Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 25
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge to Federal Court of Appeal (Canada). Walton Need some help? 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Federal Court of Appeal Law Clerks
- – (View AfD)
Fails notability guidelines, likely created as a vanity article. Rizla 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, court law clerks are nonnotable (I should know, I was one). NawlinWiki 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 22:08Z
- Keep, already a precedence of keeping law clerks as notable. See Supreme_court_law_clerks. 91.165.141.53 07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there is a substantial difference in notability between the Clerks of the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal and those of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Rizla 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment strongly disagree. The USSC is only one step up (ultimate as opposed to penultimate) from the Federal Court of Appeal in their respective jurisdictions. Both are appeals courts with national prominence whose clerkships have extremely competative selection criteria. It seems more an issue of US-bias than of notability. 91.164.128.68 11:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there is a substantial difference in notability between the Clerks of the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal and those of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Rizla 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think this can be merged into Federal Court of Appeal (Canada), unless there is something more to be added than a list of names. CitiCat 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per CitiCat. The article is just a list of names with no other information. --Cyrus Andiron
13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) - Merge per above. As just a list of names, there's no 'there' there. DarkAudit 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I would agree with merging if there was any information other than names. I still strongly believe the names should be removed. There is no published list of clerks and no way to verify who joins every year besides personal knowledge (original research). Besides the fact that the individual clerks themselves are non-notable people - there is no published material on the significance of their position in the same manner there is for USSCC clerks. At most there should be a few lines in the FCA article stating the number of clerks each judge has and their role. Rizla 00:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Is there a source for the list? CitiCat 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it might be worth noting that the courts website doesn't think the clerks names are important enough to mention CitiCat 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment However, the Supreme Court of the United States website does not provide a list of clerks or the names of judges to whom they have been assigned either. I note that the policy on original research states, "The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas." Facts are not ideas. The only source for facts will often be primary sources. Once again from the original research policy: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Primary sources need only be verifiable -- the information here can easily be verified by a simple telephone call to the court house.
- That may be so, I'd be willing to concede the point that someone could concievably verify the list via personal sources or phoning the court, etc... I do not really want to get into a technical discussion about wikipedia policy semantics. However, there is still a matter of whether the clerks are really notable, which I strongly believe they are not. I do not see the need or the purpose to outline the names of the clerks in an encyclopedia. No matter how prestigious or competitive it may be to obtain the clerkship within the legal profession they are still of minimal significance outside of the court. I believe the crux of most peoples argument for keeping the page is based around the precedent set by the USSC clerks page. With respect to that the USSC clerks have multiple substantial articles written about them and their impact on the court (See refs.) in large circulation papers, not to mention the established prominence previous clerks usually go on to. In comparison to Canada, not even the Supreme Court of Canada clerks have had any articles written about them or their impact on the court. Let alone the Federal Court of Appeal clerks, which is of much less significance than the SCC. It seems to me the clerks are of the same notability as say, a legislative assistant to an MP. Rizla 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Rizla, the problem with your argument is that it takes an effect for a cause. The lack of an article that elaborates on a topic cannot be a reason for deleting an article on that topic. It can only be a reason for expanding the article that already exists. As for information on the role of clerks at the Supreme Court, you may want to check out the biography of former Chief Justice Brian Dickson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.145.50 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete A rather pointless, unsourced list of legal clerks that will need to be updated on a yearly basis. Most judges on the FCA are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, which means that being their assistants conveys (next to) zero notability. If White House interns collectively don't merit their own article, then neither should FCA clerks. Caknuck 07:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mazen Kawar and Petra Tours
- – (View AfD)
WP:VSCA. Strays somewhat away from the subjects of its title. Note also the "my father" reference. -- RHaworth 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, story about a NN Petra tour guide. Probably a newspaper article cut-and-paste, I think the "my father" was a quotation, but that makes it a copyvio as well. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nomination; Googled for a random fragment of text but couldn't find anything. It's probably someone treating Wikipedia as a story-telling session. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-25 07:12Z
- Delete per nom. I believe I have seen this article before, but I couldn't find anything in the deletion log. --Cyrus Andiron 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not verified.SlideAndSlip 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lost (computer game)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
Non-notable viral marketing "game"-- only a single news item from a source (The Guardian, UK) to be found that even talks about the site. Beyond that, no verifiable info outside of the site itself, making the sum of the article Original research. Variations of the article have been deleted 8 times previously, when it was under the title "Lost.eu". Finally, the URL for the site itself is currently blacklisted on Wikimedia due to spamming by its participants. --LeflymanTalk 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well you win, I disagree with this deletion but that may have more to do with the time and effort spent working on this article then the amount of notability this game has. I wish I could find away to change your minds but that is a really good argument agaist the article. The only thing I have a problem with is, holding the fact that the url is on the black list against the article, I would think if such strong measures had to be taken against the site then it has to say something about the games notability, just not anywhere close enough to save it from deletion I fear. Delete if you must, I'll stop contesting, at least for now if the game gets much larger then I would like to revisit this issue.Vantar 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - being deleted eight times by seven different admins speaks volumes about the "notability" of this site. Added {{afdanons}} preemptively due to subject. MER-C 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of outside reliable coverage -- lucasbfr talk 09:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. as nn. On a more general note: say what you want about ARGs like ILB but at least they didn't borderline encourage institutionalized spamming. That's why I feel it's not really unfair to use the fact that the site is blacklisted against the article, even if the two aspects (notability and some of the more obnoxious type of spam) are unrelated (ie. this isn't just a case of 'guilty by assocation'). Notorious maybe, but that doesn't establish sufficient notability, in my opinion. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep I think a lot of people are getting the wrong impression about this as soon as they hear that the goal is to get as many people to sign up as possible. While that may be the case, this Wikipedia article is not here for that. It is a neutral article about a real, popular online game. As for it being non-notable, I think the figure of 230,000 users definately makes it notable. A google search also turns up 171,000 results (although of course most of these are just people trying to get sign-ups). I do think that this game will continue to grow at an extremely rapid pace, and as it approaches its goal of 7 million players, it will definitely become notable (yes, I know about WP:CRYSTAL -- no need to throw it at me) and covered by many sources. I don't have a figure right now for how fast the game is growing, but I'm looking for one and if I find it I'll put it here. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 00:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It's been reported in the Guardian, a noteworthy British paper. http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,,2033707,00.htmlsamwaltz 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- A single news item does not constitute notability, under any criteria. See WP:WEB, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. -LeflymanTalk 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- According to Merriam Websters (m-w.com), multiple is "the product of a quantity by an integer". One is, in fact, the product of 1*1, and is, as such, a multiple. I will, in any case, look for a few more instances. samwaltz 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no credible evidence that this site is considered notable other than by its own members. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable, independent, multiple secondary sources featuring non-trivial coverage of this subject. Until such can be found, sorry. -- Ekjon Lok 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sarah Robbins
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
Not notable. Article almost falls over itself attempting to assert notability but, no, no sign she's more notable than the average professor (WP:PROF). kingboyk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Sanchez. --kingboyk 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
commentBecause, I edit this article extensively I am recusing myself from voting. In response to comment. I want the article to meet notability requirements so edit it to show what requirements are met. Her nomination for awards and and coverage in national media make her more than average professor. She is roughly as well known as danah boyd. How can I or others improve the article.Typewriter 01:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
comment also just added reference to ibiblio speaker series she was asked to lecture in. Other lecturers in the series include danah boyd, cory doctorow, jimmy wales, and Bob Sutor.
Delete, she is just a college professor with a blog. There are too many other similar people for her to get an article. Black Harry 02:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Intellagirl is a cutting edge blogger who combines Real Life with Second Life. Her work and writing is moving educators past Web 2.0 into Web 3.0, in ways that Wikipedia opened up 2.0. To strengthen the article, it needs more images, an indepth teaching philosophy, and a closer look at the ways that she "breaks out of Real World learning". Alys Obviate 3:00 UTC — Alys Obviate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Not a registered user, forged signature; edit actually made by User:154.20.20.89
Keep, Intellagirl is absolutely a pioneer in the field of distance education, where linear, text-based courses remain the norm. Sarah Robbins and the merest handful of others pushed back the boundaries of technology in education to investigate early on what might be done in Second Life and, by extension, in similar environments. Her blog shares her research activities with the education community. Ozma.malibu 03:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) — Ozma.malibu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked. --kingboyk 12:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep, This article is way too long. Needs editing to the essential bits. See a sampling of other Second Life and M.U.V.E. notables who may or may not have a page:
- Howard_Rheingold
- Henry_Jenkins
- Laurence_F._Johnson (I started this one...)
- Joe_Sanchez
- Futurist Jerry Paffendorf (no page)
- Philip_Rosedale
- Lawyer Marc Bragg (no page)
- GlobalKids Barry Joseph (no page)
- Mitch_Kapor
- Anshe_Chung
- Reporter Mark Wallace (no page)
- Reporter Hamlet Au (no page)
- SL CTO Cory Ondrejka (No page)
- John_D._Bransford
- Harvard MUVE Prof Chris Dede (no page)
- Lawrence_Lessig
- John_Seely_Brown
- Indiana MUVE Prof Sasha Barab (no page)
jk 04:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other similar articles exists is not a reason to keep this article. TJ Spyke 07:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is part of an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. --Cyrus Andiron 12:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please remember that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is part of an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its authors. --Cyrus Andiron
Delete. She is a graduate student and a keen blogger. Some of the linked articles do not mention her. I don't see any notability here.Stammer 10:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is incorrect all links mention or quote Robbins. I double checked this morning.
- Delete I agree with User:Stammer. The fact that 2nd Life is going trough a popularity phase is skewing the notability of this person. Once the hype is over, little of her notability may be left. P.S. someone like Lawrence Lessig is on quite another level then Intellagirl. I'm sorry girl. you're just not there yet. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Second Life is definitely being hyped quite a bit right now. Popularity does not necessarily imply invalid, though.
- Keep Plenty of references make it seem valid and potentially informative and useful for someone in those circles. --Remi 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - She does seem to have gotten some media attention, but most of the references qualify as trivial mentions. There's one full fledged article, from The Star Press, a local online news source. Falls a little bit short of WP:N, in my opinion. Even so, I just wanted to say that notability is permanent. If reliable sources write about her, then she meets WP:N, if they don't she doesn't. Whether or not it's a result of a temporary bump in the popularity of Second Life is irrelevant.Chunky Rice 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as lacking sufficient sourcing to establish notability. When and if that changes she can have an article, but not now. Arkyan • (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Chunky Rice. The "quotes" are hardly substantial bits of any of the articles cited. If you look at Lawrence Lessig, he has entire columns dedicated to his field, in addition to humongous interviews (length and sheer number) from people who want to know more about his views on the free software movement. Sarah Robbins, on the other hand, has not even been approached by a non-local paper to conduct an interview on whatever groundbreaking ideas she might have. - Pandacomics 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep News coverage satisfies WP:BIO. --Infrangible 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. "Best known for blogging, speaking and educating in Second Life" says it all, really. BTLizard 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep with caveats and Comment on Pandacomics's assertion above: Lawrence Lessing is a superstar in the world of academia. Comparing Robbins to Lessing in order to establish that she is not more notable than an average professor would be like saying Ben Folds Five should be deleted because they don't have the press coverage of The Beatles. Phone up ten random names from a list of college instructors and see if anywhere near half of them have had major news outlets covering either their research or teaching. The Interest in her work is notable (even if being nominated for a graduate school prize is not). My weak support for keeping comes from the article not being a particularly well-written or useful article. I don't know anything more about Robbins's research after reading it as before; discussion of the contents of her two papers would be more useful than knowing she still has a dissertation to write. --Myke Cuthbert 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) oh, and I also find the template to be an attempt to skew discussion or discount people's views. I see nothing different than a typical AfD here. -- MSC
- But see, Lessig's superstardom is what makes him notable, in accordance with WP:N. - Pandacomics 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am switching to Neutral. The fact that the article was poorly written, plus some subliminal stereotypes, may have induced me to discount the sources' relevance. Stammer 14:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] After the vote
Because we are NOT voting, I started this new section to conduct a reasoned discussion as opposed to rough binary responses. I have shredded this article - thrown cold water on the "promotional" aspects and distilled it to the most useful (and verified) portions.
The information here is useful to me personally as I watch this EdTech research community mature. Robbins is a notable personality in the study of this new media. Granted, this is a case of boosterism bordering on a vanity piece - but the timbre of debate is fueled by community bias. If Robbins were comparably notable in Wikimedia circles, there would be no debate. Period.
Please leave this article be - it is useful. I have given enough to this community to assert this. See my winning Wikispecies logo entry and 2 "photos of the day" [6] [7]). jk 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just because you contributed to the community doesn't make her any more notable. - Pandacomics 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neil Paulson
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
I declined a speedy delete on this as asserting notability (as president of Franklin Financial Corp., a subprime lender), but then came up with only 3 Ghits when trying to find sources, and none for "Franklin Financial Corp" (as opposed to "First Franklin Financial Corp", a completely different company). Mr. Paulson's Yellow Pages lawyer listing gives no indication of notability as a lawyer. NawlinWiki 02:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify...I am a mortgage broker, have been for 10 or so years. First Franklin Corp. (an unrelated company) was a subprime lender but they quit making loans a few months ago. My understanding is the Franklin Financial with Mr. Paulson, purchased their mortgages at a steep discount and resold them to Fanny Mae, making a very hefty profit. All this transpired quietly a few weeks ago. I would think he ranks up there with the top 400-500 after sealing this deal. Jeff Pardell 12:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)*— Jeff Pardell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Response That's nice. But you're not a reliable source. Got any? We have seen none yet. NawlinWiki 14:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Yes, Mr. Paulson would be notable if he were indeed on the Forbes list (which is actually called the Forbes 400 -- but I couldn't find him on it. Go to the Wikipedia page and check the external link -- and note that to make the Forbes 400 in 2006, you had to have a net worth of $1 billion. Can anyone find a reliable source to show that Mr. Paulson is on this list? I haven't been able to, and the article author hasn't supplied one. I also note that the article author edited my nomination comment, and blanked the AFD notice on the article page. NawlinWiki 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- sorry, this editing was in error, this was my first time making a nomination.friends4lunch 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The Online list appears to be for 2006. The article claims he is on the 2007 list. John Vandenberg 03:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
weak keepweak delete, Top 500 richest people sounds like is should be acceptable. Im interested to hear of people what are/arnt deemed notable on a similar basis. John Vandenberg 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is no evidence that this is true. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep the fact that he is one the 500 richest Americans makes him notable to me Black Harry 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is no evidence that this is true. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep the fact that his website as an atty http://yp.bellsouth.com/sites/neilpaulson/pg3.html is consistent with the article lends credibility. I don't think the Forbes list for 2007 is out yet, I think it comes out this month. Alot of you guys hate attorneys and rich guys!!!JeffDavidso 03:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Jeffdavidso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Note also that that link only points to a page which proves that he exists, not that he's notable. Corvus cornix 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless the assertion is proven. There are only three Google hits for '"Neil Paulson" "Franklin Financial"', and they are all exactly the same opinion post. Corvus cornix 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. 3 G-hits for the combination of his name and the company [16]; my search of the Forbes 400 comes up nil. Unless the assertions are proven, or there are other criteria brought up, delete. Ourai тʃс 03:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- keep the fact that he has done all this stuff by age 51 makes him notable to me. BTW the Forbes 500 includes the Forbes 400 list plus the next 100 people that are poorer. Brian Germane 03:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment, other search terms are pulling up relevant pages, but I'm not seeing much of note. John Vandenberg 04:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The Forbes 500 is for businesses. The Forbes 400 (for people) is published in September, and it's not quite September 2007 yet. Plus the military background is crap; the brigadier general he supposedly worked under retired in '77. [17] 'Tis a hoax. Phony Saint 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also JeffDavidso and Brian Germane and probably socks of friends4lunch. Phony Saint 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- CommentDid you notice, PHony Saint, that the article was about army service and you found an air force general??? Did you notice the difference?Brian Germane 04:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Response No, I didn't; thanks for clarifying. He's still not notable pending the September 2007 issue. Phony Saint 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:BIO. Until reliable sources can be provided that any of the claims are true, this is a a suspected WP:HOAX article and should be delt with accordingly. --Kinu t/c 06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced. --RaiderAspect 06:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. as per Corvus cornix and Kinu. Stammer 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless this can be sourced and his status on the Forbes list proven, he is non-notable. Brian Germane et al., instead of arguing his notability back and forth, just source it and prove it. So many people can't figure that out. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Neither the article or my own cursory search show notability per WP:BIO or WP:N. If he is, indeed, on an upcoming Forbes list, then the article can be recreated at that time.Chunky Rice 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment FYI I was reading something unrelated today, and saw the 2007 Forbes 500 List. I can confirm that he is NOT on the list. Pretty easy too, because the Forbes 500 is for BUSINESSES, and the Forbes 400 is for PEOPLE, so with that being said, he is not on the Forbes 500 for 2007. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Although did important things for his community, he didn't do anything important enough to be recognized on Wikipedia, there's tons of attorneys who were never recognized on Wikipedia. Harry Jolly
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List Of Criminals
- – (View AfD)
Was tagged for speedy deletion with the following rationale: "The people in this list can be encompassed by those lists in Category:Lists of criminals, so this is unneeded". I agree, but this fits no WP:CSD. The deletion was contested by the author, see the hangon tag in the history, so WP:PROD is also out. Sandstein 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. List badly fails NPOV guidelines, as "criminal" can mean different things. If it means anyone convicted of a crime, why are Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Joan of Arc, Charles I of England, Anne Boleyn, Mary Queen of Scots, Robert Downey Jr., Winona Ryder, etc. not on this list? Also, as is, falsely associates one living person with a criminal record with a list of known murderers, mass-murderers, and inciters to mass murder, and could be considered a violation of WP:BLP. --Charlene 06:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per User:Charlene.fic, the term is way too general. -- lucasbfr talk 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Also, that's a reeeeally short list of criminals. Virtual Cowboy 11:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - indiscriminate unmaintainable list. Otto4711 12:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This article is stupid for a few reasons. First of all, it only has 6 criminals listed. Ok I could probably spend 5 minutes and make the list 300 long (which is still to small for a list of crimals). Secondly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a shining example of an indiscriminate list. What is the criteria for inclusion if there are only 6 people? I don't presume to know everything, but I damn sure know that there have been more than 6 criminals during the span of human existence. --Cyrus Andiron 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Category Even if this article could be made acceptable for Wikipedia, it would have to be so massive that it couldn't fit within a browser. Isn't there a whole category already for this purpose? Life, Liberty, Property 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If restricted to those convicted of crimes, it would have millions of names. Here is where categories should work fine to tie together those notable criminals who have articles in Wikipedia. Edison 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete this is possibly the stupidest list I've ever seen and I've seen some stinkers. Besides, while he was no doubt a Very Bad Man, would User:TedizKiller care to tell us what crime "Adolph" (or even Adolf) Hitler (or even Lee Harvey Oswald, come to that?) was convicted of? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know I'm arguing semantics here, but just because they died before they were tried/convicted of their crimes, doesn't mean, IMHO, that they aren't criminals. A crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - if we're being pedantic, someone is not a criminal until they are convicted of a crime. --Haemo 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Do you consider Jack the Ripper a criminal? --sumnjim talk with me·changes 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's worth pointing out that Adolf Hitler was convicted of at least one serious crime during his own lifetime: he was imprisoned for treason following the Beer Hall Putsch. *** Crotalus *** 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - if we're being pedantic, someone is not a criminal until they are convicted of a crime. --Haemo 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I know I'm arguing semantics here, but just because they died before they were tried/convicted of their crimes, doesn't mean, IMHO, that they aren't criminals. A crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per just about everyone else. Burntsauce 17:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Clearly an indiscriminate collection of information. As has been stated already, "criminal" is too vague a word to make for good inclusion criteria. Arkyan • (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Delete - yowza. If there's ever a list that's too broad, it's this one. I'll bet a "List of people with red hair" would be shorter. --Haemo 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Maybe redirect to Category:Lists of criminals. --Dookama 23:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete hopelessly impractical. Carlossuarez46 23:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for too many problems to list. Doczilla 07:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Is this all the criminals there have been, then? What about the bloke who nicked my video a few years back? And what's this assertion that Hitler was a democrat? That's news. Really this list is baggy, amorphous and unmaintainable. And useless. BTLizard 10:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Where is the List of honest people? It might be so much shorter that we could well include it. Edison 17:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; if this were taken seriously, it would be a grotesquely unmaintainable and indiscriminate list; as is, it is basically a veiled attack page against 50 Cent and therefore a violation of WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 22:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. indiscriminate list —dima/talk/ 04:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - We cannot have lists of every one who has committed a crime: it would not be encyclopaedic, and would probably breach European data protection legislation if complete and accurate. If inaccurate, it would lead to proceedings for libel. This kind of list is much better as a category: for example Al Capone is categorised as in 'American Criminals'. We do not need more. Peterkingiron 22:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g1, obvious nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Karl "Misdemeanour" Williams
- – (View AfD)
I believe this (unsourced) biography to be a likely hoax, as I can find no corroboration anywhere for the claimed "#1 hits", etc. JavaTenor 07:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete total hoax, nobody of this name has ever had a hit single (at any postition) in the UK ChrisTheDude 08:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Definite hoax article. He has recently ventured out into acting where he stars alongside Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan in the movie Mean Girls 2: Frenemies. Right. --Cyrus Andiron 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete to the Nth degree why are people wasting their time doing crap like this? 1st of all, i can find nothing about Mean Girls 2 being confirmed. Secondly, his book is non-existant. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a1, empty. NawlinWiki 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Steckbeck
- – (View AfD)
No information and no references. Prod tag was deleted without comment. Alvestrand 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete No information is a nice way of putting it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speed Delete under CSD A7 as a non notable bio. This one is a no brainer. --Cyrus Andiron 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speed Delete, no context, no notability. It surely tastes like speedy -- lucasbfr talk 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. - Caknuck 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hans von Boetticher
- – (View AfD)
Contested Prod - This page has been tagged for lack of sources and no assertion of notability since September of 2006 [26]. Currently, there are two sources listed. One of them is in German and the other is a link to buy his books. I beleive it should be deleted as there are not multiple non trivial sources that confirm his notability. Cyrus Andiron 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are a number of species for which he is the taxon author (see what links here). All taxa are considered notable by definition, and so far this has extended to the taxon authors. If the species' taxobox has a red link, the author article is bound to be recreated, and this seems an unhelpful way to proceed. Why is a source in German unacceptable for a German person?Jimfbleak.talk. 10:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
- Keep For the reasons I give on the talk page. Sorry about the link to Amazon.de, but that is where I found the correct names of his books, so that was my reference. Ideally of course we need someone to write an article on the German wikipedia and we can all copy that. Smallweed 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Mgiganteus1 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Non-addition of information. Or lack of information in a stub article is not reason for deletion. A little googling gives this list of taxa names proposed. A cursory glance tells me that most of these are no longer valid names, but it should tell a casual editor that there is more that needs to be known. Similarly one gets clues from entries in wikispecies and interwiki links. This is apart from a long list of other publications. The subject is dead and therefore links to old books sellers or Amazon should not be considered as vanity. Shyamal 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I see the article has been improved. Well done to whoever made the improvements. It now mentions some of the animals that he is responsible for naming. As I said, at the time I put the prod tag on there, the article did not assert notability. I guess it only takes an AFD to get people motivated (obviously the tags weren't helping). Also, I checked the German WIkipedia article before I nominated to see if it could be transwikied over to English, but they have a stub as well. The article was dormant for about six months, so it is great to see so many people still interested in improving it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a general practice to use AfDs to force article improvement. Shyamal 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to force article improvement. As I said before, the article in its current state did not assert notability or cite any sources. I looked for sources myself, could not find any and thus nominated the article for deletion. After I nominated, someone else knew where to find sources and added them to the article. The article was tagged for six months before I nominated. I did not use the AFD to improve the article. It simply happened that the article was improved during the AFD process. This happens all the time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a tag for sources, also. However, if you personally cannot weigh the value of an article, I stand by my original suggestion to ask the birders or other editors (WikiProject:ToL talk page is good), who may weigh the value of an article. The article is small enough and so little has been done that it could simply be re-added, and no harm either way. Still, the author is rather famous in birding circles for his books, and it seems unlikely he meets nonnotability standards. This is something a birder would be able to know and source, especially one of our Continental European birders. KP Botany 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It was not my intention to force article improvement. As I said before, the article in its current state did not assert notability or cite any sources. I looked for sources myself, could not find any and thus nominated the article for deletion. After I nominated, someone else knew where to find sources and added them to the article. The article was tagged for six months before I nominated. I did not use the AFD to improve the article. It simply happened that the article was improved during the AFD process. This happens all the time. --Cyrus Andiron
- It is not a general practice to use AfDs to force article improvement. Shyamal 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, simply ask the birders or the editors to add information and sources. Please read and respect the box at the top of WP:AfD:
- Keep An inadequate article is better than no article at all. Corvus coronoides ContributionsGo Blue 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
- For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
- KP Botany 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disability rights in Prince Edward Island
- – (View AfD)
Article consists of totally original research. Author was blocked for showing "ownership" of article and trying to revoke GFDL license to text contributed to Wikipedia see for instance User_talk:Sdpate#Copyright. While I'd normally be adverse to follow the wishes of someone who tried to revoke his license of text to us, this article is too much of an original work to stand on the encyclopedia. Also, there's no evidence that disability rights on Prince Edward Island are any different than the rest of Canada Nardman1 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the deletion of this page. It seems to have been used as an attempt to sway voters to take a position during an upcoming election on Prince Edward Island. While I have no problem having a page on disability rights on Prince Edward Island - this page was extremely problematic because it was thoroughly a "one issue" page and had no real purpose, in my opinion, other than to lead people to believe that a government had done bad things to disabled people on PEI. While this is not true - an effort to make it factual and fair would be far too much work for very little benefit. Faircomment 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- So, you're saying delete? -- Zanimum 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral; legitimate topic, bad guidance so far. However, if we can get some other people to edit, the history of d. rights in PEI since 1873 could be a great article. -- Zanimum 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral; The article has some promise as a general history article. Also, why does it have to be about PEI? What I am thinking is that the article can either become more of a article on history disability rights in Canada in general, and have sub sections pertaining to each province, or a history of disability rights in PEI. -- 20:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, each province moves at it's own pace, features its own cast of characters, etc. We could move it and skin it too a shorter length, but there's a distinct story in each province, that would be lost by just focusing in on the national picture. -- Zanimum 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because (a) it's original research from someone who is pursuing a political agenda and (b) there is no evidence that disability rights in PEI are any different to the rest of Canada. It is asserted by the author of this article that Zamium has a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The COI bit is complete bull. The only reason I've edited this article and Pat Binns was too clean it up before a media report. Aside from the CBC-TV reporter I talked to on the phone, and CBC Radio person I talked to via email, I do solemnly swear that I have not knowing talked to someone whose permanent residence is on Prince Edward Island, since I vacationed there in 1995 as a child. I'm not saying I haven't unwittingly talked to a PEIer, or talked to former PEIers, but I haven't knowingly talked to a then current resident. On my Facebook, of which I believe my profile is public to anyone, I have claimed liberal political views since I joined. My favourite prime minister, full disclosure, is Conservative Sir Charles Tupper, but solely because of his great, great sideburns. That, and the fact he's the only Canadian PM to have town named after him, so far as I know.
- Of greater importance, I even warned the anon IP belonging to a member of the PC Youth (User talk:74.210.4.228), to let them know their most recent edits were still out of line. -- Zanimum 00:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- SPEEDY DELETE Just get rid of the problem already. It's not important enough to care about some legal wanker threats. SchmuckyTheCat 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I live on PEI and I think I would have to agree with SchmuckyTheCat. A computer literate guy with an agenda tried to take over wikipedia to promote a cause. I don't know this guy - but I know what the general opinion of him is here. Faircomment 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Propaganda stuff. --Attilios 09:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete whatever the vandal Sdpate wrote and start over. JuJube 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please merge any pertinent information into Disability rights movement. Currently, that article is US-centric tagged, so some info (however small) from Canada would be useful. The rest can be done away with. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Ali'i's suggestion. Leave an NPOV tag on the merged section if appropriate, but I'd hate to see someone's baseless legal posturing validated by a hasty deletion. Dppowell 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not worth the trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy. Metamagician3000 23:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect. -- RHaworth 08:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eire (Republic Of Ireland)
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- – (View AfD)
Despite its title, this is a list of rugby slang terms. I think that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is the appropriate policy, creator removed prod with the comment, "I do not belive this page to be a dictionary. It is more about the origin of certain coloquial terms that are not in the OED. In reply to the title has no relevence please look at the subtitles preceeding - crowd linguistics - rugby!" FisherQueen (Talk) 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The title is infact a sub title to crowd linguistics and rugby! You do not seem to acknowledge this fact and please may you write why you think this page is unsatissfactory rather than quote from wikipedias rules as i will find it much more useful! Headsworth 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Deciding whether or not this article meets Wikipedia policy is how we will decide whether it is deleted or not. The title isn't a subtitle; it's the only title that the article has. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete
absolutely ridiculous piece of nonsense OR created in the spirit (if not the letter) of vandalism, as it's a patent attempt to hijack the (obviously) legitimate entries for Eire and Republic of Ireland. I'd suggest salting to stop it happening againstill Delete as OR and not of enough significance, but withdrawing comments about "hijacking" as this appears to have been a genuine mistake — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)- I think your comments are a bit strong. please WP:AGF --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, even if we needed a list of rugby slang terms in a specific city that was not part of an article for a specific rugby team, we would not name it after the country. NN dicdefs, add to a rugby team article if they are significant. --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non notable dictionary definitions under false article title, probably original research. Davewild 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not under the impression that it would come under Eire alone as if you look in the list it is under Crowd Linguistics under Rugby! Eire was created as i wanted others to add thier own research and "experiences" from the other great rugby nations as there are so few! This is clear in my opinion and if it is not i appologies! This is not a finished piece people need to add to it and build on it "Rome Was Not Built In A Day". As for vandalism i consider that a ridiculous comment to make what i was trying to do was valid and is valid. thanks i hope you will reconsider as there is nothing like this on wikipedia and there is no reason why it should'nt be! Headsworth 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Headsworth, I see that you created this from the redlink at Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports#Crowd Linguistics. It wasn't your fault that it was misnamed, it was the fault of the person who made that request. Nevertheless, while we appreciate your efforts to fulfill that request, editors here are arguing that the topic is not needed. In many cases it is permissible to create a stub article for a notable topic that may grow in time, but in this case we probably don't need a local slang directory pertaining to a specific sport. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable and original research. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete
This article, is in my opinion valid. I argue that this is more of a debate about sticking to the rule book and being petty, rather than anything else. Please bear in mind the famous saying "Rules are for the obedience of idiots and the guidance of wise men" whilst following this.
May I ask, who are we to question the backgrounds and moral integrity of others, what sort of world do we live in, if people are so petty and have so much free time on their hands, that they have to come on the internet and metaphorically cry about a "rule book"?! This is a website for Christ's sake, don't turn it into a dictatorship!
This is nothing but a petty argument, fuelled by the lost souls that still live with their mothers at the age of 45 and have nothing beter to do than argue on the internet. I say, let us be free and express our wills and that the objectees maybe go out and get some friends. I see nothing wrong with this article and those that do, well, I think it's clear that we all feel sorry for them.
I ask that we do not become idiots, but that we show our acceptance and that we infact that we imbrace this perception of the word "yarn".FredMcD 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to Republic of Ireland. Assuming good faith, the author appears to have made an effort to create a page they thought would appear under Crowd Linguistics under Rugby. The text serves no useful purpose and the page title should clearly point to nation's page. bikeable (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect per the above. Not only is this article unverifiable neologism, it's also badly mis-named. The comments about my mother are also not productive. --Haemo 22:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Ireland should do it 0v3r533r 23:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect and what the feng shui is Fred McD talking about? JuJube 10:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete This article is i agree in the wrong section however it should be renamed into a seperate area.
Yarn is a word used by many as the 1000 members of yarn appriciation society show on facebook.It needs to be redirected not deleted, it is not vandalism it is mearly been missdirected Humeoid 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Humeoid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JuJube 10:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
NEW EDITS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PAGEHeadsworth 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Also once Crowd Linguistics is accpeted as a sub for rugby what effect will that have? Headsworth 14:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:A and WP:N, or at least RENAME since the present name is extremely misleading and annoying. Edison 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
How does one change the title? Headsworth 18:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should wait until the deletion discussion closes; right now, the consensus seems to be leaning toward not renaming the article but deleting it. If the article is kept, we can rename it then.-FisherQueen (Talk) 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete this should not be deleted but renamed as it is a perfectly legitimate use of the phrase.Geofflebon 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete this is a valid use of the word and although certain members here do not agree i see it as necessary that a place like wikipedia, which is an encylopedia, a place for a vast amount of infomation. Harbours such cutting edge and important items.
Although i myself have only recently been introduced to yarn through a trip to see liecestor play in dublin. I feel it is an important that this content remains upon wikipedia.
I WOULD LIKE TO STATE I HAVE NOT ASKED PEOPLE TO ADD TO THIS PAGE I HAVE ONLY JUST BECOME AWARE OF THE FACEBOOK GROUP!Headsworth 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to Éire. That is the only thing that can be done with that title. If Headsworth wishes to create a new article called Rugby crwod linguistics, the history is still there . -- RHaworth 08:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
![[6]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Root_Canal_Illustration_Molar.svg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mouse-mechanism-cutaway.png){kind=link}