non-admin closure.--JForget 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monia Mazigh[edit]

Failed candidate. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monia Mazigh is notable for reasons beyond her candidacy for the NDP; in particular, it was her repeated insistence on government action that led to the Maher Arar scandal. Keep. DS 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as borderline notable. Finsihing third is seldom notable unless you are Ralph Nader but the affair with her husband's detention and her fight to have him release may push her over the top. I just wish there were more references about the case. Montco 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes her husband notable, not her. She in herself isn't notable. GreenJoe 00:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will respectfully disagree with you. While her husband was incarcerated, she was the one in Canada going on TV, doing interviews pushing for his release. As a result, she was the one profiled in various news outlets and commentary pieces. Her notability may have originally derived from her husband's case. But she seems to have staked out her own niche and the totality of her background satisfies me.Montco 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This doesn't seem more notable then her despite the record of failed candidacies--JForget 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep or + Merge and redirect (but certainly not delete) to the Maher Arar article. ~~She may not be quite notable enough for an individual~~,

It meets just enough the notability criteria, if not kept it certainly certainly merits a large mention must be mentioned in her husband's article due to reasons explained below.--JForget 00:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've mentionned about the Afd at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa considering she has the People from Ottawa category despite not having the Ottawa Wikiproject tag on the talk page.--JForget 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think her prominent role in the Arar affair is sufficient to warrant an article (albeit brief), even without the subsequent candidacy. -Joshuapaquin 01:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable because of the Maher Arar matter. And even if she weren't, Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 04:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Arar scandal was one of the most major news stories in Canada throughout 2005, and Monia Mazigh played an important role in the case. Being a federal ~~Liberal~~ NDP candidate doesn't hurt, either. --Gpollock 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She wasn't a Liberal. GreenJoe 04:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow you're fast! I just came back to fix that. --Gpollock 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her NDP candidacy was very significant. That the NDP would put forward someone with such conservative views (e.g. on gay rights) suggests a tendency within the party to compromise on long-held principles in order to take up the mantle of "anti-Islamophobia", etc. - Mcasey666 06:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Read up on WP:NOR. Mazigh quite clearly stated during the campaign that she would respect and vote according to party policy when it conflicted with her own personal views, so there wasn't any compromise necessary. Bearcat 07:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than just a failed candidate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Arar case was a huge human rights case in Canada and her campaign, albeit unsucessful, was big news in the 2004 Election NDP Johnny 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than meets notability requirements for her key and highly prominent role in the Mahar Arar affair.--Slp1 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 06:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Forum and All New York Forum[edit]

non notable website--004p 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very notable IMO. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikidudeman. Too new to be notable. Needs some more extensive coverage. WP is not a newspaper nor a links page. Delete but do not "salt", as it may become notable in the future. Bearian 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat^♫ 23:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Gray[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -community involvement and candidacy make article relevant NDP Johnny 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidacy does not make one inherently notable. She serves on some community boards. So do I. But that doesn't necessarily confer notability. She volunteers for community organizations and for a political party. Very laudable, but do do hundreds of thousands of people. The totality of the bio paint the picture of a very involved and active person. But it doesn't make her notable. Montco 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete as stated by Montco.--JForget 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she's the leader of a local party and current candidate for a national parliament. Bearian 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed local candidate, and no accomplishments outside of local politics. --Calton | Talk 01:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep borderline case needs better sourcing to establish notability, YWCA award needs sourcing, Gnan garra 11:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Cotterill[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 20:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't see how this counts as original research. Secondly, Cotterill helped found the CCF and the CLC which thence became the NDP, which has been a significant factor in Canadian politics. Keep. DS 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In dire need of sourcing, but was a key time in CCF/CLC history and Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan says he co-authored an extensive history with Bill Davies [113], Canuckle 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there is some sourcing. Assertion that he co-founded the movement isn't even supported by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation article. References for his involvement in this merger would be helpful as well. Montco 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he was one of two candidates for the leadership of the Ontario CCF in 1942. That makes him notable. Ground Zero | t 15:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the content in some form. As always, interested editors can further discuss merging versus retaining a separate article, but that doesn't require an AfD. — TKD::Talk 10:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Belanger[edit]

He's a big nobody! Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's be civil now. He is of course widely-quoted due to his job. However, a quick scan didn't turn up more than trivial or partisan mention of notable accomplishment in his role as spokesman. Failed candidates of course are not inherently notable. Canuckle 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election. This seems to be the consensus for candidates for the Canadian House of Commons for the major parties. --YUL89YYZ 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While most of his media mentions I saw are simply being quoted, I could argue that his job as a "front man" for a major party leader is relatively significant. The person responsible for spinning the party message before the public is in papers and on TV a fair amount. Correct me if I am wrong.Montco 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian electoral candidates are never deleted from Wikipedia. If they're not deemed notable enough for their own articles, then they get merged into a list such as New Democratic Party candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 04:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. Ground Zero | t 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable: press secretary for a national party. Bearian 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston and Steve[edit]

Delete - Not Notable, they are just a one market radio show. If they were in numerous radio markets then that would be notable. This site should not include every local radio show in the country, just the well known national ones. Hndsmepete 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't within the scope of this page - articles go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, moved from WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable radio show. They have their funny moments, but they don't really make the standard on notability.Montco 05:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this nomination is nothing more then a bad faith nomination, and should be considered borderline vandalism. The user who put this article up also put the talk page up for deletion [114], the user also list himself, [[115]], as a fan of a raido show, Opie and Anthony, that competes directily with this show on another station in the same market. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your evidence that this is a bad faith nomination is that he didn't use the right process and that he is a fan of another show? Looking at the talk page, one other user suggested that the show was not notable. Is that bad faith on his part as well? Has this user been involved in any vandalism or edit warring on this page? If its a first nomination, it may very well be a mistake that the talk page was put up. In any case, my delete vote will stand. People are throwing out this bad faith crap a little too liberally. Montco 13:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is indeed a well known show on a station that is consistantly rated as one of the top rock stations in the country. We keep hundreds of articles on less notable entertainment issues, such as tv shows that are cancelled after 6 episodes. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 13:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This radio show is consistently in the most popular downloads in iTunes comedy section, they have been the subject of multiple nationally syndicated publications (including a recent mention in People magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal), and are the top-rated morning show in one of the largest radio markets in the United States. The article may need some cleanup and proper citation, but there is no way it should be deleted. 52.128.30.23
Keep - IMHO a bad faith nomination. --ukexpat 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This radio show has significant influence in the Philadelphia region, has ties with many charitable and civic organizations, and through their daily podcast via iTunes reaches a global audience. The article is useful, factual and informative. Dmundy 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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