< September 22	September 24 >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep. John254 03:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1982 in motoring[edit]

procedural nomination Nominated for WP:PROD deletion in Nov 2006, then again 20 Sept 2007. PROD nominator states: "Too vauge for an individual article, fails WP:NOR, unsourced as well". I personally do not agree with the 'too vague' notion, but the format is distinctly different from other "year in XXX"-type articles. Likely the best outcome would be to reformat to something like 1998 in architecture or 1998 in art and source line items. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss format on the talk page or start a project. this is not the place. DGG (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs improvement, specially for Global coverage but is a good basis. Malcolma 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good potental. -Icewedge 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs relaible sources but has great potential and considering what the article is talking about cannot see that it could possibly be considered unverifiable. Davewild 19:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be seen as a relevant article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.203.196 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 page, r3 unlikely redirect, WP:SNOW -- obviously, we can't have competing articles just because someone doesn't like the existing article. NawlinWiki 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete IG-88 Page[edit]

Not sure whether this qualifies for CSD under A7 -- does it? Anyhow, trivial material with no real-world notability. User previously added some of this trivia to IG-88 base article, which was removed as non-notability trivia. Branch article containing even more trivia is superfluous; link to Wookieepedia sister project at IG-88 is sufficient. EEMeltonIV 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, none of the CSD really apply. Deletion would seem so uncontroversial as to warrant a quick closure though. Thomjakobsen 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I CSD'd it once for lacking context, but am fine having everything out in an AfD discussion. This page seems unecessary and boldly claims it's intent to not follow content guidelines: "It is intended to be complete and detailed rather than a summary". This is an encyclopedia - summary is what we do. Natalie 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of material seems to be better covered at a fan-based wiki. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one page per Star Wars droid is enough. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gaaack, why do people not understand what Wikia is for? I dearly hope the editor is question is younger than 12. Alba 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deactivate and sell to the Jawas. One article is sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IG-88 is the appropriate title for information on this subject; there is no need for a second article with a title people are unlikely to type into the search box. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request quick delete per WP:SNOWBALL. --EEMeltonIV 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for a duplicate article. You know your article is on shaky ground when you feel you need to state your justification for creating the article in the introduction. 23skidoo 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greek exonyms[edit]

Although it's interesting to see how Greeks refer to places outside of Greece, I don't see how this gazetteer-style article can be considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is neither a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, and the information in question is wholly unreferenced. I note also that the article is part of a larger series of lists of exonyms (see List of European exonyms) which all seem to suffer from the same problem. Rather than bring them all here in one go, however, it would be useful to first get the community's view on the merits of this article as an example of the genre. ChrisO 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I was planning on nominating these myself a while ago, the main problem is that this is the English language Wikipedia, so lists of translations from a foreign language to another foreign language don't belong here. I would support deleting all these lists, except English exonyms, which of course does belong in an English language encyclopedia. Masaruemoto 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, tag for cleanup. Do we have a better way to cover this? CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the problem; it's plainly not encyclopedic, but it's unclear where else (if anywhere) it should go. Perhaps Wikisource? Though even then, it would need sourcing, which it plainly doesn't have now. -- ChrisO 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have little doubt that sourcing could be found - see WP:DEL#REASON where the guidelines suggest deletion because of "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". I seriously doubt the former is true and it's obvious that the latter is false: Nearly any Greek language atlas, travel guide, or newspaper - or even the ministry of foreign affairs which is on the web - would easily be sourcing for any modern names. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep toponymy is history, toponymy is encyclopedic. Exonyms often are evidence for cultural or historic ties between the name-bestower (here, Greece) and the current location. Note the huge number of places in Turkey - strong evidence of the Greek cultural influence and long period of rule by Greek-speaking people over the region. Carlossuarez46 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps this article should be cleaned up to refer only to cities with Greek interest (Greek past/Greek influence/large Greek population) in order to be within the realm of an encyclopaedia, but definitely don't delete it.-- Avg 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbreak and Triumph[edit]

"Heartbreak and Triumph" is a book about a professional wrestler which seems basically promotional in nature. The Wikipedia article seems similarly promotional and/or fan-created, but more importantly it does not seem to pass our notability guidelines for books. There are five criteria by which a book could gain enough notability to warrant an article, and this book would only seem to have a shot at the first one. However I don't see any reviews of this book at all, i.e. I'm not finding any serious discussion of this book in "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." As it is therefore not-notable by our guidelines, it needs to be deleted. If others disagree and the article is kept it at least needs a serious rewrite. The current version is full of incomplete sentences. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:ADVERT. The citation at the Shawn Michaels article is quite sufficient, and any biographical details are already covered more neutrally there. Gordonofcartoon 00:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - [1], [2]. Well, I did find a couple secondary sources/reviews for it and it was released by a major house, but I don't think it survives WP:BOOK as written. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, many celebrities have these sorts of promotional biographies; they're generally not notable. NawlinWiki 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shawn Michaels' article. Simple as that. Fhb3 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as simple. As it stands, the article is completely unencyclopedic: He's "The Showstopper" who pushes his high-flying abilities to the limit in the squared circle, on ladders, and in steel cages and the like. Once you trim out all the bombast, all you've got is the same material as at Shawn Michaels. Nothing to merge. Gordonofcartoon 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was transwiki. WjBscribe 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vin (word)[edit]

Although I see the advantage of having a page here rather than there, Wikipedia is WP:NOT wikitionary. shoy 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a word-buff, I hate to see stuff like this disappear. Maybe it can be transwiki'ed, or added to the Vinland article, as that appears to be the strongest point on the nominiated article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Bearian 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary:vin, which is already linked from Vinland, and delete.--Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vinland as-well-as Transwiki to wiktionary:vin.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger completed. Sysops - Please do not close this AfD discussion until transwikification is complete. Bearian 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Definite Keep. Slartibartfast (19 92) 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mulligatawny[edit]

This article has no references to prove its notability. I have an opinion that could only be called a weak delete, but it is still a doubt of whether Wikipedia should include it. I've opened this discussion to see whether any doubts as to its notability are confirmed or not. Slartibartfast (19 92) 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources: Here, here, here, here. It was also featured in the Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" episode. A quick search is recommended before putting things up for deletion. Thomjakobsen 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked out the article talk page, would I be right in saying it's put up for AfD because they wouldn't let you keep the Seinfeld reference? Thomjakobsen 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look at the talk page after Thomjakobsen's comment, I think Thom may well have hit the nail on the head. Sounds like a good reason to close this discussion early before anyone else's time is wasted, as I now feel mine was. Even sounds like a possible WP:POINT violation. Noroton 23:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. Please don't accuse me of doing this just to settle a point. Now that you mention it, that may be an unconcious motivation for this, but my primary motivation was that I sincerely had doubts. If you believe that you should close this prematuraly, however, please do. Now that I think of it, that may be the best option. You are perfectly right in supposing it may have influenced me though. --Slartibartfast (19 92) 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Not only is it notable, as a simple Google search shows, but it was so notable in 1955 that someone from The Hartford Courant used it as a metaphor (which indicates the author thought just about everybody would understand the reference): There are three new, spicy additions to The Political mulligatawny in recent days: President Truman's pointed endorsement of Governor Harriman: Governor ...October 11, 1955 Noroton 23:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thomjakobsen. We have at least 147 articles about kinds of soup. This is clearly a kind of soup. As Thom mentions, this soup was mentioned in a specific and humorous fashion in the legendary Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld. Thus it is probably actually one of the more "notable soups" out there by our standards, though I sincerely hope that no one has taken (and will never take) the time to write up a specific notability page for soups. I don't think we're that bored yet.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOUP! j/k. But, this is clearly a notable soup, appearing in many cookbooks and magazines in many variations. I was surprised to see articles on it in the NY Times and Jerusalem Post, to name two.--Sethacus 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, my doubts have definitely been destroyed. Think it's OK if I just close this as keep right now? --Slartibartfast (19 92) 23:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Definitely no soup for you! Thomjakobsen 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep, as there is a consensus that the sources added to the article during this discussion are sufficient to establish the notability of this term. John254 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative liberalism[edit]

This sounds exactly like Classical liberalism or Libertarianism. There are no references to show that any such variant of liberalism is separately recognized. Alksub 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly for the reasons Alksub gives. It is interesting that many European political parties are listed. Perhaps "conservative liberalism" is a term used in Europe. If so, prove it. Noroton 22:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed conservative liberalism is a well know ideology in Europe, as it is clearly described in the article, and, as it is a different concept to liberal conservatism, it deserves a Wikipedia article. --Checco 23:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless it can be sourced. Keep. it's been sourced. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, appears to be WP:OR. -- Kesh 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Classical liberalism or Libertarianism for good measure. If someone thought that this phrase was important enough to have an article about it, it is probably at least a well-enough used phrase/descriptor for something that exists under more common names that a redirect would be warranted. Perhaps also merge additional pertinent information if there is any. LaMenta3 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Does not seem to be enough information here to warrant a full article, but seems to be enough importance to deserve a placeholder. Perhaps a sub-heading under a larger article would be appropriate. Do not claim to be an expert in European politics, but if people will be searching for this term and expecting to see a particular political party, perhaps add a disambiguation page for parties that identify themselves as "Conservative Liberals." Ben P. 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is oft-used in Europe to characterize a separate brand of (European) liberalism. The term has been used by prominent students of European political parties such as Peter Mair and Michael Gallagher. I have provided some references now, but we can certainly find more. Note that if a term is only used in Europe (or even in non-English languages) this does not warrant its deletion (see the non-deletion of translating "law" in different European languages and the article Rechtsstaat). A merger/redirect with libertarianism would be mistaken (and very American POV), because of conservative liberalism hard stances on war, multiculturalism and crime. C mon 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is commonly used in the UK (part of Europe). And we speak English the last time i looked. Operating 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is such a philosophy, and there are sufficient differences with classic liberalism to warrant an entry, although it does need referenced.Traditional unionist 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the burden of proof is now on the proposer. References seem to indicate notability. If the page is not kept, please do not redirect as the term appears to have a distinct but related meaning and redirection would convey the sense that the two are identical. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a well-written article which explains the fine distinction between this and other related ideologies. Colonel Warden 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons above. BTW Conservative liberalism is not the same as libertarianism. That is a misunderstanding with American libertarians. Electionworld Talk? 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This philosophy is mine. It is most accurately described in The Economist newspaper. It is essentially right wing economically (privatise everything) but left wing on social issues (ban hanging and guns). Liberalism means different things in Europe and the US which may confuse some. Operating 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it more so that the political center of gravity is shifted towards conservatism in the US (or towards social-democracy in Europe depending on your point of view), than that liberalism being a different on each side of the pond? --Victor falk 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. They're two different concepts. For example in Europe liberalism means less State intervention and free trade, in the US it means basically more State intervention and protectionism. --Checco 02:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, moderate (centrist) Republicans and Democrats are equivalent to (have the same political goals as) "the Right" in Europe (conservative and liberal parties), while left-wing Democrats are equivalent to the European social-democrats and socialists. --Victor falk 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as you see. Moderate Democrats are not liberal (neither in the American sense) indeed (liberals in the US are similar to social-democrats, that's true) and they are fairly more left-wing than European conservative and liberal parties on many issues. For these reasons I can't understand what you're arguing. --Checco 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated previously. Better sourcing would help, though.--JayJasper 12:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C mon. --PaxEquilibrium 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C mon. —Nightstallion 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dabeli[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how-to guide, nor a cookbook. shoy 22:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 copyvio of [3]. --Alksub 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. from nom: Author has rewritten to avoid copyvio, but nomination still stands. shoy 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks as a recipe.Change to delete. Seems to have been transwiki'd.--Sethacus 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This page has been transwikid to b:Transwiki:Dabeli – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it's been transwiki'd. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really an encyclopaedia article, much better suited to Wikibooks. --Nehwyn 10:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Dublin Male Voice Choir[edit]

Non-notable singing group; 1 non-wiki ghit does not show notability. Contested prod; contesting editor added external links, but links do not show notability of this group. Fabrictramp 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The group hasn't achieved the notablity criteria yet. Maybe in the future, but not yet. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Mavourneen 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable at the moment, and WP:Crystal Ball means we can't say yet how they will develop. Best wait until they actually do before creating an article. Benea 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it pains me so. WP is not a web host for new musical groups. I will try to rescue this one, but no promises folks. Bearian 21:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have searched for sources, but I can't find any i'm afraid. My vote can be changed with reliable sources. Fosnez 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Unclear if this is a tv show, a website, a wrestling promotion, or what. Article can be resubmitted if it can be rewritten to provide context and, more importantly, reliable independent sources showing notability. NawlinWiki 05:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% Lucha[edit]

I wasn't sure if this could be a speedy delete, so I listed it here. I think the article's about a wrestling TV show. Terribly written. Terribly formatted. Most of it is a list of names. The only source is a redirect (???). Yeah.. it's pretty bad. Rocket000 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the formatting issues; still, most of it is a list. ♠TomasBat 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Google search with "100% Lucha" -wiki yields 1540. Some of the Top hits were from YouTube. Then again, google test is not exactly absolute and I don't understand the Spanish language. Maybe native speakers can analyze the hits obtained from my search keywords to avoid systemic bias.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, Google did not help. Carlosguitar 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I didný have time to translate it. It's just a small insight..can someone help me to edit it to fitness? I am new at wiki, also how can I post this articlre on spanish wikio? Thanks InfoLove —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoLove (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe it could be merged with Mucha Lucha? --Gp75motorsports 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I know It's not so good by at least it's something.....Your don't have info about this...I am just tying to bamaek a better encyclopedia.plus... Mucha Lucha??? this is a live wrestling show!!! Bye Info Love —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoLove (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 12:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator X (software)[edit]

No assertion of notability; unreferenced original research. Every piece of open source software is not worthy of an article. /Blaxthos 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recury 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:ORG. Google did not help. Carlosguitar 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of free audio software. Carlosguitar 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Valdez[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No sources. Google search turns up nothing substantial (beyond MySpace). Search of xmradio.com for "Valdez" produces nothing. Article mostly created by User:EricV89, so likely autobiographical. At best this appears to be an 18-year-old disc jockey just getting started in the business. Not to be confused with another Eric Valdez, a somewhat more notable newspaper reporter. Ward3001 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenceable vanity bio.--Sethacus 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:NN, no WP:RS and WP:AUTO/WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Possible hoax—a Google search for his "syndicated show" returns exactly one hit: this article. Precious Roy 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Can be reposted if the party ever does anything. NawlinWiki 02:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parti unitaire du Québec[edit]

Non-notable group. Since registration as a political party in 2005, I cannot find any information suggesting it has had any activity. It has never run candidates for election and has no website. It appears to exist on paper only and fails WP:ORG. Galteglise 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN. Also this article is completely unsourced. meshach 20:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Galteglise. The French Wikipedia suggests that party leader Louis-Marie Thiffault intended to be a candidate in the March 2007 election but did not due to hospitalization, and this party didn't exist in the elections of 2003. If they do something in the future, this might be sufficiently notable for an article. Accounting4Taste 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Salt Lake City School District#East High School. GRBerry 01:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East High School, Wasatch Front[edit]

It is already mentioned in High School Musical and 2 Plus, it doesn't provide any notable information Domthedude001 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect What's the phrase about notability not being inherited? Delete it, unless something other can be brought to light. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mention in High School Musical 2 is all that is needed. Lots of films are shot in lots of places, not everywhere can be notable. Wstaffor 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Benea 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yngvarr. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Salt Lake City School District, where there is already a more substantial piece written on it. Chris 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Salt Lake City School District as per Chris. No need to keep one-line stubs that would only disappoint readers searching for an actual article. Noroton 14:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Chris. Twenty Years 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I worked on Salt Lake City School District back in 2004, when it seemed like a bad idea to create articles on every high school in the nation. It's still a bad idea because of how it divides eyeballs and watchlists. Even if few others follow this solution, it's a good one and has worked for the Salt Lake City schools. No useful content here. Just delete and redirect. Cool Hand Luke 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (West High)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 05:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarin Technologies[edit]

Precious stone company that fails WP:CORP. Notability to come. Gavin Collins 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. I was afraid they were manufacturing the nerve gas Sarin. Mandsford 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then you'll love their sales pitch: "So, before deciding, make sure you're using Sarin."--Gavin Collins 08:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect all to Chthonic. Not really notable otherwise, overwhelming (yet at the same time, strangely underwhelming) consensus to redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Su-Nung, the Bloody String[edit]

Redirect all and remove the links to them from Chthonic (band). cab 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allas being non notable outside the context of the band. Nuttah68 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (Exalted)[edit]

Non-notable fictional city that fails WP:Fiction that has no real world context, analysis or critism. Lack of secondary sources is not compensated by in universe descriptions that read like Fancruft essay based on Original reasearch. --Gavin Collins 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Definitely does not meet WP:FICTION, per nom. - Rjd0060 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, you're being more discriminate, at least. Anyways, this article does fail WP:FICT (which does apply here) and WP:OR. --UsaSatsui 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already said, obviously fails WP:FICTION. Wstaffor 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1906 (film)[edit]

The result was Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, due to the film's 2009 release date, insufficient reliable sources (rumors in Time magazine are not enough). Also, there is scant information on the IMdB page to verify (even assuming that it may be reliable sometimes) that the film is actually going to be made, that it has a plot, or that it is in production. This closing is made without any prejudice to a re-creation of the article after a few months' time, and confirmation of important details, as noted. Bearian 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

WP:CRYSTAL - article is a recreation based entirely on rumors from fan sites - no reliable confirmation or sources from Disney/Pixar/Bird. "Reference" only mentions rumor, no confirmation. If the film does come to be, then by all means I'm for recreation, but for now, this is clearly WAY too early to have a page based on a rumor posted on a fan site. Delete MikeWazowski 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Comment: False nomination. Article is sourced in Time Magazine. Please read carefully before making hasty moves. —scarecroe 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure about above comment. Where on the page is there a source to Time Mag? Anyways, article based on rumor and speculation. Agree with nominator; Violates WP:CRYSTAL. This article should never have been recreated (as of now). - Rjd0060 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, there is no violation. Information comes from Time Magazine. Pick up a copy and read it. —scarecroe 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now While the one external source seems to quote Time, it is missing a key piece, a release date. No prejudice towards recreation once more info is known.--Sethacus 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Pixar until more reliable sources write about the film. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs to be tagged properly. The film is listed as 'in production' on IMDB with Brad Bird as the director, and that's enough to satisfy me. Wstaffor 21:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is in no way sourced by Time magazine. The provided reference (a blog, mind you) mentions an article in Time (which can be read here, and *some* of the entries in that blog post reference the article, but not the entry for 1906. There is no mention of 1906 in the article, and according to a post on a separate blog, these references came from magazine specific material, which ALSO do not mention 1906, as discussed here. I would suggest that scarecroe, as he so eloquently commented, pick up the magazine and read it himself before telling me something is there which clearly isn't. Also, the IMDB is not always accurate, especially on future releases - they have been known on many times to post rumored cast and crew lists, as this info *is* by and large submitted by the general public. MikeWazowski 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again, the Wikipedia bullies come out in force. I no longer have that issue of Time magazine, but I read the article myself. The linked time.com article is not the same as what's referenced on Slashdot. —scarecroe 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't aware that presenting the facts was bullying. And your reading comprehension is truly astounding - the article I linked to is without a doubt the one mentioned in the referenced link, which by the way is on Slashfilm, not Slashdot - they're two completely unrelated websites. Had you actually read my comment above, you would also have noticed that the Upcoming Pixar link reprints the magazine-only section, which does not mention 1906. I have no doubt that you mistakenly believe you actually read something in Time that backs you up, but the evidence does not support your claim. MikeWazowski 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far by the looks of this discussion, the user who is against the deletion (the creator) does not want to discuss any valid points that anybody makes. This article probably would have met CSD as stated below, but for some reason it was AfD'd again instead. There will be no problem recreating this article if/when there are reliable sources with confirmed information about the film. In addition, Scarecroe, accusations of bad faith reverts and warnings are disruptive. You are clearly violating policies by removing deletion templates, and that doesn't help this process, and certainly doesn't help your case in defending this article. - Rjd0060 00:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4. This article was already deleted after a valid AfD. No further verification has been provided. Dean Wormer 23:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, possible Speedy per WP:SNOW. Only source is a blog-style posting, no reliable sources cited. -- Kesh 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pixar The TIME archive has no reference to the movie. It already has what little info there is in the Pixar article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...it all seemed pretty iffy...then I found this. Still looks like WP:CRYSTAL. Smashville 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stumbled on this through random links. Found the info through a quick search on imdb for Brad Bird, here. It's a real movie, but it's not coming out until 2009, apparently. Also, Brad Bird confirmed it here, so I don't really see why it wouldn't have an article... Bouncehoper 07:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of those links work.--Sethacus 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDB isn't a source. And my server won't allow me to access youtube, although the above poster says that link does not work. Smashville 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fixed the links; they were just formatted improperly. I didn't look at the YouTube link, however, the IMDB link seems to only confirm our deletion reasoning, and that is WP:CRYSTAL as the IMDB article says "Because this project is categorized as being in production ... some data could be removed completely.". - Rjd0060 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, I see. Thanks for fixing the links. I'm surprised, though, that IMDB isn't a source. I'm pretty sure it is, as we link it on so many pages. If it wasn't a good source, why is it on pretty much every show/movie page? Bouncehoper 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Well, IMO, IMDB should never be used as a primary source. I would only use it to back up something from a more notable source. So in this case, I would say IMDB is not proper. Maybe you could review the information concerning IMDB on the 1st AfD nomination of this page. There is a link towards the top of this discussion. - Rjd0060 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Fredrick day 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge with an appropriate article. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation and crystal balling. IF anything is ever covered by a reliable source the article can be recreated. Nuttah68 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete per WP:NOT and precedent (or rather the consensus that those demand deletion). There are appropriate places for this but Wikipedia is not one of them. Eluchil404 05:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 Attack Casualties[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a memorial. shoy 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately, this does fall into the category WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. - Rjd0060 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. I'd say speedy per WP:SNOW if I could find the precedent AFDs to link to (I know there are several). Darksun 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, memorial page previously rejected by consensus. See Wikipedia:9/11 victims and its Talk page for more information. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DRV discussion about undeleting the articles here, and a 2006 AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines Flight 11 victims (both sparked by lists of victims for the London bombings). --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Took some digging, but I finally found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: Pentagon (though not the VFD for Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks: City of New York, oddly; both were transwikied to the sep11 memorial wiki). We also had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persons missing after the September 11, 2001 attacks and a few others. An instructive counterexample is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-American casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where does WP:NOT stop being about misc. material in memorial, to actually being factual, certifiable, and useful? There were issues like this during the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, and I simply cannot accept the catch all rebuttal that any list in effect creates a memorial purely for emotional reasons, and does not actually forward articles. Too often WP:NOT is brandished, and limits the knowledge base itself. While I agree that this particular list is in need of help, I do not think this AfD is appropriate. Zidel333 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does nothing but list the victims of the attacks. That information might be useful in an article such as September 11, 2001 attacks, but not as a stand-alone article. Either Merge the information into a suitable article, or simply delete per WP:NOT. -- Kesh 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kesh. The content is useful, but the article is unsourced and a POV fork. Bearian 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this should be speedied under CSD G4 given Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_11_victims. Darksun 07:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really deleted by consensus, it was speedied at the request of the author. shoy 12:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like a pretty clear consenus before it was speedied though. However, if letting this AfD run it's course will help to build a more complete consenus then keep it running for the full 7 days. Darksun 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unhelpful list and Wikipedia is not memorial. Carlosguitar 18:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or weak keep This list seems like something some researcher might find useful. Tiptopper 20:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong (very close to the speedy) Delete It only shows the victims from Flight 11 only consisting of a list of nn individuals and also WP is not a memorial.--JForget 23:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 05:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mqalo[edit]

There isn't even an article on the Amakhuze Tribe... Domthedude001 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CS and WP:BIO. No notability of the subject. And the nominator has a point by saying that there isn't even an article about the Amakhuze Tribe....perhaps it's not notable either. - Rjd0060 19:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BIO. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cabinet member established notability. Edward321 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO political office. Note that there is a section on the Amakhuze tribe which should be split out to its own article. -- Whpq 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of government for a major regional assembly of a large nation. Nuttah68 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Non-admin closing per policy, obvious keep consensus. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Julian Nowowiejski[edit]

Completely unsourced, doesn't assert its NOTE, poorly-written. NB: the notability requirement is that it asserts its notability by citing several independent and reliable sources. Simply saying "bishops are notable" is not meeting the requirement. Sorry, bish! --Porcupine (prickle me!) 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator). Yes, it is a substub, but it is obvious that a beatified bishop and a historian is notable. Also, a cursory check of 'what links here' will reaveal the article is listed on the list of missing subjects of the Polish Biographical Dictionary. If one doubts that such a person is notable, please read WP:BIO - something I'd highly recommend to anybody dealing with prodding and AfDing. If one wants to see the article expanded and or reference, please tag it with ((expand)) and ((Unreferenced)), and/or request it on article creator's (mine) talk page or on discussion pages of relevant boards (ex. WP:PWNB). Templating the regulars and wasting their time (I could have expanded the article instead of writing rationale for this vote) is not advisable (per WP:DTTR and so on).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I think notability is achieved since the subject is a Bishop of Płock. Anyways, it's a stub, and has potential to grow. - Rjd0060 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tag it properly instead of delete. Notable person since he is a bishop and beatified person. Visor 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and deserving of an article, even if there's little content at present. --Michig 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being raised to bishop isn't notable? Hmm, well, when you are raised to the title of Bishop, and beatified at that, then we can debate the notability of being a Bishop. I find numerous references on Google, but since I speak only English, cannot state anything further than that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think easily meets notability, and since has already been stubbed, this is a strong keep. Wstaffor 21:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Visor above. I fail to see any impetus for nominating an article for deletion before it has even had time to develop. Personally, I believe there's far too much stock put in saying "no" (delete and "speedy!" delete) being a positive contribution. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, prodding the article within 2 minutes of its creation is really... something. A little more patience would not go amiss...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bishops are notable and nominating such an article so soon after it's creation is out of order too. Did the nominator look for any sources himself before wasting everyone else's time here? Nick mallory 00:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bishops generally receive enough coverage to establish notability and this one is even more notable than the norm. Davewild 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singerman list[edit]

I can't follow a word of this article; it may be a hoax, I simply don't understand its meaning. It's certainly unsourced and doesn't assert its notability. Porcupine (prickle me!) 19:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Very poorly written stub. No sources. Really, cannot understand the article. - Rjd0060 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Page now seems to meet WP:STUB. - Rjd0060 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/~~Merge~~. Robert Singerman wrote ANTISEMITIC PROPAGANDA: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RESEARCH GUIDE which catalogues antisemitic works. 'Singerman' seems to be used fairly commonly to refer to this work, e.g. here. May be better to merge into Robert Singerman and redirect. It clearly is not a hoax.--Michig 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it now justifies a separate article, so Keep.--Michig 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~/Keep Best to merge and redirect, I think. I think it could be okay to Keep as well, but the article clearly needs renaming and some work to show that this catalog system is notable in its own right. Wstaffor 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest changes seem to merit a Keep to me. Wstaffor_talk 04:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - To me the meaning of this article is fairly clear, it's a cataloguing system for antisemitic publications. One could compare it to the Messier catalogue for astronomical objects, or the Köchel catalogue for works of Mozart. However, those two are widely used within the academic fields, there is less evidence of this catalouging system being used, other than a statement saying it's use is 'extensive' among dealers. A cleanup of the article and better sourcing is required. Darksun 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Merge - I also wonder if it overstates its usage. I've tidied it a little to make the intro clearer. Gordonofcartoon 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a separate article for this seems excessive in the absence of widespread use. thee are hundreds of these bibliographic numbering systems. Thisis not even the only one of his, there is also "Judaica Americana: A Bibliography of Publications to 1990, complied by Robert Singerman, which identifies 6512 "American publications of Jewish interest" DGG (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is only a stub. Also, this in fact is what's used by any professional rare book dealer who wishes to identify an item. ISBN numbers do not exist for 19th and early 20th century books. So if you say "I want Singerman 0123", the professionaql knows exactly what you are talking about. It's roughly equivalent to an ISBN number - and used for early books when the ISBN System was not yet invented. Ludvikus 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed substantially the ((stub)), and its name, to "Singerman list." Ludvikus 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly not a hoax. Whilst I subscribe to none of the views contained in the subject matter. This encyclopaedia is about recording "facts" and thus these facts should remain. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of it isn't in doubt: the issue is whether it's sufficiently notable in itself to be a separate topic from its creator. Gordonofcartoon 13:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be useful reference for the Anti-Semitism related articles. Appears to be notable Alex Bakharev 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Highway System chronology[edit]

Has been PRODed twice: first in May by SPUI with the rationale "Will only duplicate information in individual articles" and more recently by NE2. The (extremely incomplete) list could be considered cruft, and I feel that SPUI's rationale is right. Since this has been PRODed twice, I believe it needs a full AFD to settle things once and for all. —Scott5114 ↗ 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's incomplete, as already stated, but it is interesting. I know that's not justification, but can this be converted into a "timeline" format, and then merged into Interstate Highway System? Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. In the unlikely event that it were to be completed, it'd be quite huge. (I just noticed it gave the commissioning date of I-264 as being in the 1940s - not possible, the system wasn't created until 1956!)—Scott5114 ↗ 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roadgeeks (like me) both eat this stuff up and go too far for encyclopedic purposes. This falls under the latter more than the former. The IHS is probably worthy of a History of the Interstate Highway System page, with an embedded timeline of major events, but I'm not sure we have any purpose in archiving the start dates of individual numbered Interstates, especially as e.g. I-90 took some 34 years to complete coast-to-coast (see Interstate 90 in Idaho). --Dhartung | Talk 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual highway construction/completion dates will be in the individual highway articles. Significan system milestones will be in the system article. Plus, I seem to recall reading somewhere that stand-alone timelines as articles are not looked upon kindly. --Polaron | Talk 00:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to be. No Interstate numbers were defined before 1957; a new piece of I-69 opened in 2006. The construction history is complicated enough that we can't meaningfully pull out a few dates and list them. We need to cover the details in the articles about the roads, and important dates (oldest road on the system, first completed transcontinental route, etc.) in the Interstate Highway System article. --NE2 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Interstate Highway System. --Son 13:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Polaron said above, completion/assignment dates can be found in the individual articles. Also, if this list was completed, it would be too cumbersome and confusing (in the case of roads such as I-95, which is still not fully completed) to be useful. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is - as mentioned above - redundant to the article infoboxes master son^{T - C} 03:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helvenston et al. v. Blackwater Security[edit]

While Scott Helvenston and Blackwater Security are both individually notable, this suit, which is still in progress, is not. It has very few sources, no real assertion of notability, and was flat out cut and pasted from the Scott Helvenston and Blackwater Security articles. I already had to take out a whole bunch of irrelevant, POV sentences. What's left is not enough to keep. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I've seen the lawsuit covered in the MSM. If there is a notability criterion for lawsuits I'd like to be pointed to it, but I've seen news items with far less coverage than this be deemed notable here. Pete.Hurd 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thousands of lawsuits get announced yearly, for breaches of contract, defamation, tort actions, etc. That does not give them any standard notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment but how many lawsuits get launched over (allegedly) sending people four under-equipped guys into Falluja that then get killed and hung from a bridge (31 March 2004 Fallujah ambush), sparking Operation Vigilant Resolve etc. etc. etc? Are you saying "meh, just another uninteresting lawsuit" or are you saying "It's obviously very newsworthy, and has been since it was filed in 2005, and might seem important over the next few years, but a hundred years from now, the 31 March 2004 Fallujah ambush, and Operation_Vigilant_Resolve will belong in encyclopedias, but the lawsuit will have vanished into insignificance"? My question about standards of notability was meant to ask something like "Is there a WP:MUSIC, or WP:PROF equivalent for lawsuits?" Coverage of the suit by the International Herald Tribune, ABC Primetime, The Nation, The Guardian (by Terry Jones!?) all makes it seems like it's far more notable than the average "breaches of contract, defamation, tort action" etc. Pete.Hurd 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm saying something in between. (And no, there doesn't seem to be a WP:MUSIC/PROF for lawsuits). This case will not have any notability until AFTER it is decided. The opinion is what makes a case important, and there is no opinion yet. Perhaps in 2 years when this is decided and possibly precedent, it will be noteworthy, but until it is, it's simply a complaint, an unverified complaint. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that something like Ken Burns saying that we can't establish the importance of a jazz musician until they've been dead for a while and history has rendered the verdict on their music? If the lawsuit is covered extensively in WP:RS media, with many pundits musing over it's potential impact upon the industry as a whole then does that not amount to notability? Are OJ's and Michael Jackson's legal problems outside the purvue of an encyclopedia until the judge brings down the final gavel? Pete.Hurd 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that SCO v. IBM, SCO v. Novell, and Red Hat v. SCO are not notable (and ought to be deleted also)? Pete.Hurd 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added citable sources to the requested ((fact)) tags. Notability has been establised, not least by this House of Representatives document as well as The Guardian and ABC News. - Fosnez 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More sources: The Age: Families sue US firm over Iraq murders; WaPo: Iraq Security Contractor Countersues; The News Observer: Blackwater loses appeal in deaths of four in Iraqi city, Families can go forward with suit. And it took me all of two googlings to find that --Victor falk 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to plenty of reliable sources (stretched over a period of 2 years and internationally) to pass any notability guideline. Davewild 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous replies, seems solidly notable. --Gwern (contribs) 22:08 24 September 2007 (GMT)
Keep Not sure why this was nominated for deletion, to be honest. --The Cunctator 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Provinces Of Sergana[edit]

This is a detail from Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses. It appears as if the author of this article is trying to create a fictional universe-type entry for what seems to be a literary device. At best the facts relating to this fictional country should be merged into the book's entry. CobaltBlueTony 18:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge As it stands written now, the article is highly misleading, IMO the Infobox implies a state of existence beyond reality. If the information actually is relevant to the book, merge the text to the book's entry. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because the fictional country does not seem integral to the plot of the novel, I think that any information about it can be merged into the main article.--Danaman5 18:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And the infobox is ridiculous. This is a trivial part of the book. MarkBul 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably merits a sentence or two in The Satanic Verses but on its own clearly violates WP:FICTION Wstaffor 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - Can someone speed this along its merry deleted way please??? - CobaltBlueTony 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The result was Delete. I have removed one extremely long comment as mostly a copyvio, it can be checked in the history. Fram 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patchouli (band)[edit]

Does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. Self-published band that does not seem to have any non-trivial mentions in independent notable sources. Google search for their most recent album results in 92 hits; the previous album results in 171. Members' previous bands (Aunt Betsy, Be Safe Be Seen) do not appear to be notable either. ((Notability)) tag removed. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I want to make it clear that I am also nominating the following articles:

Aunt Betsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Water (Aunt Betsy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wails (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (another Aunt Betsy album)

... discospinster _talk 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Interesting that citation tags were just removed several times without discussion or explanation. Bksimonb 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of 'em. No sign of notability. MarkBul 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wstaffor 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, please do not "vote" more than once in this discussion, and note that restoring a deleted article will bring you dangerously close to vandalism. bikeable (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: As you noted, you are not familiar with Wiki policy. The first tag, asking for citations, contains a link that suggests self-published websites are not usually considered reliable sources, and that third-party publications would be better evidence of notability. The ((Notability)) that I placed contains a link that clearly lists the criteria for notability of musicians (e.g., "subject of multiple non-trivial published works") . If there are "countless articles written about Patchouli all over the Internet", the tag would encourage you to include them in the article. Instead, the tag was removed without explanation.

Secondly, the author of the page was User:Fleet Pete and I did in fact place a notice on his/her talk page, here. ... discospinster _talk 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am sympathetic to the WP:MUSIC issues associated with a band that is running on its own and has its own label; these folks appear to have been around quite a while and played a lot. However, aside from the Radish article, which has its own notability problems, I see little evidence of notability. I would encourage supporters like Richard1959 to add more references to published reviews or articles, preferably in recognizable media. Number of shows played and number of albums self-released are not likely to satisfy notability, at least under current standards. Non-trivial media references are the way to go here. bikeable (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While not a major act, the very thing that makes them notable as per the first of Wikipedia's band notability criteria is that they are clearly documented by easily recognizable national media sources. That said, some better citation and actual links would bolster their case. The fact that an independent group has achieved this attention from hard work is certainly a case for notability that separates them from bedroom musicians using false or unprovable claims to gain a Wikipedia entry for publicity purposes. I'd say the article is in need of revision and firmer citation, but not deletion. Dead-Air 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "easily recognizable national media sources" do you have in mind? A three-word mention in the Tallahassee Democrat hardly counts! bikeable (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Vanity non-notable band. Keb25 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think User:Richard1959 must be connected personally to this band; there is thus a conflict of interest with respect to this discussion of deletion. Even under the Maiden Rock, Wisconsin page there were attempts to include Patchouli. I guess if he is well connected to the band there should be more notable reviews available that he is aware of.Wildwalleye 17:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, when adding sources, could you provide a link to the original web page or a date or other information that would allow others to verify it? A sentence fragment out of context isn't a reliable source. It does seem that Patchouli has had some media attention, but it's hard to tell how much from these excerpts. Thanks. bikeable (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might I remind Keb25 and everyone else that WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest explicitly discourages use of the term "vanity" in discussions about any article, under the general principle of WP:AGF. Bondegezou 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the Aunt Betsy pages. I know little of the Patchouli duo except that they are in fact an active band (check out their website including tour info). As for Aunt Betsy, can someone explain the rationale for the deletion of these pages? Although the band is long gone one of the CDs is still for sale. I started the pages, but received no comments on my talk page. One of the criteria on the WP:MUSIC page is that "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" (although this is apparently a disputed criteria). It is clear that both of these bands have had national tours. Comments? Wildwalleye 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — Wildwalleye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ok, I'm responding to myself. It seems that Patchouli is pretty small-time. If you follow the WP:MUSIC guidelines I would agree that it doesn't qualify as notable. Wildwalleye

Comment. How do Aunt Betsy satisfy the music notability criteria? There is nothing in the article that addresses anything on the list, and a quick search of Google does not bring anything up either. The article just says that they're a folk group with three albums and the following members. ... discospinster _talk 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree then. Aunt Betsy (and Patchouli for that matter) do not satisfy any notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. Under the reasoning stated under the AfD, it should be deleted then. As a side note, wish I knew about this before spending time creating an entry (my first). The guidelines under WP:MUSIC are there for a reason a seem to work quite well. However, it also seems important to document other, lesser known and independent bands (I'm not referring to every high school garage band) that do not sign with major labels (indy or otherwise). Perhaps this information can be conveyed in a more general article and not under the categories addressed under the notability guidelines. I don't know. Wildwalleye 17:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does the fact that I do not have any other edits (indicated by the sig bot above) have any impact on deletion?Wildwalleye 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does, in this case. ... discospinster _talk 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ok, given the citation below by User:Richard1959, I think there is enough to justify notability. The Pulse is a decent music newspaper for the Twin Cities. The 2-3 newspapers also represent credible sources and indicate a legitimate band. Wildwalleye 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned comment added by 64.53.142.175 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Richard: I'd like to see the Patchouli/AB page stay as well, but so far there has been nothing notable presented. I can't find any newspaper articles on AB, for example, since it was from the mid-90's. I've been looking for Patchouli articles too to help you out. In the end, if there are credible sources, the article should stay. I'll keep looking; you do the same. Wildwalleye 12:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reviews show notability (from Richard1959).

Weak delete - I agree with bikable, I am sympathetic but see little evidence of notability. Sorry, but for me, it's a delete. Irishjp 12:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable per WP:MUSIC. Nothing amongst the extensive cutting and pasting offers an indication of notability. Numerous gigs at local coffee outlets and libraries implies the opposite. Nuttah68 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I agree with Mavourneed, there are 93 names on the list of killed patients. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this instance. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Wantz[edit]

Delete: Non-notable just for being a patient of Jack Kevorkian. Already listed as such in article. Mavourneen 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I would like to see a one-sentence summary of the patient's ailment included on the Jack Kevorkian article, to serve as an example of the reasons for euthanasia. Ditto for the other nominated JK patient articles. — RJH (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. There is a long list of patients in the article. Perhaps one or two of the better documented cases can be included in the article as examples, but not all of them! Bksimonb 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People: there are 93 names on his list of patients. We cannot and definitely should not be picking and choosing, which is what the creator of these four articles (so far) did. They are all either equally notable or non-notable. We can't merge and redirect 93 names, can we??? Come on! Common sense. Mavourneen 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By "merge", only information which would improve the Kevorkian article need be retained; we're not talking about the entire articles. As for redirects: they don't need any maintenance and take up a trivial amount of space, so what's the problem, given that these are plausible search terms? Redirects do not have to be notable, they just have to be plausible search terms connected to an article which does have a notable subject. Thomjakobsen 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person is not notable. Being in the news and dying does not make you notable. MarkBul 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This is all sourceable info on Kevorkian, and can be used to make a more readable middle section of that article (currently a list). Same goes for the other three patients listed for deletion. Thomjakobsen 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is information invaluable? Jack Kevorkian is an extremely controversial doctor and there are people who research this. Students, psychologists, and medical professionals to name a few. The information listed in these articles will soon be nearly inattainable. These articles have no negative impact on Wikipedia whatsoever. Information, regardless of how arcane, is the basis for Wikipedia's creation. Just because many people haven't heard of something doesn't make it unimportant. Niels0827 15:24, 23 September 2007 CST.

Niels0827 is the creator of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this comment directed at me? I think we agree: I'm arguing that the information is valuable and that it be used to improve the Kevorkian article. "Redirect" would mean that people searching for an article on one of his patients would be led to Kevorkian's article. Thomjakobsen 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Niels0827, you make several arguments which have been discounted for the purpose of Wikipedia deletion policy:

It's useful. That may be true, but we use notability, not utility, as a guideline.
We could lose the information. That may be true, but we are not a repository of last resort. Please consider another venue such as a free web host.
It isn't hurting anything. If violates policy, it should not be kept, otherwise it undermines the effectiveness of our policies.
Wikipedia is about information. In a sense, true, but it is by core principles about notable information from secondary sources.
Topics are important whether people have heard of them or not. This may be true, but the importance must be demonstrated by independent and credible sources. There are newspaper articles on these individuals, doubtless, but they are not themselves important for more than one thing -- their association with one particular doctor.

Please consider how these policies apply to this article. We understand there has been good faith effort here, but that is not a reason to keep an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I agree with Mavourneed, there are 93 names on the list of killed patients. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this instance. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Ann Collins[edit]

Delete: Non-notable just for being a patient of Jack Kevorkian. Already listed as such in article. Mavourneen 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kevorkian. We're not going to have an article for each patient. Qworty 20:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some are more noteable, such as if there was a court case around their personal death or something- don't know if there have been. But often in the UK there are court cases around self-confessed incidences of euthanasia/mercy killing, or a lot of press attention to them. I don't know enough about it but obviously if any of them had lead to a court case or been in the press more, they're more notable. I'm not recommending probably that any have an article, but that some have more importance in the kevorkian article than others, and perhaps not all should be listed or have much written about them in that article.Merkinsmum 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? No we don't normally have arcane, unattainable info on here. You could make a geocities or whatever website of your own.Merkinsmum 23:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm going for delete because as well as being non-noteable, I'm also concerned for any siblings or other family she has, that it might be painful to have this here. It also covers and mentions allegations that never went to court, such info isn't usually included in WP articles.Merkinsmum 12:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong do NOT redirect. Although the sentiment that this article would perhaps be viewed as painful to Ms. Collins surviving family is understandable, wouldn't it also be quite feasable, perhaps even MORE feasable, that a family member who types in "Barbara Ann Collins" in a wikisearch, only to immediately be directed to the page of the man who they may perceive (or to be fair, may not) to be an assistant to murder, as potentially even more painful? The persons that Mr. K. assisted are not notable in and of themselves to others outside their respective circles, unless a court case and verifiable, reliable sources as to those cases, can be cited. She should be listed with the others AS IS with no separate article, and no redirect. (I vote delete for all four recently created articles) Keeper76 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: to Kevorkian article. --Sc straker 04:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a redirect here. I find it highly unlikely that someone will be searching for information about "barbara ann collins" that wouldn't be able to also type "Dr. Kevorkian" in a search. Ms. Collins has no notability outside of this event other than to her family, and someone using wikipedia to "research" her surely would be know to find the info by searching for Dr. K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper76 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I agree with Mavourneed, there are 93 names on the list of killed patients. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this instance. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Warnock Hyde[edit]

Delete: Non-notable just for being a patient of Jack Kevorkian. Already listed as such in article. Mavourneen 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all such people as non-notable. MarkBul 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with MarkBul. Delete all of them. That's what Kervorkian tried to do, after all. No, but seriously, the 93 patients should be merged to the Kevorkian article or to a separate list, not have individual articles. Qworty 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect or Delete No single pages for all of these "victims" (?) Tiptopper 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete'. I agree with Mavourneed, there are 93 names on the list of killed patients. I don't think a merge is appropriate in this instance. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Elaine Adkins[edit]

Delete: Non-notable just for being a patient of Jack Kevorkian. Already listed as such in article. Mavourneen 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jack Kevorkian. Plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is information invaluable? The creator simply has not yet created articles on the remaining names. That doesn't mean he won't. Articles don't create themselves overnight. In addition, the creator doesn't spend every waking moment of his life in front of his computer editing and creating articles. Jack Kevorkian is an extremely controversial doctor and there are people who research this. Students, psychologists, and medical professionals to name a few. The information listed in these articles will soon be nearly inattainable. These articles have no negative impact on Wikipedia whatsoever. Information, regardless of how arcane, is the basis for Wikipedia's creation. Come on! Common SENSE! Niels0827 15:24, 23 September 2007 CST.

I'm not entirely sure that you meant to say "invaluable"... - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. I'll tag the article for clean-up per the comment below. Eluchil404 06:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combots[edit]

Article was created by the owner of Combots and serves as an adverisement. Run Amok 17:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though the creator is connected with Combots, this does appear to be a good-faith attempt at an objective article. It's not blatant advertising, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Article creator is walking on a fine line, but as long as he gets a bit of Mentorship (and maybe a ((Welcome))), I think Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should keep the article safe for now. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FAITH and Exit2DOS2000's welcome. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. NPOV failures are rarely sufficient cause for deletion, and there is a plethora of sources available on this topic, so it is not inherently a WP:NOR violation. There is clearly no consensus below that Wikipedia's editors can't handle this and are better off without it. GRBerry 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views about women[edit]

This article is inherently original research. Kww 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a little bit more justification, since people think that I misunderstand what the AFD process is about. To my mind, reliable sources for this topic would be academic publications by non-Christians. I don't think that such sources exist on this topic, so the article can't ever meet standards.Kww 12:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You would just need sources that stand up to WP:V, in other words, sources that do fact-checking. Sure, the faith of the source can skew things a bit, but that just means you need to find a more detached source (who still may be Christian). It's kind of like saying you need non-Americans to write the article on the United States, or a cat to write the article on Humans. Come to think on it, I'd like to see what cats say about us. --UsaSatsui 06:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust an article on American history that only used American sources, and I think the whole existence of Christianity is a result of humans being incapable of being objective about humans. I don't think that Christian sources need to be excluded from this article, but they would need to be balanced.Kww 13:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slipping out of smart-ass mode for a second...let me clarify, your position is, "I'm not sure that Christian editors can ever be NPOV about a Christianity-related topic, therefore I feel the article should be deleted", right? That runs off the assumption the editors -are- Christian...but then, non-Christians can't write a balanced article either, can they? You're also assuming Christians are incapable of any sort of scholarly detachment...that's not true. Finally, if you were trying to learn something about a certain topic, who would you believe had more info on it? Someone involved with it, or someone outside of it? --UsaSatsui 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a little different than that. I'm certain that an article about Christianity based exclusively on Christian sources cannot be trusted, and I see no evidence that non-Christian academics have published sufficient material to balance the Christian sources for this article.Kww 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic books don't generally come with a statement of the author's personal beliefs, so I'm puzzled by the labelling of all such books as "Christian sources". Articles reflect the range of available secondary sources. If you have a personal belief that all available secondary sources on a particular topic suffer from systemic bias, then that itself is original research unless you can provide reliable sources backing up your claim. If not, this is special pleading. Thomjakobsen 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an increasingly active topic in theology and gender studies, so academic sources undoubtably exist. Whether they're currently being cited in the article is another matter, but not relevant in a deletion discussion. Thomjakobsen 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE POV seems a little strong in this article. Don the Dev 17:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-referenced articles are inherently NOT original research. Cleanup and more inline citations would help, but I see no reason to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article was a summary of scholarly works about Christian attitudes towards women, it would not be OR. It is, unfortunately, a list of actual Biblical references that the editors are interpreting themselves. That is virtually the definition of original research.Kww 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article since its' inception is nothing more than a "push" towards womens rights to exercise authority in the church. The vast majority of the citations are from a few "fringe" authors ie. Staggs,Kroeger hand picked specifically to push a feminist pov. This article is in my opinion hopelessly lost to ever being npov. All one needs to do is look at the edit history. At the very least it should be reduced to a stub.--A B Pepper 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article text is currently biased, that's a reason to work towards improving it, not a reason to delete. This is an extensive area of study, so there's more than enough secondary literature to remove any "original research" problems. A controversial topic, which is all the more reason why we need an article on it. Thomjakobsen 19:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomjakobsen. I understand your position that the article is "salvageable" But here is the problem. Look at the text of the article prior to me beginning to edit. After I made well over 100 edits in an attempt to move it to neutrality a small number (3-4) "hardcore" dissenters would remove a multitude of the edits at one time without explanation. Every edit I made was individaul and not a article wide with an explanation for each. If another editor disagreed with a specific edit they had the opportunity to revert and give a convincing and plausible explanation. But this was not the case.--A B Pepper 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles evolve by consensus, especially controversial ones like this. You appear to have made a large number of controversial edits (i.e. edits with which other editors could reasonably be expected to disagree) without first discussing them on the talk page, which is bound to upset the people already working on the article. I suggest discussing the changes before you make them, and if a neutral compromise doesn't emerge, read through some of the solutions in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It might seem difficult, but articles far more controversial than this (textbook example being Abortion) have made the transition from POV battlegrounds to reasonably neutral articles, so I don't see why this one should be any different. Thomjakobsen 19:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomjakobsen. I understand the idea of building a consensus on the talk page but this article literally had hundreds of very subtle errors all engineered to direct the reader to a particular pov. That is why I made the edits on an individual basis with an explanation for each. Albeit, there certainly is a handful of my edits that were themselves erroneous but anyone from a npov who did a sampling of my edits and the explanation would not find reason to revert it. --A B Pepper 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through your edits on 22/23 September. The problem, as I see it: (1) Lots of deletions were made over a short period, without consensus. An explanation in the edit summary might be sufficient for a small number of changes, but mass deletions are considered disruptive because of the amount of work involved in challenging so many changes en masse. A revert is probably justified if a controversial article is having information removed so quickly; if you think your reasons are valid, you stand more chance of people reading them if you discuss first. (2) A lot of these deletions are summarized with inflammatory remarks ("Click . . . Bye-bye" etc.) It would be difficult for an editor to assume the deletions are in good faith in the face of that kind of language. (3) On at least one occasion, Satan himself is accused of writing part of the article. Unless you have proof in the form of an IP address, it's hardly a neutral rationale for a change and again is going to stir people up the wrong way. Short story: take things slowly, and discuss changes. It's the only way towards neutrality on such a controversial article, no matter how many "subtle errors" you think it contains. Thomjakobsen 21:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not inherently original research. See all the citations and references in the article. Trying to delete the article may be POV pushing or part of an edit war, the solution to which is NOT deletion. A topic worth considering since much of religion is about the relations of the sexes--notice the excitement the topic engenders. Hmains 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article pertains to roughly 2/3 of those comprising Christian congregations. For the first several years of this article's existence, there were no citations. Then, as editors began cleaning up the article and adding credible citations, as well as filling in some blanks, probably those serious about responding to pleas for Cleanup and Citations came from an Egalitarian viewpoint. There is need for more input from the Complementarian viewpoint; nothing prevents that if intelligent, capable editors with some semblance of "couth" would begin adding material. Things were going well until one new editor (using 2 different user names) began pushing a fundamentalist agenda (further to the right than Complementarian) and was totally obnoxious and uncouth with his Discussion comments as well as his Edit summaries. Probably no one wants to enter that kind of fray.CME GBM 19:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using two different user names? I was unregistered now I am registered. "pushing a fundamentalist agenda" So, you are of the opinon that the article in its prior form was predominately a "liberal agenda" and that "fundamentalists" should be excluded from editing? Do you CME GBM prefer censorship over a balance article? "Totally obnoxious and uncouth, enter that kind of fray" I looked at the talk page, you "attacked" me personally here is the first line: "How come you stay anonymous? It's cowardly for you..." --A B Pepper 19:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OR? Not really. This is a rather heavily debated topic. NPOV could be an issue, but that's not really a reason to delete. The fact that this article is heavily edited and currently protected kind of makes my spider-sense tingle, too...--UsaSatsui 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your spider sense is wrong. I noticed the article because of the request for protection, but when I looked at it, I decided it should just be deleted. As I said in another place, if they were summarizing scholarly views on Christian attitudes towards women, it would not be OR. Since they are directly interpreting Biblical passages themselves, it is OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I still think your timing is pretty bad. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I am sorry for the personal attack Kww just made on [User:UsaSatsui]]. That just further shows how important this topic is--to bring up ugly comments like that. This topic is about people, relationships, religion, pride and prejudice. I like the way it's developing, although it clearly needs ongoing work and greater balance. I know of no where else online that one can go to find this much information on this topic from reputable sources. But I, for one, choose not to make any further efforts so long as User:A B Pepper, aka 75.132.95.79, viciously attacks users. We don't need to have insult after insult piled on us for trying our best. Here is a sample from the article's discussion page and Edit summaries:

"Man was created in Gods' image, woman was not,"
To another User "You are an absolute fool,"
Writes of me "This rebuttal from oberlin I submit as exibit "A" as to how Satan uses women to pervert scripture,"
Writes to User AFAProf01 who has clearly tried to make significant contributions to this article: "I submit Afapro01 as exhibit "b" as to why women are not to interpret nor exposit scripture and should sit down and keep silent,"
Refers to the article as containing "erroneous exposition and garbage,"
Refers to writers as "Baby" as in "That's the problem, Baby,"
Told another user to "Now, sit down, listen, and learn. I teach, you listen. It is a one way street,"
Indirectly calls another user a liar by asking, "Why can't you just be honest?",
Labels the article a "playground for feminist point of view,"
Writes "Kick and scream all you want baby but I do have all the answers",
Recently wrote that this article is "totally corrupted by feminists wishing to hoist their point of view upon the readers of this article. Back, back, back where you belong. A man of God is here and the game is over. Now, sit down at the rabbis feet. Keep silent, listen and learn;"
Makes personal attacks on Joyce Meyer, Dr. Catherine Kroeger, and others;
Repeatedly has used the bizarre signoff "Good Bye......CLICK" and threatened to take out of the article everything he considers offensive, etc.
Addressed an editor as "Satan" 04:15, 21 September 2007 75.132.95.79: "Satan, this is not the place to insert the JEPD theory"

The above, and still other comments from this User, are crude, rude, offensive, and THIS USER EXPANDS THE DEFINITION OF "DISRUPTIVE." Oberlin 21:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the comment he made was a "personal attack" at all. I stated (in a roundabout way) that I felt the nomination may have been influenced by the protection, which implies there's a heated debate, and someone may be trying to circumvent the debate through an AfD. He replied that it wasn't the case. In any event, I fail to see how the actions of one person have to do with the article itself. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is hillarious and I cannot deny it. ROFL "cough" "gag" OMG ! I am choking on my own spittle! But I consider your comment on the talk page about my comment "rude and crude." Have you ever heard of the "clean hands" maxim in jurisprudence? Now you oberlin,.. cme gbm,... and I am waiting for afaprofO1, are attacking me the editor personally. The subject here is whether or not the article should be deleted. Stay on topic baby. If your beef is with me then use wikiquette.--A B Pepper 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out any personal attack that I made? I don't believe that I made one.Kww 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You questioned his spidey-sense. In some parts of the world, that kind of talk could get you killed. Thomjakobsen 21:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some other parts, having spidey-sense can get you killed. --UsaSatsui 22:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, as it's obviously a very important topic. Yes, the article has a lot of original research... but it also has plenty of unoriginal research, and I don't see what good deletion would do. We can't do much while the page is protected. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs a lot of improvement not deletion. I also notified WP:CHRIST about the Afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add dissenting views. we do not delete for POV problems. DGG (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok, I haven't read the article. But the subject is certainly worthy of an article. There are a lot of sources, and a lot of sources available. Any problems of POV, synchronistic Satanic influence, demonic possession of editors, or religious bondage fantasies should simply be worked out. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious bondage fantasies eh?........................Is there a newsgroup dedicated to that? :-) What?..I was just asking.--A B Pepper 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears early in this debate that the consensus is to keep the article and I am inclined to agree. The issue to me with regard to keeping the articles is with its' present form or more particularly the form prior to my edits. Being new to Wikipedia I would like a few suggestions as to how to keep such a highly charged subject (which need not be) neutral. I am personally contending with four different editors all who obviously have a feminist agenda and have "latched on" to this article to exposit their pov using "extremist sources" and "fringe theories". The answer certanly is not "Which ever position has the largest number of adherents wins." If there were a few neutral parties monitoring the edits and the descriptions as to why the edit was made, this seems to me to be a solution to the problem. But, it seems to me a lot to ask considering there is over 2 mill. articles in english alone. I am open to any recommendations.--A B Pepper 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes goes into detail on this. There are informal and formal procedures available. In the meantime, I'd lay off on the accusations of extremism and the condescending language. If you want a neutral, balanced article, that's not the way to go about doing it. Thomjakobsen 12:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a preliminary review of Wikipedia resolving disputes and I am thinking that adding it to wikiprojects may be the best venue since it is not an issue merely concerned with one or two facts.--A B Pepper 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion has already been brought up on the talk page of WP:CHRIST. That's probably the best place to ask for more editors to get involved with the article. Thomjakobsen 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the article is terribly POV (and I can't even help here, as I share the article's POV), but the topic is important and easily large enough for its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is notable and should exist. I see no reason for it to be deleted as it's very important as far as religious articles go, especially christian articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ironically so, as I was the first person to have brought this to VFD (that's how long ago I did it). - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afaprof01 who requested that this article be protected has been silent

This whole issue started when afaprof01 requested protection for the page which drew the attention of kww. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A B Pepper (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at the history of the article, it has seen better days (as little as a few weeks ago [4], but I don't think it should be deleted solely due to recent problems Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at that article from a few weeks ago. And you think the following is appropriate?

"The home of believers, the private sphere of women"

"those who offered homes....assumed leadership roles"

"a missionary partner with the apostle paul" oh,and btw the husband of aquilla

"organized gatherings within her home" the biblical text twice says; their home

"traveled unaccompanied without male restrictions"

"phoebe...traveled without a male companion"

"phoebe....central in pauls plans for a mission to spain"

"phoebe...who preached and taught"

"phoebe...meaning leader and president"

"the office of deacon....associated...with women"

And this is all the errors under one heading. citation of extremist sources and their fringe theories is not wikipedia reliable sources.

You have a peculiar way of looking at things x-whatever. I will forego commenting any further on your competence. I will allow the evidence to speak for itself --A B Pepper 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the relief of many of you and particularly afaprof01 who went into hiding when this article came up for deletion, I think I will be moving on to other more pertinent areas in my life. I may make an editor here or there or I may not. Frankly, I have become bored with the subject and the format. afaprof01, I give you back your article. I know it is the only outlet for you to vent your frustration. I suppose maybe even your husband doesn't listen to you??? With regard to Wikipedia it is a very unusual format. To some extent entertaining. But, Wikipedia has no enduring substance. I have been working on a commentary for 8 months on the pastoral epistles and when published it will not be corrupted, edited or perverted by editors but will remain a legacy of my doctrine and theology. I have enjoyed the last few weeks but have been disappointed that no competent opponent apparent had surfaced. I leave with this final query. Is an encyclopedia to be based on facts, yes, or no? I exhort you to take a look at the content of the heading just above that x-whatever cited as being better two weeks ago. Under one heading were ten, no less than ten factual errors. Absolutley verifiably factually erroneous. Is that what Wikipedia is meant to be? ......CLICK.....--A B Pepper 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tricky one. Looks like it is notable, but would urge more sources. It may be that in a month or two that this goes back to AFD if none are provided. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Irelands (GAA Club) Kilkenny[edit]

Unnotable club Domthedude001 17:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: No notability; tagged page WP:CSD#A7. - Rjd0060 20:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that being DJ Carey's club would qualify as a claim of notability at least, and as such have removed the speedy tag. I'm going for a weak keep and expand. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stifle(and of course, expand and reference). Not all GAA clubs are necessariy notable, but the fact that it is DJ Carey's club will mean there are going to be news stories out there. I'll add a few references. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm prepared to be convinced that the club is sufficiently widely recognised if reliable sources are provided. However, as notability is not inherited, this cannot be just as a brief mention in a story about Carey. Nuttah68 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won Institute of Graduate Studies[edit]

Small, specialized graduate institution. Article gives no reliable third-party sources to establish notability or back up claims in text, a Google News search gives this article, which contains a reference so passing and brief you'd be advised to use your browser's "find" feature rather than scanning the text. Thomjakobsen 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Just remove the spam. all institutions of higher education are notable. DGG (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removing the spam, realised the whole article was a copyvio. Tagged as such. Thomjakobsen 13:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if in fact is is COPYVIO. But DGG is right, higher education institutions are inherently notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, it is not yet accredited and its main course (acupuncture) is vocational in nature, so I don't see how this is inherently notable whereas a similarly-sized training business is not. Thomjakobsen 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was We can see where this is going. I'm reversing my speedy declination, and apologies.. Navou ^banter 19:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Con Mendez[edit]

I'm unable to establish reliable sourcing for this subject. Navou ^banter 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant hoax. Annoying there isn't a speedy deletion option as this is the sort of article that makes wikipedia look silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The author's other contributions include defining "Con Mendez" as an "Astronaught" (sic) and "Local no-one", as well as the "inventor of the hole punch". Combined with the author's username, this seems like blatant nonsense. Saturn 5 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navou said it wasn't nonsense when I tried to speedy it for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed coherent, and just in case the author can provide relaiable sources, I did err on the side of caution this time. Regards, Navou ^banter 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author has now been blocked for vandalism so I don't think any relaiable sources will be added soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a spoof, delete ASAP. Paste 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks and walks like a duck; no references, not written in encyclopedic language. Good candidate for a speedy. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Navou's erred on the side of caution and, being someone who's erred in the other direction, I can appreciate that ... but this is indeed nonsense. Accounting4Taste 19:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Not an easy decision to make, but there appears to be notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeon Woo[edit]

Seems not notable. Domthedude001 17:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this article is not notable? Have you seached for this artist in korean search engines? [5] Macrend 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, I haven't. Have you added this on the Korean Wikipedia? It would fit there. -Domthedude001 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or translate so we can read it. A lot of this article is in Korean. I agree it might belong in the Korean wiki. Qworty 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only part in Korean was the song titles ... cab 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks any secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't fight back the consensus. Go ahead. Macrend 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely and thoroughly non-notable(WP:BIO).Mavourneen 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- meets WP:MUSIC in a few ways, former member of a notable group who has since launched a solo career, signed to a major domestic company with whoms he released two solo albums, had a song which was #1 for number of downloads in June, and has been covered non-trivially in multiple WP:RS (Korean entertainment newspapers) which verify all of the above; I added said sources to the article. cab 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following edits by cab. PC78 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I have looked at the references, and they do take quotes from Mr Sharif. However, that really isn't a good enough reason to establish notability in and of itself. A number of editors said that he is part of Category:British Muslims, but unfortunately that really isn't a valid argument. For instance, I am an Australian citizen, and I am of the Anglican faith. You would not create an article about me and put me in Category:Australian Anglicans and then say that I am notable. Therefore, this deletion decision has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Sharif is from Britain, and certainly has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Muslim. It is merely an issue with notability. I would like to point out that just because he is not a notable enough topic for Wikipedia does not detract from the character of Mr Sharif. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Sharif[edit]

Written by the man himself, nothing to really indicate notability, seems to be part of a WP:ADVERT for Ummah Foods, his chocolate company which itself is of doubtful notability FlagSteward 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI, as stated above, article was written by himself. It reads like a resume or a press-release. Yngvarr (t) (c) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He may be a successful businessman, but that in itself is not enough to confer notability. Qworty 20:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys - THis is my first wiki document. Please tell me exactly which part you think is incorrect. There are LOTS of British Muslims listed on wikipedia - Are you suggesting they are all deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummahfoods (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonkal (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop setting up a straw man - of course noone's suggesting that all British Muslims are deleted - would you care to point out where this was ever mentioned? As you would have found out by reading WP:COI, or even better Wikipedia:Autobiography - Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged for various reasons. Your attempts at claiming notability are noted, but they just aren't strong enough - there's a difference between the FT asking you for a quote about something, and the FT writing a profile about you. Which is the kind of outside recognition that would suggest that you might be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Likewise being 1 of 150 people at a meeting at No 10 is not notable. Being a member of the Cabinet would be. FlagSteward 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only valid point raised on notability has been addressed (which was a fair point!). I've looked at the British Muslim category and this looks as well referenced as any other. I think recognising a person or not is a personal thing, and not much of an argument.

Keep WP:COI needs to be addressed but the subject passes the notability bar. Reviewing the references in the article, he is prominent in at least two newspaper articles so satisfies the criteria for reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete, then recreated as redirect (nothing merged, so no GFDL violation) Fram 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Molera[edit]

I searched for Andrew Molera on Google and nothing biographical came up. I searched for the reference on the article and that didn't come up on either Google or Amazon. That seems to mean that the person is incredibly non-notable or made up. θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt that there was never a person named Andrew Molera, given the fact that there is a State Park named after him. I suggest a ~~merge~~ and redirect. Some of the assertions in the article, though, are troublesome, such as those that he died from inherited greed and that he was responsible for the old growth redwood forests in the Big Sur region. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the state park. A man with a park, beach and falls named for him should be notable. However, all I could find is a mention in a couple of books about the park. Apparently, he was credited with bringing artichokes to California's central coast. Nothing I found substantiates the horse hockey about pico de gallo and sardines and prostitutes.--Sethacus 23:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect to Andrew Molera State Park - obvious hoax. Google finds plenty of pages on who Molera was in reality. Don't click on the first (dragonvolker.50megs.com) hit; it tries to lay all sorts of garbage on your PC. Gordonofcartoon 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly Tiptopper 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect as noted above. --Sc straker 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mention in a few random websites don't really make for notability. Overwhelming consensus is to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Gayle[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage in WP:RS and no notability. Valrith 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep Possible significant coverage here and here. Epbr123 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. Conditional on the fact that I don't read Italian very well. :-) But the first link Epbr123 points to http://aziende.economia.alice.it/racconti/r120_jessicagayle.html , looks like non-trivial coverage, 3 pages, by a web site which is not just a porn fan site. The second one is shorter (half of the last page), but http://www.dramma.it looks like a general acting site, again not just a porn fan site. http://www.dapaura.com/rete/imgv9/gayle/jessica_gayle.html is another short interview, and this one looks like it is a porn fan site, but it's been reprinted at http://www.planetmediagroup.it/public/news.asp?id=7 and these things are adding up to meeting Wikipedia:Notability. So keep, unless someone more knowledgeable with the Italian web shows up and says that these are all a lot more trivial than they look. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Non-notable.Watchingthevitalsigns 12:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN--Tiptopper 00:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to references provided above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Feller[edit]

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 16:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Epbr123 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the claim of being the first woman to practice anal fisting can be substantiated.--Sethacus 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, delete, at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete No sources were provided, which means that the deletes discuss the actual article, while the keeps talk about a possible article, and general principles. As closer, I took the actual article as the basis, and judged the value of the opinions wrt policies and guidelines, making deletion the only logical option. Deletion does not mean that no article can ever be written about this subject, only that with what we have currently available, in the article and after five plus days of AfD, no article with any verifiable notability is possible.Fram 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Christian School[edit]

Private school of around 70 pupils. Article doesn't provide any reliable third-party sources to establish notability or to back up the text, which is mostly original research from (presumably) a pupil. Has been unsourced since some time last year. I've done a search for sources, the only non-directory one being the school website, which gives no further evidence of notability. Thomjakobsen 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A secondary schools with a distinctive curriculum. Needs references (and re-wrining to diminish the promotional tone). Essentially all high schools will prove to have sufficient notability if adequately investigated. It would be appropriate of us to just say so as a matter of course. DGG (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article makes specific claims of notability for the school's program and curriculum, and the facts that it is private and has a small enrollment are no impediment to notability. Alansohn 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on the assumption that adequate sourcing can be found, although Google News and Google News archives searches weren't helpful. I think it's safe to assume local newspapers would have at least a few articles giving more than trivial coverage of the school. It is not reasonable to assume that no independent, reliable sources exist for even this small organization. I have to say, though, that a small, private school with apparently little available independent information on the Web is the least likely to show improvement, compared with any other school articles. The school's own Web site is undergoing reconstruction, so I think we should be lenient for now about verifiability problems. I rewrote the Shakespeare in a Week section to take out the boosterish language there. Noroton 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no sources pointing toward anything approaching notability.--Stormbay 02:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Twenty Years 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This should not have been recreated. Articles that have been deleted should be taken to deletion review. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough guy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - previously deleted at AFD so technically eligible for speedy deletion, but that was a while ago so I thought it should come here. Certainly if an admin feels it's still speediable as a repost then I have no issue with that. The article is an extended dictionary definition. The examples of real-life "tough guys" and actors who play tough guys and fictional tough guys all constitute original research and without that material it's a dictionary definition stub. Otto4711 15:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd support speedy as well. WP:OR and WP:POV. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't delete speedily; wait for this AfD to finish. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as well. An interesting idea, but just another list. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to masculinity or machismo unless referenced. This was likely started to be a target for wikilinks in movie articles, and the movie character type is well-known and probably a cinch to reference. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually started as a vanity entry as the author included himself. Not much of that original article survives - the concept is popular and so the article attracts attention. I've spent time keeping it clean of vanity entries but haven't bothered to expand the prose - not being sufficiently interested in the anthropology /sociology aspects. Colonel Warden 09:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The definition of "tough guy" is too broad and open to debate for this ever to be a suitable article.--Danaman5 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a good idea, but not adequately handled. the concept is notable. DGG (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if properly sourced, Redirect to masculinity if not. Besides I wasn't in the list :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, change my vote to "add User:Lenticel to the list, then promptly delete". ;) CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has plenty of similar articles on stereotypes: geek, nerd, poindexter, boffin. I suppose that this article suffers because real tough guys aren't the sort to polish their wikipedia image. Anyway, I'm not seeing any original research but the current article is too much list and not enough prose. Just needs work. Colonel Warden 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is not a particularly persuasive argument. I note that Poindexter is about a fictional character, not a cultural stereotype. Otto4711 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the term is incorporated into the name of a movie and multiple companies. I also just found oodles of article titles in academic journals that I will properly format after this post, see the references in a few minutes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the effort to contribute - a commendably positive attitude. Colonel Warden 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) I'm always happy to help look for references to rescue and improve articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- how did this get to a 2nd ADF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too broad and ill-defined to attract anything besides original research. Recury 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comletely biaised and unencyclopedic. If it were fixed to be encyclopedic and NPOV, it would become only a dictionary definition. Canjth 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some hyperbole above. To make the article more respectable, all that is needed is some work. For example, I google for a couple of minutes and find The 25 Toughest Guys in America. This was established by a panel of 100 for a journal in this field. Use of such sources can easily make the article notable and objective. The only problem is the abundance of sources and the work required to present them all comprehensively. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Colonel Warden 06:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhax Montes[edit]

Rap artist who shows no assertion of notability under WP:MUSIC. The speedy was contested so I thought I'd list it here to be on the safe side. Darksun 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. (ps - I tagged the article bc it wasn't tagged for AfD.) --Evb-wiki 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for tagging it, I nominated it with twinkle, guess the script is playing up a bit. Darksun 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm also adding his production company. --Evb-wiki 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both unless notability is established and verified. does not yet seem present for either. While the name "Mhax Montes" gets 103 distinct google hits, I didn't find anything that would qualify as a reliable secondary source among them. "Private Stock Entertainment" is apparently a very common term, since a google search on it results in a wide variety of companies presenting. "Private Stock Entertainment Group" only yields 3 hits--two of which are Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per nom. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable spam by subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, sorry. The first fails WP:MUSIC, and the second also fails WP:CORP. Bearian 17:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Doesn't this Mhax Montes person exist? Isn't there some interest in this person per the information that was obtained from google or yahoo search? Realative to the interest of the populous in the US and abroad, I have recovered over 5 pages of reference to this person which I assume is why he, like other artists are available for viewing in the Wiki. Private Stock Entertainment Group appears to be his record label or group.Although "noteability" is preferred, the criteria is not set in stone.

PrivatestockLA 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)PrivatestockLA 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)*Don't Delete As a fan of this individual, I feel that the information placed in the article walks in line with the examples set on the Wiki's creating an article page. In some circles, this individual is as relevant as Brittany Spears or any other artist in any other genre. There were articles in Japanese in regards to Mhax Montes and his musical works which I feel is a prerequisite to his relevance. If this article is deleted, every other artist in the Wiki should be deleted as well and content should be exclude contemporary musical arts all together.[reply]

The result was delete - can be recreated for a transwiki if a Wiki with a compatible license wants it. WjBscribe 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission[edit]

The article, like the other two metroid creature articles, has no notability, so no reliable sources, and no out of universe information. As such, it is a list of creatures from Metroid, which is totally unencyclopedic and should be transwikied to the Metroid fan wiki. Judgesurreal777 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Important ones. Should not be its own article. i ^said 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Just merge the Creatures in the Metroid, Metroid II and Super Metroid series with the ones in the Creatures in Metroid Fusion and Metroid: Zero Mission and rename it to something like Creatures in the 2-d Metroid Series. That way we keep all information and reduce the number of articles. Tensa Zangetsu 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ per Tensa Zangetsu--Torchwood Who? 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Metroid Wiki--Torchwood Who? 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Lack of independent sources indicates that these creatures are non-notable per WP:FICTION, and I agree that the text is too in universe for an encyclopedia. --Gavin Collins 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/TransWiki. Not for here, I'm afraid! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge or transwiki. These creatures do not have reliable, third-party coverage that would make them notable outside of their own universe. Notability is not inherited. Also, see WP:WAF and WP:NOT#GUIDE. bwowen talk•contribs 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gavin collins. If there is a place to transwiki it to after it is deleted, please let me know and I can provide the content for you. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in universe, game guide-like and no indication of real world notabiloity. Nuttah68 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#GUIDE. I'm sure tears will not flow freely by removing this material, as it exists in profundity elsewhere. Doesn't belong here. Keeper | 76 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in the Metroid Prime series[edit]

The article has no notability or reliable sources, so it has no out of universe information, so its just a game guide to all the creatures from the game, and should be transwikied pronto. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Important ones. Delete the rest. And you should format your AfDs correctly. Helps. i ^said 00:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if needed and Delete Now that I see there is a Metroid fan wiki already existing I can't see why we need to fight this out. I like the idea of decentralizing the info from wikipedia anyway.--Torchwood Who? 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for various reasons. This fancruft is long on plot summary, but lack of secondary sources fails to demonstrate notability, or worse still, indicates that this is original research. --Gavin Collins 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Surfing[edit]

A neologism that should be more appropriate to Wiktionary than Wikipedia. The article is written more as a journal of the author's travels across the net searching for links to put in the article. CSD was originally denied, prod was removed by the author without comment. I left the article for a while to see if it would be improved by the author but it's just amassed more self-referential content. -- WebHamster 14:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable original research that is non-notable, unencyclopediodic and badly written. If this were some well known activity then it might become notable--Phoenix 15 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a variation of that infamous game. Darksun 15:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete & salt as WP:MADEUP. I don't understand why people remove prod tags from content that doesn't stand a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of surviving. < eleland // talkedits > 15:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Looks like i wasn't the first to coin this term". Maybe, just maybe, someone can wrap all of these into one article called wiki- so that people can have a dumping ground for this new word. Wikiholic. Wikiphobia. Wikipotato. Wikibasket. I just thought up four words, just call me Shakespeare. If only Gene Rayburn were alive, so that we could have some really good variations. Mandsford 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; neologisms aren't appropriate here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article without meaningful content. DGG (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism with no reliable sources. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Owen[edit]

Character was a guest who stayed on the show for about a month. Not nearly notable. Kogsquinge 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable enough character to have his own article. i ^said 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:SOURCES. Doesn't appear to be a notable character, only two incoming links there. shoeofdeath 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shoe. --Gwern (contribs) 19:59 23 September 2007 (GMT)

The result was Keep. CitiCat^♫ 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Fashion Festival[edit]

Non-notable fashion event in Singapore which, despite assertions of importance, provides no evidence of such. Delete. Eusebeus 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Eusebeus 07:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick news-archive search turns up hundreds of articles of news coverage from dozens of different countries, making it internationally at least moderately known. Perhaps not well known in North America or Western Europe, but that's hardly a criterion for anything. --Delirium 07:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Delerium and 117 Google News archive hits. Stub article needs cleanup and referencing but documents a notable event. < eleland // talkedits > 15:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, websearch reveals a variety of independent sources which could be used here. Information on festivals other than the 2006 one is needed but notability seems evident. shoeofdeath 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Football 3[edit]

This game does not exist. I have tried checking for this game on EASports and the supposed developer BudCat Creations, but I cannot find any evidence for this title. The last one I could find was Arena Football: Road To Glory, which is considered Arena Football 2. This article was also created by User:Dream180 who I'm pretty sure is a long time vandal/spammer/sockpuppet in which I have filed a request for block here, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194 (5th) Strongsauce 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL (since it's predicting a future event without any sources). If it really were in production, especially by EA, there ought to be a number of web entires detailing it on the internet, but the search engine does not return anything to do with the game. (Also, due to the high tech nature of gaming mags these days, they'd post the news on the net, not just on paper.)--Alasdair 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well, 2008 isn't really WP:CRYSTAL (See Spore (video game)) but no sources and no proper search results means Delete--Phoenix 15 15:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and RS. --Gwern (contribs) 20:00 23 September 2007 (GMT)

The result was Keep, thanks to those who revised and improved the article. NawlinWiki 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siena Catholic College[edit]

Been tagged for notability since August. No reliable secondary sources to support notability . Yet another non notable school 3tmx 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable school, google says little about it, couldnt find anything that meets WP:N or WP:ORG. Fails all criteria, cruft. Twenty Years 13:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable third-party sources for this school. Moreover, it fails notability criteria as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This educational institution for students in "years 8-12" corresponds to what Americans would call a high school. My position remains that high schools of any reasonable size are per se notable. Newyorkbrad 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My feeling continues to be that high schools are not notable as such and they must have something that brings references into play from reliable third party sources. Stormbay 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn highschool. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasons:

(1) The school was a part of massive media coverage in Australia for years after a 13-year-old student was abducted from a bus stop in 2003 and never heard from again. As a Google News archives search of the school name shows [6], the school played a prominent part of the coverage (the boy's brother went there, the school held prayer vigils and other demonstrations of support for the three years leading up to his class's graduation in November 2006. I've added a short paragraph about it in the article, and probably should add another sentence about the memorials at the school. This considerably strengthens the WP:Notability for the school. Closing admin, please discount all delete comments made before this addition to the article unless they take the new addition into account. If I find more evidence of notability, I'm going to add that as well.

(2) All high school's are notable since it is safe to assume that every single high school on the planet, ever, has received substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources -- newspapers, for instance. No high school has ever been built or opened its doors without local newspapers writing articles (constituting nontrivial coverage) reporting that fact, simply because every single high school is unversally acknowledged (with the exception of some Wikipedia editors) to be important enough to receive that coverage. Because this notability can be reliably assumed, all high schools are inherently notable and we should keep articles about high schools where reliable sources have been cited to give us more than directory-type information on the school. Noroton 17:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd argue that the school is secondary and incidental to the event. Most disappearences/tragedies that occur to schoolchildren almost without saying result in candlelit vigils etc at the school. Whether the cited coverage (which seems predominantely to be the same paragraph) . What right have you got tell the admin to discount everyone elses opinion based on your pov judgement that this incidental connection makes the school inherently notable?? I think people can decide this for themselves. At the very least you ought to tell them that you have decided their opinion doesn't count (does this include the person who had already googled the school??)

Your arguement that schools are inherently notable is frankly absurd. The type of coverage is crucial. Local press coverage does not make something notable - local papers cover anything from summer fairs to amateur hockey clubs to parking disputes (i've worked on a local paper and believe me they can cover anything) - it does not make them notable. Has every high school received national coverage??? No. Is there something about them above and beyond they are a school - usually no. Your arguement that "every single high school is unversally acknowledged (with the exception of some Wikipedia editors) to be important enough to receive that coverage" is also absurd. I'd roughly rephrase this arguement for rhetorical effect as "everyone (those unfamiliar with wikipedia's standards and guidelines) except for certain wikipedians (who are familiar with wikipedia's standards and guidelines) think schools are notable for inclusion in wikipedia. "universally acknoweged" - what statistics are you basing this on??? I accept that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but think notability does not extend automatically to schools as per WP school. Its issues like this that really make me want to give up on wikipedia - the pov pushing, the abuse of an open system for self-promotion etc 3tmx 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK ~~Sweetheart~~, let's look over your objections:

1. the school is secondary and incidental to the event Doesn't matter. The coverage I cited, including the Google News Archives link in my comment above (and in the news accoutns cited in the article), was substantial, not trivial, coverage of the school itself as it reacted to this.

2. As to telling the closing admin to discount prior opinions, that's standard when new information comes to light that previous participants didn't see. It doesn't mean totally ignore their opinions, but obviously conclusions about notability that didn't have the additional information can't be considered with nearly the same weight. As long as you don't violate WP:CANVASS, you are free to leave messages on every previous participant's talk page and politely ask them to take another look at the article, since their preivous opinions likely will be discounted. This discounting is common practice that I wanted to remind the closing admin about. I was trying to find where this practice is stated in Wikipedia policy and guidelines but I haven't. Maybe it's just a tradition.

3. Please review WP:N and WP:ORG. Local news coverage, as long as it's not trivial, is fine with Wikipedia. Nor does policy tell us we have to establish that the school is nationally notable. You mentioned WP:SCHOOL. That isn't policy; it's a failed proposal.

4. Common sense tells us that when a high school opens, local news organizations will cover that opening, and later provide more coverage, in a substantial way. That is what is "universally acknowledged". It's the way the world works, and if you've worked for a local paper, you know this. Since we can reasonably be sure that this kind of coverage is always out there, then we shouldn't delete. There is no notability requirement that we actually have to cite the source to establish notability. Only that we have to have some reasonable assurance that such a source exists. And for high schools, we always do. We consider articles about localities inherently notable for the same reason. Here, take a look at this Google News Archives citation and tell me if you doubt that it's substantial coverage:

Principal built school from the ground up / AUD2.50 - Courier Mail - News Limited Australia - Jun 11, 2006 As foundation Principal of Siena Catholic College at Sippy Downs on the Sunshine Coast from 1996 until three weeks short of his death, he built a school ...

Now, unfortunately it costs an arm and a leg to actually access this news account, but from the Google description do you honestly doubt for a second that it wouldn't give us substantial, reliable coverage of the school itself as defined by WP:N? Noroton 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you get 10/10 for being a patronising slimeball for legitimate points about how the argument "how every school in the world is notable" . Don't dare call me or another editor sweetheart. 3tmx 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I'm withdrawing further contribution from this discussion. Please do not contact me on this page or any other.

3tmx 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed it out. Sorry I caused so much offense. Noroton 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article makes specific claims of notability, supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 01:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of mentions in independent secondary sources outside the context of Daniel's disappearance. One major mention in major Brisbane daily newspaper and a mention in the major Fijian newspaper. Easily meets WP:N. Assize 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this school at any rate is notable with sufficient distinctive features and sources. Well done article as revised. Although it was notable in any case, if it had not been nominated it would not have been so dramatically improved. Though sometime effective, we should be able to fid a better way. DGG (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree entirely with NewYorkBrad, that any High School should be notable per se (like any settlement). I can't see why Wikipedia accepts say Eckington, Derbyshire on the nod and quibbles about its only (large) secondary school. It would be easy to produce a fair-sized non-contentious page on the school from reputable sources but they are all ruled out in the guidelines, so I'm not going to bother. -- roundhouse0 10:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements by Noroton and Assize. John Vandenberg 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. John254 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prêt à Voter[edit]

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 12:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn't original research, look at the sources cited. It is a voting system that has been published in peer reviewed sources. Many results on Google Scholar. J Milburn 13:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This voting system, although new, has been discussed by a technology magazine published by MIT [7], making it notable.--Alasdair 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in bad shape but it looks accurate and credible to me--Phoenix 15 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badly in need of cleanup, but that's no reason to delete it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep--JForget 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelfire[edit]

Lack of verificable sources means that this web host fails notability guidelines, suggesting that this article serves only as a spammy link to the company's own website. --Gavin Collins 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More sources wouldn't hurt, but this is a significant and historically important company and site. The tone of the article is generally neutral and I see no basis for the allegation of spamminess. Newyorkbrad 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely important in the history of free web hosting. The site's Alexa rank peaked in the ~200 range close to the start of Alexa ranking; it probably would have been higher prior to that. Article needs tagging as OR, but should be fixed rather than deleted. JulesH 12:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. It's hard to search for sources due to the generic name, but I find it hard to believe that Angelfire will have no sources about it. It is mentioned here, here, here, here, here, here, here and mispelt twice here and here. None of them are great sources though, despite their obvious reliability. That was just from searching the NYTimes archive- I will search through some other papers after my lunch. J Milburn 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Further sources from The Guardian- search results- not all are relevent, some are just links, but you get the picture. The mainstream press mention this site a lot, I don't think there is any real doubt they are notable. J Milburn 12:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Rudjek 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Oh dear, they seem to have succeeded so well in shedding their crusty dot com image that wikipedia thinks it's just another dime-a-dozen Two Point Oh Zero wannabe --Victor falk 13:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above as highly notable from an historical perspective. The article is not without problems, but deletion is not the solution to that problem. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very notable early company. How can this even get to AfD? CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should have been speedy closed when it was open. Sometimes notability is so obvious that we don't need to sit through AfD to prove it. Smashville 16:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Error Maybe? -Flubeca^Talk 23:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has a history of starting or supporting deletions entirely on the basis of what they're like at that present moment. As this discussion demonstrates, patience and discretion have their place and using reason is allowed. AfDs are a non-trivial drain in both time and effort, encourage divisions in the community and, I think, are among the more significant causes of editor attrition. They should not be used as a first resort - particularily not when finding better sources turned out to be a trivial effort! --Kizor 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment--there should be a more direct way to improving articles. One way that might work, even with the existing structure, is WP:PROD--if people look there regularly and select articles to improve. DGG (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable as (one of) the first free hosting providers, but definitely could use some references. Percy Snoodle 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough for me. Captain panda 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could be improved or made better, but deleting will not do this. The current version is better than no article at all, so my vote goes to keeping it. 213.84.102.38 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Oldest rock. This does seem appropriate, as there can only be one oldest known object on Earth, and that object appears to be a... rock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest known object on Earth[edit]

Is is possible for us to have a useful article on this topic, that isn't full of unfounded speculation? Xorkl000 11:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think a good article COULD possibly be written on this subject, but, as the nominator says, this is full of weasel words, and a stub on this topic isn't exactly useful. Also, I know my word counts for nothing, but it's wrong. Rocks much older than the Earth have been discovered on Earth- remains of meteorites. J Milburn 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As J Milburn says, it might be an interesting object, and there appears to be a at least one reliable source (MSNBC). Again as above, the text is very weasely. I doubt it'll ever get expanded beyond a stub, which contains only one or two relevant sentences. If there's another article into which this information could be merged, go for that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge The article now has 11 sources. The BBC and the Independent both reported the finding and exhibiting of the zircon fragment while another section has been added discussing the dating of even older stony meteorites, particularly the meteorite which fell on a frozen lake in Canada in 2000 and is currently thought to be the oldest one known. Nick mallory 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hadean, and mention the information in the Hadean rocks section, or to oldest rock. The reason is because this is a plausible and useful search term, and given the news coverage from which the article derives its sources, it is somewhat notable (irrelevant to the fact as to its certainty). If the article is deleted, chances are it'll be recreated by someone in the future, ~~requiring~~ possibly instigating another AfD. School students might be curious as to what actually is the "Oldest known object on Earth", and the best way to explain it to them is to direct them to an article about the history of the earth.- Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Oldest rock. Now with 2 million articles completed -when one come across something as fundamental as this, it is almost certain to be covered else where; thus should be checked out. See: Oldest_rock#Oldest_material_on_Earth. Other readers may not be sure of what terms to enter in 'Search'. For example just Google 'oldest object on earth' and this very article is second from top, so it makes sense to 'keep the title'. Just because the article might at the moment be poor that is no reason to delete it without any regard to its inherent importance, for it might act as the seed for someone with specialised knowledge to expand. So at least -do a check first to make sure their not duplication existing articles.--Aspro 12:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oldest rock per Aspro, with a wikilinked mention at Hadean rocks section. In its current state, sources seem sufficient. I agree that the title is a potentially useful search term and should be kept. But given J Milburn's point, the language used in the article should probably reflect that the popular term is a misnomer. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and redirect... I haven't made up mind who to cheer yet, Hadean or Old Rock. I'll be back.

...Old Rock wins! I added a ((further)) to Hadean#Hadean_rocks. "Oldest rock" already contains a "see also" to hadean.--Victor falk 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Reads like some original research essay. If anything, it should redirect to some article related to the "lifecycle" or "history" of Earth.--Alasdair 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to uh, somewhere. :) It's an original-synthesis essay but it does have some useful content, so don't lose the history. < eleland // talkedits > 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with oldest rock as the objects discussed are rocks or rock components. Object is rather a vague term, and what besides rock stuff could be meant? Vsmith 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful page per WP:IGNORE]. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oldest rock per above. — RJH (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Oldest rock. Alba 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vsmith.Rickert 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep, no consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Adsetts[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria A7 for not asserting notability. The article does assert notability so it is not a speedy candidate. It is also referenced. However the notability may not satisfy guidelines. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 10:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not satisfying guidelines. WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 13:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's been appointed to the National Council for the Arts Council of Englandhere, a rather important department. Also, he's got the title "Sir", which means he's knighted. If he's knighted, he's notable. If anything, it ought to be rewrited.--Alasdair 13:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid the second part of your argument, has, in fact, been roundly rejected by the Wikipedia community. It does seem like this guy is probably notable, but the article as-is doesn't prove that. < eleland // talkedits > 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the title of Sir does not indicate royalty these days in the UK. People are knighted if they have made significant contributions to British society. (e.g. Geoff Hurst and Alex Ferguson are knighted due to their contributions to English football, but they have nothing to do with royalty) In fact, it's like a national honor these days. People called Sir or Dame have received the national award DBE and KBE for their achievements and what not, which are higher than OBE and MBE. Now, the title of "Lord" may be what you are referring to.--Alasdair 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable for building a small local family firm (Adsetts Ice Cream) up into a multi-million global business SIP in about 20 years; he gets appointed to these committees because of his achievements, not because of his ancestors. It's ridiculous that this keeps being challenged (mainly because the guidelines for notable business leaders are not very clear). By all means rewrite the article. -- roundhouse0 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'm not convinced of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as there is no attribution of notability to credible, independent sources, and there are few results on Google News Archive. It appears he is possibly notable, but a sourced article may not be possible. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as executive of a major firm. Since he's notable, the article can be improved.DGG (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure many editors share my prejudice - my gut reaction is to think "fatcat". However, I think this is systemic bias: he's on a lot of major national committees: Arts Council, deputy chairman of Universiade, chairman of the regional council of the CBI, among the UK "elite 300" invited to the Lord Mayor of London's 1999 Millennium party, and so on. Gordonofcartoon 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of sources, e.g. Who's Who, the national press. SIG plc is easily sourced, e.g. "In 2007, SIG reported half-yearly sales of over £1 billion, and was the highest earning and most profitable company in the Sheffield City Region". Sheffield Star Sept 2007 I'm not sure that fat-cats are necessarily to be excluded from Wikipedia. What is wrong with this as a source? What is disputed? SIG is notable - yes. Adsetts was its managing director and is its life president - yes. The company grew enormously (to a PLC) under his guidance - yes. The business guidelines really need to be rewritten if there is any problem with Adsetts. He is on a par with Sheffield's great steel barons of the 1800s (Mark Firth etc.). Carminis 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course it asserts notability. Querulous and US-centric nomination - David Gerard 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result wasKeep Non-admin closure. Well referenced and in no doubt that he will be increasingly notable in coming years. :: maelgwn - talk 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Clare[edit]

The subject is a non-notable electoral candidate. Unless actually elected, merely being a candidate for office does not confer sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. No independent sources asserting notability have been provided and the article contains original research about the subject's electoral chances. A contested PROD, reasons for contesting are given on the article's talk page. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. Keb25 10:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the option of re-creating if he gets elected. Unless elected, he fails all notability. Twenty Years 13:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per Twenty Years and nom. I can't accept the reasoning that a future political event, no matter how "certain", will confer retroactive notability. The history of politics is full of "certainties" that didn't happen. Accounting4Taste 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I accept that this article has been significantly improved with references since I first viewed it, with the addition of numerous citations that appear to confer more notability than I had previously seen. I also ruefully admit that I was not born Australian and thus must agree that I don't have the same perspective on Australian news. I think I've learned that every once in a while, a political candidate is notable, and I accept that that is the case here. Accounting4Taste 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the endorsed candidate for a safe seat is notable. The article may need references but that is a different question.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References now added. Note to oust the sitting member in a safe seat is extraordinary - this is not a non-notable politician.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except of course, safe seats are lost from time to time; in fact some polling suggests that Division of Grey - held by a 13.9% margin - will change hands at the next election.[8]. While I accept that this is very unlikely to happen in Blaxland, as Accounting4Taste suggests strange things can happen at elections. At present, Mr Clare is a mere candidate and one hundred and one things can happen between now and the election. Candidates for election do not meet WP:BIO and notability has not been established for anything other than his candidacy. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - While candidates for election do not generally meet WP:Bio - my argument is that this is no mere ordinary candidate: he has ousted the sitting member and the preferred alternative candidate to successfully gain preselection to one of Australia's safest Labor seats - a seat that appearently has just become safer still after a recent redistribution. If there was an upset that indeed would make him even more notable - the man who lost Blaxland for the ALP - can you imagine it! There are a few seats that are notable to many people in the population - Blaxland because it was held by Keating, Bennelong because it is held by Howard - Kooyong remembered for the colt (Peacock) and perhaps Menzies also :-). These seats have a mystique about them and their candidates are not ordinary. Per WP:Bio I think Clare qualifies as Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage - it is by no means overwhelming but it is not merely of local quality being tied up with ALP preselection issues (national exec overriding branch preferences). --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Golden Wattle. Preselection controversy can create notability (see for example Michael Towke), and the article has been nicely sourced. Recurring dreams 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOT#NEWS "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article ... in many cases this will mean not having a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite having made a brief appearance in the news. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." (WP:BLP says the same: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.) I am indebted to User:FT2 and have quoted him/her here. Accounting4Taste 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue has been in the news since May - relatively low profile and this is not actually trying to be a news article. It is an article about someone who will almost certainly be the next member for a high profile seat. User:Accounting4Taste is not Australian I am not sure whether the subtleties differentiating one candidate of a seat from another candidate for a high profile seat are apparent. I am not sure how to make them more apparent other than to say the article is referenced from a number of different national news sources which cover a number of months (ie May through August and the election hasn't even been declared) as well as local news. This is not in the news for a brief period of time and hence WP:Not does not apply. --Golden Wattle ^talk 05:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the improvement to the article since nomination and in particular the provision of multiple sources at least attempting to assert notability, on consideration I think this is now a Weak keep. I still think that election candidates in general are not notable as candidates alone and notability needs to be separately established in each case. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already added do just about establish notability. Agree that candidates are not generally notable but the coverage in realiable sources already received does appear to be sufficient. As to the argument that this is just temporary news coverage I cannot see that this candidate will not remain notable. If for some reason he is not elected the coverage of why he is not elected will only further enhance his notability. Davewild 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as improved, but only because this is Blaxland and the national news coverage of this to date has been much higher than the average candidate. John Vandenberg 13:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, this is a reasonable article to keep. Also appears that original issue is fixed through editing. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MyNetworkTV[edit]

Delete per many, many precedents for not posting articles listing shows on a specific network/channel when they can appear on many different channels. Also, this improperly sourced article states what is "expected" (see WP:CRYSTAL for why that's bad) and what's current without specifying as of when. Wryspy 09:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Or at least merge it somewhere. Just don't leave it as a standalone article! --Gwern (contribs) 20:01 23 September 2007 (GMT)
~~Delete~~ Usually I would be inclined to keep this list, but in this case the program history of the network is already within the body of the MyNetworkTV article, so this is duplicating what's in the main article. That, and most of the specials cited within the list are pretty much the equivalent of Dateline NBC special episodes and something like Circus of the Stars 1986, along with the network 'rebooting' this year and abandoning what they did last year (telenovelas etc.) fully. Nate 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been improved since my last vote, and the speculative content has now been removed. It now looks much better to me, and specials and regular programming are broken apart better than they had been. Nate 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This prior discussion would be the better precedent. As a broadcaster, with original programming, I see no difference here. Content problems such as poor sources can be fixed, including expected programming, or lack of dates. This network isn't Same with duplicating content in main article. I'd advocate removing that and improving this article. As a national network (even if a small one) with a fair amount of coverage, they're certainly going to merit an article, and their specific programs should be covered, but as such is likely to clutter up the main article, it's best to spin it off. Deletion, however, doesn't make sense, unless you care to apply the same standard to all other pages. 68.101.18.250 02:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per prior wide consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. I'm not sure to what "many, many precedents" the nominator is referring; the only "precedent" I am aware of is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, which was restored by a Deletion review based on the wider consensus reached to keep such articles, a consensus which is also demonstrated by the existence of many more such lists in this navigation template. There is no crystal ballery here, all future programming announcements have been published in reliable sources, including The Orange County Register and The Futon Critic, which I have added as references to the article. DHowell 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update the article now specifies "as of when". I really wish that people wouldn't cite reasons which could be fixed by simple editing to support deletion. DHowell 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian teen idols[edit]

Potentially listcruft with some original research and user opinion thrown in to boot. Who decides who is a 'teen idol', anyway? There are always going to be obvious examples (Britney Spears c. 2000, etc etc), but some are going to be borderline and completely subjective. And even if sourced for every entry, a category would be much, much better, surely...

Also listing the following article of an identical style:

Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 09:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV, listcruft. Keb25 11:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Also, I wouldn't turn down a speedy for the second one- no context. That said, the other has no context, but I'd let it off for the amount of content. J Milburn 11:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes, I gave it the benefit of the doubt as it's pretty obvious from the title what the context is; but you are right. I thought it better to bundle them together anyway since both should really end up with the same result, whatever that may end up as. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both While WP:LIST is a valid argument, we need to also consider that Wikipedia strives to be more global than your average encyclopedia. WP:BIAS is not the applicable standard (it applies to writing style rather than to article topics) but this has the beginnings of a good article. What defines a "teen idol"? TV show ratings, sales of a hit single, citations to articles in "Nihachi Magazine" called "Win a Date with Yusaku!", etc. Good concept, can be improved. Mandsford 14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIAS applies to both article topics and article editing. Masaruemoto 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - A somewhat ambiguous title. Is it meant to be teen idols who are Asian, idols who are Asian teens or idols of Asian teens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's obvious: this is the list of people who are (1) teenager, (2) asian and (3) idols. In other words, the intersection of peoples of (1), (2) and (3). -- Taku 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and while we're at it, delete List of teen idols of the 2000s as well. Categories would work if there was some way to avoid POV, but I'd prefer to see them all burned instead. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure what part of the list is the problem (while I think this list is problematic as whole.). I mean, can there be list of Asian idols, list of teen idols, list of Asian idols etc? Are you people saying that all of those combinations are off limit? -- Taku 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any list that contains "idols" is going to be problematic, and likely to be deleted. Masaruemoto 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as the nom says, "teen idols" are impossible to list in a verifiable, encyclopedic way. It is a subjective definition which requires original research. The teen idol article says they are "usually actors or pop singers, but some sports figures have had an appeal to teenagers", which shows how vague this topic is. Also, WP:NOT#DIR; these are loosely associated; a Japanese pop star, a Bollywood actress, a Filipino boxer, etc. All grouped together just because teenagers like them. Masaruemoto 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate, POV, and almost certainly unverifiable. PC78 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Notability concerns. Also deleted the redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Bryce[edit]

Original Research, Un-sourced and Un-verifiable. There is no Clan Bryce. Bryce isn't listed with a large list of clans and names applying for recognition as Scottish Clans: Official Scottish Clans and Families. A Scottish Clan Bryce, or a Clan Bryce Association or Society doesn't come up at all on Google either. Celtus 07:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 08:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Sept Bryce and tag for fact and ask for a rewrite. There is no Clan Bryce, but there is a Sept (social) Bryce, as acknowledged by the official clan website, although it doesn't appear in the list of associated names in electric Scotland, other sites, [9], [10] and [11] included corroborate this. KTo288 12:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Been bold and followed my own suggestions but I've just noticed, that if you really want to delete this article, it may be easier to do so for copyvio than for OR compare the article with the house of names page.KTo288 12:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in any case because septs --which can be very small groups -- are (unlike clans) not necessarily or even usually notable . DGG (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I agree, septs on their own aren't notable, they are just a name among a list of other names. If there is a history to the sept under the main clan, or a history of the surname then it could be notable. But as it is this article doesn't cut it, in my opinion.--Celtus 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Clan Macfarlane would be appropriate. --Sc straker 15:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would oppose any attempt at a redirect and merge to Clan MacFarlane, better to delete the article. Bryce is but one of almost 60 families in Clan MacFarlane, to merge would give undue weight and prominence to this one sept. If this article is non notable in its own right (as those who seem better informed of this topic than I suggest) better to add one or two lines to the Bryce disambiguation page and add the one link that seems to be the source of most of the information in this article. KTo288 09:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balmain Hotel[edit]

Contested prod. The article is on a former Australian pub that traded for two years. It gives no indication as to why it is notable. Nuttah68 07:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incidental coverage of a subject by one secondary source is not sufficient to establish notability. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even seeing a claim of notability. It closed 160 years ago, and doesn't seem any more notable than any other failed pub. All ghits appear to be for an actual hotel with the same name. Horrorshowj 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable pub. Keb25 08:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per oxy. Twenty Years 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no claims of notability. - Longhair\^talk 10:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This pub could be as notable as Mzoli's, but without that information in the article, we'll never know. The book cited as a source might explain the significance of the pub, but that information isn't in the article either. This article should be deleted unless it's expanded and some claim to notability is made. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete, this article is about a 1840s establishment in a settlement that was only 50 years old, so sources will not be readily found and ghits are pretty silly. It could well have been the first pub in Balmain, and the building most probably existed for decades after and may even still be upright. Sadly the article doesnt make a claim to fame. As the initial contributor Amitch (talk · contribs) appears to be on a spell (probably due to having many of their contributions deleted), I have notified them via email. John Vandenberg 13:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. "Delete and redirect" seems to be a common theme here, but nobody can really explain why we should be deleting the article before redirecting. A straight redirect is just as appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qutub: The Point[edit]

highly obscure book with only 541 copies produced according to the publisher - appears to be a stereotypical vanity entry - submitted along with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_D._Chumbley Denial 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect 0 gnews hits. Ghits are only to booksellers. Article seems very promotional in nature, no strong claim to notability for the book. Horrorshowj 08:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I doubt it's promotional as the book is very rare. But not much content to the article so maybe merge/redirect to Andrew Chumbley.Merkinsmum 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the book is not notable on its own, but the author is for other reasons, so redirect to Andrew Chumbley. --Parsifal _Hello 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Suggest merging content to the target of the redirect as well, or place on talk page there for editors to merge. --Parsifal _Hello 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect The book is notable in that it is so highly sought after it sells within hours of posting for sale at over $1000.00 per copy. This book is addressed on Chumbley's page in more detail. Lulubyrd 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I flatly refuse to believe this is really sold for over 1000$ until I'm given evidence. After all, the book is available for much less! I don't see how the price of a book makes it relevant, either. - Denial 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find it online for less, in real book form, of which only a few hundred copies were made? Hence the price due to rarity. Yes you can get them in download/torrent form but it's hardly the same as owning a rare and collectable book. These might well increase in price too, as books do over the years, due to his death and their rarity. So their possible value in future is another reason people want them. The books also have a reputation/hype as being 'magickal' in themselves. That is into the actual books he has put sigils, sigilised bookmarks, magickal script etc. Rightly or wrongly people think the actual physical book, has a power in itself, which they might not think they could get from a download from online.Merkinsmum 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that it's rare, obviously, doesn't automatically mean it's not important, quite the opposite.Merkinsmum 17:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Andrew D. Chumbley. IPSOS (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Parsifal; This is not a rare old 1st edition. --Tiptopper 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. The company doesn't seem notable in it's own right. I can't really see why Andrew D. Chumbley was kept, however, as the closing admin didn't leave an explanation as to why they kept the article. Consensus is to merge, to be frank I can't see enough info to merge though. Therefore, I'm doing a straight redirect. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xoanon Publishing[edit]

tiny company with very limited production, no history, and no particular uniqueness that warrants a page; submitted along with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_D._Chumbley Denial 06:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 08:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Keep could be justified here on the basis that as a meta information resource, we should err on the side of inclusion of all verifiable information about present and former publishers and access to their works. Alternatively, if not kept, then a merge and redirect to Andrew D. Chumbley should be considered. Newyorkbrad 12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept the above suggestion of Newyorkbrad and propose a merge. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Andrew Chumbley who is notable.Merkinsmum 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Andrew Chumbley who is notable, per Merkinsmum suggestion. Lulubyrd 14:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this one liner fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Stevens[edit]

Here are OCLC's entries for Alec Stevens http://worldcat.org/oclc/20604777&referer=brief_results http://worldcat.org/oclc/23864133&referer=brief_results —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.230 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This review of Alec Stevens' first graphic novel THE SINNERS shows that the L.A. READER gave his book "Critic's Choice: Book of the Week": http://alecstevens.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/the_sinners.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.13.76 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Alec Stevens has published items, he and his work have received little to no reliable source press coverage. As noted at WP:COIN, the only person interested in editing the article appears edited by a publicist for the publishing company. In any event, Alec Stevens has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Alec Stevens or his employers to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails general notability guidelines. I also am nominating Calvary Comics, which was made a redirect without consensus. -- Jreferee T/C 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The work he's done does seem interesting. --Gwern (contribs) 20:02 23 September 2007 (GMT)
Keep He has done work for DC and other major publishers including working with Neil Gaiman. On Calvary Comics I don't really have an opinion. It works fine as a redirect unless the Stevens entry is deleted (as attempts to start that entry seem to have been headed off). (Emperor 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. He seems notable to me. Lambiek and the Grand Comic Book Database Project are two pretty reliable sources. Stephen Day 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.Well-known cartoonist, published by major publishers such as DC and Fantagraphics, taught at Joe Kubert school. Rhinoracer —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable Tiptopper 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D. Chumbley[edit]

Notability disputed, see Talk:Andrew_D._Chumbley#Notability Denial 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please note that the nominator has effectively withdrawn his nomination by changing his vote to keep. The majority of delete votes are now from ip addresses. IPSOS (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read through the article, and discussion that OP linked. While I understand the OP concern about the depth of the references, it is possible to pass WP:N with trivial or marginal depth in individual articles provided there is a significant quantity of them. Article's subject has enough low grade mentions in what op agreed is a peer-reviewed journal to pass this standard in my opinion. Argument about price of his books in resale market doesn't appear to be an exaggeration. (>$1000 for Qutub on ABE). This is indicative of someone whose notability may be lasting. Looking at past notable occultists, his volume of published work seems reasonable. He passes notability now, albeit barely, based on journal coverage and it appears his work will have a lasting impact in his field. Horrorshowj 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did agree the journal noted is per-reviewed, but I did not agree it passes for an academic journal. (I'm undecided on that.) Peer review alone is not enough for academic laurels. And Qutub has been offered for >$1000 alright, but has it been bought? With the apparent availability of copies (Google!), I very much doubt that. - Denial 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the cheapest copy of Azoetia listed on Amazon is $2000. None of his books are listed on ebay at the moment, but from this forum discussion it seems his Grimoire of the Golden Toad has fetched upwards of $2000 on ebay... In 2005 the Azoetia was definitely going for over $1000 on ebay [12] which from memory was pretty similar to the amazon used bookseller prices at the time. Market prices have risen since then, yes, but that's only because people have been buying. That's how the market sets its prices! Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Denial: Don't you know whether it has been bought for that price? I don't understand why you believe that you can make a reasoned argument without knowing your facts. Ben Ferneee of Caduceus Books has sold Qutub for over $1000 for several years now. He has offered The Grimoire of the Golden Toad for $5000 (both in Pounds Sterling, not American dollars) in the past year and it sold within hours. Write him. He'll reply. If the price books fetch in the collector market is an indication of notability, I'd say $5000 a book is notable. Lulubyrd 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a reference for the exponential increase in the value of Chumbley's work as well as a number of other details based on the same reference, which quotes Chumbley extensively on the "Left Hand Path". IPSOS (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I find sufficient indicia of notability in the talkpage discussions, and per some of Horrorshowj's points. Further editing of the article is in order, but that is not a deletion criterion. Newyorkbrad 12:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge from the company, above, per Newyorkbrad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Some of the editors might not know that the supposed references are not not legit. What has happened in this article is closer to a hagiography.SecondlyThe editors of the Chumbley article have taken the work of other people out of context to create an impression of Chumbley that sits ill with reality. An example of this is the editors stating Chumbleys occupation has a Magican. Can someone explain to me how someones occupation can be a magician? That will be interesting. Another point is that the present editors have an agenda in creating a profile for Chumbley that is out of proportion to his actual work . The references used to make Chumbley "appear" to be a "influential" occultist all come from articles by people who were not in a position to say how competent Chumbley was in his writing, and his ideas. Also the issue over using references from Hutton are dubious. Chumbley went out of his way to make a name for himself by courting hutton to be included in his papers. In this context Chumbley was sellling himself to Hutton.Hutton is a Historian. He is not a position to pass comment on whether Chumbley was a legitimate occultist.Also the references using Michael Howard are dishonest. Howard was a "student" of Chumbley and used his Cauldron fanzine to give a biased platform for Chumbley. To me this is nothing more than a hagiography in that context. A fair percentage of the references are very poor which dont back up the notability view. In the occult scene for notability to be accepted it has to been shown his work has been of original composition and have a genuine link to a spiritual link. Chumbley had neither. His work was plagiarism at best and vanity projects at worst. To put this in context look at the lack of material for the Kenneth Grant wiki article. Grant has been the major influence in Occultism for the last 30- 40 years. But yet his article is thread bare. In this context the Chumbley article is probably been edited by "students " of Chumbley who are seeking to make Chumbley something he is not, an occultist of notability. An example is the earlier mentioned use of the term magician. I put forward the motion that the article be deleted so that it can be started again with different editors from scratch, who wont turn the article into a shrine and advertisement for Chumbley. Compare the article to other notable occultist articles ( Gardner , Grant, Crowley etc.) and you will see the differnce in tone and accountability. If this article is kept in its present form then wikipedia editorial will be seen is inadequate and lightweight. Has far has i know historical revisionism isnt accepted in accounts of dead people. Why should Wikipedia accept this for the Chumbley article. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.126.158 (talk • contribs) — 86.139.126.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Problems with tone of the article are grounds for cleanup not deletion. Your first argument seems to be a belief that subject was an incompetent occultist, however being good at something isn't required to meet notability. You appear to personally dislike the articles subject, which again isn't a valid reason for deletion. Cauldron articles weren't used to assign notability, as they were written by the subject. I agree that the article needs cleanup, but do you have an actual policy based argument for deletion? Establishing lack of "genuine link to a spiritual link" is a little hard by wp standards.Horrorshowj 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for about a year now this anonymous editor has been making fairly colourful statements about how much he despises Chumbley and how childish the other editors are, from a variety of IP addresses (occasionally he logs in as User:Redblossom). His above comments you will find repeated ad nauseam through the talk page history along with my repeated, failed attempts to engage him in meaningful conversation and find out what on earth he's on about... Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep if you consider it hagiographical, NPOV it, don't delete. This is/was a very well known occultist. As to his career as a 'magickian' what is meant is that he engaged in magical pursuits himself, then as a writer, wrote them up in the form of books and articles.Merkinsmum 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to it having to be proven that Chumbley had a 'spiritual link', that is impossible to prove or disprove as all spiritual things are, except to a believer. What matters is he wrote books, stuff was written about his work, he appeared as a speaker, and others were inspired by him and have written that they have been.Merkinsmum 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh at the 'anon ip' editor, I'm just reading the comment some more. If he dislikes the tone of the article he can change it immediately, it doesn't have to be deleted. Does whoever-it-is not realise that the same group of editors plus others who find there way there, will edit the article if it's restarted?Merkinsmum 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per WP:N and WP:V. Regarding the IP editor, he/she seems to have strong feelings on the matter but the comments don't seem based in Wikipedia policy. --Parsifal _Hello 03:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've re-edited my comment to change "keep" to "strong keep" after seeing the additional references and other improvements to the article that were done during this AfD debate. It's now even more clear that this is a notable person supported by verifiable sources. For context on my comment, I have not edited the article or seen it before this AfD. --Parsifal _Hello 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have given my reasoning regarding Chumbley's notability at the article's talk page. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I see no real evidence that the sources are reliable, though I admit the difficulty of sourcing in this area. We are expected to believe he was well-known on the testimony of his associates. DGG (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - as I've contributed to the article I think that's the only fair position.

I'll point out that in reponse to POV criticisms from Redblossom (and his other identities) I have repeatedly suggested that he make changes to the article as he sees fit, which can then be discussed if needful; I have also offered to make the changes myself in according with his direction, sentence by sentence, even word by word! No changes or complaints specific to the text have been forthcoming, only criticisms in the most general terms. As exemplified by the anonymous posting above.

Following on from Merkinsmum's comment above: if the article is deleted and then started up again, I won't be taking a lead on it! Just confirming that - in answer to some unjustified allegations about my NPOV. Possesion of specialist knowledge about, and enthusiasm for, the subject does not make me or anyone else by default a student/disciple/follower/hagiographer. Thanks all! reineke 12:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the claim that'students' of Chumbley are in charge of the article- just because people may have heard of chumbley or even like to read his works, doesn't make them 'students' of his pushing a POV article. In actuality he took on very few personal students- (so it's unlikely many have contributed here), but a lot of people in occult circles have heard of him and his work.Merkinsmum 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I should follow Reineke's lead regarding a vote, since I, too, have contributed to the article. I challenge anyone to find the depth of material referencing this man and his work anywhere else, internet or print.

Voters here will want to read the talk pages before voting, including the archived discussions, where they will find more extensive reference material and get a feel for the rigour applied to referencing the article, the rigour the person calling for deletion is imposing upon editors and references, as well as the contributions of the "unsigned" person above. This has all been hashed out on the Talk page with those calling for deletion refusing to negotiate or contribute anything to the article or back up their complaints with a single opposing reference, and imposing POV on the veracity of references made by editors. I have always found the POV/NPOV charges made about the article kind of strange, since editors have simply placed everything we can get our hands on in the article. If we could find something-anything negative from a reliable source, it would be placed in the article for balance.

Commentators here might be warned that the anonymous person who has called for deletion above has deleted the article twice in the past month, has graffiti'ed the article, has badgered editors, has manipulated references to appear other than they are in order to further his agenda, and has posted under numerous sock puppets and IP addresses. This may all be seen on the talk page and article history page. Lulubyrd 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how past vandalism is in any way relevant to this discussion. Denial 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have missed the point and substance of the reference, Denial. Unfortunately, that seems to be a reoccurring theme on the Chumbley Talk page-my point exactly. Perhaps you have something to add except commentary on how you believe my contribution is lacking? Lulubyrd 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vandalism, POV, sock-puppetry etc. are not relevant to this discussion, and I would note that I saw no evidence that Denial was guilty of any manipulation, sock-puppetry, badgering etc.. He just doesn't consider Chumbley notable. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you will please read more carefully, you will see that I was not talking about the poster signing as Denial when posting about sock puppets, et al. The past actions of the commentator above voting for denial have been brought up by other voters here, including you. I fail to see why some actions may point to the veracity of claims and comments and others may not. Even you noted the badgering, etc., though you called it something else. Lulubyrd 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Fuzzypeg ☻ 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Lulubyrd 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - highly notable in his field. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reineke, whenever i have made changes to the article either Lulubyrd or someone else has undone them. Secondly when i challenged over the term magician has an occupation you were all resistant to its removal. Explain how that is neutral? The term magician is not an occupation. Did he make money from his "magic" to qualify it has a career /occupation? I would have to say no. The term occultist would have been more suitable. But the fact that the mind set of the editors seems to think its normal to label a deceased persons job has a magician speaks volumes about the surreal nature of this article.Also the fact the article is still insisting that he was the head of 'Sorcery Guild' "The Company of the Serpent Cross" even though there is no evidence that this order actually existed outside Chumbleys head. Just surreal. On a separate level there is no point accusing me for other peoples gripes with the article. This has happened consistently when between you , Lulubyrd, and Reineke, have all portrayed me has this "Bongo " character, attempting to deflect from the very poor standard of editing of the article. So in that context i agree with the other critics that the article should be scrubbed and given over to the hands of someone neutral who doesnt have an axe to grind or an agenda, so that a grounded article can be begun from scratch. Whatever the intention of the article was , has been lost in personal inadequacies and agendas presented has academic fact. I put forward that the article has a minor deletion and be put in the hands of a neutral editor who will use the remaining references in a matter of fact fashion to give a more honest account of Chumbleys career. If any Wiki editor asks why , then look at the history of the misnomers and fabrications put forward has academic "fact" in the articles history. --Redblossom 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redblossom, the proposed reason for deletion is that Chumbley is not notable; that is all we're trying to decide, and the discussion doesn't extend to editorial disagreements about the article. Take those on the article's talk page. I know you have long held that Chumbley is not a "real occultist" and is only notable for his publishing, if that. This is your opportunity to present your arguments regarding his notability. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to talk with you on the article's discussion page, Red; see you over there. reineke 08:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The content is noteworthy, the article is encyclopaedic and there is no violation of any WP recommendations. It does need to be improved in some respects, but so do most articles. I found it interesting, informative and worthy of inclusion. docboat 02:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per IPSOS and docboat. GlassFET 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concerns about the notability of the subject of this article are justified. The slightly bizarre character of the entry seems to argue for something of a compensatory bias on the part of a small number of contributors pushing a certain agenda. The article was problematic, if well-intentioned, from the start and needs to be given some serious consideration (not a 'vote' which would be meaningless)and serious deliberation from Wiki arbitrators. As many people clearly regard the original article as lacking in credibility I think it should be deleted and a simpler and more sober entry written from scratch from a more objective angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.165 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment

http://www.arin.net/whois/

Search results for: 195.92.168.165  (2nd anon. contributor)

OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre

OrgID: RIPE Address: P.O. Box 10096 City: Amsterdam StateProv: PostalCode: 1001EB Country: NL

 Search results for: 86.139.126.158 (1st anon. contributor)

   OrgName:    RIPE Network Coordination Centre 
   OrgID:      RIPE
   Address:    P.O. Box 10096
   City:       Amsterdam
   StateProv:  
   PostalCode: 1001EB
   Country:    NL

Enough said I think!:)Merkinsmum 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not going anywhere. Dear co-editors who happen do defend this article, you are wasting time on highly circumstancial evidence such as the supposed price of books (a criterium since when?), unsourced claims of notability, and ad hominem attacks. You fail to discuss the guidelines or bring in new evidence that mets them. I tire of this mode of discussion since it is inconsequential to the result. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this discussion is not a vote. The guidelines are what matters and this article doesn't meet them. Nothing said in this discussion has changed that. - Denial 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is very definitely going somewhere. It is polarising into two groups: you and the User:Redblossom puppeteer on one side, with weak support from User:DGG, and everyone else on the other, including a number of editors who are familiar with both WP policy and the occult community. Many of the "keep" comments have included discussion about notability guidelines and why Chumbley meets them; if you don't choose to engage with any of this discussion and consider it "inconsequential" then perhaps you'd prefer setting up an improved encyclopedia that doesn't involve that stupid concept of collaboration. Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely disinterested outsider, I see here nothing but a clear consensus to Keep, based on numerous uninvolved editor's appraisal of what we all will admit is a "judgment call". User: Denial was extraordinarily civil in the initial discussions of notability on the article's talk page, but I detect here a change towards a less civil tone. You're right, Denial, this discussion is not a vote: it's a call for editors to offer their opinion on a subjective issue. And that opinion is clearly the opposite of your own. Welcome to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Eaglizard 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make it a democracy then? Yay! :D reineke 08:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Um, I'm confused. I'm new to AfD-not a Wikipedian/editor, just an occultist with an interest in the subject. You may see that this subject is the only one to which I've contributed. This is not a vote? This is inconsequential to the result? Please explain; on the Talk page if this is an inappropriate venue. Lulubyrd 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lulubyrd, what it essentially means is that the administrator who closes this discussion could ignore the numbers of people behind one of the positions, saying that the arguments used are not 'proper.' That is what Denial said in his most recent comment, that those of us who are arguing to keep the article "you are wasting time on highly circumstancial evidence such as the supposed price of books (a criterium since when?), unsourced claims of notability" etc. He has a point in a way, really ideally we should be discussing the various sources and linking to them here for the benefit of editors who land on this discussion. As it is, sad to say we are not really proving that Chumbley is noteable just by saying 'yes he is' 'I've heard of him' 'he's well-known, influential' 'keep' and we're not providing any sources on this AfD page, to back it up. It makes me as someone who has voted keep, worry that he's not actually noteable, which would be sad. I'm going to put the sources there are in the article, here so we can all see/assess them, at least then there are some mentioned here in depth.Merkinsmum 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment To save cluttering up this page more I've started another section at the bottom of the talk page of chumbleys article, Talk:Andrew_D._Chumbley called 'the sources'. I know there's already one on 'notabiliity' but I don't think it writes out some of the sources for them to be seen clearly- this is easy to do for some of them.Merkinsmum 14:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thank you for your kind reply, Merkinsum. The sources have been gone over on the Chumbley page, ad nauseam. The references on Chumbley's page aren't really what Denial appears to be questioning. Denial appears to be questioning the legitimacy of the journals in which Chumbley is mentioned and where he has published, and the notability of who is mentioning Chumbley. Denial has dismissed The Cauldron as an occult 'zine, when in fact it has been continuously published for over 30 years, and is published in several languages and on two continents. He has dismissed Chaos International magazine as a thin pamphlet of sorts published once a year when in fact it was published about 4 times a year under Reed’s steerage in the 90’s when Chumbley published there. Those issues were a big deal then and still are now. In the past week I have seen CI issues in which Chumbley articles offered for sale for L25 Sterling-a price increase over issues offered without Chumbley articles. He dismissed The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic, a juried occult journal with submissions from all over the world, as a student publication like many others on the basis of a cursory internet search, then was not able to reference his material at all. Though he claims to have read the journals, he is unable to describe their format. He dismisses Xoanon publishing, a thriving ongoing publishing concern started by Chumbley which has just added a new publishing initiative, as a vanity press. According to Denial, Hutton all but dismissed Chumbley and he infers that Chumbley went to Hutton with hat in hand instead of characterizing Hutton as the researcher he is who approached Chumbley. This assertion pretty much disrespects Hutton and his accomplishments more than Chumbley, though. Denial dismisses reviewers of Chumbley’s writing as non-notable people.

Denial has refused to provide any references to back up any of his charges of non-notability while demanding others provide references of notability in response to his charges. I also note some similarities in writing and posting style between Denial and other article detractors. I note a similar style of attempts to change the subject when pressed for details and similar word choices. Lulubyrd 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. So if Chumbley isn't notable for Wikipedia-no big deal. I suggest that removal would be a much bigger loss to Wikipedia than to Chumbley. Lulubyrd 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious- how could someone prove/provide references for non-notability? (i.e. the references wouldn't say anything!) :) He does have a point the burden rests on us to find sources asserting notability, rather than the other way round.Merkinsmum 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ho, Merkinsmum: I was considering the possibility that Denial might make a real case for non-notability by providing references that show that those who laud Chumbley are non-notable themselves and the journals in which Chumbley published and in which he has been mentioned are non-notable. The idea of proving non-notability would then rest on references backing up his charges of why Chumbley is non-notable. An example might be that he would produce a reference that states that Chaos International was a once yearly pamphlet as he charges, or provide a reference that shows that there are indeed "many" (several, any?) student publications that rival the depth and scope of JSM as he has claimed, or that The Cauldron is not an internationally published magazine but instead a trivial occult 'zine, or that he has, indeed, created a 150+ member talk group for discussion of just one of his published books. (By the way, I understand it's very difficult to even get in to that discussion group). Lulubyrd 03:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the disagreement so far has rested on two points: 1) whether the sources we're citing for Chumbley's notability are themselves non-trivial, notable and intellectually independent; and 2) whether Chumbley's own published writings have been published in a way that makes them notable. Regarding triviality, WP:BIO states:

Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.

I think the only "trivial" reference to Chumbley in the article is the Phil Hine "Oven Ready Chaos" reference. All others discuss his work and/or his character and express analysis or opinion. Regarding notability of the sources who discuss Chumbley, we have several sources who are highly notable in their field, such as Ronald Hutton, Michael Howard, Jan Fries, Phil Hine, as well as other, less stellar, but still influential and well-informed figures, such as Michael Staley.

Regarding intellectual independence, I would argue that each of these people, although they had probably had contact with Chumbley (Howard certainly did), have written about him with intellectual independence. Remember this is the occult community, a community of highly independent and self-directed people. Michael Howard is probably the most arguable case of intellectual dependence, since he and Chumbley were colleagues, but Howard himself is a scholar and historian and editor of the leading Witchcraft journal in the world, and if he says Chumbley was an important occultist, then it's not because Chumbley was leaning on him to say that (especially considering Chumbley was dead!); it's because he genuinely believes it. And I can't think of many people better placed to make that judgement. Can we really discount the opinions of some of the most notable figures in contemporary British occultism just because Chumbley knew them? Doesn't that make him seem more notable, not less?

Regarding the notability of Chumbley's own writing, he was published numerous times in the leading journals of his field. If you dismiss The Cauldron as an "occult zine" you're effectively denying the validity of one of the occult community's most respected mouthpieces. Hutton considered The Cauldron an effective way to address the pagan community, for instance, as I pointed out in the article's talk page. And what other sources do we have for info on the occult community? Llewellyn books with their RavenWolf-Grimassis? Bleerch.

Now even if the above points weren't enough to convince us, WP:BIO offers some other ways to establish notability:

"The person has demonstrable wide name recognition": This was the point of all the name-dropping that I cited on the talk page. I tried to include only the name-drops that seemed most significant, such as by the webmaster of lashtal.com, the drummer from Tool, Chas Clifton's blog (another very well respected occult historian). And these name drops weren't just passing mentions, many glowingly described him as being among the most important figures in contemporary magic. Denial reckoned he himself could probably get a newsgroup of 165 members to form to discuss his work, but I don't believe it! Not unless he did something quite notable.

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors": The people that Denial says are not "intellectually independent" are Chumbley's peers and successors. Lets not discount them, eh?

So we have a number of criteria for notability each of which are arguable, however I believe that each single criterion could be successfully argued on its own merits (assuming most of our sources haven't been discounted on the grounds of "intellectual dependance", which would seem like pure obscurantism to me.) Happily Wikipedia allows us consider notability by multiple criteria together as carrying more weight.

Ultimately this has to come down to an informed decision by the editors over how we're going to interpret the various sources, and how we're going interpret the guidelines themselves. There are no cut and dried rules we can follow, as implied by the passage: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Ultimately we must be guided by our knowledge of the field, and from the way the discussion is going so far we seem to be gravitating towards to conclusion that Chumbley is either "notable in his field" or "highly notable in his field". Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to recent discussion at the article talk page, there is no reason to believe Howard was a student of Chumbley. I had assumed that was the basis for Denial arguing that he wasn't "intellectually independent". Is there any other reason for doubting his independence, or can we dispense with that concern? Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability references have been added to the Chumbley page by IPSOS, who has found references to Chumbley in Dave Evans' new book, The History of British Magic After Crowley: Kenneth Grant, Amado Crowley, Chaos Magic, Satanism, Lovecraft, the Left Hand Path, Blasphemy and Magical Morality. For those of you here who might not be familiar with Evans' work, Evan's has a PhD on this subject. It is my understanding that he has worked closely with Hutton. As an aside, I also hear that the book was welcomed with glowing reviews. Lulubyrd 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete: Between Reienke, Lulubyrd, and Fuzzypeg they keep using the same doubtful references to "imply" that Chumbley is notable in a Wiki/academic context. Nothng they have put forward so far suggest that Chumbley is notable under wiki criteria. All they have done is taken the same flawed references but using different arguments to "dress" up these references. All this has shown is that they havent learned anything and are still presenting lies has some sort of verifiable fact. They keep going back to the Hutton and the Howard refernces. In the comment section i have repeated that the use of Howard's material is non neutral since he knew Chumbley has a student. This doesnt meet NPOV. Secondly Hutton was approached by Chumbley to be included in his papers. This is not non neutral criteria. Hutton has a histroian was in no position to judge if Chumbley was a legitimate occultist or somebody who was promoting his publishing vanity project. Hutton had to take at face value what Chumbley told him. In this context there was no indeoendent material to judge Chumbleys claims. Hutton would have published anything that Chumbley said since he had a book to fill. So in that context the Hutton references are not neutral and dont meet NPOV criteria of Wikipedia. Has a secondary note, Fuzzypeg, Lulubyrd, or Reineke should not be allowed to edit or manipulate the article until this is resolved one way or another. Collectively they have had plenty of time to present a decent article under have just used it to promote their own personal tastes to the detriment of fact and accountability.--Redblossom 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you, Redblossom, are failing (or refusing) to address the issues raised on this page. If anyone wants to bar me from editing the Chumbley article while deletion is being discussed that's absolutely fine with me. The only substantial amendment I have made recently was in response to your quibbling over references to "Serpent Cross" etc.; you didn't like them, I removed them - you should be pleased with that.

Deletion of the article has been proposed by Denial on account of lack of notability of the subject, Andrew Chumbley. NPOV can be achieved through editing - deletion, like extinction, is forever. Redblossom, you must address yourself to the question of "notability" in the first instance, because that is what is being established here. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N reineke 16:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no reason not to edit the article during the AfD. References can be added and the text can be made more NPOV. Often an inintended effect of AfD nominations is that articles are substantially improved during AfD's, which is a good thing. --Parsifal _Hello 17:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed Dave Evans' book, I believe this is indeed a non-trivial, significant, intellectually independent reference. Consequently, I change my opinion to: keep. This does nothing to alter my assessment of the sources previously mentioned; I maintain the Cauldron is insignificant by anything but in-group standards and CI had less than 30 issues since 1980, while the Journal (which may or may not be academic) and Hutton (certainly academic) mentioned Chumbley only superficially. However, this is now inconsequential as I believe the Evans reference is enough.

I would have preferred to arrive at this proof of notability without the off-topic rambling, insults, false accusations of lying or sockpuppetry, and misrepresentations of my statements. This discussion does not leave me with the impression occultists are particularly able to control their emotions and subdue their egos, as some of you claim they can... anyway, I believe this new source settles the discussion, so see you on some other page. - Denial 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us have not been having a go at you at all, denial, nor have most of us said a word against you, whereas you have just slagged off most of the editors here with that paragraph. Who is it that can't control their (random) emotions, then?Merkinsmum 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. This is the first time I have ever been sucked into wikipedia for anything of this sort. I have studied Chumbley for about a year now, and to come by here one day and see such an amazing article about Mr. Chumbley, his work and infleunces, made me quite happy. His own work is quite dense, and multifaceted, and the students of his work would gain greatly from a good article on him. He is under-appreciated, perhaps because that is what he wanted. Many don't understand his work, and get frustrated; others spend all this money on his works, and get pissed off that they don't open intellectually as easily as other books on magick. Yet this article is a refuge and will hopefully be built up slowly by people who can help others to understand Mr. Chumbley. This article opens up a highly important figure to a wider world.

He has had notoriety in specific circles: people who can afford, and are willing to spend the money, on his works, or those who get them before they go up in price. he has had a large impact upon the work of many streams of occult thought and has earned himself a place beside many of the others greats of this century, and that is what this argument is really about- is he worth being up here? Well, his work itself would argues yes to those who have had the pleasure of studying them. That aside however, the references are to show that he is important; Mr. Hutton, a foremost scholar on witchcraft, would say so. As would Michael Howard, the editor of one of the world best magazines on witchcraft. Jan Fries had nothing but praise, as did Gavin Semple, one of Britain's foremost Austin Osman Spare scholars. Danny Carey, drummer of Tool and open occultist, respects him enough to place the Azoetia in the album artwork alongside books by Crowley and John Dee, quite the compliment. Finally, there is a shining reference by Kenneth Grant, which I will get to in a second. Kenneth Grant is a massive influence upon modern day creative occultism, and a major force of many controversial ideas and opinions, but it could not be argued by any occultist that he is a figure of great notoriety and influence the world over, and has been a major part of the occult revival since the 19070's. In his "Beyond the Mauve Zone", on pg. 279, footnote 14: "Andrew Chumbley's Azoetia, as far as it is based upon the Current transmitted to Austin Osman Spare, is one of the few contemporary works on Witchcraft worth citing, and I take this opportunity of bringing the book to the notice of all serious students of the Zos Kia Cultus." This is no light reference, at least if one takes anything about the occult under-current into consideration. In my own opinion, this alone would be a good enough reference to establish the worth of Mr. Chumbley to found on Wiki.

One thing I feel about wiki is that it provides information on topics not found anywhere else on the internet, and is great because it covers such a diverse range of strands and currents in great detail. I would also say that articles about people and their ideas do not waste space if it increases the databases knowledge about topics and streams, such as Western Occultism. To leave Mr. Chumbley out of that would be unfair to the people who come to wikipedia to learn about things they do not know about. Most of the arguments against this article I honestly do not understand- such vehemence and spite, nagging about the "validity of references", commiting essentially academic hairsplitting, claiming that references which are not "academic" are automatically invalid, which itself is insulting a whole subculture; putting down such great magazines as The Cauldron because it does not fulfill some subjective standard of what counts towards showing an individuals importance (when so many people support the article and Mr. Chumbleys importance to a database of knowledge and reference) I just can not understand. I mean, I could understand it if all the evidence brought forward to defend Mr. Chumbley could be proved invalid or non-existent; but just because the sources are not of the "normal" "academic" persuasion I do not feel invalidates them. these currents exist, and though not important to everybody, are very important to a group of people who are involved in a controversial and unique area of study. It truly would be a shame, and a step backwards, if wikipedia lost this article.

All that said, I am glad to se such an article, and in such detail. I imagine it was a work of love and curiosity. As a person who has nothing but the highest regards to for the beauty and intricacy of Andrew Chumbley's thought I find this article to be wonderful and a testament to a man who put his whole into what he occupied his life with (or i could say, his "occupation") into his Work and passion, which was magick and his dedication to the Pagan religion; an effort, i feel, will work towards a greater understanding and appreciation of the natural religion, and perhaps clear away some of the falsity that has aggregated around it since the modern "wiccan" revival. I also hope that those who did not think Andrew worth being here will have the chance to let down their negative judgments and perhaps get the chance to look through and honestly appraise Andrews books- things which are truly unique works of art, and deserving of every penny they fetch on the market.

Well, that is my two cents. To those reviewing this deletion request, I hope you put a lot of careful thought into this matter- I feel that it will represent whether lesser known, but equally important figures, aught to find their way on here or. Ronsharpe 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've gone five days here, gentlemen. Have we completed our task? Lulubyrd 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Also searching Google for "Chumbley" alone, only shows this article as a reference to "Andrew" on the first results page. --Sc straker 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Note The history of the posts by the person above, Sc Straker, appears to show that he was trolling through the AfD pages, starting with the letter A, voting to delete each one. Lulubyrd 08:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note hey lulu, that's not really fair, anyway he's voted to keep some, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Cory. I like to mainly go on AfD at the moment, most of the articles that reach AfD are clear-cut cases of not being worth an article (such as bands who are only mentioned on their own myspace.) So people might seem really evil deletionists if you read how they've voted in AfD's, but that's because so many of the articles on AfD are inevitably going to be deleted. Sc straker's google test above though, is a bit random. I'm going to nag an admin to close this AfD now, as it's more than 5 days.Merkinsmum 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Appears notable, also has reliable sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dean (Ufologist)[edit]

Article has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability (the only sources are forums and the subject's own web site). Alksub 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (<removed comment due to BLP>. See Ta bu shi da yu for any queries.) Nick mallory 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 08:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 14,000 hits on Google for "Robert Dean"/"UFO"--that would seem to be adequate notability. The alleged NATO UFO incident with the purported secret report "The Assessment" seems interesting enough to keep the article. Keraunos 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"by the time of Dean’s retirement from the military in 1976, he claims, the assessment was there were twelve different extraterrestial civilizations visiting Earth." 'purported' is a nice word for it. Nick mallory 12:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to lack of reliable sources. Keep, now that references have been added. ~~"Cosmic Top Secret Clearance"?! I myself have Intergalactic Ultra Super Duper Security Clearance and can assure you there is no such security level.~~ Clarityfiend 09:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there is such a beast as "Cosmic Top Secret" [13], if we can consider the Canadian government a reliable source. Horrorshowj 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ummm...I meant on my planet. Yeah, that's right. Clarityfiend 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is clearly notable, whatever else you might think of him. If the article needs refs, tag it as such rather than deleting it. The article has only existed for 3 days - it would have been helpful to tag it properly and allow some time for the article to be improved.--Michig 12:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've spent a few minutes finding additional information via google - the article now has independent sources. I've avoided adding links to ufo-conspiracy type sites as these would not be considered reliable by a lot of people, but there's no denying that among these circles, this guy is well known and has received a lot of coverage. You may think he's a 'lunatic' but that's not really a valid criterion for deleting articles.--Michig 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has the 'mysterious universe forum', which you cite twice, been considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? Your other sources are his own website and another similar website. Oh, and an article from the Tuscon Weekly in 1995 which points out that 'Dean could be delusional, a monomaniac who sincerely believes his stories are true. He could be flat-out lying, spreading these tales for a free ticket to travel the world.' Nick mallory 14:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is moot. WP:RS is not applicable in this case. We are talking about his notability within Ufology, not about the reliability of sources naming him. If 1 million clinically verified compulsive liars all wrote books about him he would be considered notable, even if their books were not considered reliable. - perfectblue 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which forum would that be? I didn't add any such links/references, nor did I add any links to his own website. Are you confusing me with the original author of the article? I would agree that he may be insane/a liar/whatever, but does that mean he isn't notable?--Michig 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only has he spoken in the University of Arizona about UFOs, ~~I found this interview with a paranormal site that appears to be a reliable one with regards to UFOs.~~--Alasdair 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliable source is 'a paranormal site that appears to be a reliable one with regards to UFO's'?!!?!? Nick mallory 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Such sources aren't inherently unreliable. Believe it or not, there are a handful of UFO researchers who are objective, level-headed, and scholarly. Jerome Clark is a good example. However, I do agree that that particular site seems rather juvenile. Zagalejo^^^ 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of the site shouldn't be an issue, all that should be an issue is that the site knows who he is and includes references to him, which helps us to establish notability within the field. - perfectblue 11:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then. Check the "About us" page on that site, and it suggests this one's rather authoritative with regards to UFOs.--Alasdair 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it says they're not alien spacecraft, so proving Dean is talking nonsense? Nick mallory 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant here, I'm afraid. We're debating his notability not his reliability. Let me explain this simply, a man can be a deranged crackpot and a compulsive liar, which makes him unreliable as a source. However, if he's famous for telling outrageous lies, then he's clearly notable. This man is widely quoted, which makes him notable. The fact that what he says might not be scientifically accurate is a whole other debate which has no place in a notability dispute. - perfectblue 11:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I give no credence to an "alien" explanation for UFOs, but that doesn't mean a person can't be notable within the "UFO community". He appears to be sufficiently notable in that regard. — RJH (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question about whether he's notable in the 'UFO community' it's a question of whether he's notable by Wikipedia standards, which he clearly isn't. Nick mallory 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's a nothing argument. Ufology is notable in society in general and he is notable in ufology, therefore he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page. Let me show you exactly how empty your argument is. There are 6 billion people in the world and the vast majority of them couldn't tell you who won the super bowl, therefore by your argument neither that team nor the super bowl can be notable. - perfectblue 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see no indicate of notability beyond trivial mentions. The NYT article quotes him as one of several people at a convention, not as being important there.There's no way anything in his own self-published work or websites can be used to support anything--especially notability. DGG (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly how many times has the NYT mentioned you as a convention attendee? Why would they mention a nobody? They clearly wouldn't, it would have no point to it. - perfectblue 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was in the armed forces which is a fact. He claims to have seen government files during his time working- fact. There are plenty of videos of him on the internet to support this article. He is more than worthy of an article. He has also been interviewed on many radio stations including Coast to Coast AM which is a national program.DestinationAndromeda 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the armed forces or 'seeing government files' is hardly a reason for being on Wikipedia. Neither are 'videos on the internet' or appearing on conspiracy radio shows. Nick mallory 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Nick. He is a minor celebrity. DestinationAndromeda 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the "Coast to Coast defense" before. It didn't work. Zagalejo^^^ 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only because people won't accept exactly how popular the show is. - perfectblue 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of whether what he says has any basis in fact the coverage that he has gotten by saying it makes him a noteworthy figure within his specific field and within popular belief in general. When he speaks people listen, it makes no difference if they are listening because they believe him or so that they can debunk him later on, it;s the numbers that matter here. Think notoriety rather than reliability. - perfectblue 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Dean is notable for having won an anti-discrimination suit against his bosses. He claimed that he was being discriminated agaisnt because of his belief in UFOs and the courts agreed with him. - perfectblue 08:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, I've seen him all over the place. User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelion1 (talk • contribs) [reply]

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Scoresby[edit]

Article does not establish adequate notability for inclusion per WP:BIO. Person is the president of a non-notable non-profit. No sources cited. Google search didn't turn up any third-party coverage. Dissenting editor points to list of publications, but most are self-published. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 08:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source information independent of Scoresby. The ordinary resume information with no noted impact on others makes it close to a CSD A7 speedy deletion, but AfD probably is better in this case. -- Jreferee T/C 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bays[edit]

Despite the article stating that he is a filmmaker, dramatist, voice actor, and award-winning radio producer (which is much more than Steven Spielberg who only is a film director and producer), Jeff Bays has received little to no reliable source press coverage. Nor has his radio play Not From Space received any such press coverage. As noted at WP:COIN, the only person interested in editing the article appears to be Jeff Bays himself and using information largely from the company's publicity releases ([14]). In any event, Jeff Bays has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Jeff Bays to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic fails general notability guidelines. For similar reasons, I also am nominating Not From Space. -- Jreferee T/C 06:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom., and note that the article about the "award" the work supposedly got, Mark Time Awards, is also part of the same walled garden edited only by the subject himself, and unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Mark Time Awards isn't particularly notable either. Also, Image:Borgus-NFS.jpg appears to be inappropriately tagged as public domain, while nothing on the source indicates that. --Pekaje 09:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete both, sorry that the author worked so hard on these, but the subjects aren't close to being notable. NawlinWiki 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atala T[edit]

No sources to show notability of this small ISP, or of the less significant browser toolbar. Alksub 06:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely. Seems like another random piece of software... --Gwern (contribs) 20:03 23 September 2007 (GMT)

- Please do not delete my articles, I am the arthor of both Atala T articles and just because Atala T is not commonly known does not give you the right to just delte my artice. If you would as to be so kind as to look at my talk page, you will see that I have stuggled to have my articles on wikipedia and to have them in the "wikipedia" standard but now it seems like people are doing it just for no real apparent reason. I have listed resources and thier accurate website and formated it and eveything. Alot of work as went into these articles. Atala T is not known because it is a very small ISP/ Web service provider, I know this because I personally know the person who is the CEO of the company, Its not like this is just some random article that just appeared over night. I would really appreciate it if my article is not deleted and I will do my best to add more usefull information to the article. Please reply to my talk page.

--Muriness 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete Big source problems (i.e. none). No evidence of notability. UnitedStatesian 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please tell me how it has no sources when both the web sites are listed on the pages?

--Muriness 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia requires independent sources - in this case, sources like articles or websites not connected with the company. You can't use a company's website as a source for an article about the company or its products. UnitedStatesian 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has told me that before as I am still new to editing on this website, and thats still no excuse to delete m article, I hope it is not deleted because I can still fix it up. --Muriness 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. Non-notable ISP/webmail. Keb25 09:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont delete my article, I really worked hard to create it in the "wikipedia standards" and It would be like the 5th or 6th article I tryed to create on this web site! It is not advertising in any way, shape or form, please do not delete my article, I will get more sources for both pages if thats all it needs. --Muriness

Delete Sadly im gona have to go with delete. Mostly by the fact that it has only a hunderds of user not even peaking into the 1000's. ForeverDEAD 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not "beg" for us to keep your articals its more pitaful then a reason not to delete ForeverDEAD 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'd bet if I was some big time editor on wikipedia, my article would not even come close to being here. I really dont see what is wrong with my article but if alowed for it to be kept on here I will make the nessecary changes. --Muriness 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, The main problom is that its not notable. It even says it doesnt even have a thousand people using it. This artical is greatly written and if the subject was notable enough im sure it would be kept ForeverDEAD 22:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basically I need to start this all over again for like the 6 or 5th time. If my article is deleted I dont think I will created another artcile because this is terrible --Muriness 03:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you make great articals just on the wrong subjects. You just have to make them on diffent notable subjects. And rember begging with us isnt going to get your artical not deleted ForeverDEAD 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle (band)[edit]

Non-notable side project of an almost non-notable musician. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree on the lack of notability- and I have one of the band's shirts! -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier (album)[edit]

EP by non-notable band. Didn't sell. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete providing Lifestyle (band) gets deleted, as it seems it will at the moment. J Milburn 11:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman (pinball)[edit]

It seems that there was a pinball game made with Superman on it. Two sentences on an utterly non-notable topic. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. IPDB lists it as a 30 year old machine and that there were just 3000 produced. Operating 11:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fee Fi says it best. Mandsford 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked long and hard for a way to stick this info to the main Superman article's merchandise section, but then I realized that Superman has been on so many products that this one pinball game doesn't really fit without trying (and failing) to develop a complete list of all licenses.--Torchwood Who? 18:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Are the other pinball game articles going to be nominated as well? I'm not saying WP:WAX, I'm just curious if this one is less notable than the 100+ pinballs already in Category:Pinball games. Selling 3000 units is a respectable amount in pinball sales, although it might not sound like a lot. Masaruemoto 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pinball article with lots of text; The Flintstones (pinball). I don't know if it would survive an AfD, but I tend to give articles that look like something a pass. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as profoundly non-notable. Alba 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep.-Wafulz 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Otaola[edit]

Insufficient references; fails WP:MUSIC. This fellow played music for Santa Sabina (band) and other ensembles, but was not the leader of any of these, and is not notable in and of himself. The page is poorly written and would need substantial work in addition to finding neutral nontrivial references. Shalom ^Hello 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A member of the Wikipedia Intensive Care Unit staff has placed this article in the ICU. He or she believes that the subject may be notable but the article itself needs major work, and is endeavoring to fix it in an effort to save the article. Realkyhick 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would have been me. While I have no opinion on whether the page should be deleted or not, I feel the subject may be noteworthy. I've subsequentely rewritten the whole page, however I'm still missing references and I have an awefull lot of red links. I'm hoping to find a few references and sources to incorporate into the article and "prove" it's noteworthyness. 1redrun ^Talk 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but copy-edit and clean up required. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 05:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong delete, per nom.JJJ999 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has a lengthy discography and has been a member of two notable bands for significant periods. The article could do with more references, but there is clearly a bias against finding these as they will mainly be in Spanish. Bondegezou 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give the article seven days grace to be improved and properly sourced delete it for lack of sources if no improvements are made. A1octopus 16:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is being cleaned up by Intensive Care Unit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that he was/is a member of two notable bands passes WP:Music. Added AMG reference. ♫ Cricket02 04:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the re-work, I don't see how this is a notable artist. Merely playing with a notable group, doesn't confer notability. And its been in the ICU for 3 weeks with no improvement in red links Mbisanz 19:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notability has been provided with the sources now listed in the article and the connections with other notable groups. Chubbles 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REDLINKS Removed. REDLINKS have now been removed Kathleen.wright5 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine that redlinks have been removed, but in my mind, he should be involved with more than 1 notable project and a compilation album. More blue links in those areas would show notability to. Mbisanz 22:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barely notable. Stub article, which needs biographical information. -Freekee 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Col. William P. Tuttle

The result was speedy kept with assent of nominator. Article moved per Punkmorten. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Col. William P. Tuttle[edit]

~~I don't think this individual is notable enough for an article...having a town named after you does not make you inherently notable.~~ MatthewUND^(talk) 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Being~~ Having been a member of the state legislature satisfies WP:BIO. Clarityfiend 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm, you're right...my bad. Perhaps I should withdraw my nom and suggest a speedy keep? --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Sounds good. (Maybe you got him mixed up with this Tuttle?) Clarityfiend 09:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to William P. Tuttle. We don't have Col., Dr. or things like that in the article title. Punkmorten 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Punkmorten. — RJH (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete.-Wafulz 03:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Route 4 (Saratoga County, New York)[edit]

No assertion of notability. This county route is not part of a statewide county route system, and is thus not notable enough for an article in my eyes. This article contains nothing more than what is in the List of county routes in Saratoga County, New York, except a junction list filled with equally non-notable routes, and an edit redirecting this article to the list was reverted. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete messy and stubby article. Most county roads are not notable. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:USRD/NT and TMF. —Scott5114 ↗ 05:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Scott. м info 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above master son^{T - C} 05:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What makes this road important? Has it been cited by any other independent source at all? --Polaron | Talk 12:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good news! The 268 (bus) will be servicing this road very soon, adding to notability for both. Mandsford 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability guidelines. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect; it's a plausible link target. --NE2 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? Where? Should we put up a big orange detour sign? Mandsford 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of county routes in Saratoga County, New York#4, of course. --NE2 21:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried that and the article creator reverted. —Scott5114 ↗ 01:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article gives useful information. Besides what would be the point of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York County Routes without the creation of new articles? --Andy 1One 22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the use of a permanent stub? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

argue that one on the Village Pump. they're acceptable in WP per WP:STUB.DGG (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I can write an article on my street, which will be a permanent stub, and have it on Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly there is whole categories filled with these non-notable routes Secret 22:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a current project that is resolving this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Keep per the additional research discussed below, which the nominator appears to have accepted. Newyorkbrad 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Lawrence Balls[edit]

Unreferenced, and maybe I'm doing things wrong, but I can't seem to reference this article about a cotton scientist. Notability and verifiability is in question. ArglebargleIV 04:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable a Google search for "William Lawrence Balls" return 6 hits. -Icewedge 04:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most likely a joke. м info 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Keb25 05:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Unencyclopedic tone, but not a joke article in the least. A search on "W. L. Balls" (scientists were more commonly known by their initials in that era) yields numerous results in scientific journals in multiple languages, and he seems to have been an early researcher to recognize the value of traditional methods per se and attempt to explain them scientifically. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone who was awarded a CMG and a CBE, who is a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS)[15], who has a 17 page biography in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society[16], who has his portrait in the National Portrait Gallery [17], London, who has written large number of papers[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and whose papers are recorded in the UK National Archives [27], has to be notable! Horrible article though, which is badly in need of a clean-up. I may have a look at this over the next couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 05:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to admit, I was skeptical of the "cotton/Balls" connection, but if this is a hoax, it's an amazingly detailed one that has taken in the Janus Library at Cambridge, among others (see [28], for instance). The scientific papers listed in the article check out with the list of Cambridge's holdings, and there's even a photo of him in the (British) National Portrait Gallery . [29]. There's a monograph in JSTOR, and you can read the first page at [30]. And, as per Dhartung above (thanks) if you search under W. L. Balls you find numerous results. The article could use a little Wikifying and cleanup, but if it's a hoax, it's taken me in too. Accounting4Taste 05:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, seems like my research was quite bad. Back to the drawing board...thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer on the name is that his grandfather was a Dutchman named Bols, same as the distiller Bols (brand). --Dhartung | Talk 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A monograph published by Cotton Incorporated, the US trade group, outlines the importance of Balls's research.[31] Here he's denoted as "W. Lawrence Balls", which yields the best crop of google results of all variants. --Dhartung | Talk 09:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also an obituary in Nature 187, 989 - 990 (17 Sep 1960). Unfortunately, I can't get to it (it's a subscription service). --Malcolmxl5 11:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Malcolmxl5's research. J Milburn 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete, nonsense, WP:SNOW and a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not. Reso lute 05:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar hero 2 cheats[edit]

This is what it says -- a list of cheat codes for Guitar Hero 2. However, Wikipedia is not a game guide, and this should be deleted. ArglebargleIV 04:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, WP:NOT#GUIDE violation and unverifiable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can we just WP:SNOW it now, since this is never going to be kept. Crazysuit 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However likely, we do need to get at least a few more comments, or a little more time, since this was just posted. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per Hersfold. -Icewedge 04:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Junk, patent nonsense. Keb25 05:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please. м info 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Hersfold, and I tagged it with ((db-nonsense)). Big top 05:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete both.-Wafulz 03:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle Irrigation[edit]

Appears to violate WP:OR; earlier versions note that this technique was devised by the user that wrote the page. Doesn't seem to be verifiable from reliable sources. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The companion article, Grow trees is the same kind of OR by the same user and should be deleted along with Bottle Irrigation. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Signatures and use of first-person pronouns definitely indicate WP:OR or at very least WP:COI, and Grow trees violates WP:NOT#GUIDE as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:OR. Keb25 05:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. As per above. The claim that the author invented this technique is unverifiable, grow trees reads like a manual, and both read like adverts. 3tmx 13:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some information into Irrigation and/or Reusing water bottles or Reuse. The technique is not confined to the Third World, nor is there anything new about the idea of recycling a water bottle into an irrigation method. However, this is a type of irrigation done in places where more sophisticated machinery is not available. Probably not worthy of an article of its own. Mandsford 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: OR guide with no verifiable sources. B1atv 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, clearly original research and not written anything like encylopedia articles. No sources to verify that this technique was in fact "recently devised", which I'm sure it wasn't. shoeofdeath 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Mr.Z-man 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yellowknife MPs and MLAs[edit]

Redundant list, this information already exists in the Yellowknife, Northwest Territories article and numerous other articles relating to elections and the assembly, nothing links here and it won't grow any bigger. Cloveious 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indiscriminate lists don't belong. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per nom, list of politicians of local Mp's for one region/city are generally within the city or local area article and never in an individual article. --JForget 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vassyana 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side by Side In Brooklyn[edit]

Non notable short story series (Steven Santos - author - is a redlink). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not a single web reference I could find. Into The Fray ^T/C 03:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really speedy, as it does attempt to establish notability ("...the five time award winning..."), but that doesn't change the fact that the notability isn't there. If it won five awards, you'd think at least ONE of them would be noted online somewhere, but I too come up with zilch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy closure, re-implement redirect from prior AfD and protect it this time in lieu of speedy G4 deletion. —David Eppstein 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte_Hynes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Devonte Hynes

The consensus for the previous deletion nomination debate (see below) was that the Devonte Hynes page should either redirect or be deleted, and yet soon after this decision, the page was resurrected by an anonymous user (IP 147.143.56.14). This resurrected page still fails to establish notability. The bands that Devonte Hynes has been involved in are not notable, and neither is Devonte, so I think the Devonte Hynes page should be deleted, and probably also protected to prevent resurrection. Medlat 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable musician. Keb25 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Test Icicles. There is a rough consensus to delete, so if the redirect is reverted without improving the article and establishing individual notability I might revise this closure and implement the consensus, but for now redirecting seems sufficient. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devonte Hynes[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Crumby article but there is plenty of information on him in relation to the Test Icicles seems just notable enough for me. Daniel J. Leivick 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ExpansionI wanted to expand on my reasons for keeping this article. While the article should be edited down, Hynes is the subject of articles in several reputable sources easily found in a google search, he is also an artist on a major record label that produces work from some of the UKs biggest bands like The Arctic Monkeys. If this article is deleted and the Martin Perreault is kept it will make me sad :( . --Daniel J. Leivick 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable member of an only marginally notable band; the article says it all ("most of what he does is hidden from the public.") --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Test Icicles. Grutness...wha? 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, nn. Chris 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Medlat 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Admin, please let this run full 5 days for Daniel J. Leivick & others to fix this up.SkierRMH 05:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly merge some of the data to the Test Icicles page until he is notable enough on his own. Diabolical 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Devonte Hynez" turns up another ~150 ghits.
Weak keep. The article does need some work, and verifiable notability of "Devonte Hynes" and "Devonte Hynez" is weak, but notable all the same. It will take time to piece this together and find sources; Thequackquackquack and others that are working on this. John Vandenberg 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect. No content to merge.-Wafulz 03:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary and Saint Abasikhiron Coptic Orthodox Church[edit]

No real claim of notability, unless the fact that it is a Coptic Orthodox pushes it above the bar. I'd imagine it would do, as Coptic Orthodox churches are few and far between. Montchav 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed — I'm sure that articles such as this can be expanded without being something that is meaningless. Truth be told, Wikipedia has several lower quality articles than this one. ~ Troy 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability that warrants encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed I believe that the Copts see this local Church as a big step for the Coptic community in Wales. EVEN IF this article gets deleted because of what "others" think (which is something that I don't think should happen), then the current text should AT LEAST be incorporated into the article Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales. 154.5.23.23 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales. Corvus cornix 23:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Keb25 05:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales. No real assertion of notability, outside of the fact that there are very few Coptic churches in Wales, so it should be covered in an article on a wider topic. Hut 8.5 11:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - to Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge and redirect. Consensus seems to be that each song is notable, but only in the context of the album. Ta bu shi da yu 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth[edit]

Previously prod'ed, with that template being removed and the final bracketed text in the article ("This article is fine, and decently informative") added. This is an album track, albeit one from a notable album by a notable band. That doesn't mean that an article is necessary, though, and I don't see any third-party reliable sources discussing it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bass solo is notable? MarkBul 04:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kill Em All. Steve Carlson^Talk 07:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources are provided demonstrating the notability of the subject. J Milburn 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album unless notability is shown, which is a standard practice for such a case and something that can also be implemented directly (e.g. instead of a prod). --Tikiwont 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MergeAdd to the Kill 'Em All Page and just add a few notes on the song beneath, perhaps for every song on the page.George bennett 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I cant see any point to tag this article with AfD rather it surprised me. Niaz^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the song was not released as a single and has no reliable, independent non-trivial mentions establishing its notability in spite of that fact, are you still surprised? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Convinced but still I prefer a merger than go for a deletion. So, here goes my vote, Merge with an appropriate standard article. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I randomly stumbled upon this article, but it seems that almost every song on Kill 'em All has an article, and this one looks no less notable than the others. We have some articles about Beatles b-sides that were never released, so the notability plank is set quite low. You can't find the sources because you can't google it on the internets? Well, consider that this was released in 1983. Certainly there are some reviews in some old magazines that discuss or mention this song. Grue 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that we have articles on Beatles B-Sides is neither here nor there. It could just as easily mean that nobody's got around to AfD-ing them, or indeed that they are substantially better-sourced than this. I don't have ready access to any offline copies of these magazines, and since the AfD has been listed for several days without anyone else providing them, I'm starting to think it's a forlorn hope. Do you know of any such reviews? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Though it hardly stands a chance as a stand-alone article, it still is mighty informative and useful to anybody who's interested in Hard Rock or whatever. A merge into Kill Em All is much better solution than an outright delete. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the album. — Moe ε 00:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If someone else really wants to put this into the project namespace, I guess you could, but, honestly, we can do without this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion gestapo[edit]

A quick search engine test reveals only five results. This subject is clearly non-notable. Juansidious 02:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Juansidious - did you read the article? It refers to people who want to delete "anything that can’t be validated using the first four hits from a one-word search on Google"^[1] - which is precisely what you did! Moreover, there are more references than just web pages. See also Wikipedia policy on notability --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚
  - If you look through those five hits only one passes Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and that's a really trivial mention. The results aren't any better if you try searching for "deletion Nazi" instead. The notability criteria are not satisfied. Hut 8.5 15:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move I'm not an expert on what the different spaces are called/do, but strikes me this is an essay about wikipedia. It's not necessarily bad, and shows some knowledge of the ins and outs of wikipedia. Move it to where the other essays live, or the user's own pages.Merkinsmum 03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most essays are either in the Wikipedia: or User: namespace. This one, if moved, would probably do best as a user subpage of the author's. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (Oh, the irony!). Full of WP:NOR, possibly created by a disgruntled editor to make a point, although the point may be worth making, if reliable sources could be found, but they don't seem to be, the NYTimes one isn't about deletionism, and the Telegraph one is a blog. Only one thing for it... send in the Gestapo! Crazysuit 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets' That would be my blog on the Telegraph's website, then. Mind you, I hadn't heard the term until I found a trackback to the article.Douglasi 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferred) or at very least userfy. Seems to be calling all deletionists Nazis... sources are largely unreliable, trivial, or on Wikipedia itself. Once you get past the POV information, it does provide a fairly decent summary of Deletion ins and outs, though (the one redeeming feature). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space it is an interesting piece and may be usefull to some wikipedians but is not notable enough for an article. -Icewedge 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was torn about this, because I think there's a good point in the kernel of the article, but I think the article falls squarely under Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is not the way to achieve consensus among editors -- this is gaming the system. Accounting4Taste 05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Patent nonsense essay. Keb25 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a Wikiproject - Call it Deletion Resistance. Fee Fi Foe Fum 06:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cleaned up it might be of minor interest to some in the project space, but utterly irrelevant here --Xorkl000 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable source mentioning the 'deletion gestapo' is this, and even then it is a quote within a quote. J Milburn 11:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this term is hardly used at all, and is not appropriate as an encyclopedia article. Might be OK as a userspace essay. Hut 8.5 12:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopaedic and non-notable (oh the irony etc) --carelesshx _talk 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send to extermination camp I am now a member of both the Deletion Gestapo and of the Article Rescue Squadron. --Victor falk 13:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust "Humour" is both in extremely poor taste and completely unnecessary for this discussion. Please be sensitive. --Xorkl000 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send to extermination camp, Arbitrary pardon à la Amon Goeth That is the vote I actually wanted to cast from the beginning, I definetely believe this belongs somewhere on wikipedia, just not on the main page; but I couldn't resist the irony (:.

Other wise, I'd like to point out that the more you were into morbid and black humour, the more you were likely to survive concentration camps. Cf Solzhenitsyn (esp. The Gulag Archipelago and A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich), Imre Kertész, Elie Wiesel et al. --Victor falk 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been known to try to inject humor into my votes (and occasionally get berated for it), but this goes over the line IMO. Clarityfiend 03:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum --Victor falk 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "One musn't quarrel about tastes and colours" to those who are curious about the term. My comment "it is easy to laugh until it happens to you" --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like all classical quotes, there is much more to them than just a translation: [32]--Victor falk 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Should it happen to you laugh at it even more.--Victor falk 07:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A neutral article could be written, but this one flunks the neutrality test just on the title alone. Having one's creation deleted is a natural consequence of having a "free encylopedia that anyone can edit". That type of freedom to add and subtract is what comes with the concept of a "wiki". I can't vote "keep" or "delete" on this one, since it could be fixed, and wikipedia is one of the notable developments of the first decade of this century. Ten years ago, people didn't have the expectation that their writing could be "published" without prior approval; hence, they never got to the part of being frustrated when something they had posted was taken back down. That said, however, I'm an inclusionist and I would never think of describing any of my deletionist friends to Nazis. Mandsford 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding COMMENT - It "flunks the neutrality test just on the title alone" because it explains the origin of the epithets! Should we consider the faggot article to flunk the NPOV test on the title alone? What about The Soup Nazi? Or Eurotrash, Wop, or spic? --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
  - HELP! Why did my above comment get appended with "...Preceding unsigned comment..." -- I put three tildes at the end! It has done this before. If anybody knows why it is doing that please let me know. Preparing to add three tildes to this comment... GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because its four ~~~~. Viperix 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - D'oh!! How stupid of me. I've been away from WP for weeks, in Germany. I think the beer erased one tilde! GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
'Userify as it's OR and non-encyc. It could be an essay after ruthless editing. Alternately, delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mein fuhrer! Though I could see a broader article on deletionists maybe having a place in wikipedia, if that's not too meta. Artw 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced and well written. Oh and... the irony is palpable Bjrobinson 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make into a Wiki-essay like Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. I was thinking of making a user sub-page for irresponsible deletionists (not all deletionist are irresponsible as some actually help improve the article rather than inventing a new -cruft word) but I think another disgruntled user has beat me to it. If made into such, can someone notify me in my talk page so I can improve it further? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or wiki:-space it. There are some many terrible jokes possible here... humblefool ® 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A more thorough look for published sources in another few months will probably find sufficient support for actual articles on discussions outside WP on WP policy questions. If other people think what we;'re doing is notable, when they write about it in the NYT and the chronicle and the several dozen other places where articles will appear, we're stuck with it. We may start to need rules on whether we can cite material appearing elsewhere as acceptable comment on our policy in these discussions. this may sound circular, but the courts frequently cite academic articles critiqueing their decisions--not a precedent, but as informative. DGG (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace as an essay. The article does illustrate some valid points about the deletion process and it is a bit humorous... --Hdt83 ^Chat 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know already what is going to happen to this article. But I still must vote keep, (1) There are many, many, sources listed. The problem being all the "deletionists" will hate it because it rings very true, and therefore will draw a huge amount of delete votes. (2) The article is very well written and is as non-pov as you can get talking about a subject like this. No where in the article can you tell what the author thinks of the subject, IE he didn't write "those deletion gestapo are ruining everything!" or anything like that. And if the name suggests POV issues then so does, Christian or Democratic Party, or even just, gestapo. Viperix 09:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep convert to wiki essay, a plethora of sources are listed, definatly notable and I really see the irony that this has been tagged for rescue, and that the rescue tag is up for deletion. - Fosnez 10:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not move to wikispace. Soapboxing has no place on Wikipedia, especially in article space, and synthesizing a bunch of unconnected sources is not carte blanche to make a big pointy essay about how angry you are something you wrote was unsuitable for Wikipedia. Utterly original research. Note I have removed the ((Rescue)) template from this article, as it is not a lack of references or a need for cleanup it is lacking. Neil ム 10:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per the AfD process, articles that can be improved through regular editing should be before taking to AfD. I've re-added the ((Rescue)) template as tag is for AfDs that need improvement. I hope no one's suggesting that there is no way this article could ever be improved enough. Benjiboi 12:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I will suggest this article cannot be improved enough. One thing I have noticed time and time again is that mainspace is not for navel gazing. There is quite a bit navel gazing here. This article does not belong in the mainspace. Period. Furthermore, all it appears to do is to create hostility between users. I would consider myself a deletionist but those points do not even remotely identify what I believe in. Spryde 13:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited are either not reliable or only possibly arguably reliable at best. I'd be happy to review if an unambiguously reliable source (or better two) were added. Per my comments at the Essjay controversy AfD, just because we don't like what something says about us, doesn't mean we should exclude it if it passes our regular criteria. Note to all and none - detach from the emotion of the content and focus on the process. --Dweller 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination is badly reasoned, but even with sources this is basically a self-referential definition, and not an article at all. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this half hearted neogolism or Move to Deletion Nazis where the Deletionists can really go to town!. --Gavin Collins 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not even bothering to vote at this point)... Reliable Sources? Check. Non-trivial Coverage? Check. WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Check. 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs)
Delete - I'm about as inclusionist as they come, but no. This is little more than a recasting of meta:Deletionism and meta:Deletionist in negative POV terms with a few gratuitous violations of Godwin's Law thrown in. It's an obvious self reference violation, cites 'sources' which are all Wikimedia project pages, blogs, or which don't use the terms they are supposedly supporting, and seems clearly meant to insult members of an opposing philosophy. The last thing we need are snide little articles like; Inclusion Trolls, Fair-use Bandits, BCE Heretics, Rogue Admins, and whatnot else. I'm tempted to speedy delete it as an attack page, but once something gets to AfD it is usually less disruptive to let it play out. That said, it would be a good thing if the involved parties agreed to dump this. --CBD 17:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A self reference sourced with blogs and more self referencing. Mr.Z-man 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, over 30 references, and we shouldn't be afraid of or stifle criticism. I also would not be opposed to revising the article as an essay and maybe toning down the reference to "Nazis," if possible, as while I tend to agree with lots of deletionist efforts, comparisons to "Nazis" are a bit hyperbolic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - We shouldn't stifle criticism, but we also should not put criticism in the form of an article. You illustrated perfectly what is wrong with this article with your suggestion of a name change; its all a hyperbolic opinion essay (sourced with blogs), packaged in a box of POV, and tied up with an ugly bow of self reference. Mr.Z-man 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at those 30 "references" shall we
  1. A PBS blog that mentions "deletion gestapo" in a quote of another blog
  2. Slashdot
  3. Blog
  4. Forum
  5. Blog
  6. Book about blogs written by a blogger, even if one did have access to it, it does not cite a page number (or even a chapter) of the 256 page book.
  7. New York Times article about deletion discussions on Wikipedia, a reliable source, but does not mention "gestapo," "nazi," "police," or "mafia," etc.
  8. Blog post about the blogger's own MediaWiki installation, does not mention "gestapo," etc or even really complain about deletion. I don't see what this is supposed to be sourcing.
  9. Forum, links to main page, not specific thread.
  10. m:Deletionist - self reference
  11. Another NYT article about page protection, vandalism, and disputes - does not mention deletion. see "Comment" below -- Gekritzl
  12. Broken - ref name is "livejournal" - a blog site see "Comment" below -- Gekritzl
  13. Same blog as ref 1
  14. Blog
  15. m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians - self reference to a page in the meta "humor" category
  16. Broken link - to a blog?
  17. Broken link - to a self reference (deletion review log)?
  18. m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians - another self reference to a meta page
  19. Blog
  20. Slashdot, quoting Jimbo Wales
  21. Blog
  22. m:Association of Mergist Wikipedians - see numbers 15 and 18
  23. A self reference to our own Deletion policy
  24. Same as number 11, but with a broken link instead of no link.
  25. A self reference to our own Policies and guidelines
  26. A self reference to Notability
  27. A self reference to wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion
  28. A self reference to wikt:Wiktionary:Main Page
  29. Same as number 27
  30. A self reference to Wikipedia:External links/YouTube - a rejected proposal
  Other references
  - Blog post in a blog about beer
  - wikt:deletionist
  - Blog
  - Blog
  - The article also links to our own Image use policy

To summarize, of 35 refs - 13 blog links, 2 Slashdot, 2 forums, 14 links to Wikimedia projects, 1 vague reference to a book, 3 New York Times (only 2 articles) that don't mention the topic. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Regarding #11, The WP article never inferred that the reference discussed "deletion" in particular; WP article used the citation for the term "revert war". Referenced article is about WP's "Anyone Can Edit" policy, and protection policies. Regarding #12, Somebody broke the link - now fixed. Not a blog, an article on MySpace & Wikipedia, by Mark Glaser: "Journalist, Critic, Facilitator, New Media Expert". [forgot to sign comments, signing now:] -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚
- Comment - also, regarding #7, indeed does not mention "gestapo" etc, but discusses the delete wars with specific examples. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚
  - Number 7 does not describe any such thing. It describes deletion "discussions." The word "war" is not used in the body of the article at all. If anything it suggests deletion discussions are a lot more simple and pleasant (and quite silly) than they actually are. Mr.Z-man 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Make it a user or essay page, and change the horrible name which is insensitive. Gestapo is not a humorous name to those that lived then. Deletion police would be acceptable, I think. The article is improvable and the concept notable. Deletion should be the last resort, not the first. — Becksguy 22:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify I'm going to assume good faith, but I'm pretty close to classifying this as a WP:POINT violation. --Tango 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - this is not a notable phenomenon outside of Wikipedia. You'd need a lot better sources to argue that it was. delldot talk 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed consideration...

This is an interesting one. But it's also fairly self evident on a cursory check, how it goes at AFD. There are several issues:

There is an expression, "Deletion Nazi/s". It is verifiable the expression has been coined or used.
It is a neologism - that is, in simple terms, a slang expression coined for a specialized concept in some pop culture/s. Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (WP:NEO)
Most neologisms do not get articles, and even well known ones are routinely discouraged in favor of wiktionary. There is a guideline on this: WP:NEO.
It is used in typical places pop culture references occur - blogs, self-edited articles such as wiki's, etc. The majority are within Wikipedia itself. There appear to be very few serious references outside these. There are policies and guidelines, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:RS which between them require reliable sources sufficient to make a neutral article.
The term is a form of "slang". That is, a street expression. Not every street expression, slang term, or the link, has an encyclopedia article. There is a policy for that: WP:NOT, and a guideline for notability in general, WP:N.
Also on WP:N and WP:NOT, the expression does not seem to have gained more than tiny coverage. The expression seems mostly to relate to Wikipedia and kin and their subcultures at present.
The term is intrinsically non-neutral. There may in theory be scope for an article on a different title, perhaps. But "Deletion Nazi" (disapproving slang for one stereotyped as a deleter) ranks with "Traitorous Democrats" (disapproving slang for one stereotyped as so pro-Democrat they would fail to defend the country) as an intrindically non-neutral term. It contains ingherent viewpoint. There is a policy on that, WP:NPOV. NPOV is "non-negotiable" on Wikipedia.
There is also the concern that one should characterize, not re-enact, an article topic. That is, we do not just describe what one is. We show all sides of the argument. If the article were kept, it could not be kept in one-sided form. Sources would be needed that, without original research or synthesis could create a neutral encyclopedic article.

Conclusion.........

Delete 1/ WP:NEO is strongly involved here and states neologism articles are strongly discouraged, and "Articles on protologisms [recently emerged neologisms] are almost always deleted"; 2/ WP:NOT "not an indiscriminate collection of information. Collecting every newly emergent neologism would breach this; 3/ [has [WP:NOT]] and other policies require a certain degree of long term historical perspective, notable usage, etc. This expression is neither well defined (WP:NEO nor widely used. No good evidence has been provided that it has passed into common speech outside its own small circle. 4/ It is cruft (definition: of interest to fans and such only, limited or no general interest). If kept, in addition, WP:NPOV would require at the least a rename. But to my mind, WP:NEO, and then WP:NOT and WP:N, seem fairly conclusive at this time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As originator of the article (yes, I take the blame, not necessarily credit), it did pain me to use pejorative (and non-PC!) terms to describe some WP contributors. I didn't coin the terms so please don't shoot the messenger (nobody has, so far, and I thank you). Edits here at WP are, by a vast majority, made in good faith and this Talk page is a stellar example of cooperation, consideration, and an almost total lack of any animosity or "Gestapo-ism". Nevertheless the frustrations of so many contributors (for example, expressed by Adam Megacz) needed to be aired. And, while the article may lean "left" (toward inclusionism) with an attempt at NPOV and showing both sides, this discussion page really leans the other way toward conservatism and deletionism, it seems? Yet, no honest, good faith vote for deletion is taken personally. Thank you all for your comments, inputs, and even some edits and improvements to the article itself. Sincerely. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
- Mainspace is not the place to air the frustrations of contributors unless those frustrations are well documented by reliable secondary sources. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The concept, the neologisms, and (yes) the frustrations, are directly relevant to the crux of the article, providing (as many people discussing the concepts here agree) the origin of terms, the processes of discussion and deletion voting, and the reasons people would create such pejorative terms. And, an attempt at "well documented by reliable secondary sources" has been made; however, since the terms themselves and the discussions about deletionism are largely found on blogs and WP talk pages, there is a Catch-22, or a Heisenbergian catch. Here on this page, and other talk pages (both in blogs and on wikis) such discussions and terminologies are aired and invented. Some other references (NYTimes, books, journalists, and others) have been found and cited. "Self-reference" in the article (as some people claim) is unavoidable, if one wants to cite WP policies to describe reasons for deletion and inclusion. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
- Gekritzl - What's this got to do with the article's inclusion? How an article comes to be, doesn't influence whether it has a place (nor should it). Your views on other editors, your feelings, and so on, whatever they are, aren't relevant to AFD. Non-neutral or non-encyclopedic information can easily be fixed. But the problem is, none of the above paragraph actually speaks to any policy-based reason why an article titled "Deletion Nazi's" might be viable. So it's unhelpful here. WP:NEO and other policies referenced were written knowing that neologisms would largely be excluded, and specifically aimed at that effect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - FT2 - Thanks for your comments. The answer is simple: This type of article is unique. It's about blogs and WP talk pages, in essence, so WP policies stating that "citations to blogs" and so forth are not appropriate - are generally not applicable for any article that addresses exactly those forums. WP Policy also offers exceptions in that regard. Also, "non-encyclopedic" is somewhat subjective, and Wikipedia:Notability isn't as strict as most deletionists seem to believe. The other point is that it's not just about neologisms, but about social interoperation (whether cooperative or not) within the context of wikis and blogs. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
- PS: Your comment about "[my] views on other editors, [my] feelings, and so on... aren't relevant to AFD" are inappropriate and are bent toward the exact thing that I was claiming did not exist on this talk page: personal attacks, and so forth. My comment that this talk page has been very civil had nothing to do with inclusionism of the article. It was simply a "thank you" to all who commented here, and a statement that votes for deletion are not taken personally. And, thank you, also, FT2, for your contributions. Please give contributors and commentors the benefit of the doubt. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 02:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)
- "Nevertheless the frustrations of so many contributors (for example, expressed by Adam Megacz) needed to be aired. And, while the article may lean 'left' (toward inclusionism) with an attempt at NPOV and showing both sides, this discussion page really leans the other way toward conservatism and deletionism, it seems?" - Essays and discussions in the Wikipedia, User, and/or various Talk namespaces are allowed to express (or 'lean' towards) a POV. Articles in the mainspace are not. The article namespace does not exist for, and cannot allow, 'airing frustrations'. Look at it this way; when you put something in article space it has to speak not for you, but for Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself has to be neutral in disputes. It does not 'take sides'. If you want to 'air frustrations' do it in some other namespace - User, Wikipedia, and their respective Talk namespaces would all be appropriate... article space is not. --CBD 12:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you state the obvious. The cathartic nature of contributing to Wikipedia is only secondary; the content itself is the prime issue. However, without the cathartic feelings it gives, nobody would EVER bother to contribute - there are no other benefits. This is an underlying point of the article. -- GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

"Making a point" is not a valid reason for an article to exist either..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Self referential, unencylopedic, and the attempts at categorizing this as a "real phenomenon" is about as believable as Apartheid in Korea. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ROxBo 16:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful blog entry, has the advantage of using almost exclusively other blogs as "sources". Not an encyclopedia entry. OR, Synth, NEO. Should I mention one-sided POV or is that just so obvious from the title that it isn't necessary? I'm trying to picture a balanced article. Looks like sour grapes escalated into a rant to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project namespace. This is an essay about Wikipedia, not an article, and should be placed as such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project namespace. Good essay, but way too soapboxy and self-referential for the main namespace. JIP | Talk 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikipedia: namespace. This is an essay. WP:NOR all over and references back to Wikipedia should give it. At least a deletionist nazi says so -- Kl4m ^{T C} 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Resolute (CSD G11/A7 self-promotion, website lacking assertion of notability). Non-admin closure. shoy 05:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibend.info[edit]

Non-notable website, no references and sounds a bit like original research. Mbisanz 01:53, 23 September 2007 UTC Also, based on original author name, appears to violate WP:COIN Mbisanz 01:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I think this could have been speedily done. -Domthedude001 02:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable website. However, don't speedy - this way if it's recreated we can ((db-repost)) it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article has been speedy tagged several times but the creator has repeatedly deleted the tags, necessitating up to a level 4 warning to stop and follow procedure. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Shia Islam[edit]

procedural nomination Three previous AFD actions were against articles that are now redirects to the present article, which was nominated for PROD deletion. PROD nominator states: "Original research, POV". The previous AFD actions were 9 Sept 2005, 2 Feb 2006 and 26 Mar 2006. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently POV article. Claim and fact is unencyclopedia and misses diversity and nuance within Shia views. We need subarticles on issue areas of Shia Islam... not an article like this. It'd be nice for someone to mirror this on a userpage if it gets deleted since some of this information can probably be used elsewhere. gren グレン 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Keb25 07:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep an archive somewhere as an example of how an article should not written--Victor falk 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per gren. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally biased and POV article. → AA ^(talk) — 14:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this hate article has no place in rational thought let alone on Wikipedia. It is disgustingly bias and flouts NPOV standards. --Bigbrisco 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article was initially titled "Misconceptions about the Shi'a", and though the title had since been neutralised, the article continues in that vein of bias and OR. ITAQALLAH 11:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly written, POV article. An NPOV article on the subject would be useful, but this article is far from being that. John Carter 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Morgan[edit]

Non-notable biography with no assertion of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs)

I am also nominating the following related page because its subject is also WP:NN:

Delete. I tagged this with a speedy tag, which another editor removed (no problem there) but I don't think this article either asserts notability or has it. She's a lawyer, she's a partner in her spouse's company. The one reference outside their own website is a news article that doesn't mention her name, only his. Accounting4Taste 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be a speedy delete as no notability is asserted, per WP:CSD#A7. Interesting name, though. faithless (^speak) 01:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto for Mr.Morgan (though his name is much less interesting). faithless (^speak) 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything remarkable or notable about her bio. I would have put a speedy delete on it myself as well. But that's me. Pig^man 02:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity non-notable bio. Keb25 02:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per anony-nom, nothing remarkable to see here. RFerreira 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm adding her husband's/law partner's bio to this discussion. Neither he nor she, nor the law firm of Morgan & Morgan, is notable. This is a subtle advert. --Evb-wiki 04:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the one who de-speedied it, as IMO "one of the primary partners" is a sufficient assertion to make it past A7. Nothing to pass WP:BIO, though, and I don't see how it could be expanded. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

151 Feva Gang[edit]

I tried cleaning up this article, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't meet music notability criteria or verifiability policy. Couldn't find any independent reliable sources via a Google search. Nothing on allmusicguide. There's a hint of notability with radio airplay, but it's not substantiated- none of the claims in this article apply to the musicians specifically. The line "More information on 151 Feva Gang will be published soon, as additional resources are still needed in order to provide an accurate account of their origins" really sums it up. Wafulz 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The closest they come to passing WP:MUSIC, it seems, is the claim that they're being played on XM. Unfortunately, this is unsubstantiated. I'll continue to look, but they've got no albums, singles, tours, mentions in reliable sources, awards, etc. Doesn't appear to be notable. faithless (^speak) 01:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:MUSIC. Getting played on XM is not the same as being "placed in rotation", which is what the criterion specifies. Precious Roy 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salamipete 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC) This article is still being edited, but this does comply with wikipedia's notability guidelines. Objective 3rd party sources and citations have been rendered as well as much needed updates to certain key areas in order to clarify the purpose and overall necessity of this article. To delete this article would stifle information pertinent to independent hip hop, stifling future discourse and hindering legitimate research on said topic. — Salamipete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Almost all of those "objective 3rd party sources" fail WP:RS. The only truly reliable source is the Orlando Sentinal, and that article isn't about the group, it's about the Black College Reunion. Re-read WP:MUSIC and see if the group meets any one of the criteria listed. It doesn't as far as I can tell; if I'm mistaken, please elaborate here. Precious Roy 15:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Salamipete 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Understandable ... I can see where there might be weak links in the article. I'm still working on this one. I did go over the WP:MUSIC and I do beleive that the GarageBand reviews and awards, which are done by actual music reviewers, as well as the Spityogame.com featured article would be considered a reliable source. National mixtapes hosted by known DJ's and platinum artists I also assumed provided validity. Im not an expert at this yet, sstill learning, if I'm wrong about anything, the input is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamipete (talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only indie rap group from New Jersey featured in Facebook are they? Well good on them then, but that still does not count as notability under WP:Music. A1octopus 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. This article does not establish notability. Though it has numerous articles from two independent papers, only one article is specifically about the Theatres. The rest are about University Square. In making this decision, I have not taken into account the PROD, nor have I taken into account the tone of the article, as these are all matters that can be rectified without deleting the article. I should note, however, that it's not a good idea to do this regardless of what article it is, as we need a neutral article that just deals with facts with an even tone. However, the deletion is for notability reasons. It would perhaps be more appropriate to have an article about University Square and detail the material about the cinema in this article. Ta bu shi da yu 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Square Theatres[edit]

Prod provoking a 'go fuck yourself Wikipedia' (since removed) response-in-article along with a passionate statement from original author, which I interpret as meaning the prod is contested or controversial. Original Prod reason: Jokey article on theater subsequently demolished with complex in 2006. No apparent notability, importance, or significance persists. There remains little online documentation or indication for these claims. I grant local feelings appear to run high about the demolition, but still recommend Delete unless WP:RS of less personal notability et al is shown (hopefully without the jokes this time). Michael Devore 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; no sources. Renee 00:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)_{Note: Comment was moved here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 23-Wafulz 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have made much of an impact- the only sources are from a community paper. We don't an article on every movie theatre that lasts less than six years.-Wafulz 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Wisconsin State Journal is a bit more than a "community paper." And the theatre was around for way longer than six years. It was operational when I moved to Madison in 1993. Otto4711 12:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above Bleh999 00:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Delete I'm a bit torn here. While those articles were originally published in the Wisconsin State Journal (or so it seems), they don't really specifically address the theatre, but rather the mall which housed it. faithless (^speak) 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Non-notable cinema. Keb25 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename/repurpose to an article about the mall. If the sources establish the notability of the mall, then the obvious answer is to make the article about the mall rather than just the theatre. Otto4711 12:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge In looking over the history, I'm not sure why it had been tagged with the baiting statement that it was a "Jokey article", nor why the nomination includes the note that a "G.F.Y." response was made. This could probably be merged into an article about the University of Wisconsin or Madison, Wisconsin. Every college campus, big or small, has as part of its heritage the off-campus gathering places that all the alumni remember. I agree that movie theaters are not inherently notable, so it would be better to merge into another article than for this to stand alone. Mandsford 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No baiting, but an accurate statement. Jokes in an article do influence the perception of an article and cheapen its value. The jokes are clearly represented in statements such as: The city is justifiably concerned about mass protests and rioting on the date of demolition, but Misco has issued a plea for peace which he unequivocally states loyal 'Misconians' will follow. He also promises happy endings to all. Rioting, indeed. Or you might prefer The Theatre Cafe, an adjunctive theatre added during the summer of 2004, has stretched the bounds of what people expect from a theatre experience. Near as I can tell, it's a snack bar. That isn't all the joking, but enough.

It is further difficult to claim baiting when the article is so old that it there was no active editing for more than a year, the subject had been demolished also for more than a year, and the author was notified of the proposal.

As for GFY, it is a clear reflection of the controversy which negates the prod. Otherwise it's just a last-minute blast of good-bye cruel world by original author. There was no other objection or removal of prod, the contested is implied through GFY. If it is your wish to save the article, it's not a big deal to me, though I would prefer less artificial outrage. I like to see bad articles made good, as well. Michael Devore 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in itself. No objection to an article about the mall, the redevelopment of which, at least, was a topic of discussion for a number of years. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting what's here, why not move this to University Square Mall and use it as a basis for the new article? Otto4711 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Could work. Since the recent flurry of edit activity, a lot of what's here wasn't there on the initial prod. Versus the theater, the mall complex has a greater claim to notability, significance, and importance with on-point reliable sources. Your idea removes my objections if the NPOV content were incorporated in a more expansive University Square Mall article, with redirect. My own AfD concerns are with conspicuous failures of notability et al guidelines. A broader-based less-POV sourced article of current interest moves above that point for me. Others may demur. Michael Devore 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, pretty sure the mall will be not notable too, but I await verifiable proof of notability there.--Buridan 05:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times are major regional newspapers for the city that is the state capital--as well as the site of the University. No problem with POV that editing cant fix. DGG (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. The nomination mirrors the previous one, which was also done by a single-purpose account. No established editors favor keeping the article. Based on evidence, I conclude that the nomination is disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GameTZ.com[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Blatantly fails notability guidelines per topic importance and significant coverage. Foroto11 10:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)— Foroto11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep. Article survived AFD less than 2 months ago, and as indicated to right, has also survived multiple previous challenges. 23skidoo 15:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Bad faith nomination by single purpose account. See contribs of submitter. The AFD slap up every month is getting old. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- This is a bad faith nomination from sockpuppeteer SPA account that has been cropping up like clockwork. Also note edit history on page, where the nominator has removed some of the cites in order to support the non-notability part of his AfD. Dstumme 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This SPA has repeatedly vandalized this article with proxy IPs and nominated this article for deletion under bad faith numerous times. SashaNein 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A quick check of the article's reference section clearly indicates that the subject does passes WP:NOTE. One would have to be deliberately ignore the references and the notability guidelines in order to declare this subject non-notable. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. 161.58.189.91 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC) — 161.58.189.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep Nominator is using bad faith. Maybe it's time to put a little protection on this article to at least keep the anon IPs from messing with it. <shrug> --Craw-daddy | T | 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Already made a request for page protection (again). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Article very clearly fails to establish notability. 77.74.198.212 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — 77.74.198.212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete and salt Please end this nonsense once and for all. 74.220.207.103 00:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC) — 74.220.207.103 (talk · contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per nom. 208.79.200.172 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 208.79.200.172 (talk · contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Grell[edit]

Local councillor who has been in the news a bit. Long precedent that people who are local councillors without any other claim for notability are not notable. In this case, if the conviction holds then her political career is over, and if it doesn't, she isn't notable for her election either. Also, probably created as a POV campaign by a political opponent. Fys. Ta fys aym. 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the fact of being the first person ever to be convicted under this political law, the Cllr would not be notable, but with that fact I'd say she is notable, and therefore weak keep. The motivation of the page creator is irrelevant, what matters is its content (some NPOV tweaks are probably required). The text needs rearranging so that the court case is not the first section - the life history should be first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fig wright (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I initially created this page; as for my motives, WP:AGF. WP:BIO includes as notable "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This case has received considerable press coverage; cases such as hers are rare and, as said, she is the first person to be convicted under this law. I would welcome further editors improving the page. Bondegezou 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The press coverage is significant enough to make her notable as per WP:BIO. Have rearranged the article a bit as suggested above by User:Fig wright. Davewild 07:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone who contributed to the article, I was surprised to see this suggested for deletion (particularly as it is pretty well referenced and linked). If she was "just" a councillor she would not be notable but this is a "rising star" [33] who is the first person to be successfully prosecuted under ROPA '83. If her prosecution helps to dissuade other candidates from seeking to smear their rivals, then any prominence the case gets is to be welcomed (particularly as the smear is one that has led to ‘vigilante’ violence elsewhere). Ned de Rotelande 16:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedrutland (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Several further articles in the press have been added since this AfD was opened. Bondegezou 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete--JForget 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Razjou[edit]

The person exists; he's a math teacher at Kristin School. There's no reason to believe that he's more notable than most high school teachers. There's nothing special about the formula given in the article. The style of the article is similar to those of the suspected hoaxes Jonothan Ryan de Alwis and Harrison Christian. At least one of the reference books actually exists (Kline), but I don't have a copy. Delete as non-notable, but likely a hoax. gadfium 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least two of the reference books exist, and I've viewed the index of Kline [34]; no such person in the index. The Benson book [35] doesn't show anything in its index for this name either. And my rusty math tells me this formula is, as gadfium says, nothing special. Accounting4Taste 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The third cited work exists [36], no index available but table of contents doesn't show anything specifically relevant. Accounting4Taste 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "equation" isn't even an equation, never mind not being notable in any way. It is described as a "variable fixed form X equation" and there is no such type of equation (the only ghit is for the article it is referenced in). This is definitely a hoax. Since the only claim to notability is the equation then the notability for the "creator" fails the notability test.--Mendors 20:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Utter nonsense, why waste any more time with this? --Crusio 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Crusio, speedy if this blatant hoax amounts to CSD G3 vandalism Pete.Hurd 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke made in school. I hope the teacher deserves better. DGG (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Mediashift, "MySpace, Wikipedia Cope With Growing Pains"".