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

The result was speedy deleted by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) under CSD G4. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium Eight[edit]

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

A non-notable band that seems to fail WP:BAND. Zero google hits for '"Lithium Eight" +band', so it's hard to establish verifiability. The only claim to notability is a tv performance in advance of a weekly lottery draw, which "...did not go down well with the viewers...". Bfigura ^(talk) 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator for all of the reasons listed above. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm the one who declined the ((db-band)) on this, due to the claimed TV coverage, but I can't see this passing notability. That said, there might be reliable sources in Spanish if someone can find them. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good idea Iridescent. My spanish is semi-proficient, so I looked, but kept getting killed by the facts that Nirvana has a song called Lithium as the 8th track of some CD, and that Lithium pulls up horde of medical/chemical references. More ingenious google-er's are welcome to try though. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VertrigoServ[edit]

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

Non-notable free software bundle, no reliable third-party coverage. Prod removed without explanation. Thomjakobsen 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability, no article. Mystache 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Mystache and Thomjakobsen.     Gh5046 06:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. No notability. No reliable sources. Reads like an advert. OfficeGirl 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Martin[edit]

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

Article is not referenced, seems biographical, and in my opinion doesn't meet notability requirements Carter | Talk it up 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, does not meet WP:NOTE. Appears to have done nothing to lift him above the status of jobbing actor and into the realms of significant roles in notable productions or receiving awards or honours and so on. --Malcolmxl5 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, if improved, he's done quite a fair bit of voice acting, look at the IMDB article for him. If the article isn't improved then delete. Gh5046 06:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN IMO Tiptopper 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N & WP:BIO - unsourced BLP invites trouble without a real reason to keep. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Carlos Suarez has pointed out this is an unsourced WP:BLP violation which even if sourced would likely fail our biographical guidelines anyhow. Lose-lose. Burntsauce 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Dora Golding[edit]

Camp Dora Golding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has essentially no content. No claim of notability and Google comes up with nothing remotely close to significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN and virtually no content. ILovePlankton^(L—n) 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just a listing of non-notable people working for a non-notable camp, no indication if the information is even current (as it's an industry with a high rate of turnover). --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of importance, just a list of staff. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Bearian 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beauchamp Taylor[edit]

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

In my opinion, the subject of this biographical article doesn't meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contents of the article are, as far as I can tell, entirely derived from the subject's personal web page and this is the only source listed in the article. A search of the web turns up no significant third-party sources on the subject. Cosmo0 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing the following:

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

(a product created by the subject of the above article) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN No meaningful references Tiptopper 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While there are only 40 results when googling "Mark Beauchamp Taylor" if TOPCAT is notable enough to have it's own article, shouldn't the author be? ILovePlankton^(L—n) 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserving judgement on whether TOPCAT deserves its own article, I don't believe the one necessarily implies the other: the fact that a person contributed (even significantly) to a noteworthy project doesn't automatically make the person noteworthy in their own right. As for the 40 or so results returned by Google, they are almost all mirrors of Wikipedia content, along with a few contributions by the subject to other sites - there is no third-party biographical info. Cosmo0 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply First, inclusion is not notability. The fact that an article exists is not proof that article complies with policy. Second, notability is not inherited. I am willing to entertain the plausibility of notability for either Taylor or Topcat, but if only one is notable then the other should be merged into the one that passes. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable person, fails WP:RS. I added TOPCAT to this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for him--he seems to have contributed to many other projects as well as TOPCAT--and has had a career as apparently a principal programmer for a very important research group. But this needs attention from an expert. DGG (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources, after a search of Google News Archive and Google Books. Possibly merge to TOPCAT if utility is deemed notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no assertion of notability for either the software or it's author, and no obvious grounds for such an assertion. I can't find the user forums, or archived user mailing lists I associate with notable software in the case of TOPCAT. Pete.Hurd 06:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Pete Hurd--Crusio 09:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All I get from the article is "he's a programmer who has worked on a bunch of projects". That's not enough. —David Eppstein 17:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N, WP:BIO and, charitably WP:PROF - if one's only source of material is a Uni's website, I'd expect at least meeting PROF. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pav Akhtar[edit]

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

This article was tagged in May as lacking a credible claim of notability - I think that is accurate, and it still lacks any such claim. This person was a student political activist, and is now a borough councillor, but that is the limit of it. These are not achievements that will garner significant independent coverage - there is unlikely to be an independent biography on the basis of such activities, and a local councillor will not normally qualify for an obituary in the broadsheets should they happen to die. Although we have articles on borough councillors it's almost always because they went on to become members of parliament, or did something else worthy of note. I suspect that this article exists to prove a point about gay Muslims, but perhaps that is just a coincidence. The article was started (and is the sole contribution of) an acknowledged student activist, who believes in 100% income tax for people earning over £50,000 (which does not indicate much of a grounding in realpolitik or indeed reality) Cruftbane 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, likely autobiography by single-purpose account. Does not demonstrate biographical notability. First Muslim to win an office would be arguably notable, but first to run is not, by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A local councillor does not meet WP:NOTE. He has quite bit of press in the Guardian as a student activist but nothing of significance or importance that would guarantee long-term historical notability in my view, so I lean towards delete. --Malcolmxl5 03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Status as a local councillor might be insufficient for notability but the well-documented activity and controversy in student government qualifies. 76.212.213.198 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (Neglected to signin when leaving the preceding - Orphic 16:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak keep - Please assume good faith; whether this article fails or passes WP:N, it does so very close to the borderline, and as such there are plenty of people, first-time contributors or not, who find Akhtar notable enough for an article, without him having to write his own autobiography. Regarding notability, he has held a notable and conspicuous public office (President of Cambridge University Students Union), and been a councillor. While these are not alone enough to pass WP:N, the secondary coverage and furore created by the Black Students' affair, and Akhtar's activities and such since, mean that he is a well-known figure covered in several independent sources. That said, if there is consensus to delete, I'm in favour of that too (as I said, its a borderline case). Jdcooper 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable politician and activist. Members of state/provincial legislatures (e.g., London City Council) are per se notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If only he rose to such heights - he is a councillor for some subdivision of a subdivision of London. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Keep- those are fairly notable councils, and the involvement, if AGF applies, seems sufficient to get over the line. Clean up.JJJ999 05:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt provides useful information on this individual. Why delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.155.23 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems like an interesting character, but fails WP:N & WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - info is good enough to shove this over the borderline - David Gerard 11:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local politician. fails WP:BIO for politicians. --Sc straker 17:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice Lambeth Councillor isn't enough to warrant coverage, and everything else is irrelevant. Without prejudice, as Lambeth councillors have been known to rise to more noteworthy positions. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Bosco Interparish School[edit]

St. John Bosco Interparish School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on non-notable school Arizona, has existed for almost a year without any significant information added. Has been proposed for speedy deletion twice as non-notable. Macboots 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless significantly expanded and sourced. If this is a primary or intermediate school, then some indication of notability is required as well.-gadfium 05:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC). Now neutral. The article has been expanded and sourced, but still doesn't adequately assert notability.-gadfium 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question:Where might I find the policy for articles on primary or intermediate schools requiring notability, beyond their existence? If I don't see an answer here I'll hit up your talk page in a day or so. Gh5046 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been numerous discussions on school notability, but I am not aware that any have reached consensus. You can find links to at least some of those discussions at WP:SCHOOL. I am using my own standards, not any policy, to guide my recommendations on whether schools should have articles.-gadfium 05:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• One possibility would be to merge it into the appropriate neighbourhood article. The article doesn't say which neighbourhood it is in though.-gadfium 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since it's been updated. Delete if not expanded.If it doesn't have useful information there's no reason for its existence. Gh5046 06:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim to notabilty whatsoever.--Victor falk 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete school with no claim of notabilty, no Reliable sources to boot. Jbeach56 21:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While improved, still doesn't indicate notabilty, and the sources are very poor, either trivial mentions, local news, or very unreliable sources like great schools and flicker, still delete. Jbeach56 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it looks like sources exist. I'll do what I can with the article momentarily. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's much better, I've added an infobox and changed my vote to keep. Gh5046 02:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Jbeach56. Finding enough sources to justify notability for primary or intermediate schools is difficult, and I don't think the burden has been met yet. The references so far are quite minor. Schools do not acquire notability by having a recycling program. EdJohnston 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't seem very notable to me. It also lacks the most elementary information, e.g. what level school it is, and how many attend. Richard001 04:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the updated version.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "deletes" mostly have policy on their side; the "keeps" do not; the "move/rewrite" is a good idea but difficult to achieve with this article as it stands. However, if the original author or anyone else thinks they can achieve it, please ask for the history to go into your userspace and I'll oblige. With all due respect to Mr McCallum and for the avoidance of doubt, your input is welcome and was considered but it was not part of my thinking when determining consensus here. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boitumelo McCallum[edit]

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

This one's not going to make me popular, I know... Per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL I don't think this should be here. She appears to be famous solely as the victim of a crime, and as per policy in that case the article should be about the case & not the victim; however, tragic as it is, the case doesn't appear to be unusual/significant enough to warrant its own article. However, I'm not in New York, and the number of press citations makes me think that maybe this case was more significant in the US than it appears to be. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Murder of Boitumelo McCallum, with a substantial rewrite. Currently has a big problem with the tone of the article right now... "The Jealous Boyfriend"? That's PoV for starters, surely, unless sourced. Infact, a lot of cleanup is needed, of various sorts. But I do think the case is notable; and, as is the case with articles such as Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and ... another story from this year (what it is exactly has completely passed my mind for right now), an article on the case with a section on the bio of the victim seems like the best option (especially considering, as you point out, the sheer number of sources available). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, has the boyfriend been convicted? If not, then he's an accused murderer, not murderer, surely? Loooots of tone/pov issues here... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An importent and well-known case. And my advice, if you have symphaty for an article, dont nominate it. If it's really that bad someone else will. Dont forget then an article is something someone worked hard on. When he sees a messege like you wrotte he's like: "I worked on it, wrote, found references and he's not shure but nominates it??" So for the future, nothing will happen to you if you don't nominate, esspecially if you're not shure. M.V.E.i. 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What on earth are you talking about? Nowhere do I say I have sympathy for this article, I say I think it's apparently a clear violation of WP:NOT and am bringing it here for a second opinion just in case it's more notable than it appears. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Edit - I have to agree with AllynJ. This article is noteworthy, it hit both New York Times and USAToday, but the POV is a major problem. Icestorm815 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It requires to much of a rewrite, instead of moving it just start over from scratch at Murder of Boitumelo McCallum. ILovePlankton^(L—n) 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia does not do memorial pages, and that's what this is. Being in the news does not make you notable. This is a sad story, not a notable one, unless you an show this is a historical event. MarkBul 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ITSSOURCED pretty well, to be true, and there was a lot of news coverage, but apart from her parents this is not an unusual or important crime. Women are murdered by their boyfriends every day, and the only thing that sets this one apart is the academic setting.--Dhartung | Talk 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing distinguishes this from the thousands of other murders reported in the newspapers. Clarityfiend 07:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reads like a memoriam. Sad, but NN. Also appears to be local/state-interest only. All refs are New York. Irrelevant to the rest of the English-speaking wikipedia populace. --Sc straker 22:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I put a lot of work (one month's worth) into this page with cite references and almost everything else. Considering that at least one of her parent's had dealings with Nelson Mandela, dealt with the U.N. and other factors, this should be enough to keep it. "Too much of a rewrite?" Why? It's as POV as I can make it. The girl appears to have been on her way to be famous. Kindly recheck the story and maybe do a few Google searches on her.--MurderWatcher1 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, WP:EFFORT is not a valid reason to keep an article. shoy 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having a parent having "dealings" with a notable somebody doesn't make you (or even the parent) notable. Notability is neither associative nor inherited. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
• Weak Keep since a lot of the POV is now (hopefully) removed and sources such as CNN, MSNBC, USA Today have been added. Weak argument but I've seen worse. I also lean towards moving the article per AllynJ if nothing else. --ImmortalGoddezz 07:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I notice that the argument is that this is "not notable". The basic notability criteria for biographical articles says that the criteria are the article has a statement or evidence of why the person is notable, and "the person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Nowhere does it say the person must be somebody particularly important, just that they must be the subject of a lot of reliable published works (e.g. articles), and the article should explain why, and it passes on both counts. One might venture that there must be some reason for all the coverate. On the other hand I do agree that people are murdered every day. Her death is hardly unique, but Wikipedia is not paper so if somebody wants to work on it (which people have been) then I say why not keep it? --TexasDex 00:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenence tags[edit]

As the father of Boitumelo McCallum when I read this article most of it is made up from newspaper articles at the time of my daughters death. The newspapers attempted to create scenarios of what had taken place before and on her death. These scenarios are very inaccurate and do little justice to Tumi's life. They are also very one dimensional. While considerable research may have been done to put up the page, this does not justify the reason for it remaining if it is inaccurate. It lacks substantive research and relies only on the media. At no time have the media actually interviewed me about many of these events. Much of the article is inaccurate and to edit it would mean to completely rewrite the piece. I strongly urge that this article be completely deleted, and a more appropriate page replace it that is more wholisitc and balnced in its perspective. The New York Times articles have been more accurate but even they have inaccuracies.(Rob McCallum 6.59 6 October, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmac367 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robmac367: I had created the page to honor your daughter. When I had posted the page onto Wikipedia, I had informed your wife of the page's creation via telephone. It was my sole purpose to bring honor to your daughter and let the world know of her plight and to somehow ease your family's pain. I'm sorry if, in any way, you were offended by my work. If you will check the other pages that I have created on murdered women re: Jennifer Moore, Ramona Moore and Chanel Petro-Nixon, then you will see that this was my sole intention also with these other young women. We have had too many senseless deaths in New York City in the past year and one-half, and this was my way of fighting this evil - by creating references for these young women. I have had no other way to research your daughter and her story other than searches on the Internet and her MySpace.com webpage, and barely a few other websites. It is hard to describe any individual and put the totality of that person's life into any written kind of perspective. I am saddened by the page's deletion and I had hoped that others would contribute to the page. I won't attempt any further work on Boitumelo unless you request it. Again, my apologies if there was any offense. All I can do now is pray for your family.--MurderWatcher1 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doncaster live[edit]

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

Non-notable. Originally deleted once by User:Deb - not sure if it was speedy or just the user's own decision, mind - but recreated and A7 turned down this time, by User:Moonriddengirl. Anyway, nn in my eyes. Only ref is a first-party source, from Myspace. Google search for '"Doncaster live" magazine' brings up a *few* sources, most of which are unrelated (mostly on a namesake festival hosted in Doncaster). Only source I could find was: [4] , which I don't think is reliable enough, and doesn't have any info except verification that it exists. Considering it was only created last month it's far too soon, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A7 doesn't apply to print material, but that doesn't mean it satisfies WP:Notability. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEWS, WP:NOT, and WP:CRYSTAL - it's brand new, free magazine, and may not last a year. Bearian 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 03:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Pykett[edit]

Google returns 1 hit for a tennis player of this name, a 14-year-old in Leeds, UK, who won a doubles tournament. Multiple instances of CTA as a tennis organization but all seem to be local to specific US states. Unknown what a "world semi proffesional tennis player" means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs)

• Delete as a hoax or embellished bio of an otherwise non-notable person. No sources available to verify his existence or demonstrate notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lad in Leeds would appear not to be the subject of this article as he's too young. I cannot find any sources to verify that this person otherwise exists. --Malcolmxl5 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN --Tiptopper 03:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stoner rock. Martial BACQUET 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner music[edit]

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion some two years ago. It survived (barely); but with the expectation that it be cleaned up. This has not taken place; the article remains unreferenced and vague. It may be possible that we can have an article on this topic, but it isn't possible now, and hasn't been possible for three years. The article as written makes no claim as a noteworthy sub-genre, and presents no evidence that its claims are truthful or representative. Indeed, commentators at the previous debate reflected skepticism at some of the article's claims--those claims remain, unreferenced. While we are under no pressing deadline to whip articles into shape, we are also not obligated to keep bad articles around in the hope that some day someone will fix them. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its authors are obviously still too stoned to commit to editing it. To be serious of what it is a subgenre I couldn't begin to guess. --Rodhullandemu 21:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Are there any more cheese doodles? MarkBul 22:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mackensen, NN enough to warrant an article. ILovePlankton^(L—n) 22:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is such a thing as Stoner rock, which seems to be in substantially better condition than this article, although it doesn't have the intended scope that this article seems to have. A redirect may be in order. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to stoner rock. That's the most common "stoner" designation used in reputable music journalism. Chubbles 05:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search of Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News and the first 100 hits on google proper for "stoner rock" -wikipedia bring up no reliable sources. Many hits (pun intended) on cannabis and music forums, but we can't exactly cite those. The article is OR, plain and simple. --Gimme danger 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That stoners don't listen to ambient, speed metal, gregorian choirs or Wagner is patently false--Victor falk 14:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to stoner rock -- Whpq 16:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or keep rather than redirect to stoner rock (can't make up my mind). Stoner rock is a well defined genre whereas stoner music is just a term (not a genre) for music (whatever genre e.g. reggae, hip hop) that is strongly associated with cannabis use. In other words, it's music to listen while getting high. See Rolling Stone articles [5] and [6]. The term is wildly used on the internet, mainly in forums and other non-notable media. Here are some examples of more reliable media that have used the term: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and less notable but nevertheless sources [14], [15] . Some of them refer to stoner rock, most do not. Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete - default keep although additionnal sources would probably be require, so I will tag it in consequence.--JForget 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and the Gazebo[edit]

Eric and the Gazebo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a humorous role-playing game anecdote was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) in May 2007 under speedy deletion criterion A7. The deletion was recently contested on the Help Desk by a person claiming to be the author of the story in question. As the story first appeared in a print publication, the article does not seem to satisfy the deliberately strict requirements of CSD A7. Since there is also some evidence that the story may in fact be notable, and as the deleting admin has retired from Wikipedia, I have chosen to undelete the article and place it on AfD instead. My personal opinion here is neutral, perhaps leaning slightly towards keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, for now. This, along with the Head of Vecna story, are the quintessential RPG stories. There's one source in the article, and it is secondary, but I'm not sure if that establishes notability for it. I'll try and dig something else up on it, the story really has reached "urban legend" status. And we really need to find a better name for the article. Merging into gazebo is also an option, but according to the talk page, it keeps getting merged out. --UsaSatsui 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I laughed out loud, probably because I haven't heard the story in almost 20 years. But unless secondary sources have written about the story's importance as an anecdote or analyzed it as an example of communication issues in gaming, it isn't remotely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source referenced is a possible secondary source (or at least a reprint of one), and since it's been referenced in some outside products, I think the sourcing issues can be addressed. My main concern (and the reason I don't have a "keep" up yet) is whether or not the story is significant enough to warrant it's own article.--UsaSatsui 06:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean towards keep. DS 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are definite secondary sources which confirm that this is one of the seminal D&D stories, and has influenced many streams of the gaming culture. All are, however, in essence, retellings of the same incident, the same original telling, and the same influences. In short, it happened once, had its effect and will never be repeated (unlike the Head of Vecna which, with a relabelling and a credulous player-group, almost might be made to happen again). Neutral on the "vote", but can confirm multiple 2ndary sources. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Unless there's a source for notability. E.g. if the statement At least two gaming related businesses have drawn their name from this story. in the article is extended to name those businesses (with source) and they are any notable, that might help. The best I could find myself was a mention in some usenet FAQ. --Allefant 10:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a classic anecdote among roleplayers. Axl 11:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep remove PROD and put in a source tag instead. Web Warlock 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But then again, I would say that, wouldn't I? The game companies referred to are probably Wild Gazebo Productionsand Dread Gazebo: I had a message from the author of the original article and those are the two he mentioned. Can I just say I'd be happy to re-write, just as long as someone can walk me through what I need to include to show notability.JustIgnoreMe 19:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ideally, the requirements at WP:N should be met. Basically, we should find an independent, reliable source which asserts notability, i.e. repeats a claim like "this anecdote had a big impact on the RPG community". Personal homepages are not independent/reliable enough for that, and I'm not sure that FAQ is. And not every D&D story being told in a D&D magazine is notable. To me, it seems this one indeed is notable though, just there's no adequate sources proving so. --Allefant 11:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What if we redefine the problem? I've always seen this piece as an anecdote, like an urban myth except true. What would be the implications of reclassifying "Eric" as, say, a short piece of non-fiction? Would it then be sufficient to show that it had been printed in two reliable independent sources? JustIgnoreMe 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Quizzes 1 and 2[edit]

Impossible Quizzes 1 and 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of this article is comprised of a walkthrough for the "sequel" (or whatever you want to call it). Unsourced, and fails WP:WEB. — Malcolm (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN & unsourced. meshach 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO, also a bit lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Out of six popular forums surveyed, I found one off-the-cuff reference to the Impossible Quiz... four months ago.--WaltCip 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good work, people. DS 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan McAnespie[edit]

Delete: Non-notable as one of over 3000 victims of the Troubles. Clear hagiography. Mazur-Grosskopf 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, useful, interesting. M.V.E.i. 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN Sad story. Inflammatory in tone. Very opinionated. Tiptopper 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E. Sad & tragic? Yes, definitely. But he has no notability outside of this one incident, and so an article isn't suitable for Wikipedia. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The case was highlighted at the The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, held in Dublin Castle, April 1995.[16] I have also added some more info and references to the article and will add more latter.--Padraig 23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added some more information, and references, although I'm not as happy with some of them as I could be (One's a fan forum article, but it is discussing a Panorama programme.). No strong opinion on the deletion debate. --Kateshortforbob 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Aidan McAnespie's notability comes from the fact that the circumstances of his death were raised every time the GAA was pressed on whether it should continue rule 21 about non-involvement with security forces. He is not just 'another victim of the Troubles' but a very highly publicised case which has had significant political and cultural ramifications. Sam Blacketer 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources obviously treat it as a special case, investigations indicate unusual importance. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Natalie 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthphonia Suprema[edit]

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

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. No reliable third-party sources for notability, not listed at allmusicguide.com. The text is also a cut-and-paste job of [17], but I'm listing it here on reasons of notability as I'm assuming it's self-promotion and they wouldn't mind releasing their bio under a free license. Thomjakobsen 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. M.V.E.i. 20:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep on the basis that they have about 12000 Ghits and clearly have a following which seems to be mostly European. Article needs tidying up however but if this doesn't happen within a reasonable time and include more reliable case for notability, it should go. --Rodhullandemu 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. Notability is a guideline, but copyright is policy. -- Whpq 16:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Since they both stood at the same time, a history merge isn't appropriate, and there's no burning need to delete the content either. Just a simple redirect. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Complex[edit]

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

The article doesn't really assert its importance for its subject. It isn't clearly notable. Also, the only reference listed, goes to a page that isn't even English. I know it is listed as a stub, but stubs have guidelines also, and this doesn't seem to meet them. Rjd0060 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps it can be deleted and redirected to Telecommunications Tower. - Rjd0060 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since almost all of the content was copied and pasted from Telecommunications Tower and that seems to be the only notable building in the complex, I think redirect is the way to go. I'm not quite bold enough to do it myself at this time, though. Deor 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Telecommunications Tower, since most of the information is already in that article. Since Telecommunications Tower is the tallest building in Uruguay, it definitely qualifies as notable. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable building. WP is not a real estate listing service. --Gavin Collins 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Major[edit]

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

Apparently not credited in the films she purports to have had roles in, according to IMDB Accounting4Taste 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NN Tiptopper 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by the articles own admission, this is a minor actor. No listing on IMDB for any roles. Completely fails WP:V. -- Whpq 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N & WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lodewijk van Beethoven[edit]

Lodewijk van Beethoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Person only notable for being the grandfather of the famous composer. Apparent attempt by Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) to push his POV on the naming of Johann van Beethoven.  Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• hmmmm, i'm gonna have to got with Delete, not because of anything to do with Rex's edits, but because he(Lodewijk) doesn't appear to show any notability other having musical genes. If Notability is not inherited, does that mean ancestors don't get it either? I'm pretty sure it does--Jac16888 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Userfy to Rex's userspace Knowing Matthead's and Rex's history there may be a conflict of interest in the nomination (as well as I'd suggest a rewording to maintain neutrality), still the question regarding the notability remains. And being the parent of a notable figure does not seem to be notable enough for me (worst case we might enter recursion with the parent of said notable parent). Thus, delete or merge. 84.145.195.64 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As Rex has stated he wants to write an entire article regarding the van Beethoven family history, I think he might want to incorporate the contents into that new article. Thus I'd suggest userfy (and I'll be curious to read the new van Beethoven family article once it is done). 84.145.195.64 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. The man was a noted composer/conductor himself. The only reason why Matthead wants to delete is so he can minimize or remove any references to Beethovens Dutch origins other than his name.Rex 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point us to a work of his, and where we can listen to it? - Looking forward to more Beethoven symphonies! -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We? You 're not hearing voices now are you? Oh, and he was a choir conductor, so unless you have a time machine ... Rex 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The noted composer/conductor is noted for what? His German grandson. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps him passing through his Dutch musical genes despite continous adding of German peasant blood is enough of a performance to be mentioned. Rex 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Germanus(!) exposing once again his racist, nationalist, anti-German views - the only reason for him to start this article. Besides, his son Johann van Beethoven was an alcoholic, his treatment of Ludwig was questionable if not out-right child abuse. Dutch musical genes seem to rely heavily on Beats? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If hope I misread you calling me a racist. Because 1: Germans are not race (at least, not in the books I read) and 2 I would be very much offended to be compared to such low lifes. As for Johans agressiveness... why do you link that to the Dutch side of the family. I think history sort of proves who were the 'agressive' ones.Rex 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the are much less notable biographies on wiki. Being grandfather of someone of the level of Beethoven in itself is already notable enough to me; being able to find back some information on a grandfather is what makes encycplodia reading fun. Arnoutf 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are then interested in Wikipedia biographies of his three other Grandparents also? If so, feel free to use the info at Johann van Beethoven for a start - voting by doing. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to write proper English matthead. In English also is never position at the end of a sentence. Oh and for the record, I would read about his other grandparents, but there are no articles on them now are they? Maybe his German grandparents were just not that notable... Rex 20:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would like to read about his other grandparents as well. Arnoutf 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Keverich-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice and interesting to read redirect pages.Rex 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is non-transferable. humblefool® 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge at worst: Considering the famous composer's incredibly encyclopedic importance, somehow this information can and should be salvaged. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the father, Johann van Beethoven, where the grandfather and other ancestors can be covered, too. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you really want it to go don't you Matthead? Well, I'd like to use the opportunity to tell you that I'm planning on making a whole article about Beethovens ancestry.Rex 21:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Keep This Lodewijk is NN Tiptopper 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With NN, do you mean Wikipedia:Non-notability? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He doesn't have an entry in the New Grove. He's mentioned in his grandson's entry, where he's described as a 'trained musician, with a fine bass voice'. His appointment as Kapellmeister at Bonn is mentioned, although the Grove article says that he 'seems not to have been a composer, unlike other occupants of such a post'. At best a very minor figure. The Grove article, btw, calls him Ludwig with a parenthetical Louis. BPMullins | Talk 22:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If Rex wishes to write an article on the whole family/ancestry, then keep for now, until it can be merged there. The Bach family article could serve as a model in a way (even though the Bachs seem to be much more notable.) The New Grove contents can serve as enough verification to provisionally justify this article until then, even if Grove doesn't give him an entry of his own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion, that would make it much better. Thanks Arnoutf 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I'm willing to be persuaded that the man's career somehow makes him notable (is a 16-year-old vice-conductorship of a choir a significant thing, for example?), but at present the only real claim on notability here is that his grandson went on to become one of the greatest composers around. Notability doesn't go up and down family trees. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, there seems to be a non-trivial career here in an era when this was an important job, but there are so few sources discussing him and they all do so in the context of his grandson. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If somebody comes up in Google Scholar[18] and [19]Google Books, he is usually notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. — _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do these surprisingly few hits prove notability independent from his grandson? These 5 resp. 25 hits for "Lodewijk van Beethoven" compare to a certain "Maria Josepha Poll" with 4 resp.36, which is hardly surprising, as the two were married. Kudos for digging out this jewel: Beethoven as a Black Composer discussing "Beethoven's African ancestry", "perhaps an ancestor of Beethoven's was Spanish. That would open the door for African background". Yo, man! --~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs) 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had Black ancestry, or Spanish for that matter, it wouldn't mind me. Would it be a problem to you if his family were blacks from Africa Matthead. Yo man?Rex 07:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merge or userfy. Non-notable as an individual. -Freekee 04:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Grandaddy Ludwig is mentioned both in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and The Harvard Biographical Dictionary of Music in connection with the more famous Beethoven. He was a bass at the court in Bonn, which established a family dynasty of noteworthy musicans. Ghits are a bust, as he is often referred to as "Ludwig van Beethoven", elder. Chubbles 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, "in connection"! Not on his own right. And that's the way it should be treated here, too.It's just a sideline. Look at those five pathetic sentences, only three of them contain somewhat interesting info. That's not enough for an article. Gray62 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-very interesting historical person.--Molobo 11:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough information to warrant an article. Nothing provided so far makes the case that the granddad was an important enough person to be mentioned seperately in any encyclopedia. Gray62 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Johann van Beethoven. Certainly it is of interest and notability that Ludwig came from a family with a long history of musical talent. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His only notability is in relation to his grandson, so any information on him should be there. He was apparently musically talented, but that, in itself, does not establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Beethoven, Johann van Beethoven, or userfy for "entire article regarding the van Beethoven family history." — AjaxSmack 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough. He was a minor choirmaster and a singer; I see no evidence he composed anything. Some famous grandsons have famous grandfathers (see Charles Darwin/Erasmus Darwin or Felix Mendelssohn/Moses Mendelssohn). This doesn't fall into that category and sets a bad precedent for a proliferation of articles about famous persons' non-notable ancestors. --Folantin 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- being related to someone this famous just gets him in, I'd like some more info though...JJJ999 05:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to a single article on the lesser Beethoven family members. He appears to be in Grove, and that should be good enough, given that we seem to have articles on every single release by every single band that ever got signed by some indie label, few of which have any references at all outside their own MySpace. Cruftbane 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to son's article. --Sc straker 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Butseriouslyfolks as "nonsense, A7". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MeiMei[edit]

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

Copyright violation.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; this was speedy-deleted as nonsense and I don't see any pressing need to recreate it. Accounting4Taste 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of stuff[edit]

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

It is a list of "stuff," that links to completely random articles in alphabetical order. Domthedude001 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RandomStuffIsGood Flobert 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; just sheer nonsense, should probably have been speedied. Accounting4Taste 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete what a pile of crap. Completely useless list with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Hut 8.5 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for making me LOL. Seriously though, delete, but mention at the bad jokes page. Lugnuts 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Lol, why remove it? Keep Cheezychick 17:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Not in the same league as the Upper peninsular war, otherwise, as it says, just random stuff. Acroterion _(talk) 18:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Seriously, I think that a list of stuff would be very helpful to many people who look at Wikipedia. Arogi Ho 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Completely useless list with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Keep BabbageCabbage 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if nothing else, it is a very interesting collection of stuff. 96T 18:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and replace every other article with a redirect to it. Oh all right then, reluctant delete. — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very useful, very interesting, all notable things, not an indiscriminate list, no original research, no POV, no copyright violation, contains no statistics, author has done a lot of hard work, does not duplicate other list, other crap does not exist, and it is, should be a wikiproject. As it says, a list of stuff, but not just any stuff, though, because every single one of these things gets 100+ hits on google. Plus, Andy Rooney has done a pointless essay about every one of these things. Mandsford 18:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep why should we delete it; It's an indiscriminate collection of info--Phoenix 15 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (joke)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT#INFO. This would fall under statistics. Or maybe WP:NOT#STUPID. - ђαίгснгм ^таιќ 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Reedy Boy 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996)[edit]

Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I added this using a link from the List of defunct airlines where a redlink showed this as Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996) and not as the previously existing Arizona Airways (1993-1996). I have merged information and and corrected the incorrect link and am requesting this be deleted. Thanks! Patriarca12 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could've really been speedy deleted. But hey ho! Reedy Boy 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MXPie[edit]

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

Borders on spam, probably non-notable. Also probably original research. I didn't think it was obvious enough for a speedy, so here it is. CitiCat ^♫ 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Spammy, the only purpose of the article is to hype one NN product Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — no third-party, reliable sources; non-notable product. --Agüeybaná 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn product, fails WP:N & WP:V. Carlossuarez46 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hopefully sources will follow.--Kubigula (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. Upton and Sons[edit]

E. Upton and Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphan article on seemingly non notable department store chain. "E. Upton and Sons" on Google turns up nothing but this article. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7 OSborn^arf 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as A7. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly a bogus A7 - removed. The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care with these. (This is becoming a matter of public concern and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and particularly A7s lately.) If in ANY doubt, it goes to AFD. Which is why we are here - David Gerard 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is notable. its a part of intl retail history. Just becuz Google doesnt yield something, doesnt mean this article is NOT valuable. Doesnt that mean Wikipedia has one up on Google? The point Wikipedia is not for a few control-dizzy users to delete articles. Its to expand the knowlege base that is available to Wikiusers. Lets Keep it! john 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep probably notable if sources are found. Should be possible. Newspapers did exist in the 20th century.DGG (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that if the company survived into the 21st century, that at least one online source would verify it. Even just "Upton and Sons" turns up only a publishing company. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep - certainly notable as a regional chain of stores, although the frequent changes of name and various ways you can format a name like E Upton & Sons doesn't help. I'd guess Googling Upton Middlesbrough -"Upton Park" should turn up something, or Google Upton & Southern which was the name of the holding company for a while. Citywire noted the sale of the stores by Upton & Southern. I've invited WikiProject North East England to contribute to the article. FlagSteward 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" proponent conceded the claim was borderline; there seems to be consensus for lack of notability. No prejudice against a recreation in future with a clearer assertion of notability and citations of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Chaim[edit]

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

The man has almost no notability: [20], and the article questionably asserts it: being a DJ and releasing an album are not claims to notablity. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A7 OSborn^arf 16:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tried that. The Evil Spartan 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. Changed to Delete as non notable DJ. OSborn^arf 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a lot of hits for his moniker "Anonymous Twist". There are also a lot for "DJ Apollo", but it appears that more than 1 DJ goes by that name. Here's a review from CBC Radio 3. Now Magazine named him best hip-hop artist in Toronto, information on his record company's website, review from JIVE Magazine, information from URBNET, more from Now Magazine. Bláthnaid 10:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N & WP:V - the cites above are not the significant coverage from reliable sources expected to establish notability - the coverage differs little from that accorded any local on-air personality of even passing duration. WP is not the yellow pages. Carlossuarez46 22:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2000 album review and 2007 article from Exclaim! magazine, which is a national magazine/website. I can't find any music charts that his music is on, though, so he's borderline N. Bláthnaid 10:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Of Life[edit]

Manuel Of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Kill Manny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is a redirect to the same page --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced and apparently non-notable, ranging from this to present version. Very likely a hoax. GregorB 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Actually sounds like an attack page. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm still not sure if this is a film or a book but neither sound notable and no Google hits that make sense. Accounting4Taste 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Looks too much like something made up in school one day. --Rodhullandemu 21:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense. JJL 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ATT, WP:N and WP:MADEUP. Carlosguitar 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shade 45[edit]

Shade 45 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is essentially just a radio station guide, which violates WP:NOT#DIR. Notability is not inherited and unless there are sources to show the station is notable by itself, there is no reason to keep a page that is just a directory and with no potential to expand. Spellcast 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Sirius is a notable, non-local media provider, hip-hop is a notable cultural phenomenon and Eminem is a notable owner. To me this is equivalent to a high-power radio station. The schedule information should be removed, however. — RJH (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Satellite Radio is certainly notable. But I don't think that necessarily means every station on the channel is notable. A Google search reveals little to no in-depth coverage from secondary sources. Spellcast 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete or Redirect to Sirius Satellite Radio I hate to say it, because I love my XM, but most of these channels aren't in and of themselves notable. There are certainly exceptions to this (or individual programs on some of these channels that would merit an article), but I don't think Shade 45 gets over that hurdle, as it has no real reliable sources. Neither will most XM or Sirius channels. Does anyone know of any precedents? Surely Shade 45 isn't the first one to face afD. SkerHawx 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be many similar channels in List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations with questionable notability. Spellcast 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Are you kidding? Ugh. This is a nationally-broadcasted station operated by a internationally-known celebrity. This should be kept, and removed from nominated status as quickly as possible. Because this seems like it was probably only nominated because someone has a problem with either rap or Eminem. -Josh 22:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS and WP:N. Vague assertions of notability mean nothing if you can't provide sources. Spellcast 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dermot J. O'Reilly[edit]

Dermot J. O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I see absolutely nothing confirming this man's notability. The only google hit is a marriage notice: [21] The Evil Spartan 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not yet notable. Tiptopper 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The most he's been cited by is 11.--Sethacus 16:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And on top of everything, it appears to be an autobiography. GregorB 16:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find any significant papers. The Google Scholar refs [22] are to another Dermot O'Reilly, a demographer. Web of Science shows one paper only, Bellucci S, O'Reilly D, Nonminimal string corrections and supergravity PHYSICAL REVIEW D 73 (6): Art. No. 065009 MAR 2006 , cited zero times. arXiv has two additional unpublished papers. [23] and [24]. I know the word "vanity" is depreciated, but .... DGG (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A physicist with a PhD in 2006 would need to have done something special to have yet attained WP:PROF standards, and there is no evidence that this is the case here. I've also failed to find any evidence that the book he edited (Accepting the Challenge: The Memoirs of Michael Flannery (2001)) is notable. Espresso Addict 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A lot of largely-unsourced detail but nothing stands out as notable. —David Eppstein 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity page. JJL 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobikunashiotomono Matsubara[edit]

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

Apparently a hoax. GregorB 16:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - based on this search: 2007 September 29 - appears to be a hoax. Addhoc 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's quite incredible that this article managed to survive for nearly five months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregorB (talk • contribs) 16:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Salt Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been asked to formally record my reasons for the decision. Basically its indiscriminate information. Even the way it was framed meant that inclusion was too hit and miss to be properly encyclopaedic and its too broad an area to properly define a manageable list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christians[edit]

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

This was deleted (by me) several weeks ago after a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). It's not an identical recreation so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. The assertion on the talk page is that the problems identified in the previous AfD, including the arbitrariness of the criteria for listing, are addressed in the recreation. I think that assertion needs to be tested at AfD. Please do not let this be a repeat of the previous AfD verbatim. The question before us is simply: Have the issues that caused the previous incarnation to be deleted been addressed? Chick Bowen 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Adolf Hitler and a serial killer? I see this page is much improved. MarkBul 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seven individuals... only a few billion more needed to make this list complete. More being saved every day. Mandsford 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your argument here? That the list is incomplete? Of course it is incomplete, and ever will it be. That's not a criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. It's Nick Graves again. Hi, Nick. Nice to see you again. Mandsford 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be sarcasm. It's hard to tell in print. In any case, what is your response? Are you proposing a change in deletion criteria to include lists that are incomplete? Or do you have another reason for recommending deletion--one that is consistent with existing policy or guidelines? Nick Graves 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sarcasm. I think I speak for all ten of us who have voted to delete, when I say that we appreciate that you take the time to respond to each of us individually. And we respect the fact that you want to fight to keep your article. And, being a Christian myself, I'm all in favor of encouraging people to make that decision during their lifetime. But honestly, what's your agenda here? Do you plan to list every notable person in history whose upbringing included trips to a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, etc. church? Or is this one of those articles where you start with a handful of people and ask everyone else to "contribute"? I'd vote the same for a List of Moslems, List of Jews, List of Zoroastrians, etc. Mandsford 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing appreciation on behalf of yourself and other editors who recommend deletion. But appreciation is not what I'm after when I make these individual responses. This is a discussion, not a vote, and I'm asking people to specify the policy-supported rationales that may or may not be behind their recommendation. You still have not explained how you believe your delete recommendation is supported by policy. In this latest comment, it seems you object to the supposedly indiscriminate scope of the list ("every notable person in history whose upbringing includes trips to... church"). But that is most certainly not the intended scope of the list, whose inclusion criteria specify that these are persons identified by reliable sources as Christians who are particularly important to Christianity in some way (its development, its public face, etc.). If that is your objection to the list, your are objecting to a straw man. You seem concerned about how this list will be formed, whether by me individually, or through collaboration. The means by which the list will be created has no bearing on whether it should exist. You say that you would vote the same way for other lists of this type, but this just begs the question "Why delete?" So I ask you again: Why delete? Incompleteness is not a valid criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - The membership criteria listed at the top of the article appears to be closer to meeting Criteria for inclusion in lists. However, it fails to mention anything about independent reliable sources. Including those people who have identified themselves as a Christian as noted on the article talk page violates the independent requirement of the general notability guidelines. The implementation of that criteria for individuals clearly is original research whose selective inclusion in the list are designed to give a WP:POV negative view of Christians. Despite the message sent by AfD#2, that message was not received by those who re-created this article. The re-creation of this article after deletion in unencyclopedic form and against policy creates a need to protect this topic from further re-creation until a new group of editors become interested in the topic and the old editors have moved on to other topics. -- Jreferee t/c 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what to make of this. RS1900 posted a strong delete at AfD#2 but was the one who added the Hitler reference to the present article.[25] This seems like WP:POINT, but those editing the article discussed the matter on the talk page and declined to remove the Hitler addition to the list, even though it did not meet the listed membership criteria. The only thing I can make of this is that those presently interested in the article lack the experience to maintain control over this article, which supports my salt request. -- Jreferee t/c 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot speak for the other editors, but I have extensive experience with lists of people by belief, including List of atheists, and List of agnostics, which (under my former account) I helped save from the brink of deletion by tightening inclusion criteria and providing sourcing. I have also heavily contributed to List of Telecaster players, also helping make the inclusion criteria more strict, and providing reliable sources for the entries there. It went on to become a featured list. Please forgive my apparent lack of vigilance at List of Christians, as I have been involved in an AfD discussion and collecting evidence for alleged sockpuppetry. Please also see the changes made there since the current AfD. Nick Graves 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jreferee, in what way did the re-creation of this article go against policy? You also say that it has been created in "unencyclopedic form." Surely, it is not yet in a form that in any signficiant way replicates the encyclopedic ideal, but is this not a consequence of the sheer newness of the article? Rare is the article treating any substantial topic that finds itself in a very useful and pleasing shape within the first few days of its creation. Nick Graves 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is clear that very strict criteria are needed. Some editors have not gotten the picture yet, but after this latest AfD, I'd wager they will. Please do not expect this article to be in perfect condition, or anywhere near a complete or substantial state so soon after being created. Of course, it would be asinine to try to list all Christians in the world, but no one has suggested doing so. Please see the list in its latest state, with new, strict criteria. Nick Graves 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you describe here what you feel the criteria to be? It's not entirely clear to me what "notable as Christians" (which is the only definition of criteria in the article itself) means. After all, no one is notable only as a Christian. Most of the people on it currently seem to be either clergymen or people whose Christianity is somewhat surprising (like Hitler) which seems to me to be somewhat different. Chick Bowen 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Notable as Christians" does not mean "notable only as Christians." I don't think most people would assume the latter based on the former wording. If you've got a better idea for wording, I'm all ears. This criterion is put that way to specify that not all notable people who are Christians belong in the list (like, say, Hitler). I suppose Britney Spears is a notable Christian, but she is not notable as a Christian. Constantine is notable as a Roman emperor, but he is also notable as a Christian, since he was so influential in the religion becoming the state religion of Rome. Nick Graves 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So presumably the list could include David Koresh, Fred Phelps, Joseph Kony, Joseph Smith, Jr., Eric Robert Rudolph, Vlad III the Impaler? Thomjakobsen 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, if reliable sources are found stating that they are notable as Christians. If you or anyone else finds this to be a distasteful possibility, might I suggest considering it anew within the context of WP:NPOV. The job of lists such as these is not to document only the notable Christians that everyone likes. It's not a List of good Christians. After all, List of atheists includes such monsters as Stalin and Enver Hoxha. These lists should not serve an apologetic purpose, pro or con. Nick Graves 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever inclusion criteria the article's creator may have in mind, they're certainly not clear from the article's text or from his actions after this AfD started. For one thing, he deleted the C. S. Lewis entry from the list; and if CSL isn't "notable as a Christian" the meaning of that phrase must be escaping me entirely. Every individual clergyman with a WP article, every Christian theologian throughout history, every saint in any Christian denomination's calendar—why would not all these and many, many more folk merit listing here? If the list's maintenance depends entirely on the creator's "knowing one when he sees one," without a way for any other contributor to judge whether a potential entry does or does not meet the inclusion criteria, then the list is effectively unmaintainable. Deor 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• C.S. Lewis is the type of person who definitely belongs, but he could not stay on the merits of the former source cited, as it reported on his personal profession of faith, rather than confirming his notability as a Christian. This change was made in response to Jreferee's comments above, with the intent to forge a new list with inclusion criteria every bit as strict as editors in this AfD and the former one believe should be in place. I'm not sure how the inclusion criteria text could be made any clearer than it already is, but I am open to suggestions. You seem to think a clearer set of criteria are possible. What, pray, would those be if not the ones already in place? The list's maintenance absolutely does not depend on the creator's "knowing [a Christian] when he sees one." Every individual listed so far depends on independent, reliable sources for such identification. C.S. Lewis and many more notable Christians can be added by myself and other editors using reliable sources if given the opportunity. I am certainly eager to begin that work. Nick Graves 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the basis of what use is it? Who would need such a list? By definition it's never going to be complete anyway per above. And I can see endless edit wars breaking out. --Rodhullandemu 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be of use to people wishing to survey those figures who are notable among Christians. Maybe this is not something of interest to you, in which case the list is of no use to you personally. But that does not make it of no use at all. Sure, it'll never be complete. The collection of human knowledge in encyclopedic form is always an ongoing process, and in no other format is this more evident than at Wikipedia. Are you saying we should not try to collect information here just because there is too much of it? If you're right, then all of Wikipedia and its 2 million plus articles ought to be abandoned. Imaginary future edit wars are not a criterion for deletion. There are a great many fine articles that have gone through numerous and/or lengthy edit wars. Nick Graves 02:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Lists of Christians and delete section for individuals. That will be specific and of some encyclopedic navigational value. Or would a category be better for this? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While theoretically defined and limited, in practice - as pointed out above - every saint, cardinal, bishop, rabbi, eastern orthodox whatever-they-are, would make this impossibly large. And that's without thinking about references. And what about all the American politicians who make a stink about their religious values - do they all get in? And does Thomas Jefferson get in? He edited his own bible. There's just no end to it in practice. MarkBul 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever happens, I don't think that rabbis would qualify. :) Deor 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree, I doubt if rabbis would appreciate being included in a list of Christians. I can also see arguments breaking out along the lines of the Peoples' Front of Judea versus the Judean Peoples' Front. Unhelpful & difficult to manage. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt it's a massive undertaking, but it will not be an impossibly large article, as it will naturally be broken down into logical subdivisions which will then be split off into separate articles as length merits, and as is customary with other lists of this type. Why should there be a List of Zoroastrians, but not a List of Christians just because there happen to be so many Christians? And yes, I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I do not think that the Zoroastrians list is crap, other than the fact that it needs sourcing. Nick Graves 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see it is somewhat improved over the earlier discussions here today. some of the people added show a possible desire to sabotage the list by making it ridiculous. suggestion: make it List of lists of Christians, referring to the other specific lists that e already have or could make. DGG (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete There are so many christians and it would be very difficult to maintain a list like this. I think it should be deleted. I would say, strong delete. RS1900 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly can be difficult to maintain lists. Sometimes, people insist on making POV-motivated additions to lists such as this, without proper regard for inclusion criteria.Take this, for example. But any article can be vulnerable to that type of thing. That shouldn't stop us from trying. Many potentially controversial lists have gone through rough patches, but have been hammered into good shape in the end. Some even end up achieving featured status. Nick Graves 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete far too many people in the English-language WP will qualify. Might as well have a List of English-speakers artcile. JJL 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an apples to oranges comparison. The current inclusion criteria would exclude the vast majority of notable people who happen to be Christian, since their Christianity isn't a big part of their notability. A better comparison would be with a list of notable Anglophone orators, or a list of persons widely regarded as influential in the development or spread of the English language. Nick Graves 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I believe we have several guidelines and policies which indicate that neither completeness or length are ever to be considered reasonable criteria for deletion. Having said that, I believe that, in conjunction with all the similar articles in the Category:Lists of Christians, these articles together could in time become reasonably complete. Also, an article such as this clearly would be useful as the central article for that category. I acknowledge it will need substantial work, but the same can be said for every stub article that currently exists, and we don't see them being nominated for deletion on the basis of being incomplete. John Carter 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Whatever inclusion criteria, they are bound to be hopelessly arbitrary. --Victor falk 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simply false. The inclusion criteria currently in place are far from arbitrary, and tie inclusion to what is reported in reliable sources, rather than the opinions of individual editors. Nick Graves 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think it will be possible to maintain this list without succumbing to point-of-view arguments. I also think it's potentially so large as to be unmanageable. NawlinWiki 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possibility that there might be future disputes about content is not a criterion for deletion. In any case, the possibility of POV arguments is reduced by linking the content of this list with what is reported in reliable sources. This makes inclusion not a matter of an editor's individual opinion, but a matter of what has been reliably reported by others. The list is potentially very large, but it can be broken down into manageable and useful sections and then sub-lists as length merits. Such sub-lists could include List of Christian philosophers, List of Christian apologists, or List of Christian activists. Nick Graves 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question here. C.S. Lewis is described as a "Christan apologist" and is well-known as a "christian author" (Screwtape, Narnia). If we had List of Christian apologists and and List of Christian authors, would he appear in both? And how would St Thomas Aquinas or Thomas a Kempis fit into this structure, each belonging to several possible categories? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with someone being listed in more than one list, provided they fit. Many of those included in lists by profession would also fit into a certain list by denomination. That sort of question is a "bridge we can cross when we get there," assuming the current list survives. Nick Graves 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless and unmanageable list. Axl 11:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is not pointless. One of the purposes of the list is to collect in one spot or nexus of lists the figures who are widely regarded by reliable sources as being particularly influential as Christians, as a supplement to the articles Christian and {[Christianity]]. It is customary for articles on religion to have lists of such figures, as they can help a reader better understand the subject and its cultural relevance. Such lists have an advantage in this respect over categories, as they can be much more selective. Also, unlike categories, they can have references, supporting quotes, descriptions of how a figure is notable as a Christian, and pictures. The current criteria represent a reasonable and non-arbitrary selection threshold that will help the list continue to have a point as names are added and the list becomes more useful. The strictness of the criteria will also help the list remain manageable. As the list becomes more populated, entries may be divided into logical and useful subsections, and eventually, separate lists, such as those suggested by me above. I have extensive experience managing such lists in the past, and with the help of other editors, I have no reason to suspect that this list cannot be kept manageable if it is allowed to survive and be improved. Nick Graves 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the article's title is misleading; it isn't actually the "List of Christians", but rather a group of specially selected people: "persons who have been identified as notable Christians by independent, reliable sources". How about renaming the article? Axl 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and block recreation the community has spoken that a list like this - regardless of who makes the cut and what the criteria are - really is neither encyclopedic nor maintainable. We have umpteen categories for every stripe of Christian, this is not needed. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would direct you to my comments above, in which I point out the many ways in which lists fulfill a role that categories cannot. You say the "community has spoken" on this type of issue, but that ignores the fact that other lists of this type have been nominated for deletion and survived. The will of the community is not at all unanimous on this. And, regardless of what preferences community members express, I have yet to see a well-supported, policy-citing argument for why this list ought to be deleted. "Unencyclopedic" is a vague objection, that amounts to little more than "I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia." Ok, that's a position, but why do you think it doesn't belong? In what way is it unencyclopedic? You say it is unmanageable, but many similar lists have proven manageable in practice. Why do you think this list in particular is unmanageable? What evidence do you have? You say it is not needed, but that depends on what one intends to use an encyclopedia for. I suppose an article that includes a list of the typical ingredients in a bloody mary is not needed by me, but it is surely informative and "needed" by others who have an interest in the subject. Similarly, this list of Christians, as it expands using reliable sources and reasonable inclusion criteria, can be of use to persons researching Christianity and the most notable figures within the faith. Nick Graves 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I reminded of Mark 1:3 here? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a near-infinite and largely indiscriminate list, that's why. There a couple of billion Christians alive today (1/3 the world's population) and probably a few billion others who have died in the past 2000 years. What do have they in common: Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Brigham Young, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Pope Urban II, Karla Faye Tucker, and about 1/3 (or more given WP's Western bias) of the people whose biographies are on here. And the good thing about lists is that they can have the redlinks too, so we're back to the billions. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're objecting to a list that no one is even trying to create. The vast majority of these billions of Christians aren't even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. And of those persons who are notable enough for an article and happen to be Christian, the vast majority of those aren't important enough to Christianity to be put into the list by the existing criteria. The Adolf Hitler, GW Bush, and KF Tucker examples you give wouldn't cut it, according to these standards. My own policy on redlinks in lists is don't have 'em--persons are presumed non-notable for list purposes until someone has seen fit to create an article on them using multiple, reliable, independent sources. Then and only then can such a person even be considered for inclusion, and even then they might not pass muster, depending on what the sources say about their notability to Christianity. Nick Graves 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, and forgive me if I'm wrong: actually, forgive me anyway; the topic of this discussion is "List of Christians". Not "List of Notable Christians", and even that would have its own problems. I see a lot of old ground being re-ploughed here to no obvious benefit and my feeling here roughly follows Matthew 14:30. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title says it all: the purported limitation in the article - today it reads "This list is limited to persons who have been identified as notable Christians by independent, reliable sources. That is, individuals are not listed because they are notable, and also happen to be Christians or profess Christianity. Rather, they are listed because they are notable as Christians, as confirmed by independent, reliable sources. They are widely regarded as people who have been influential in the development or spread of Christianity, people who are prominent spokespersons for the faith, or people who have had a significant effect on the religion's reputation." is not a persuasive limitation as explained above: again it's unmanagable and OR/POV injection to boot "widely regarded" "influential" "prominent" "significant effect" are pure POV weasel words: given my examples above (Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Brigham Young, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Pope Urban II, Karla Faye Tucker) all would qualify, and it's anyone else's POV to add or not anyone else. See Mark VIII.30-33, those who sacrifice for Christ are saved, those who witness for Him are saved - and those clearly have a significant effect on the religion's reputation. Where do we draw the line? By deleting this article as unworkable. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I rely on my Faith to provide answers here, I can't help thinking that the appropriate metaphor for this debate is not to be found in the Scriptures, but in Greek mythology, and the word "Sisyphean" springs to mind. This debate should be closed without further delay, not that I have much confidence that it won't recur, and I blame Luke 14:23 for this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu, in all such lists, it is generally assumed that the persons listed must be notable in some way, making the "Notable" in the title usually redundant. At a bare minimum, persons listed must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. In some cases, where stricter criteria are needed to make the list of greater use and manageability, the notability criterion is tightened further such that a person's notability must have a certain relationship to their identity as an X (where "X" represents religiosity, a profession, a political persuasion, etc.). Besides, a list having the wrong name is not a criterion for deletion, but a criterion for renaming. I'd support renaming to "List of notable Christians" or "List of prominent Christians" if it meant keeping the list. In lists, the inclusion criteria elaborate on what is suggested by the title, which would often be too long and cumbersome if they had the level of specificity you seem to be demanding here.

Carlos, the inclusion criteria are not subject to OR/POV problems as you claim, because all of the inclusion-tightening restrictions you cite are not subject to an individual editor's opinion on a person's notability as a Christian, but explicitly tied to and limited by what has been "confirmed by independent, reliable sources." I heavily doubt you or anyone else will ever find a reliable source stating that Tucker or Hitler, etc. are particularly influential for having been Christians. You say that "those who sacrifice for Christ are saved, those who witness for Him are saved - and those clearly have a significant effect on the religion's reputation." Making a judgment as to someone's notability as a Christian on that basis would be an example of violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since it would rely on your personal opinion that anyone who makes sacrifices or witnesses for Christ has a signficiant effect on the religion's reputation, and that's exactly what the inclusion criteria are designed to eliminate. Again, this list is and should be all about what the reliable sources say on the matter, not what the individual editors think about the matter. Nick Graves 10:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and block recreation: haven't we already discussed this? I'll use the example that I gave earlier: "I'm a Christian. Can I add my name to this list?" This list will never be complete, and don't we have categories for these types of things? Ksy92003(talk) 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kay: The former list was discussed, and the reason for deletion then was that the list maintainers had not addressed concerns about sourcing and inclusion criteria. The current list does not have these problems--it is thoroughly sourced (what little there is so far), and inclusion criteria are strict. This is a different discussion, since the reason for deletion, if any, must be different from in the earlier discussion. You express concern about people wanting to include their own names on such lists. This is primarily a newcomer's inclination, and is easily dealt with by answering "No," and quickly deleting non-notable persons' names from the list if they are added. Incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. There are many incomplete lists containing the dynamic list template, and many such lists are nevertheless in fine shape. One such list that I heavily contributed to even achieved featured status. You say we have categories for these types of things. I can only assume you haven't read all of the above discussion, in which I explain the many ways in which lists fulfill roles that categories cannot. Nick Graves 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pointless list, This page will need lots of work to improve it (but that is what Wikipedia is about), but it doesn't violate WP:LISTS so there are no grounds for deletion. WP:LISTS should be changed instead. Hard to believe it was deleted before when there was no consensus to delete. Assize 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "offending" section seems to be the listing of individual Christians. Isn't this really a case of somebody editing it to fix it up. Since when is a content dispute resolved by deleting an article? The balance of the article is a list of lists, which clearly falls within WP:LISTS. There are many advantages of lists over categories. Assize 12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the muslims can have their list, why can't the christians have their list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemrw (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to category This article is actually not a list of Christians, but a list of lists of Christians. It has a short list of disparate individuals, who are oddly placed together. The main value of lists is that they can include red links for articles that are needed, but this has none. The introductory text could also adequately be put at the head of a category page. If the decision is to keep, I would recommend that the individuals section should be removed and its contents added to appropriate lists (or categorised). Peterkingiron 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a category for Christians. Please see my comments above about how lists and categories serve different purposes. Redlinks for needed articles are just one use for lists, but not the main one. In a list such as this, where persons must be particularly notable as Christians to be included (since a list of all notable persons who happen to be Christians would be huge, unfocused, and of little value to those using the pedia for research on the topic), redlinks are a bane, rather than a bonus, because someone who doesn't already have an article at this point is highly likely not notable enough to warrant inclusion anyway. This list currently is admittedly underpopulated, but this is due to the newness of the article, and the fact that wholescale addition of entries is potentially a waste of effort as long as the existence of the article hangs in the balance. This list will become more useful as names are added and subsections and then subarticles are created to organize them logically (for example, apologists, philosophers, theologians, etc. would eventually have their own lists, rather than being kept together alphabetically). I think the main question here is not how useful is the list currently (not very, because it is so new, and therefore a stub), but how useful will it be once it is substantially populated using the inclusion criteria that are in place? And if the inclusion criteria are not restrictive enough, then the question is, how can they be changed to make this list most useful in its future forms? Another important question to answer is: Does this list, in fact, even violate policy? As Assize points out above, this list is within the policies set forth by WP:LISTS. Nick Graves 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as an ill-conceived list, redundant with categories, and unimproved after several AfD nominations and semi-recreations. Salt. Cool Hand Luke 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The old "we have categories, so we don't need lists" argument just doesn't hold water. I could reiterate what I've said above, but instead, I'll let other editors make the case. Please see Disadvantages of categories and Advantages of lists for reasons why a list can fulfill certain purposes that a category cannot. It is flat false that this list is unimproved since the last AfD. The old list had zero inclusion criteria and zero sources. The current list has rigorous inclusion criteria, and every entry has a reliable source backing it up. It addresses both of the major deletion grounds cited by the closing admin of the last AfD. If you or anyone else have ideas of how this list could be improved, I am eager to hear them and put them into practice. Nick Graves 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pelosi Jr.[edit]

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

Nothing notable about Nancy Pelosi's son. He's working for a company that is under suspicion, but the article doesn't say that Paul is under suspicion or give any other reason why Paul is independently notable. NawlinWiki 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There could, conceivably,be a stub article on Pelosi, Jr. as president of the San Francisco Commission on the Environment, but this isn't it. Smells like a windbreaker,too.--Sethacus 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the "real world", they call this Swift Boating. I guess Karl Rove has a new job now. MarkBul 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let him achieve some notability of his own. Tiptopper 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, falls short of WP:BIO. Significance of link to InfoUSA is largely original research buttressed by weasel words ("has been criticized"). --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there is notable info related to this subject, but it probably better belongs in the article on Nancy Pelosi.Orphic 17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Nancy Pelosi, per lack of notability of the individual aside from the issue of his company and that he is the son of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Leader--JForget 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable separate from his relation to Nancy Pelosi. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Keep" proponents did not address arguments to delete, particularly the utility of this list beyond the individual family member articles and relevant categories. Chick Bowen 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beazley family[edit]

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

Beazley family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists isnt a valid argument. Gnangarra 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a completely valid argument. The person doing the AfD'ing did it to every single political family of Aus - including undisputed ones such as Downer and Playford. The argument I put forth is that the subject itself, political families in X country, is a valid subject as per the US example, and that being a stub is no reason for deletion. Timeshift 02:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is in the afd guideline arguments to be avioded at afd. Gnangarra 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Playford family, also up for AfD is much more accomplished and numerous. These individuals are notable, their "family' in not IMO. Tiptopper 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only two members? JJL 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Beazley family is one reasonably notable political family, not only in WA politics, but Australian politics too. Twenty Years 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The family is notable, but it isn't yet clear that this article would serve any purpose beyond that achieved by the two biographical articles and possibly a category. JPD (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said it yourself: the family is notable Twenty Years 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does that address the arguments given? JPD (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the point remains that this article makes no claim of notability for the family. The fact that two politicians are related does not make their whole extended family a (notable) dynasty. I don't see any raeson to believe that such a case could be made based on the page, which is a mere two-item list. (Note the absence of a Clinton family article.) By all means make pages for families comparable in multi-generational influence in politics, industry, and society to the Bushes or Kennedys or Roosevelts, but not for every pair of related people who get into office. JJL 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:SYNTH due to implied political heraldic dynasty, relevant family information is within the individual bios. Gnangarra 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gnangarra - individual articles for famiy members are far more helpful and useful and can be linked SatuSuro 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burke family - Australian politics[edit]

Burke family - Australian politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Burke family - Australian politics is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete not enough members to justify a page, nor enough justification that the family as a unit is a notable entity. JJL 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable family, some of the literature I am reading at the moment regarding Labor politics in the 1970s suggests that the family as a whole had a status which was either respected or detested by those around it. The article's status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per OIC. AfD Cruft Twenty Years 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OIC's suggestion that the family itself had some sort of status suggests that there is material that belongs in this particular article. Of course, if it is kept, it should be renamed in line with standard disambiguation style Burke family (Australian politics). JPD (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaney family[edit]

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

Chaney family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two people? JJL 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly notable family spanning three generations in Western Australian politics and culture. Its status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per OIC. AfD Cruft. There is another who belongs in this article - Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) Twenty Years 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough in a purely present tense he's probably the most immediately recognisable member of the family, although the Freds did more. Like some of the others the family itself had status. Orderinchaos 01:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the case for notability of the family made in the article? This is an article about a family that makes no assertion of that family's importance. It's a summary of the Fred Chaney article plus a slight expansion of what that article says about his father. It doesn't even mention Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) who apparently merits his own article too. Bush family and Kennedy family both assert the notability of the families. If the article doesn't make the case, complaining that the nomination is "AfD cruft" or biased against Australians, as some have here, is simply an attempt to deflect the blame from where it lies: The creator of this two-element list masquerading as an article. If the family is notable, edit the article to reflect that. I'd be happy to change my vote. JJL 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court family[edit]

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

Court family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist separately. Michael ^talk 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. -- Jreferee t/c 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only two members are notable? JJL 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly notable family spanning two generations in Western Australian politics and culture - a Wimbledon champion tennis player, two State premiers and a business leader amongst them. Its status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per OIC. Twenty Years 13:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rebecca 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Keep--JForget 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downer family[edit]

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

Downer family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this parallel to Playford family. Is Australian political families not relevant on wikipedia? Requested more comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Timeshift 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

1. you don't delete a stub because it is a stub, it should be deleted if there is not enough sources out there to be able to expand to a decent sized article
2. I don't know much about the Playford family but the history of the Downer family and it's role in politics has attracted significant coverage over the years. Either an article about the Downer family would cover a lot which would not fit into any of the individual biographies or worse the material would have to be duplicated in each of the articles.
3. If debate is broadly about noteworthiness of political families use Category:Political families of the United States as examples. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Townsvillian nailed it right on the head - its a stub, it cant be deleted because its a stub. Deservant of an article on the family, three very important political figures in Australia, could easily be made to GA-Class. Twenty Years 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as a collective subject, with plentiful material for an expanded article [26] Melburnian 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above for both this and Playford family. EDIT: See Category:Political families of Australia, more have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine. Timeshift 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable family. John Vandenberg 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep may be notable as a family. JJL 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD Cruft Twenty Years 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? JPD (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to keep this, as this family is well-known as an Australian political dynasty. However, I can see that the nominator's concern is not that the family is not notable, or that the article is a stub, but that it is short list that is not likely to grow without simply duplicating the contents of other articles. The question is indeed whether there is material that belongs here, rather than individual biographical articles. If not, perhaps alternatives to this list such as a category such as Category:Ablett family, or inclusion in a list of Australian political families should be considered. I would argue that this article be kept and the alternatives implemented, especially the list of political families, which would include other families where there is not enough material for an article. JPD (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A comment on the nominator is not an argument. Chick Bowen 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawke family[edit]

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

Hawke family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for closing Admin the above comment was added on the 7th October by Timeshift not the 30th as part of this my comment was remove in regards to the points raised by other editors. diff. Gnangarra 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument as described in arguments to be aviod at AfD. Gnangarra 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two members? JJL 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Timeshift. More AfD Cruft Twenty Years 13:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm on the fence for this one - it was a family which produced a 1950s WA premier and a 1980s-1990s prime minister, but it's hardly a political dynasty as such. Orderinchaos 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's not the number of members as much as the lack of political interrelation. The Court family politicians represented a consistent political approach and operated within the same field of politics. Their family political viewpoint was uniquely theirs and shaped WA politics for generations. The two Hawke family politicians are each notable and the views of the elder influenced the views of the younger, but collectively there is no "Hawke dynasty" approach to political thought. Euryalus 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Euryalus. JPD (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Timeshift. More AfD Cruft ExtraDry 07:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sufficient info in separate articles. -- MightyWarrior 09:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Same as the other family articles nommed by Jreferee. It produced a prime minister, for god sake! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notable people should have their own article and associated family members should be presented within that and where appropriate they should also have an article. While the family connection is real the article is creating a WP:SYNTH by implying some perceived heraldic political dynasty. Gnangarra 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gnangarra and Euryalus - and yes Hydrogen - both families thought they were god or had produced one :| SatuSuro 07:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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