Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 2

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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleep Tech Inc.

Sleep Tech Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The company seems to be non-notable though its a little hard to gauge. The company seems to operate a store in 2 malls in Connecticut and has an online website. It was established in 2006 so I don't know if I has gained much notability yet. The term "sleep tech" gets a lot of Google hits (about 64,000) but most of them seem to be for the field of sleep study and the science behind sleep. As it is, this article has 2 sources...one of which is from the store's website giving the two locations and the other is a magazine article. The Furniture Today website gives no search results for the term "Sleep tech" which is odd if they did an article on it. I'd say unless verifiable, reliable, independent sources can be found, this should be deleted as a non-notable company. Metros 23:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Much of the difficulty in finding out about this company is due to the article being mistitled, the name of the company is "Sleep-Tech Modern Sleep Systems". The article provides no independent referencing, or evidence of the company being a market leader. Indeed, the company is very new, and only operates two stores. A search through the web revealed no newspaper, business journal, or other independent sources regarding the company. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Keep and Expand--NightRider63 10:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has existed for numerous months. It has had plenty of time to expand. What can be expanded on it? The company needs to be notable before it can be expanded upon. Do you have any evidence of notability? Metros 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Disregard I already placed a WP:SPEEDY on it.--NightRider63 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable mattress company with two locations. And the pictures that show the small size of the locations doesn't help However, I do enjoy how a picture of both stores is on the article and one is labeled a "typical" storefront. Is the other atypical? Also, as mentioned above, Google isn't going to get you anything since a polysomnographic tech is also known as a sleep tech. Smashville 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence presented to demonstrate notability; fails WP:CORP -- MightyWarrior 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Delete Don't give up on google ("sleep tech" +mattress -wikipedia -site:www.sleeptechsystems.com) gives 1190 hits, the relevant ones being either ads or blog testimonials. DGG (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:13, 4 October 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 deleten zis schnell -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mock German

Mock German (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Entirely original research, and I doubt any reliable sources are forthcoming. (And seriously, "constructed language"? One of the examples given isn't even a language, it's just English with an accent.) Alivemajor 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Purely WP:OR. - Rjd0060 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Deleten zis schnell per nom. Clarityfiend 06:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• I vant to see nussing, nussing per above. As Alive notes, it's nothing more than speaking English with a mock German accent, which is only slightly more difficult than the mock British accent that people like to show off. "Look, every-vun, I'm shpeaking Gehrman!" Mandsford 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not sure what's notable about this separate from Mock French, etc. JJL 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the term is referenced in scholarly literature, as shown in this filtered search on Google Scholar. Reliable sources are forthcoming, thus rendering the nomination invalid. Claims of original research are completely irrelevant - the question is whether or not there are reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject. As I have clearly shown, there are. I urge a speedy close to this Afd on the grounds of mistaken nomination. Skomorokh ^incite 15:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Those are just mentions of the term, not reliable sources about Mock German. They couldn't be used to verify anything. --Alivemajor 23:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete(edit conflict) I have heard comedians speaking mock German, with lots of consonants and vowels not common in English and an occasional German (or Yiddish) word thrown in, but this article uses "Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vere zey come down?" as an example, and it is unmistakably someone simply speaking English with a German accent. Not any sort of "mock German." I know actual native German speakers whose English sounds very much like that, and they are most assuredly NOT speaking "mock German." There could be a valid article on this subject, but it would need some actual "REFERENCES" rather than an editor's recollections of watching Colonel Klink on "Hogan's Heros." The article claims Col. Klink spoke "mock German," which must have been difficult for a man who was a native German speaker. A complete rewrite is needed, and there is nothing useful in the present article. It could be recreated at a later date. (edited to add:) Noting that the juxtaposition of the two words "mock" and German" show up in some Google scholar results, many of which are not really on point, is not a substitute for actually finding references and rewriting the article. If someone took the time to improve the article within the 5 day AFD period, I might change my opinion, but we have seen too many promises that "references are out there and someone will add them later." Edison 15:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. But I would change my mind and agree to keep if somebody else fixed it. (Not my cuppa tea.) Bearian'sBooties 16:37, 5 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Kurtz

Ron Kurtz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable therapist who seems to have invented a form of therapy which only he and his supporters have written about. Note that Hakomi is also nominated for deletion. Corvus cornix 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP-box Bfigura ^(talk) 23:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. (Or perhaps merge into Hakomi, if it manages to survive deletion.) --Alivemajor 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep / Merge - he has published papers that have been used as citations examples obviously written books as per the Bibliography on the article (that needs expanding) Fosnez 03:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is odd. I just added a bunch of references to Hakomi. Hakomi meets WP:N so you would expect its founder to meet WP:N as well. I only found two sentences of info on him in Johanson, Gregory. (June 22, 2006) Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association. A survey of the use of mindfulness in psychotherapy. Volume 9; Issue 2; Page 15. My guess is that he gave Hakomi out for free use by others instead of building his empire around it like other gurus would have done. Sorry Ron. Perhaps hire a better press agent. -- Jreferee t/c 08:07, 5 October 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 redirect to Napa Valley (wine). Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napa County wineries

Napa County wineries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

One line stub article that only serves the purpose of becoming a list farm needlessly advertising for these wineries (like Sonoma County wineries became), which is something the Wine Project actively discourages with Wikipedia not being a wineguide. Furthermore we currently have a wine region article-Napa Valley (wine) that includes an appropriate external link to a list of Napa County wineries. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the proper place for information about an American wine region and its wineries really is the article on the AVA. The AVA is the legal defined area, and is a concept that's well known in the wine world. Notable wineries can easily be mentioned in the article, but I don't see any more a benefit of having a list of many non-notable wineries than having an article listing the restaurants in a city. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No real content worth preserving. Toddstreat1 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge any useful content with Napa Valley (wine). As discussed for the two other deletion nominations we need to make an underlying decision about whether coverage of the wineries is part of the coverage of the wine, or intended for a separate article. Covering wineries is not advertising them, and I am concerned that the approach of downplaying wine as a business furthers a misunderstanding of what wine means to California. In the business and culture of wine, it is the County and the valley that are important, not the AVA. As for the list, there are at least several dozen notable wineries in Napa Valley. It would be artificial and counterproductive to try to stuff them into a prose format. Whatever we do it should be consistent with the other major winemaking counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.Wikidemo 09:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I ask if you have reviewed this particular article? If you have, what if any, useful content is there to merge? I would also note that you are incorrect in your assumption that it is the "the County and the valley that are important, not the AVA". As someone in the wine business, I can say, the AVA is everything. Millions of dollars, real estate and vineyard prices, laws and regulations all circle around the value and prestige of AVAs. It's what makes Napa, Napa and Sonoma, Sonoma, etc. Furthermore any county that has any significant wine business has an AVA for the county so I'm not sure where you see a lack of coverage. One last point, wineries that pass WP:CORP will undoubtedly receive all due encyclopedic coverage through their own article and relevant mention in related articles. A list of wineries where the vast majority of them are not notable is simply spam advertisement and are at best served as an external link on the main AVA article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I've read it. As per my comments, either we keep and expand the article because the subject's important, or we merge it into another article and expand that part. The Napa Valley wine business is huge - as per this the 391 wineries generate 40,000 jobs and a $9.5 billion economic impact. A google search shows 369,000 hits for "Napa Valley Wine" and 3,790 for "Napa Valley AVA." In a business sense the local business is important and their legal rules for inclusion are a technicality. Coverage? The field is barely covered, a bit of a black hole in Wikipedia. The Napa Valley (wine) article is only so-so. Most of the individual AVA designations are poorly covered if at all, eg Rutherford AVA. The history, personalities, related industries get no coverage. Many important wineries are missing. It's hard to tell which because there is no "spam" list, as some people put it. In fact, coverage of Napa Valley wine is basically unlinked. You have to come in from Google because there is so little wikilinking. So I'll just do the start of the alphabet: Andretti, Artesa, Atlas Peak, missing. Abreu Vineyards is there because I wrote it. Beaulieu Vineyard is there. Beringer Vineyards; no to Bouchaine Vineyards, no Bryant Family Vineyard, imagine that! We're two for eight just on the wineries I know to be notable, probably there are others I don't know. I see from looking at the wine project pages that people are high fiving each other for decreasing the stub to good article ratio. They should be lamenting that there are so few stubs, so little coverage at all. Under the circumstances we should direct our attention to expanding coverage, not discouraging it. Wikidemo 10:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly the area of wine is one of the core subjects that Wikipedia is sorely lacking in its coverage on. Hence the drive and commitment of the Wine Project to remedy that. But obviously that will take time considering the breadth of subject matter. As for decreasing stubs, I think you're missing a large point. The vast majority of stubs are "killed" by being expanded into something beyond a stub into a start or even B class article. That is a very good thing because it increases the overall quality of our articles. Yes some are merged into a bigger topic because they have little room to growth and yes, some that do not pass basic Wikipedia policies for inclusion (like WP:CORP) do get deleted but that has been a very small percentage of stubs. But as for the subject of this discussion, the topic matter of the business of Napa Valley wines can and will be ably covered in the appropriate article on the wine region, without having the spam magnet list. And for the curious, who might wish for Wikipedia to actually become a directory, there is still an appropriate external link to a list of Napa Valley wineries. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I really can not see how anything else than officially recognised geographical areas can be the "method of organisation" for wine-related Wikipedia articles above the individual winery level and below the national level. In the case of the US, that's the AVAs and nothing else. This principle is appliable to Wikipedia articles about (almost) all wine-making countries, in difference to "home-brewed" principles. Also, I strongly disagree with the notion that the AVAs are not important. If so, why was the US wine industry ready go give up the use of "semi-generic" European terms in the US in order to in return get protection for e.g. the Napa Valley name and other AVAs in Europe? Tomas e 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect for now to Napa Valley (wine), without prejudice to the creation of an article similar to Sonoma County wineries, based on several reliable sources on the subject of Napa Valley wineries, including Napa County Wineries (Images of America), Napa Valley: The Ultimate Winery Guide, and Ghost Wineries of Napa Valley. Deleting a valid stub article for a valid encyclopedic topic because it might someday become a list farm of non-notable wineries seems really silly to me. On the other hand, redirecting because the subject is currently covered better (although still not adequately) in another article is certainly a valid thing to do. DHowell 02:13, 6 October 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonoma County wineries

Sonoma County wineries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article serves the purpose of essentially being a list and needlessly advertising for these wineries, which is something the Wine Project actively discourages with Wikipedia not being a wineguide. Furthermore we currently have a wine region article-Sonoma County AVA that includes an appropriate external link to a list of Sonoma County wineries. I have already taken the liberty of adding some of the non-spam content to the AVA article where it is more appropriate. This article serves no purpose now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the article redirect to your AVA article? I would never think to look under Sonoma County AVA for a discussion of the wine making industry in Sonoma County. It seems sort of esoteric and not very helpful type of title. Wouldn't the discussion of the develoment of the wine industry in Sonoma County belong in an article about Sonoma County (or daughter article of that main article) instead of about the Sonoma County AVA? Or no? Doesn't Sonoma County include more (or less) area than the Sonoma County AVA? Why not just move this article to the AVA article since it does not look at if there has been any additional useful content added to the AVA article? Finally, what article would link to the individual winery articles? Aren't you making those winery articles into orphan articles? Is the Winery project saying not to have individual winery articles because that is just advertising for the winery? Doesn't that apply to any type of business that has a Wikipedia article? I assume that if a delete did happen any links to the article would be adjusted to this AVA article? Just some of my concerns about the deletion. Obviously I am the only one who has proposed any improvements to the article and I have not had time to get back to it. --Tinned Elk 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After this article is deleted a redirect could be made but, again, since Wikipedia is not a directory or a wineguide why would anyone come to an encyclopedia wanting to find a listing of wineries? Your comment that Sonoma County AVA is "sort of esoteric and not very helpful type of title" is quite odd since most everyone with some elements of knowledge about American wine knows that our wine regions regions are known as AVAs-American Viticultural Area. That designation alone is the reason why you can even have the words "Sonoma County" on a wine bottle. The main Sonoma County article should be dedicated to the municipal area with a summary paragraph and link to the wine region. All discussions about the wine, wine history, and relevant winemaking info are more appropriately served in an article about the wine region. For other examples see Champagne, France & Champagne (wine region), Walla Walla, Washington and Walla Walla AVA, Augusta, Missouri and Augusta AVA, etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since most people who are on Wikipedia are not "everyone with some elements of knowledge about American wine knows that our wine regions regions are known as AVAs-American Viticultural Area " - many people just are looking for information about various topics and don't already know (or care) what America has done with the regulation of their wine regions. It doesn't matter, a merge and redirect is fine. --Tinned Elk 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and people who aren't wine enthusiasts have probably heard of Sonoma County and the wineries there, but not AVAs. If this is deleted and not merged, there should be a redirect put in its place. --Phirazo 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Further note regarding links to individual wineries. The vast majority of wineries do not pass WP:CORP to merit an article in Wikipedia. Those that do typically are notable for some significant reasons beyond just being a winery-such as a notable contribution to the history of wine making in Sonoma county. Those wineries would develop a link in the article through the noting of that accomplishment. It is much the same way that not everyone of the hundreds of Chateaux in Bordeaux will merit a wikipedia page but those that do have their articles linked through their relevant notings in the Bordeaux wine, Bordeaux wine regions, History of Bordeaux wine, Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 articles instead of general List of Bordeaux wineries article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia not being a wineguide a prohibition against listing wineries in an area. Or that listing wineries in an area is just a "list farm" and advertising. I did not create the list on Sonoma County wineries but someone put some time into it and I have not seen the rational for deleting it explained anywhere in writing. --Tinned Elk 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well first off, WP:WINEGUIDE is an essay based primarily on the spirit and letter of WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A wineguide is a listing of wineries and wines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the encyclopedic focus of the area an its wines are best served in the AVA articles about the wine region rather then an article "advertising" the wineries. The purpose of WP:WINEGUIDE is to steer editors to focus on the encyclopedic writing, not listing wineries and wines that people might be interested in. Thats what the commercial wineguides are for. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement that the "vast majority" of Sonoma wineries are non-notable is simply false. I don't see anyone who keeps up on the local or national press could think that. The commercial winery guides are flat-out not a suitable substitute for Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage. A list is a very effective way to tie that coverage together in this case. Wikidemo 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When compared to the standards of WP:CORP, especially taking into account the sparseness of non-trivial reliable source mentions (i.e. beyond simply reviews on the wine) then no it is not a false statement. A majority of Sonoma's 250 wineries don't even have distribution beyond the west coast of the United States. While there are a fair number that do and that certainly meet the standards of WP:CORP, it is imperative for Wikipedia editors to move beyond our own systematic bias and take into consideration the worldwide readership that Wikipedia has. What maybe personally familiar and notable to us may not be to the majority of our readership--hence the reason that we have notability standards like WP:CORP. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sonoma County AVA as this article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Some useful content exists but has been merged into Sonoma County AVA. "FooBar AVA" is the correct naming convention for this type of article. If we have a large list of notable Sonoma wineries, then it might make sense to include them, but not just a laundry list of all wineries. —dgies^t_c 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the proper place for information about an American wine region and its wineries really is the article on the AVA. The AVA is the legal defined area, and is a concept that's well known in the wine world. Notable wineries can easily be mentioned in the article, but I don't see any more a benefit of having a list of many non-notable wineries than having an article listing the restaurants in a city. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge non-list content to Sonoma County AVA and redirect. Sonoma County wineries is a logical search target (readers who don't know wine wouldn't know to search for Sonoma County AVA), but the list is a mere directory of wineries, and doesn't fulfill the purposes of lists in Wikipedia.. I'm sure there is an external link that can be added to Sonoma County AVA to provide readers with a list of Sonoma County wineries, if that is what they are looking for. --Phirazo 17:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I will note that for a reader to actually search for Sonoma County wineries will be exceedingly rare because, again, the average reader is not expecting Wikipedia to be a directory of wine guides. For the readers that lack awareness of AVAs they would probably be more incline to search for Sonoma County wine which is already a redirect to the appropriate article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and having "Sonoma County wineries" redirect to Sonoma County AVA is harmless. As the RfD page says "If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect". I see no reason not to redirect if the result is merge or delete (Note: If anything is merged, it must stay as a redirect for GFDL compliance). --Phirazo 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge with Sonoma County AVA. Why is this article being nominated a second time in three months??? This subject is beyond notable; it is a distinct encyclopedic subject that is immensely important to the local economy, food, and culture. The new article is slightly misplaced - the big issue is winemaking in the county as a business, not grapes grown and bottles labeled in the AVA. However, in this particular case they're coextensive and I don't see why we need two separate articles. I do take umbrage at the notion that linking to or covering a winery is "advertising" and "spam" or that we should not make lists. These lists are very useful to organizing and expanding coverage of winemaking in California, which is woefully sparse. Somebody seems to have an agenda here, that WP:WINE doesn't like covering the business of wineries as much as covering the wines. But these articles are also a part of WP:SFBA and WP:California. -- Wikidemo 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, wine making issues, history and business are covered in well written appellation articles. We haven't gotten there yet with some of the American AVAs but reference Champagne (wine region) and Languedoc wine. Also, what purpose does a list of largely non-notable wineries which do not pass WP:CORP to warrant an article have? What purpose that couldn't also be served as an external link to a website list of wineries? As someone in the business of wine, married to a winemaker, I think you are being a bit presumptuous in the "agenda" conspiracy theories. I know the business of wine and I see no reason why the wine business should not be held to the same Wikipedia standards of WP:CORP and WP:SPAM that we would hold the typical boat maker, restaurant, local newspaper, etc. Wine is wonderful but the act of making wine doesn't confer any extra or special notability on a business. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not presumptuous at all. You've stated your agenda in explaining the deletions, and it's also in the pages of the wine project. You came right out in this discussion and said that most wineries are non-notable, that you think the coverage of wineries ought to be limited, and that lists of wineries are "spam" and "advertisements." The point of making a list is the point of making any list, to tie resources together. Without a list I cannot follow the articles down from an AVA to the individual wineries in the AVA. Presumably all the ones covered by articles are notable, and it's not spam to link to articles. Lists often validly admit items that don't qualify as notable, but another useful feature is to alert people to which important wineries don't have articles - most, at this point. Quite a few of the Sonoma County wineries, probably more than half, could probably pass the formal requirements of WP:CORP - multiple articles written about them in significant, reliable publications. You, and the project, have actually argued that a higher standard of notability should be imposed because wineries get a lot of press. You've also tried to pull rank on me twice now. I'm in the business too, if you must know. Wikidemo 02:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. You've alluded multiple times that "that WP:WINE doesn't like covering the business of wineries" and my admission of my off wiki activities was in response to this in that I do know the business and obviously care about Wikipedia's coverage. Again, your interjecting presumption here in interpreting this as pulling rank. I do disagree with your assessment that "more then half" of Sonoma's wineries 250 wineries would be notable enough for articles (my own personal estimate is around 30%). Restaurants get a lot of the same type of "reliable source coverage" that you speak of-Local newspaper & travel guide reviews. Heck, I remember one cute little Indian restaurant that I went to near Chinatown that had a 3x5 bulletin board covered with newspaper clippings and awards from some culinary events (Best of San Francisco, etc). A lot of local newspaper coverage. Yet I sincerely doubt that I will ever see a Wikipedia article on them. Again, I just don't see why wineries should get any extra doses of "special notability" just because they make wine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat the dead issue, but the point of including a list is as Wikidemo says above, to tie resources together. Without a list I cannot follow the articles down from an AVA to the individual wineries in the AVA. I am not saying that every winery in the list is notable enough to have an article. Why does that mean they are not notable enough to include in the list? I see lots of lists (wine related lists) at wikipedia and it does seem that there is an agenda to delete these wine related lists. Why? Have you looked at Wikipedia:Lists?? If this is the decision of the project, then I think you all should rewrite your little essay (WP:WINEGUIDE) and spell it out, NO LISTS OF WINERIES and no links to winery articles because that is just spam!!! I have to say that this campaign has really turned me off of joining the wine project or working on any of these articles again. Sorry, not very welcoming or helpful. I particularly think that there is some mixed signals when you say that everyone knows about American AVA organization and then say you are trying to make this less biased and more worldwide. --Tinned Elk 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you are turned off on the Wine Project but keep in mind that I am just a single editor, not the sum and whole of the project. Back to your ending point. I'm a bit confuse as how you are interpreting it as "mixed" signals in developing our AVAs article and making our American articles less bias and more worldwide. That doesn't follow. Our worldwide wine readerships is probably quite familiar with the concepts of AVAs since there are international appellation systems throughout-AOC, DOC & DOCG, DO, and IGT to name a few. In fact, not organizing our wine region articles into AVA article is probably infinitely more confusing and unhelpful to our international readers. As for your beginning point, the only "resource" of a list of mostly non-notable wineries is to serve as a directory which longstanding Wikipedia policies discourage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists are often fine, but I don't really see an advantage of having an list of mostly (permanent) red links, in a category that would be difficult to verify if its completeness. Winery articles and links are also useful (at least to me), if there is something notable about the winery beyond the fact that it makes wine. Wine is wonderful, but at its core it is a business and should be subject to the same rules as any other business. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep As I pointed out in the last AfD, the subject of Sonoma County wineries is the subject of several published books: Sonoma County Wineries (Postcard History Series), Sonoma: The Ultimate Winery Guide, and Sonoma County Wineries (Images of America). This is a notable encyclopedic subject in an of itself which should have an article, regardless of whether the article has a list of wineries in it or not. And a list of wineries is not advertising or a violation of WP:NOT#DIR any more than a list of television stations or any other numerous lists of companies. If the problem is that the list may be promoting a number of non-notable wineries then the solution, which should be discussed on the article's talk page and not at AfD, is to remove wineries which are not notable; but there is no good reason not to list notable wineries. Even if assuming Agne27's estimate is correct that 30% of 250 wineries are notable, then that means a list of about 75 or so is appropriate (which is a little less than half the size of the present list). As for the Sonoma County AVA article, if any of it was derived from the Sonoma County wineries article then we cannot keep that article and delete this article without violating GFDL attribution requirements. I really can't think of a good reason for there to be a separate article about the AVA, and I believe that Sonoma County wineries is a better name per Wikipedia naming conventions, especially to "use common names" and to "prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations", so I would recommend merging and redirecting the Sonoma County AVA article to this one. Please note that Wikipedia is not just for the "worldwide wine readership [who] is probably quite familiar with the concepts of AVAs", it is also for the average person who might have a passing interest in wines and wineries and have no knowledge of how it happens to be regulated in the United States. If the phrase "Sonoma County" with respect to wine means an AVA which is not the same as the actual political boundaries of the county, that can and should be explained in the article. DHowell 01:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with deleting the AVA article. When it comes to wine in the United States the defined appellations are the most important consideration when it comes to naming. Even if this article is not deleted, the AVA level article should be kept as well as it is where viticulural information about the AVA belongs, and all info about notable article belongs in the article about the federally defined wine region. The Bethling^(Talk) 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly I have to chuckle that DHowell references wine guides and travel guides as support for the notability and purpose of a list of wineries. There is no reason to dispute that because that is what such lists are for as directories and travel guides. However, I respectfully will disagree with the ill-informed suggestion of merging the AVA article into the winery article. Wine regions are the fundamental basics of the wine world and as the Bethling noted these are federally defined areas. The whole entire reason why any winery in Sonoma county is able to use the words Sonoma County on their wine label is because of the fact that it is an AVA.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry to be waffling so much on this. Since the ONLY content of the Sonoma County AVA article is the content of the Sonoma County wineries article that was moved to the AVA article, and since the point of the article nominated for deletion is that it covers a political unit of the state of California, I think the article should stay. As DHowell (and I) have suggested, the article could use with some clean up and further development, but deleting it is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I am not sure what wiki would gain by having the AVA article with a bunch of redlinks to apparently non-notable AVA thingies and I do not see any move on the part of anyone to make the AVA article stand alone. BUT I would vote to keep this article. Again. I actually had done some research and was considering how to improve the article. Just had not gotten around to it. Agne your chuckling and condescension is not helping here. --Tinned Elk 19:06, 6 October 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 No consensus. Late discussion inclusion of reliable source material for the article rebutted the no reliable sources assertions. Jreferee t/c 05:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wednesdayite

Wednesdayite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fan group. This article has been here for a long time, with no reliable sources, and nothing to claim that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill football club's fan group. I tried a redirect to the club's article, but that got speedy reverted, so let's try this. Corvus cornix 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I would argue that Wednesdayite are a very notable fans group and should be represented by a Wikipedia page. The article was 'speedily reverted' due to myself editing the page at the time of the redirection edit. Wednesdayite are notable in that they are one of the most respected fans' trusts in the country and one of the biggest shareholders in the business. They seperate from the norm of being a run-of-the-mill football clubs' fans group due to the unique politics surrounding the group, which are widely reported in the media. They are one of the only fans' groups in the country that have no access to the club and are widely slated in the media by the club. If we require references and such, I shall learn to place them within the article as I can find multiple on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.202.151 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 82.38.202.151 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Toon Army is not comparable as Wednesdayite is not only a generic term for Sheffield Wednesday fans, but is also the name of a prominent organisation that merits a page of it's own. This organisation is one of the most respected fans trusts in the country and has been at political odds with the football club, setting many precidents in terms of business and shareholder communications and precidents in the running of fans trusts. I agree the article does need updating and sources (of which there are many) adding to make it much more relevant to this, however. 82.38.202.151 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added a number of relevant independent citations to add to the validity of this article and it's relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.202.151 (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 82.38.202.151 22:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sheffield Wednesday#Support - Wednesdayite is better known as a generic term for Wednesday fans, but doesn't deserve an article by itself per WP:NEO (Toon Army being redirected to Newcastle United F.C. is a good precedent). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - too much detail, no proof that this group meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and possible copyvio to boot. Qwghlm 09:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable fan group. - fchd 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have heard of Wednesdayite, a controversial Sheffield Wednesday supporters' grouping even among Wednesday fans, but WP:NOTE requires 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' and rather more than those few provided are needed here. There is no assertation of notability and the way it is laid out is all wrong - like a press release or something. --Malcolmxl5 01:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as fixed up per the Heymann standard. Plenty of verifable and reliable sourced have been added. Bearian'sBooties 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maybe {{db-group}}. --Evb-wiki 13:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Number 57.--Bedivere 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it could certainly use a further clean-up and expansion, there's no doubting that, but there seems to be enough verifable information present to assert notability and distinguish it from a "run-of-the-mill football club's fan group." A quick scan of the Google News archive throws up a few decent articles too. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:43, 8 October 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Cruz Mountain Wineries

Santa Cruz Mountain Wineries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article serves the purpose of essentially being a list and needlessly advertising for these wineries, which is something the Wine Project actively discourages with Wikipedia not being a wineguide. Furthermore we currently have a wine region article-Santa Cruz Mountains AVA that includes an appropriate external link to a list of Santa Cruz Mountains wineries. I have already taken the liberty of adding some of the non-spam content to the article. This article serves no purpose now. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Move, It seems that Santa Cruz Mountains AVA is a recently (past 3 days) created cut and paste duplication of the non-list content in the Santa Cruz Mountain Wineries article by Agne. 3 of the 4 (WP:reliable)references are identical. To this user's valid point, I've removed the spamlist from the Santa Cruz Mountain Wineries article. It seems pretty pointless to duplicate an article, losing its original edit history and delete the original. I think the policy is to use the move page function keeping the entire edit history of the page if the naming convention is not in keeping with the Wine Project. Toddstreat1 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of wine education here would be useful. In the United States, our wine regions are known as American Viticultural Area or AVA. It is the goal of the wine project to create articles for every AVA, of which the Santa Cruz Mountain AVA was recently a redlink in that article. So of course, I'm going to create an article just like I've recently created articles for Jahant AVA, Lime Kiln Valley AVA, San Pasqual Valley AVA and several more also created in the last week. Seeing the uselessness and spamlist magnet to an article of "Santa Cruz Mountain Wineries", I did merge some relevant content to the already created article (With www.appellationamerica.com as the primary reference) and gave proper GFDL attribution on the talk page as well as in the edit summary. For information relevant to the wine region of Santa Cruz Mountains, the AVA article is the most appropriate location for this info.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:59, 3 October 2007

Further note Toddstreat is incorrect in his assessment that this issue is about wine project naming conventions. While I did use the page move function on articles unquestionably about the wine regions like Arroyo Seco AVA and High Valley AVA, this article positioned itself as being about the wineries and not the wine region as the early page creation clearly shows. There is fundamental difference between the two and hence the reason that I didn't do a page move. An article about just wineries is really not needed and is a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and goes against the fact that Wikipedia is not a wineguide. However, as a courtesy, I did attempt to salvage some of the morsels of relevant and encyclopedic content. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out Help:Moving a page to keep the entire edit history. Edit history is good. Copying others' edits is not.

Also, Not putting {{subst:adw|Santa Cruz Mountain Wineries}} ~~~~ on authors talk page(s) isn't good either. Please be sure to do that for the other articles you're proposing deleting. Toddstreat1 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well since I was neither moving a page nor copying other editors edits without giving due good faith attribution as I did in both my edit summary as well as on the article talk page then your link and comments don't really apply. As for the AfD notification, for that I apologize. I don't do AfD all that often and I assumed that anyone with a vested interest in the article would have the article watchlisted. I've have had a few of my own articles come up for AfD and was never notified so I did not know that was a common practice. But again, I apologize for that oversight. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Santa Cruz Mountains AVA as this article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Some useful content exists but has been merged into Santa Cruz Mountains AVA. "FooBar AVA" is the correct naming convention for this type of article. If we have a large list of notable Sonoma wineries, then it might make sense to include them, but not just a laundry list of all wineries. —dgies^t_c 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the proper place for information about an American wine region and its related wineries really is the AVA article. ---- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Covering the wineries of this region is immensely important, and beyond notable, as per discussion about Sonoma County wineries. The notion that covering them is "advertising" them is utterly silly. We have to decide whether we want the article to be a portmanteau of both wine as a product and wine as a business/cultural issue, or keep two separate articles, one for the drink and one for the human side. Whatever the decision we should stick with it. The "not a wine guide" folks need to realize that this issue intersects other projects as well. This issue needs to be handled consistently with all of the other San Francisco Bay Area Counties. A point about wine in California. In California the wineries (and together with them the history, ancillary businesses, personalities, practices, and culture) are often a far more important than the specific wines they produce, and they are more clearly understood by county, not AVA. In cases where the AVA matches the geographic boundaries of the County, the two are interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: What do you see being better covered in an article about just the wineries that couldn't be covered in an article about the wine region? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's two subjects in one article. If that works, fine. But as per the above discussion you seem to be drawing a distinction between the two, and the advocating for deleting coverage of the wineries. As you say: "An article about just wineries is really not needed and is a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and goes against the fact that Wikipedia is not a wineguide.". I respectfully disagree. To cover wineries is to cover business and culture. Wikidemo 10:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

An article focused on the wine region will undoubtedly, if written to its full potential, cover the business and culture of the area. More pertinently, that coverage will be focused on the wineries that have made significant contributions to the area and are even notable enough to have their own article-discernment that a wine directory list could never have. As I mentioned on another AfD, while wine is wonderful the very act of making wine and being a winery does not confer on it any special notability. Wineries should still be held to same standard as every other business in Wikipedia. You will never see articles on San Francisco car dealerships, San Francisco marinas, List of bakeries in San Francisco, List of pizza places in San Francisco, etc. Again, though I am a fierce advocate for Wikipedia's wine coverage, I can not see giving wineries or list of wineries a free pass when it comes to Wikipedia's basic policies such as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:CORP. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

True .. but an AVA is only means something (or is notible) if there are grapes being grown and wines being produced. San Francisco is still notable without pizza places. An AVA without wineries is academic. Toddstreat1 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This last comment really confused me. Are there any AVAs where no grapes are grown and no wine made? If so, how come they were created as Viticultural areas? Not even the notorious French wine bureaucrats have come up with the idea of creating AOCs or VDQSs where there are no vines. Confused on the other side of the Atlantic, Tomas e 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you must know, there may well someday be an article on bakeries of the San Francisco Bay Area. It started the contemporary artisan bread movement in the US, and there are many books and newspaper articles on that. For bakeries that history may well be possible to contain in a single article on the topic - I just wrote such an article, in fact. The subject of wine-making in California, or in any of its major winegrowing regions, is far too big to fit in one article. An article can present an overview, but to drill down we have to refer people to articles on individual AVAs, wineries, winemakers, grapes, etc. Lists are often a good organizational structure for that, and in cases like this where the coverage is mostly empty they can contain redlinks or unlinked members as placeholders until we fill it out. The concern over directories is misplaced. We're not listing their phone numbers, driving directions, and tour hours. We're using the best organizational structure for our own coverage, and if that happens to be a list so be it. Wikidemo 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While we can not discern the exact motivation of Wikipedia editors in developing WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, there has been long standing consensus behind that policy. I think there is valid concern over Wikipedia becoming a list of commercial business. We are an encyclopedia and businesses that have notability beyond just being a business have wiki-links, notes and references throughout relevant and related articles. If a winery is only notable enough to have an article that says "Chateau Foo is a winery" and list what it makes and for how long it has made it--that is a red flag and typically those are the only type of articles that would be orphaned if not linked to a directory style "List of wineries". Though we do share agreement that the California wine industry deserves more than one article. After I'm done working on the American wine article, that is actually one of my pet sub projects. California wine certainly has the breadth of potential and information equal to our Bordeaux series of articles. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 03:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we get rid of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. However, people often mis-apply the policy as a blanket prohibition on lists of things. The wording clearly stops far short of claiming that lists of businesses are considered a directory. Citing it for the proposition that any list of entities is "spam" or "advertising" (something untrue on its face) that should be removed is controversial, to say the least. I think the concerns about notability are a red herring. There are plenty of in-depth profiles of wineries, coverage of their business activities, books, oral histories, etc. Nobody is proposing we limst a winery simply because it makes a wine that somebody reviewed or carried somewhere. If there's a stray bad article, we can deal with just like we deal with any notability problem. I see no reason why wineries deserve some special level of attention. In anything, less. There are far fewer vanity and spam articles about wine than most subjects on Wikipedia. Wikidemo 06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that Wikipedia shouldn't have coverage about notable wineries and we are in agreement that wineries do not deserve any special level of attention. They should be treated just like any restaurant, boat maker, jewelry store, dance club, indie band, etc on Wikipedia. In that regard, can you explain what makes this article different then a List of restaurants in San Francisco article? Would that article violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite surprised we don't have a List of restaurants in San Francisco. It would help to fill in encyclopedic coverage of this subject, as I'm pretty sure there are more than 19 notable restaurants there. DHowell 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to it's wine region. Gateman1997 07:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Wine region article already exist Santa Cruz Mountain AVA. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable wine region, no problem with merging into a similar article if one exists, but this is definitely a search-worthy title worth retaining (worse case scenario). Burntsauce 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand using reliable sources such as Mountain Vines, Mountain Wines: Exploring the wineries of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and if Santa Cruz Mountain AVA duplicates this article than merge and redirect it to here, per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonoma County wineries. DHowell 03:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So use wine and travel guides as sources to make it more of a directory? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To be a directory we would list every one, with its hours and driving directions, phone number, a list of features, price of tasting, list of wines and where you can buy them, and reviews. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY tells us not to do that. It doesn't say we can't organize and index things. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A list with links to articles and unlinked or red-linked items for articles yet to be written or that are worth mentioning but not quite notable is often the best navigational structure. Wikidemo 22:02, 6 October 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. Jreferee t/c 05:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EuroBonus

EuroBonus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• KeepComment: There are plenty of sources in the Google News archives which establishes notability of the subject and therefore an article is relevant. Also, it prevents repetition of the information in the individual airline articles by having it in its own article. → AA ^(talk) — 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Google hits (Google news or otherwise) do not establish notability, as the substance of those hits are near on impossible to determine (can't use press releases or trivial/incidental coverage to establish notability). Individual sources need to be referenced in the article, because as it stands now, it is clearly against WP:NOT --Russavia 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned Google hits - I'm referring to the links which, unfortunately, point to subscription-based content. One of them says: "Scandinavian Airlines' Eurobonus scheme was voted best international airline programme and Alaska Airways' Mileage Plan was The US winner. ... " in a link titled "FEATURES: Starwood takes loyalty honours" from the Financial Times. It does not appear this would be trivial coverage. → AA ^(talk) — 09:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as spam Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 11:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Cites two sources in total, of which one is the airline (not independent) and the other is Wikipedia (not reliable); accordingly fails WP:V in its current state. Sandstein 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now Keep after some sourcing has been done, and notability is not in question, see below. Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree it violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:V. More importantly, it uses WP article as reference, which apparently stands against the policy.--NAHID 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. First off, this is the frequent flyer program of a major airline, Scandinavian Airlines System. Second, the EuroBonus program has won prestigious awards, the Freddie Award has been described as the Oscar of the travel industry, and the fact that SAS did not win it in 2005 caught the attention of a major Norwegian business newspaper.[1]. Third, EuroBonus is something which is not only been of interest in the travel industry, it has attracted the attention of Norwegian political authorities as well, and the ban imposed on EuroBonus for Norwegian domestic flights has been a pretty big issue for Norwegian business.[2] [3] [4] The EuroBonus program has been the subject of multiple non-trivial and independent coverage over the course of several years and easily passes notability requirements. I must also say that I am baffled at the claims that this fails WP:V, is anyone trying to suggest that this program doesn't exist? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it appears the Swedish competion authorities have also targeted EuroBonus in 2003. They released a 206 page report on the effect of EuroBonus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The article failed WP:V not because anyone argues that the EuroBonus program does not exist, but because the article's entire content - which has been challenged with the present nomination - did not feature references to reliable, independent sources. Since you have now provided sources for at least some sections, I withdraw my "delete" opinion, but have removed all unsourced content. That content may be re-added once sources are provided. Sandstein 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - for reasons given by sjakkalle. I have not views the material apparently recently removed, but the presetn content looks as if it is adequately sourced. Accordingly the unreferenced tag should also be removed. However I know little of the subject. Peterkingiron 18:29, 7 October 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 CSD # 3 & 7 for lack of notability and for lack of context/content.--JForget 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alireza haghighi

Alireza haghighi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable medical doctor, no claims of notability, no reliable sources, no claim that the organization he created is notable. My db tag was deleted without comment by a new user in his first edit. Corvus cornix 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under A7 - in the future, you can just replace the tag, they're not supposed to be removed except by reviewing administrators. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note that A3 would apply as well - Listing one's titles in incomplete sentences is essentially rephrasing the name. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • That's not true, anybody but the creating editor can remove a speedy tag. Corvus cornix 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per CSD A1 and A3. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above and A3. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 23:35, 2 October 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 WP:CSD#A7 corporation without notability/significance asserted. —dgies^t_c 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Computers

General Computers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I think this article should be deleted because:

• Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (... WP:CORP and so forth)
• All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed.

The only reliable hit on Google search, excluding Global General Computers, Inc. and United General Computers, Inc. is in a book about gender issues published a decade before the formation of this company. Softtest123 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP and possibly WP:SPAM, though I really don't think that applies there. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:06, 3 October 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. Consensus is clear that there is enough reliable source material for the article. Trivia can be reworked into the article as prose. The remaining objection related to the topic being unencyclopedic, which was answered with WP:NOT#CENSORED. Jreferee t/c 05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fart lighting

Fart lighting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Suggesting deletion because there is nothing here which merits encyclopedic coverage, with or without the "popular culture" section that also violates our WP:FIVE pillars. Burntsauce 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and the Popular culture section violates WP:TRIVIA. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia" isn't an argument, and where does WP:TRIVIA say that references to a subject in popular culture should not be listed in Wikipedia articles? Melsaran (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is one of the annoying articles that doesn't fit directly into any WP:NOT category, but still screams out for deletion. This is still unencyclopedic content and has the potential for severe disruption once the IP vandals get their hands on this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. So, it annoys me and is likely to get vandalized are cause for deletion. Well that will help clean things up as there are plenty of articles that annoy me and I bet most of them also get vandalism. Benjiboi 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA. Xihr 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete-as per allA.m.aji 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Tasteless, juvenile, even foolishly dangerous .... but this is part of culture among guys all over the world, and it has been for centuries. No less encylopedic than Goldfish swallowing. Mandsford 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Or shorten and merge to Flatulence. Too much popular culture, not enough references. This should be a section of Flatulence which presently lacks referenced mention of fart lighting. But the present article is too fluffy for a simple merge. Surely an act which Bergman immortalized in "Fanny and Alexander" (1982), deserves a mention in the article on the gaseous effluent.Edison 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to flatulence as a subsection there - but only the very base essentials: The practice as a "juvenile" act as a popular or at least (perhaps) drunken and usually male party deed, how it works from a purely scientific biological and chemical standpoint, along with the presumed dangers of the practice. I have to admit however that I found myself sort of hoping for an ilustrative image or perhaps a daring (albeit probably unavoidably gross) photograph or two, to illustrate the principles and colorful lighting effects (but perhaps not so much examples of the, err, possible resulting injuries). Guys just like fireworks, no matter the source... --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Xihr hits it in one... WP:NOT a trivia guide.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly a notable concept or meme, which probably could be verified by sources. Also, most certainly sophomoric. I'll try to rescue it, so could you hold open the debate until the end of the weekend? Bearian'sBooties 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:NOT#CENSORED and the subject's undeniable notability. For something that gets several hits on an Amazon book search and a couple of Google news archive searches, I'm sure enough material can be pulled from reliable sources to make this article better. This, as part of the "fecal habitus" (apparently a Latin term for crap & fart culture), was even studied in a published academic paper! DHowell 03:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Can be covered in wictionary if not already there. Vegaswikian 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an obvious WP:NOT violation, the popular culture section violates WP:TRIVIA as well. Well, the whole article does, really. RFerreira 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have made several additions and deletions as suggested, to rescue it. If it can not be saved as is, I would not object to a merger of the content and cites into Flatulence. Bearian'sBooties 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly not encyclopaedic. I do have sympathy with the merger suggestion.--Bedivere 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Flatulence. It's just as encyclopedic as many other odd customs, although it doesn't need to be a separate article. Ward3001 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Absolutely revolting and juvenile but also hilarious. This is exactly what WP is for that paper encyclopedias generally would not or could not cover. Completely disgusting and sophomoric behavior that is of little use until you wonder "what the heck are they talking about?" Fart lighting was also a plot device of South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut and that alone should signify it's enshrinement in pop culture. Benjiboi 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I didn't realize that "hilarious" was a valid reason for inclusion.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can save the snarky comments butt...in case it's not obvious, this subject, although vulgar to many, is certainly notable enough and references have been introduced to assert its vast use in pop culture. Benjiboi 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• You sure fooled me. Sources have been added to a trivia section, but the article contents remain to be trivial. Burntsauce 16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually a quick glance shows that of the 18 refs, 11 are provided before the pop culture section, to which, I believe, you refer to as a "trivia section". Regardless the subject and article are not trivial so characterizing it as such only suggests a POV against the subject and article.Benjiboi 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why Benjiboi, could you possibly mean snarky comments like "So, it annoys me and is likely to get vandalized are cause for deletion. Well that will help clean things up as there are plenty of articles that annoy me and I bet most of them also get vandalism"??? Pot....kettle.....black? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• As I stated to your accusation on my talk page i did not intend to call you a "butt" that was simply a joke as this AfD is about a flatulence subject. I apologize if that humor did not carry over. As for snarky comments let's agree that they probably don't belong on wp. I do wish this much energy was put into actually improving the article. Benjiboi 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I've added a dozen references and some section headers to prod some organization. Benjiboi 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Obvious notability has been established with references/sources, not to mention I've done it myself - several times. Wanna see? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• funny, fairly well written but Delete or redirect to flatulence it just isn't encyclopedic.--Sandahl 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for what it's worth. Danny 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete biggest delete I can possibly pull out ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As an admin, you should know this isn't a voting process.. care to leave a reason? Fosnez 02:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep referenced article put together well, even if it concerns a disgusting topic. Notable enough for our purposes. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, needs a rewrite but thats no reason for deletion {{sofixit}}. Notable sources have been provided. Fosnez 02:37, 9 October 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 and clean up. Espresso Addict 20:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Heumann

Milton Heumann (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirolovesswords (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources (seems to be OR), fails WP:PROF, which is the guideline in this case. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROF. Notability doesn't seem to be there Bfigura ^(talk) 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's somewhat notable (imo). Tiptopper 23:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Milton Heumann has fulfilled several of the criteria needed under the notability guidelines. This person is significant in his field not only by his publications but by his status as a professor II. A professor II (which isn't on wikipedia) is a person that is so highly regarded as an expert in his field that the university promotes them to a professor II. Which is verified by the school.

His many publications are significant and well cited. Evidence to “Ranked in Top 25 (by year of Ph.D.) in terms if number of times work is cited. "The Political Science 400:Citation, by Ph.D. Cohort and by Ph.D. Granting institution”” And was awarded by the American Political Science Association (APSA) for best Doctoral presentation. The only one that year.

Most of these can be found in the references which include the Rutgers Biographical information.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course, if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works, if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.72.57 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — 68.193.72.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - No evidence of notability that meets WP:PROF. Listing "classroom stories" and "quotes" does nothing to help this article. -- MightyWarrior 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment I removed the unsourced "classroom stories" and "quotes" sections. Pete.Hurd 04:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tiptopper and above reasoning.JJJ999 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I thank Pete for the initial cleanup--we shuld go on a systematic hunt for those sort of sections. There probably are a few--a very few--professors where that sort of material is significant and documentable. The information about citations, though expressed a little oddly, is enough to show notability. The [publications would be clearer if the books are separated from the journals. (The rank of Professor II, at Rutgers and some other public universities, especially unionized ones such as Rutgers, is an attempt to provide a separate higher salary range for the more senior or more distinguished professors to compete with elite private universities--as such public universities usually pay on a fixed rank/longevity scale. It represents somewhat more than Professor I where it exists, but how much more would depend on the University. I do not know Rutgers' standards in this respect.)DGG (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Looks superficially impressive, though the tone of the article inspires little confidence.--Bedivere 18:48, 7 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Running gags on Drawn Together

Running gags on Drawn Together (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A gigantic list of trivia and such about a modestly (at best) popular cable cartoon series. There are no references, no way to show that these are running gags, or notable, or most of all, why there should be a page about this subject. Basically, a big batch of trivia. A similar article on Around The Horn was previously deleted. Dannycali 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I haven't seen so much trivia in one place since the SpongeBob SquarePants episode articles were deleted. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just a trivial list of a few folks favorite jokes on a lame television show. Burntsauce 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Personal opinions of a subject are not relevant to this discussion.Raymondluxuryacht 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article basically functions as a discussion of the show's comedic style. As for references, most of the gags mentioned cite episodes in which said gags can be found.Raymondluxuryacht 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would like to point out per AFD guidelines and the WP community that this user is the creator of said article, and appears to be the most prolific editor on said page. Dannycali 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nonnotable trivia. The few times it attempts to give creative insight, it is pure Original Research ("[this] would seem to be the producers' way of directly criticizing their own characters", "These moments are completely non-canon and are simply intended to be humorous", "jokes which serve as both self-deprecating humor, and as a satirical way of making fun of bigoted attitudes against Jews"). For a non-fan, there's nothing to learn from this article that couldn't also be summarized in a few sentences in the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this should be kept as it will prevent the main article from gettin useless triva. ForeverDEAD 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The whole "put all the crap on one page to get it off of others" is not a valid argument to keep an article. Read WP:TRIVIA. Dannycali 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment So true, Dannycali. The uphill battle to get this through the heads of what feels like EVERYONE ELSE BUT ME on Wikipedia is much steeper than I could have ever imagined. Burntsauce 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a trivia list -- Whpq 16:39, 4 October 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 as copyvio. Vegaswikian 21:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Hartford

List of tallest buildings in Hartford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An list whose accuracy is disputed of buildings which are not linked. Not useful for navigation, and given the accuracy dispute not useful for anything else either. Cruftbane 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Cruftbane. ILovePlankton^(L—S) 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Curftbane and ILovePlankton. STORMTRACKER 94 21:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources and listcruft. How many people will come here looking for this info? Not many. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination there is nothing useful or encyclopedic worth keeping here. Burntsauce 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability Bfigura ^(talk) 23:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC) !vote changed, see below --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as violating WP:LIST and WP:NOT. Bearian'sBooties 16:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Oh, boy. First off, this list is not listcruft, contains factual and verifiable information, and it's actually useful (albeit for a limited audience such as residents of Hartford, people studying city planning, etc., but that is not enough to delete outright). A user suggested that it doesn't provide sources, except that, well... it does; they're just under the External links section. The real problem with the article is, surprise!, exactly what the template says: its accuracy. There are inconsistencies between the information provided by each source. But Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, an established guideline, does not say delete. It says collaborate to resolve the dispute. Ergo, keep as a useful source of information to a highly notable city in the United States. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And a note to the above users: Regardless of the outcome of this debate, while we greatly appreciate the work you're doing in helping to clean Wikipedia, please read (or re-read) carefully Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You'll find out that some arguments, such as WP:PERNOMINATOR, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, WP:RUBBISH, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:WHOCARES, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, WP:USELESS, WP:NOTINTERESTING, and WP:LOCALFAME, sometimes don't say anything when not supported and therefore don't contribute much to the discussion. It doesn't mean you can use such arguments, but it'd be best if you'd tell us why you think its not notable, or not sourced, or useless, or listcruft, or violating WP:LIST, or violating WP:NOT... - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's not notable because it's not discussed in a non-trivial nature by reliable sources. In fact, the list appears to be a blatant WP:COPYVIO without assertion of permission of one of the external links for the article: see here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as G12 copyvio of this. I'm CSD-ing now. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. It was a good catch, the copyvio. It seems the debate is now futile. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:22, 6 October 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 redirect to SportsNet New York -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Apple

Gary Apple (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a notable TV personality. Just a sportscaster for a local station.NYYankee2684 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to SportsNet New York per WP:BIO. Definitely NN. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• 'Redirect I agree with Nascar Fan24. STORMTRACKER 94 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per NascarFan. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:22, 2 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dystheism

Dystheism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non-notable/original research ThaddeusFrye 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Dystheism" is a neologism introduced by a professor during a lecture in 1998. There are no books or academic articles on this subject however, nor do encyclopedias of religion or philosophy contain entries for this term. This page is mostly original research and speculation, and includes a long original-research list of examples which contributors have felt might perhaps constitute examples of dystheism. There's a lot of work here, and the concept has some interest, but an article like this needs to document concepts that are already recognized parts of philosophy or intellectual history, not introduce concepts that have yet to be elaborated in print or other referred or popular forums. This article continually expands in a way that provides an exaggerated sense of the scholarly and popular importance of this non-standard term, and should probably be deleted if it cannot be trimmed to a much more reasonable size, sufficient to describe accounts of it which have appeared elsewhere in authoritative sources. ThaddeusFrye 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I enter a statement here not as a vote but simply as a comment. It's probably obvious what my vote would be but I will not muddy the count with my own entry.

1. It has been claimed that no books or articles on the subject of dystheism exist. This is a misleading statement. It is true that no (or very few) books or articles use the word "dystheism" or "Maltheism," but the evidence accumulated demonstrates that this phenomenon has evinced itself in art, music, literature, popular culture, and in the more "serious" academic pursuits of philosophy and theology. The output of Blumenthal, Roth, and Phillips, along with the writing of Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Salman Rushdie, attest to the legitimacy of a dystheist point of view. It is valid to acknowledge the presence of this sentiment and to catalog it encyclopedically with a name.
2. It is not legitimate to dismiss a word as a "neologism" based simply on its age. If this were the case, the majority of technologically-oriented entries in Wikipedia might vanish. There is a precedent for the usage of the word "dystheism" to describe anti-God sentiment, a belief that God exists but is not, as is (erroneously) assumed to be universally accepted, good. This article provides a cataloguing of this phenomenon under this name. The article was originally labeled "Maltheism," but this word was also cited as a neologism, with dystheism specifically chosen (by other editors) for its academic pedigree.
3. The article has previously been reviewed by WikiProject Religion and given a grade of quality grade of "B". Far from perfect, but a sight better than many articles on the subject of religion that are not under this scrutiny as candidates to be deleted.
4. The word "Maltheism" (which was the original title for this article) is catalogued in Wiktionary, and there is a Wikipedia user template for users holding "Maltheist beliefs". This in itself is not necessarily evidence of anything, but demonstrates that Wikispace acknowledges the sentiment of Maltheism/dystheism.

I hope the Wikipedia community sees the legitimacy of an article cataloguing and describing a verifiable documented phenomenon. Thank you all for your interest in this issue. Craig zimmerman 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • it is misleading to claim that the "phenomenon" exists but has somehow magically escaped having a term coined for it. misotheism has a marginal record in major dictionaries, but the actual "phenomenon" is duly discussed at theodicy and related articles. The only thing not found in other articles is discussion of the terms dystheism/maltheism themselves, which makes the article a candidate for transwikification as a dictdef. "Dystheism" doesn't have any pedigree in dictionaries, and exists purely as a nonce-coinage in a 1998 lecture. "Maltheism" is a 1980s coinage of gaming culture and/or Usenet. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per WP:OR and WP:CITE; seems to be OR and no sources. Wikipedia is not a directory for slang or neologisms. I feel bad deleting such a long article, so maybe trim per nom? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I see sources. Concept seems to be valid and used in philosophic circles. humblefool® 05:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, concept in currency for millennia, if there's a better title move and redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03 3 October 2007 (GMT).
  • there is a better title, wikt:misotheism, which has at least seen incidential English use. The topic is in fact discussed at Problem of evil. The "scriptural evidence" collection belongs in Ethics in the Bible.dab (𒁳) 12:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I just stumbled across this article a few days ago and noted the AfD. There appears to be verifiable, secondary sources for this article. So, it meets one of the most basic notability requirements. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Google Scholar lists 1 item only [5], and it is not a peer-reviewed source--and even it uses it is quotes as unaccepted terminology, and without a reference, and without citing the inventor. The examples given show there is very little in the way of a unifying concept--most of the examples are not advocating this position, but using the absurdity of it to argue for atheism (or deism), or in some cases for dualism. This may be a real subject, but it needs academic references to show that it is referred to as such, and that this is the name,--and that the author of it is accepted as an authority.--there is no WP article on him. He is mentioned in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a supporter of the cosmological proof for the existence of God, which is something else entirely--that encyclopedia does not even mention the present word. The references given are much too scattered & nonspecific to demonstrate anything. Not everything discussed in an academic work is notable. When it is in neither standard reference works nor other academic articles, it is not notable. This article might even be considered to fall under g11,advertising.--there are lots of ghits, most of which come down to someone quoting us. Once it is notable, then it gets an article. DGG (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• {{mergeto}} (Theodicy, Problem of evil, Divine command theory, Euthyphro dilemma, Ethics in the Bible, dictdef to wikt:dystheism) per Wikipedia:Content forking. The material discussed is in itself valid, but the presentation violates WP:SYN and WP:CFORK. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/merge I say keep or merge the article now that dab has deleted my misotheism article (which according to Websters is an actual term) and merged it to this one.LoveMonkey 13:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:DICTDEF: just because a word is an "actual term" we will not necessarily do an article about it. dab (𒁳) 13:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Misotheism is a different concept - that of hating the Gods. The concept that terms such as dystheism or maltheism are trying to capture is that of a God who is not good. I note that we have the Cartesian concept of deus deceptor as a redirect to Evil genius. bd2412 T 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
      • different, but closely related. These terms have so little notability that clearly they should be discussed in a single article. The question is one of titling. "deus deceptor" is a good idea! dab (𒁳) 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: As a concept, dystheism, the idea that God exists and is not altogether good, is a valid, logically sound position that arises repeatedly in historical contexts. Dystheism has adherents, myself among them, so it is more than an academic concept. Academics may not agree on the name, but the concept merits representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.254.88 (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Mohanchous 19:54, 4 October 2007 (EST)
  • Dystheistic speculation arises from consideration of the problem of evil -- I see no reason why this cannot be treated under problem of evil. dab (𒁳) 08:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but move to deus deceptor (which is currently a redirect). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• While I nominated this article for deletion, I should note that personally, I think the concept of Dystheism is interesting; however it just isn't a term that has yet been developed in philosophy or elsewhere enough to be included in Wikipedia. Any commentary on this subject, and every example of it that this article provides is necessarily original research, since virtually none exists in the world. Just because "dystheism" etc. *could* be used or even *would be a great idea to use* in describing some anti-God arguments doesn't mean that these terms deserve Wikipedia articles, and they certainly can't have articles which include examples and theoretical explanations that can't be found in authoritative sources outside Wikipedia (who's to decide what examples count as dystheism arising "in historical contexts"?). One possible way to save the article would be to rename it "Moral Criticism of God" without including the misleading implication that the terms "dystheism," etc. have gained very much critical currency (or the distorted definition of dystheism that adds "or may even be evil" to the definition provided by Koons). Such an article would still have OR problems, but on the other hand would be arguably justifiable, on the grounds that not all moral criticism of God takes place within the context of discussions of theodicy, etc. So I guess, I would accept either "delete" or "rename and revise", to avoid the misleading implication that these terms are in standard usage or have been the subject of significant scholarly discussion or debate. ThaddeusFrye 19:13, 6 October 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue flower dance

Blue flower dance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject appears not to meet the notability criteria. The creator herself acknowledges that there are no sources, but removed the prod tag anyway, so here it comes to AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just read this. I don't know what the prod tag is. If I removed it it ws an accident. We will work this out I hope. "Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people"--Stephencimini 11:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and for removing the prod template. STORMTRACKER 94 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Eh...what? I can't even understand what this article is about. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a little investigation and figured it out... it's a sideways promotion for the creator, a painter who did a few paintings related to the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to give references that is when I mentioned the gallery it is not to promote anything but just to give validity to the blue flower dance as it relates to soul braiding. The Wu twins are performance artists and will be in China in November--Stephencimini 12:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As I confirmed with your phone call to me today (10/5/07) the exhibits ends on 10/27. The only reason it was mentioned is because it serves as a reference to soul braiding as interpreted by the Wu Twins and their blue flower dance. --Stephencimini 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not talk with you on the phone today. I do not plan to talk with you on the phone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete for WP:N, WP:OR, and WP:MADEUP. Possibly spam and COI too Bfigura ^(talk) 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't spam why would you think that?--Stephencimini 12:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Soul Braiding is a serious subject and was not just "made up". Thank you--Stephencimini 03:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• GUIDELINES WHICH HELP MY CASE
  "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people. Yes imagine the people who will benefit by knowing about soul braiding --the Blue Flower Dance enhances its positiveness. Thank you for reconsidering--Stephencimini 03:29, 5 October 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--JForget 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unleashing Janus

Unleashing Janus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A novel with no indication why either the book or author are notable. Published by vanity publisher PublishAmerica and the article appears to be created by the book's author. I was tempted to WP:CSD#G11 this thing but listing here in case anyone thinks its notable. —dgies^t_c 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Stormtracker ILovePlankton^(L—S) 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete for lack of notability. Also, no secondary sources, so WP:V is kinda shot. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm starting to think that PublishAmerica is telling its clients to try to sneak through a Wikipedia article. Anyway, doesn't meet WP:Notable. And a self-published article about a self-published novel is what we used to call "drinking your own bathwater". Accounting4Taste 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Stormtracker94, for the reasons stated. Bearian'sBooties 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Unleash the delete upon this unimportant spam. Burntsauce 17:43, 5 October 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--JForget 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Alfonso

Adrian Alfonso (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A disputed prod. This article is, to put it bluntly, bullshit. UsaSatsui 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I've tried to trace the references in the article and only come up with this, which indicates he came in third (not the winner, as stated) and was attending William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey (not stated in the article). I can't verify any of the other examples. Zero hits on the band/the albums. The comedy festival exists but I doubt he came in second. The film school's page of notable alumni doesn't mention his name, nor does the site. If this gets deleted, I'll make a note to delete his link in the New York film school's article. Accounting4Taste 20:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No indication his films/videos are notable, and that plus some local awards do not add up to meeting Wikipedia:Notability (people) (Creative professional). —dgies^t_c 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the nomination, just more bullshit on Wikipedia waiting to be... dumped. Burntsauce 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, should have been speedied, although "awesome at being great" is a claim of notability, I guess ... Corvus cornix 23:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "He is the winner of multiple local New Jersey film awards and Comedy Awards." - A vague but potentially valid claim to notability. —dgies^t_c 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I went to his "official site" on MySpace, which contradicts this article in the sense that it doesn't mention his putative attendance or graduation from the New York Film Academy, which I have to assume is bogus. (Or he was somehow attending community college in Paramus at the same time.) The only comedy award I found is noted above and he seems to vary from first to second to third (to be truthful, I may have misread what he claimed) -- but it's for student comedians. The film awards are, yes, "local New Jersey film awards". The William Paterson Film Festival was at his (true) alma mater, therefore student film. The Passaic County Film Festival exists -- at the county level, and I couldn't find any winners' names. The Rutgers International Film Festival doesn't seem to exist under that precise name, although there are Rutgers' associated film festivals under which I couldn't find this individual's name. And the Urban Diversity Film Festival, which has been in existence since March 2007, hasn't bothered to post the names of any winners of its awards on its website, so who knows? This is all essentially student film. Probably amusing and well-done student film, but lending its creator no more notability than the average YouTube entry. I hope this answers any questions you may have had about his potential notability due to "local New Jersey film awards and comedy awards". If we have conflicting reports of something so basic as where he went to school, what can we believe? Accounting4Taste 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You honestly think I called this bullshit for nothing? Just looking at this article for 2 minutes, you can tell it's 90% lies.--UsaSatsui 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• And to fully frost the cake, someone with the same username as this individual's MySpace nick has removed the AfD tag twice in the last half hour. I'm now recommending SALT. Accounting4Taste 05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Second that. Please SALT. Burntsauce 20:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Hey guys, sorry about the earlier failure to use the 'speedy deletion' thing properly, I've never done it before. Seems like it brought this egotistical nonsense to your attention, however, so I still consider it successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.147.98 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2007
• Delete but not salted, per nom, and as violating WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:N. Bearian'sBooties 17:00, 5 October 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 for failing Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Television episodes. Arguments based on approval by the Wikiproject have been considered and rejected.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Wanted (episode)

Help Wanted (episode) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

According to Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, no new articles about episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants should be created until they are improved by Wikipedia:WikiProject SpongeBob SquarePants. This is in clear violation of that post. There seems to be a surge of new users creating articles about this episode becuase they are tired of waiting. I've already reverted one IP who changed a redirect into an article. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per the statement at Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. ILovePlankton^(L—S) 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with ILovePlankton, this was not approved. STORMTRACKER 94 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep it because I think we should have the spongebob episodes back to normal Jibajabba 19:54 10 3 2007 Preceding comment added by User:Jibbajabba while not logged in. See note on User talk:Jibbajabba, at the bottom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please read the comment in the first section of Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per me. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of the approval argument, lacks real-world information, per WP:EPISODE, WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 5 October 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 wasdelete -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean woodward

Sean woodward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As a writer, he seems to have limited and only local notability. The other claims to notability fail WP:BIO. Freshacconci | Talk 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

- As an international writer and publisher he is notable for first offering a platform for a number of writers Zoshouse

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci | Talk 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be self-published, and the dragonheartpress website doesn't appear to have any content beyond the front page. The alleged quote from Glyn Hughes, who is notable, is a bit suspicious without a source to give it context. The music, digital art sections are non-notable in themselves, and adding them together doesn't help. Thomjakobsen 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

- incorrect, the site was being rebranded and is now online Zoshouse

- Dragonheart Press is notable for first publishing a number of poets including Alec Rapkin, Poet Laurete of the Peak Zoshouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.15.116 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

- awaiting confirmation of quote from Glyn Hughes to post here Zoshouse

- "adding them together doesn't help" - the person is notable for their "New-Rennaisance" ability to fuse major creative avenues Zoshouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.15.116 (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. Perhaps consider adding his non-notable band Gothick, created by the same person (presumably him?), and full of peacock language like "leading" and "seminal" despite being distributed through an occult bookshop and having no third-party coverage? This is a really shoddy self-promo job. Thomjakobsen. 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

- peacock is an interesting subjective term as is shoddy Zoshouse

• • This has Copyright 2007 Zos House / T3KTON FOUNDATION and SERVICE CONTACT : (address excised)@seanwoodward.com, suggesting that the music is self-released too. Thomjakobsen 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • User:Zoshouse is the creator and editor of both articles. Thomjakobsen 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete also per above. STORMTRACKER 94 20:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN and self-published. ILovePlankton^(L—S) 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, then create redirect to Shaun Woodward, which is a reasonable search alternative. Jdcooper 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Burntsauce 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Modernist 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7 without looking at the article - when the last name is in lowercase, the person is nearly always unnotable Will ^(talk) 23:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, per nom & several above. Not sure about "Will's Law", especially for the Dutch. Johnbod 17:05, 4 October 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. John254 00:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi (magazine)

Hi (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, suspended magazine. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty notable, much-criticized propaganda effort. [6][7][8][9][10][11] etc. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Here are some newspaper articles worth tracking down. All are available on Newsbank:

• Tony Czuczka. "U.S.-funded magazine in hot water over "metrosexual article". Deutsche Press-Agentur. 21 June 2005.
• Daniel Pipes. "Winning the propoganda war". The New York Sun. 27 December 2005.
• Tim Harper. "U.S. shelves Arabic 'propaganda' mag". The Toronto Star. 23 December 2005.
• Maggie Michael. "U.S. magazine pushes lifestyle to Arabic youth". The Miami Herald. 21 September 2003.
• Andrew Buncombe. "Bush launches magazine to teach young Arabs to love America". The Independent (London). 18 July 2003. Zagalejo^^^ 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. ILovePlankton^(L—S) 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep also per above, but may need a little cleanup. STORMTRACKER 94 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Tagged. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Being suspended has no impact on the notability of the magazine. Suggest early WP:SNOW closure. Burntsauce 22:19, 2 October 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 by (a bare) consensus. Still needs significant work, but passes notability, has reliable sources, and is not original research. Bearian 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Success of fire suppression in northern forests

Success of fire suppression in northern forests (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Prod on 2007-09-27 by User:Akradecki for being an "Essay with limited context and a lot of original research". I agree it is written more like an essay than an article, though I think that is more a reason for a clean up than deletion. There appear to be a lot of reference materials used in writing the article, though not well used. I can understanding the thinking behind the prod, as this requires a lot of work, and there is a question about if the material is worth the work. And that's why I'm putting it up for discussion, because there is that question about it. My feeling is that something could be saved and merged into Fire fighting, and that there may be someone who is willing and able to do that. I am not willing to do the work myself, which is why I am not actually !voting for this to be kept. My listing is neutral. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A lot of sourced material there.--Bedivere 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not an original research. There are 20+ reliable sources. It only needs wikification.Biophys 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Content fork of Wildland fire suppression and/or Fire fighting. There is nothing really worth merging. -- Jreferee t/c 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Biophys -- Atlant 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Wikify and merge to Wildland fire suppression. References should be redone as in-line citations with a reflest, not the Chicago style citations currently used. Neither article is long enough to cause size concerns. Parsecboy 13:08, 9 October 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 (on a number of grounds). Pascal.Tesson 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett H. Moore

Barrett H. Moore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

insufficient notability based on links provided and Google search; editor is employee/consultant of subject's company; unclear if one Senator's reference is sufficient CobaltBlueTony 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Sovereign Deed had fifth most trademark applicants in FY06

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2006/50329_table29a.html Wiki BHMoore 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Perhaps the article should be about Sovereign Deed and not its founder. - CobaltBlueTony 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. So by that logic, are you saying that Microsoft would get an article, but Bill Gates wouldn't? Mr. Moore is already listed as the founding CEO of a company listed on Wikipedia (Triple Canopy), I've included unbiased, outside sources that discuss his work with Sovereign Deed, including a story with a quote from a State senator, and I've included documentation that Mr. Moore's company had the fifth most trademark applications in FY06 -- which happened to be four spots higher than Mr. Gates and Microsoft. I really would like to continue editing this page. I appreciate your help. Thanks. Wiki BHMoore 18:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. Not necessarily. Bill Gates has much more documentation to his name. Wikipedia requires documentation, difficult for a start-up company. I brought this here for consensus; I've made my position known, so now others need to chime in. (P.S. You may continue editing the article. Just don't remove the AFD notice.) - CobaltBlueTony 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Bad example. Bill Gates is absolutely notable in and of his own right (Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, richest person in America, countless secondary source interviews with him and articles written about him, etc.) Notability is not inherited up or down - Henry Ford is notable, but not every chairman of the Ford Motor Company is. SkerHawx 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete based on current web search and article. Could be persuaded if Wiki BHMoore's rewrite asserts notability and supports such through sufficient secondary sources. I would still be concerned, though, about violations of WP:COI given the uncanny similarity between "Barrett H. Moore" and the editor "Wiki BHMoore". SkerHawx 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More articles with Barrett H. Moore: http://www.ethicaledge.com/IraqSummit.pdf; 2004 Iraq Reconstruction Summit.

http://www.globalsecurity.bz/conferences/past_events/hgss/2004/index.asp; 2004 Homeland and Global Security Summit .

This is the first time I've tried to create a page for Wikipedia, and I didn't realize there was a major significance in the editor name you chose. I randomly selected that name so other people working at the company would have access to this and could edit it. Wiki BHMoore 18:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reading is fundamental!" :-) - CobaltBlueTony 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sovereign Deed about to launch protective services http://petoskeynews.com/articles/2007/07/06/news/news01.txt

National Relief Center Coming to Pellston http://www.tv7-4.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=45389

Sovereign Deed's mission: Training, educating, provisioning and communicating http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2007/09/05/news/news02.txt

Wiki BHMoore 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070219427.html Wiki BHMoore 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• speedy delete This now qualifies for speedy deletion. The article is one sentence with non-source sources and the author has blanked the page. B1atv 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G7, A1, and A7. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:50, 2 October 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, without deciding the issue of whether the article is to be merged and redirected. John254 00:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Carthy

John Carthy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Keep but definitely review for NPOV. The sources seem verifiable and numerous, and if the Barr Tribunal (a related article that should be AfD if this is) is to be believed, anything that you spend 18M Euros investigating is probably worth at least a stub. People have been working on this article since July 06; this is the first question of its notability? Deltopia 17:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and trim per Deltopia. I don't think it needs to go that in-depth and definitely needs to be edited for NPOV. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Barr Tribunal. We certainly don't need two articles and the government inquiry is more notable than the death itself. (But get that 19th century novelist photo out of there.) -- Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Barr Tribunal as per Dhartung. Mountpottinger 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since the subject does appear to be historically notable and the article is well referenced I see no valid reason presented for deletion. Personal motives of the author do not affect my interpretation of WP:N and similar guidelines. Burntsauce 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it has 21 references. it should be getting an award not an AfD nom. MarsRover 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Article nominated by sockpuppet of banned editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Carthy has no notability apart from his death and the resulting inquiry. Clarityfiend 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Subject was the focus of intense non-trivial national media attention, as shown by the references in the article, and has thus surpassed the threshold of Notability - non-trivial coverage in several independent reliabel sources - many times over. Skomorokh ^incite 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect - The affair definitely should be in WP but a John Carthy article isn the right place for it. He isn't actually notable himself, but his death and the circumstances that led up to his death were. This is/should be covered in the Barr Tribunal article, not in an article about Carthy himself. ---- WebHamster 02:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Barr Tribunal, which was a specific investigation of this case. One article is enough. We'd normally prefer the impersonal heading, since the person has no notability otherwise. In any case, the amount of detail in here is disproportionate --kept or merged, it needs a sharp edit.DGG (talk) 09:06, 4 October 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 closed as keep enough significant coverage of the concept to make this not a neologism. No comment on renaming of the article as that is not a debate for AFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetris effect

Tetris effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Neologism. Endless Dan 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NEO: "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." There are reliable sources about the term. The paper "Stickgold, R., Malia, A., Maguire, D., Roddenberry, D., & O'Connor, M. (2000)", the Scientific American article, and the Wired article to name a few. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Arichnad. The sources presented are sufficient to sustain an article on the concept. JavaTenor 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Sounds like WP:NFT but appears legit. —dgies^t_c 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a perfect example of the kind of neologism that should be kept; it's well sourced, with enough material to write an interesting article around. Thomjakobsen 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hate to be a downer here, but I don't see evidence of this Neologism's use or acceptance in language. Needs reliable sourcing, the 4 given sources are inadequate. The first "reference" is an abstract (I'm not willing to buy the full article), but it's called "tetris dreams" and doesn't refer to anything as "the tetris effect" in the abstract, leading me to believe that it won't later on in the story. The second reference (Wired, 2005) never uses the phrase "Tetris Effect" either. The external links: Scientific American article doesn't say "Tetris Effect" anywhere. The only one of these 4 supposed sources that uses the phrase "Tetris Effect" is the Wired 1994 external link, hardly current and definitely not establishing WP:N. The phrase only appears once and in no way is doing so as establishing that "Tetris effect" is something even coined. The only GHit I got making heavy mention of "tetris effect" was this one, but I'm not sure of the sources reliability. Keeper | 76 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be justification for a move to whatever the SciAm article called it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

'SciAm calls it's article Tetris Dreams, but I would argue that they are not attempting to create a new idea. The are merely citing a very small Harvard study (17 subjects) that used Tetris as a medium for analyzing dream v. wake states and how "what we do" can have an effect on "what we dream" I would vote delete for Tetris Dreams as well. Keeper | 76 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Total neologism that probably wouldn't even survive being on Wiktionary, but regardless has no place here. Burntsauce 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Keeper76. Neologism, no valid references. Corvus cornix 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but possibly rename. This one's a problem. It's a real phenomenon, widely reported, and even used as a research tool (see here and here). As such it's deserving of an article. BUT - it hasn't yet gained a consistent scientific name, so any title we give it is going to constitute a neologism. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be sufficiently sourced, and with a quick search I found a few other references that appear to use the same term for the same purpose. Cogswobbletalk 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • After you make sure that these other references aren't parroting a neologism currently being popularized by Wikipedia, could you add them to the article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The SciAm article is from 2000, the Wired article from 1994, and the Rainier et al. study in "Brain Research" from 1992, so the sources in the article establish it's hardly a neologism. --Victor falk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree it's not a neologism. It hasn't even made that status yet, because the references don't even say, or rarely say, "tetris effect" in them. Keeper | 76 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There may be a place for an article on the confusion of actual and virtual reality, perhaps under Hypnagogic imagery , where this could be included as an instance, but there are insufficient references to support this term or this article. 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Rename or merge. The title is an unacceptable neologism (not used anywhere except in the Wired article), but the research itself seems legitimate enough. Perhaps it could be renamed into something like Uses of Tetris in neuroscience, :-) or merged as a short section of the Tetris article or in some relevant article on a scientific topic (I have no idea which one, though). --Itub 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever rename people decide on, this probably still has value as a redirect. —dgies^t_c 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to an appropriate location. Legitimate, well-sourced term, but it has to be very important to get an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not well-sourced at all, since the sources don't mention this term. Corvus cornix 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The sources prove it to be genuine and notable.--Bedivere 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources do no such thing, since this term is not even mentioned. Corvus cornix 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What term do the sources mention for this phenomenon? Might as well rename to Nameless learning phenomena associated with Tetris. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:11, 7 October 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 as WP:CSD#A7: web content with no assertion of notability. —dgies^t_c 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WKids

WKids (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A Google search finds nothing to support the claim that this is a real tv show. The external link provided goes to a picture with a child's drawing. It is of low wiki quality. It's time to delete it. Clerks. 16:15, 2 October 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. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan Feast

Orphan Feast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable flash game. Contested prod. Makes an unsourced claim to importance because the game's subject is cannibalism, so strictly speaking is not WP:CSD#A7. —dgies^t_c 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just another flash game like any other. Unless there is additional notariety that is not included in the article, this one should be nuked. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with BlindEagle, this is not notable at all. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "claim to importance because the game's subject is cannibalism"?!?--Bedivere 18:52, 7 October 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 csd a7 -- Y not? 04:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studley Darts League

Studley Darts League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Local darts league in England, recreated twice after speedy deletions (at Studley Darts League, Warickshire, England) by author, who has failed to provide requested reasons for notability. There are hundreds if not thousands of darts leagues in the UK, and there appears to be no reason why this one is any different. The single "claim to fame" is that a current high level player started his career in the league, but every player had to begin somewhere. 16 Ghits is all the league manages. пﮟмьεя 57 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't believe that this league is notable enough to warrant an article.--Danaman5 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Claims darts is important, and one member is important, but no claim that the league is important. —dgies^t_c 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Falis WP:N, not notable enough. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A non notable dart league. Supposedly, one player in the league is now ranked (by whom? Well, it doesn't mention that), but he doesn't play in the league anymore. If you played backyard football with Brett Favre, does that make your flag football league notable? --Cyrus Andiron 18:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cyrus Andiron. Definitely non-notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:44, 2 October 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 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Falling Frog

The Falling Frog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable YouTube video. Not every YT video needs a Wikipedia page. Deproded by author eaolson 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete again. I nominated this as a speedy a few days ago, and it still has no third-party assertion of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Just one of quite a large number of Youtube videos that some people have watched.--Danaman5 15:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Tons of YouTube videos have "many viewers". Non-notable subject and article appears to have been created for self-promotion. —dgies^t_c 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. This just seems to be one of many ordinary You Tube videos. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:WEB. STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:N; no third-party assertion of notability. Accounting4Taste 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Youtube video. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Obviously, this video is probably the greatest video ever made. How is it less notable than Numa Numa? Arogi Ho 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Claiming your own video is "the greatest video ever made"? Can you explain why anyone else should care about it? —dgies^t_c 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Come on guys this shouln't even discussed. an article for a youtube video??? Delete asap. -- Magioladitis 23:55, 5 October 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 05:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pax_Athenica

Pax_Athenica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a PublishAmerica-published novel, which is to say that by most standards it's self-published. I get 36 Google hits for the phrase "Pax Athenica"; of those, a number seem to be online book-sellers, more are Wikipedia mirrors, a couple are the blogs of the author and a friend of his, and one's the PublishAmerica site. With no offense to the author (who created the article, assuming that "Geoffreyg1978" = Geoffrey Greer), this seems straightforwardly nonnotable. Iralith 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This book appears to fail all five criteria for notability listed at WP:BN#Criteria. Cogswobbletalk 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like a bit of advertising puff to me Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of importance. Reads a bit like an ad and there's no real content besides a plot summary. —dgies^t_c 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PLOT and WP:SPAM. Very detailed plot summary should not be in WP; and just seems to be an advert anyway. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely fails WP:N, also may fail WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 20:55, 2 October 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. Jreferee t/c 06:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color Outside The Lines

Color Outside The Lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Massivly disputed prod. Issue is about sources, and WP:CRYSTAL. Procedural nom, no opinion UsaSatsui 15:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There is simply no valid source for this title: see my comments on Talk:Color Outside The Lines. There is plenty of verifiable information about the album, but that does not include the title. It could be moved to Ashlee Simpson's third album, but people will continue adding the rumors and renaming the page until a title confirmation is released, and constantly policing that is just senseless. There was a previous AfD nom on another supposed title for this album: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside of the Love. Everyking 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ashlee_simpson#Third_album. That way the rumors can be properly addressed and policed in one place. Rob T Firefly 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If and when a title for the third album is announced, an article should be created. Cogswobbletalk 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cogswobble - how can a future album be notable? Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Rob T Firefly's comment. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. Burntsauce 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me point out to everyone voting "merge and redirect" that there is nothing to merge—the verifiable content is already in Ashlee Simpson, and the unverifiable content doesn't belong anywhere. Everyking 02:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - eo 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is an unconfirmed title and the article should be created again when more information is announced. Surfer-boy94talk 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Ashlee Simpson's until we actually have the confirmed title, otherwise we are using this title per crystal-ball--JForget 22:58, 8 October 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. Sam Blacketer 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hakomi

Hakomi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There doesn't seem to be any sources on Hakomi independent of the Hakomi-ists themselves, making it impossible to write a balanced article on the topic. Alivemajor 21:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep. That problem should be reason for tagging the article with a maintenance tag, hardly proposing it be deleted. __meco 08:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment An article without any assertion of notability is ripe for a WP:Speedy delete under criterion A7. Instead of doing that, however, I pushed the google button and tried to find some WP:Verifiable sources. I found about 1600 pages on Hakomi itself, and I poked through a lot of them, looking for a mainstream, non-biased institution that had done research on the subject (hoping like hell for a Time or Newsweek article, and finding nothing). Finally, I found this link - [12] - a study program for "a diploma in integrative psychology (hakomi)" at the Eastern Institute of Technology in New Zealand. It doesn't look like a shady diploma mill, but we have no wiki article on the college, and it could have been founded by the Hakomi-ists, for all I know. Lacking any first-hand information on Hakomi or New Zealand itself, this was the best I could do -- hopefully someone else will be able to springboard from this. As of now, though, I say delete for WP:V. Deltopia 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable therapy technique. I have also nominated Ron Kurtz for deletion. Corvus cornix 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for possible soap-boxing, plus the lack of reliable sources, as shown by Deltopia Bfigura ^(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Changing !vote. See below --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the lack of third-party sources.--K.C. Tang 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Sources are available, but need to be integrated into article. Sources include many citations on google scholar. Search for "Hakomi" at Newsbank.com and about 60 results are returned. Here is a detailed google book reference, and there are many more. Worldcat includes sources. I will try to add as many sources as I can, but I am not an expert on this subject, can someone please help? Fosnez 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears there are indeed plenty of sources for this. • Lawrence Cohen 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article can be improved with regular editing including the sources as referenced above. Benjiboi 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep References now include a number of newspaper articles. The diploma Deltopia mentioned above is accredited by NZQA, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority - nothing shady about it. See NZQA summary and What the organization is accredited to deliver ('Diploma in Integrative Psychology' is a bit over halfway down the page). I don't know how to clearly reference this on the article page - can someone help with that? --Zeborah 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Changing !vote based on the references added. I'd be happier if some of the sources were more independent, since right now it seems a bit POV. However, notability is probably there given the academic publications. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 10 October 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, without prejudice to a new article being created with sources or content being recovered for merging (ask me). ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petroleum dependence

Petroleum dependence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While I think is great that we have so many articles about energy development and sustainability, this one is redundant with Petroleum, Nuclear power, and Fossil fuel. As it is now, it's simply a referenced essay by a user. By all means, a good article on this could exist, but I would prefer to do our readers a favor by moving the information to the main articles and eliminating the information spam on these subjects. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ah sorry, this was my first AfD, I'll get it right next time. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect: While this could be a good topic for an article, this one really is an essay on indirect consequences. If this were rewritten to be an examination of direct, proven direct effects of society's dependence on petroleum, I could see keeping it. Otherwise it probably makes sense to redirect to Non-renewable energy or North American energy independence and possibly merge a bit of the content there. —dgies^t_c 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Petroleum independence is a important affair. I suggest delete the pronuclear radiactive spam. --HybridBoy 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM, writes like an ad or essay. STORMTRACKER 94 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maintain. It includes references and sources and gives a global point of view that want be avoided by nuclear supporters. --Nopetro 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete - My main problem with this article is it's taking the basic info that (if it doesn't already exist in the relevant articles) could be merged into there - and then take away some of the conclusions being made here that IMO go one step further than an article about the subject should. As is, it's a bit essay-like. Barneyboo (Talk) 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is indeed an essay or advocacy piece not an encyclopedia article. As such it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I strongly doubt that we've found the right place for a redirect; the title may be better suited for a disambiguation page than a redirect. On the other hand, iff there are sources about this topic from a global perspective, it may be possible to write an article. But there is no evidence here or in the article that such sources exist. And this content will not be helpful for an encyclopedia article on the topic should such sources exist. GRBerry 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Obvious POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep - POV fork, but seems well-sourced. I can't delete this article, so can another admin to the dirty deed? Bearian 17:27, 11 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard King (Texas)

Richard King (Texas) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable page stub: farm owners are not notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The King Ranch is not a farm, it's the largest ranch in the United States, larger then the state of Rhode Island and a major subject in Texas history. Amazon carries at least 20 books on the King Ranch. The King Ranch was a dominant breeder of race horses for many years, including a triple crown winner, Assault. Total historical revenue of the King Ranch is well over one billion dollars; lots of that is oil revenue, but many millions are also from horse race winnings, the ranch won over a million dollars in the 2 years 1954/1955. The King Ranch is a signicant tourist attraction. Deleting this article would be like deleting the article on Peter Carl Fabergé because he was "just a jeweler". Studerby 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect King Ranch already contains a section on Richard King which appears to have more information that the nominated stub. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Change to keep based on recent edits Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect The King Ranch appears to be sufficient. Cogswobbletalk 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Support redirect since there seems to be more information at King Ranch about Richard King, than on the Richard King article itself. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. For heaven's sake he's such an icon somebody wrote a juvenile novel about his life. [13] Many, many sources about him available, excess information in King Ranch should be merged back here. --Dhartung | Talk 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to above If the nominated article can be beefed up (ha, no pun intended!) to acceptable standards (WP:BIO), I'll gladly withdraw my redirect. As far as my own searches could unveil, he's mostly famous for founding one of the biggest ranches. Not being rude, but it sounds like King Ranch is more well-known than Richard King (WP:NOTINHERITED) Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Much of the material about him in the King Ranch article is not about the ranch; it belongs here. His accomplishments include more than just setting up a humungous ranch and are notable enough IMO. Clarityfiend 06:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article expanded. Studerby 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite of article clearly establishes notability; significant figure in Texas history. Kuru ^talk 12:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He's a king in Texas. Ritametermaid 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP is a great place for self-education on new subjects, but it should come prior to nominating them for deletion. DGG (talk) 09:21, 4 October 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 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wang Kiu

Wang_Kiu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

one of thousands, who learned under Yip Man. Not important

Should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.230.86 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Needs many things to be a notable article. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced. One of many students. There doesn't seem to be anything to distinguish this one.--Sethacus 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sethacus. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 20:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No important informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.231.50 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuddle

Fuddle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability or sources offered in article. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't use the word in this sense. Contested prod. Contesting editor has added a reference to a Derbyshire dictionary -- this word may be more appropriate in a list of Derbyshire terms. Fabrictramp 15:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete sounds like a localism to me, and not at all what my North American (NJ) English dialect expects: [14]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I tagged this as patent nonsense. It was denied. I still think it's patent nonsense. --UsaSatsui 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It really doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. --Fabrictramp 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it does. That doesn't mean I'm right.  :) --UsaSatsui 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not a cromulent word. Rob T Firefly 15:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this term is real, it doesn't deserve an article. No assertion of notability. Cogswobbletalk 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently not related to Fuddle duddle, so no need for a merge or redirect. Possibly more appropriate to Wiktionary. Accounting4Taste 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wiktionary would send it right back with a post-it attached: "You think this belongs in a dictionary?" =) NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Has no place in an encyclopedia, just like Tetris effect. Burntsauce 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of other 'localisms' in Wikipedia, like Chav, Ned and even "Yo". There is also an article on thanks giving which is a localism to north america and not relevant in the rest of the world, how is this any different??. User:Bmoyni 09:30, 3 October 2007 (BST)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Rob T Firefly 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The main argument for deletion here is that its a 'localism', I am mearly pointing out that this is not an argument for deletion. User:Bmoyni 15:47, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

Thanksgiving is a major American holiday. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, then I would have said "keep". Cogswobbletalk 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So it can only get into Wikipedia if it is "major"? I thought the idea of an Encyclopedia was that it gives people information on items that are not widely known!! User:Bmoyni 15:44, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

Bmoyni compared "Fuddle" to "Thanksgiving". I simply pointed out that this comparison isn't even remotely accurate. If "Fuddle" was a major English holiday, I would have said "keep". If "Fuddle" was an Oscar winning movie, I would have said "keep". In other words, if there appeared to be a valid argument for keeping it, I would have said "keep". Cogswobbletalk 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument is it's a localism that does not assert it's notability. If it were a localism which spread into wide-use, it would no longer be a localism, but a neologism or some other -logism, which would still need to be notable. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources that fuddle is used in the manner presented, then I'll strike my delete. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the reference. User:Bmoyni 16:16, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

I have, and what I saw was a list of non-notable local slang. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely the definition of slang is that its non-notable, otherwise it wouldn't be slang! The reference proves that it is used in the context that the page suggests. User:Bmoyni 16:21, 3 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

Many slang words have taken on notability. warez d'oh are two that strike me. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. User:Bmoyni 11:53, 5 October 2007 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.210.61 (talk)

I'm unsure of your rebuttal. You're raising the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS flag without context. Does that mean you argue for the existence of this article because other stuff exists, or that your rebuttal is focused on my two examples above? The two examples I cited are well-sourced outside of WP, but so far, a single source has been brought forth for this nominated article. For what it's worth, undue weight appears to address the fact that an extremely limited source of information has been brought to verify the nominated article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the argument wasn't "Other stuff exists, so this should exist too". It was "This is not necessarily non-notable because has this quality, because other things with this quality are notable". There's a difference. --UsaSatsui 20:17, 5 October 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. Jreferee t/c 06:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08

Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Per WP:NOT (quite an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a football statistics repository) and the additional fact that this article is partially a duplicate of Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. Angelo 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete duplicates info already on wikipedia in Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. King of the North East (T/C) 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Propose replacing article with a redirect to Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. - PeeJay 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It does not duplicate the information, it expands upon it. This is a perfectly acceptable fork. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The additional information is merely a list of past and future matches, including friendly match reports which were previously considered non-notable by the Football WikiProject. In any case, all this amount of information is way excessive detail (WP:NOT) and does not add any significance to the parent article, so there's no need at all to keep it. --Angelo 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see anything about it on said Wikiproject's notability page. --UsaSatsui 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• That page does not cover the issue. You can find something about importance of non-competitive matches in the WikiProject talkpage archives. Here is one. --Angelo 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• ...I don't see any consensus on notability there either. So far haven't seen a single valid reason for deletion, except for it's maybe an indiscrminate colection of info. --UsaSatsui 16:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect - even the season article is overkill in my opinion, but precedent has seen these AfD many times, so redirect is the next best option. This could probably have been done without recourse to AfD. - fchd 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reason why the info couldn't be incorporated into Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season. пﮟмьεя 57 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This page Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08 includes all info about matches like goalscorers ,actins (yel,red card), time of each events as we do in {{footballbox}}. All of this info are linked with Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season by (Report) sectin. So, look to each pages, you will find that info in Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08 complete with matches' report. thanks Saudi9999 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note Saudi9999 is the article's original creator and main editor ChrisTheDude 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Basically delete. Not really needed as a redirect. The amount of info expanded upon isn't even that much - goal scorers & times - but even so, that in itself is overkill. A sports wiki would be a much better place for such an article, not Wikipedia. I'm fine with the season article, but a list of matches is a bit too much, really. An article for the individual competitions w/ results listed isn't too much trouble, surely... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:IINFO. There's so much information in the article to the point that it's not relevant. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Real Madrid C.F. 2007-08 season is more than enough, and to be honest, I think these season articles have been the thin end of the wedge such that more and more recentist articles are being created about every possible aspect of a season. Soon it will get down to the level of people arguing for articles for each and every league match. Let's concentrate on quality articles, not just making wikipedia an almanac of what's happening this season. Robotforaday 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It's stupid to have n articles related with one unsignifiant season --Hadrianos1990

11:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per WP:NOT. -- Magioladitis 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unneccessary duplication. Woodym555 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Robotforaday. Oldelpaso 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect Wikipedia is not a schedule guide and score-stats board--JForget 23:01, 8 October 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 Darko Dimitrov. This deletion does not affect User:Darkodimitrov. User pages need to be sent to MfD for deletion. Jreferee t/c 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darko Dimitrov

Darko Dimitrov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

User:Darkodimitrov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This person is not notable per WP:MUSIC. The main assertions of notability are unreferenced. The only reference is to a peripheral point, viz. that one of his songs competed in the Eurovision contest. The user who created this page clearly has a conflict of interest based on his username; I consider his userpage for deletion alongside the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The song noted has made it to a national chart which is one of the criteria for notability in WP:MUSIC. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with comment I think the link in the article is misleading. It appears the song took 12th place in the Eurovision contest, in which case he's not notable per WP:MUSIC, unless I'm missing something. In fact, the article Elena Risteska confirms this.--Sethacus 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral on main article but keep user page, which seems within the bounds of what is allowable.--Bedivere 18:55, 7 October 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. No arguments towards passing WP:FICTION, and redundancy. CitiCat ^♫ 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in Stargate

Characters in Stargate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Half-formed pointless page already long subsumed by an entire category of Stargate character (and race/culture, etc.) list articles. See {{StargateLists}}. Easily misleads editors into thinking that this is "the" WP article on this topic, when it is in fact not even a proper overview of the topic. And it is not even on a single topic, but mixes characters and character races/cultures as the same type of entry. Also named incorrectly (should be "List of...") The content in it should be merged as needed into the entries at the related lists of SG cultures, SG characters, etc. May also be wise to make it a redir to a disambiguation page at a more likely-to-be-sought name, probably List of Stargate characters with additional redirects to that from List of Stargate SG-1 Characters, etc., so that readers looking for such lists but who have yet to run into the navbox template mentioned above can more easily find them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep The article as it sits is problematic. Foremost is a misleading title, where I am presented not with characters, but with a racial overview with points to some of the characters of those races. Characters != races. This is a useful clearing house and there does not seem to be a single article which presents this information clearly. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Turn into disambiguation page. This article duplicates information that is already better covered in Aliens in Stargate, Human civilizations in Stargate SG-1 and Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis (plus a few more), so the information should be deleted as unnecessary. The title of the article however is so wiki-mainstream that it should be kept as a dab page portal. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the current Harry Potter (disambiguation) page. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and possibly rename. This page centralizes the information disperse on other pages, making it easier to navigate and understand. Perhaps it should be renamed and reworked a bit, but NOT deleted. --Andromeda 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Response: It does not "centralize" anything at all; it very, very poorly attempts to be a substitute for far richer articles. I agree with Sgeureka (and myself; I initially proposed this after all) that it can be replaced with a disambiguation page that directs people to the list articles that have already been developed. The entire page could easily fit in one screenful. The information at the page right now is 100% redundant with real articles on the relevant topics, and misleading to readers because it does not serve properly as a DAB page that directs them to the real articles (most readers would be lucky to notice that such articles even exist, as they have to read a small-font nav box to find them at all; converting this page to a DAB would solve that problem.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This in universe article provides no real world context, analysis, critisism or secondary sources to demonstrate notability for this character summary. --Gavin Collins 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The lack of reliable source material independent of Stargate keeps this topic from meeting the general notability guidelines. Since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines, the article cannot comply with Wikipedia's article standards, including WP:A. -- Jreferee t/c 17:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN, list of NN characters, from a sci fi show. People really need to start putting these massive pop culture databases on wikia. Also if we get rid of this there are a ton of other pages that should go List of Stargate lists. 19:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Tilde error by User:Ridernyc 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - subject adequately covered by Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis and Alien races in the Stargate universe.--Addhoc 19:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction & fantasy deletions --Gavin Collins 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Addhoc. SolidPlaid 02:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Addhoc. It's a duplication of efforts elsewhere. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:43, 12 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Brimelow

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}}

Jason Brimelow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person does not seem to satisfy any notability criteria.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is np inclusion anywhere of any british clinical scientists. The whole area of healthcare science is very vague, this is why i made an inclusion. It is by no means complete and there are external references and scientific publication references to add. I have no idea if im supposed to edit this bit, to add my comments, and i didnt mean to delete anything before..im new to this — he_devil He devil 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  — He devil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've placed your message in the correct place. The issue is whether this scientist is notable, and in this respect, I am sure he doesn't satisfy WP:NOTE. I also want to ask you whether you are Jason Brimelow, given the amount of time you have spent adding material about him. If so, this isn't really the way to do things. Also see Peter Medawar, and other names as a counter-example. If you have the material to establish notability, then please add it quickly, otherwise I see no reason to delay this article's deletion.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• i think its a very worthy entry. He is pretty famous in my field — Karen 82.33.227.210 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  — 82.33.227.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(moved again, for similar reasons to the first message.) If he is "pretty famous", then one should find it an easy task to immediately add various verifications and citations to back this up. See WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References as a pointer of how to do this. I do recommend speed here, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 14:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (as nominator of this AfD)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know if that is correct to vote to delete when the article was nominated by you? I do agree that it should be deleted, as I stated below, but still don't think there should be two votes by you, which I see this as being. Iamchrisryan 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My apologies. I wasn't sure what should be done here, as I recall seeing similar things done on other AfDs. But to make sure, I've deleted my opinion now. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. No references, barely even an article here. Iamchrisryan 14:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - perfectly worthy scientific career, but nothing to suggest notability (i.e. only a handful of Google hits, and no newspaper or book references findable). Gordonofcartoon 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• i have heard him speak at many national radiotherapy meetings since 2002 and i was also at the national total body irradiation seminar he chaired in 2006. Maybe you arent looking in the right places, medical physics is a small but worthy section of the community and just because you cant google him many times it doesnt mean he isnt worthy of a mention. To prove a point i followed his links earlier and googled curtis jobling, the creater of bob the builder, who went to his school. He doesnt have many mentions and is obviously deemed a mention — emma 81.109.208.21 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  — 81.109.208.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

On the basis of what we have here, he is non-notable. If you feel he is notable, then feel free to add the sources and citations that you think demonstrate this (it is not our job to do so if you think they are readily available, they would be better added by yourself. They would make good second and later edits to wikipedia by yourself.) Personal recollections just won't do here.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting similarity of typography between he_devil and these newcomers... Gordonofcartoon 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, i have included one or two links to his papers that i found very easily on google, call it a secondary edit as suggested earlier. They seem very worthy and interesting to me — Carlacoles Carlacoles 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  — Carlacoles (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Refactored, as the typical error is again committed by all these people supporting the retention of this article. The is comment and the addition of material on the article are the only edits of this user so far.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment : As of this morning, some material has been added that seem to be publications that Jason Brimelow has. As far as I can tell, this alone is not sufficient to establish notability (see WP:BIO criteria), although it might help. If it were sufficient, most university lecturers, past and present (in the UK) would qualify for an article, as would myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:PROF which seems to be the claim for notability, as a scientific researcher, one pub listed in ISI WoS (cited three times) that's no ground for a claim of notatbility. Pete.Hurd 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• i still think there are more worthless entries in here, maybe we need a subsection of medical physics then, if you insist on deletion? -- emma82.3.226.32 18:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC) — 82.3.226.32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There already are articles on medical physicists. Let us know when he gets credentials at the level of Walter Mauderli, Harold E. Johns, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Robert Roland Hughes, etc. Gordonofcartoon 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

so tell me about the inclusion of robert hughes and his son? what is the inclusion policy there? we are talking about modern day physicists here. I know jason was instrumental in the implementation of the 1996 IPEM electron code of practice throughout the UK, this work is shown in his entry. He has also provided guidelines to the IPEM regarding TBI and clinical audit, also provided in his entry. I know not much about his earlier work in oceanography other than that shown in his references but clearly he is a scientist of good repute and is known throughout the physics and medical physics community. It seems here that scientists are only added if they have recieved major awards yet others such as footballers simply are added because they have played professionally. This guy is a professionally registered scientist so whats the differnce between this entry and say the entry for the footballer carl cort? -- emma82.3.226.32 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And I have no idea what "professionally registered scientist" means. -- Satori Son 23:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And sorry, emma, if you want to impersonate an independent user, you really need to work on your grasp of capitalisation and apostrophes. Gordonofcartoon 00:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, emma, if you think that this information establishes notability, then, if it can be verified by appropriate citations and references, it should be added to the article and this will inform the debate. The fact that you have not done this, despite it being mentioned before, indicates that such verification may well not exist. Notability cannot be established by an affirmation by some editor. Your and your fellow editors' contributions here would be better spent searching out and adding the relevant information (if it does exist) than making comments here that also indicate that you may not have grasped how wikipedia requires notability to be established, or by making an attempt to link this deletion with another one (see this diff.) As Satori Son pointed out, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Incidentally "registered scientist" presumably means he is a member of some professional body, possibly involving a chartering process run by some body of the UK (see Professional qualifications in the United Kingdom.) This will also not be sufficient to establish notability, because enormous numbers of people will have these qualifications (over 10000, certainly, in the case of the British Psychological Society, and the Royal Statistical Society alone, which I know about.) What would help would be references in verifiable sources that refer to Jason Brimelow, but which are not by him, and which are not simply flyers for talks or seminars by him. Those would be a good starting point, but, again, not intrinsically sufficient by themselves. That so much effort has now been exerted and no such sources have been forthcoming rather seems to strangthen the idea that he is not notable according to the requires wikipedia has.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It fails notability. -- Magioladitis 23:59, 5 October 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. Jreferee t/c 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum consciousness and ion channels

Quantum consciousness and ion channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article reads like a research paper, possibly copied from somewhere. Delete. (Contested proposed deletion.) - Mike Rosoft 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. If someone sources it, then it needs a rewrite. ILovePlankton^(L—s) 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because of our policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Knowing something about quantum theory and ion channels, I can tell you that there is no well-established connection between the two. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one's claiming that there is a well established connection. The article is at some pains to distinguish between conventional/experimentally based neuroscience and a hypothesis re: coherence in the ion channels that Bernroider et al felt justified in making on the back of these. Persephone19 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OR. Article is sourced now, but appears to be an original synthesis from primary sources. eaolson 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidance on original synthesis is fairly clear. Source A and Source B should not be stuck together to produce C which is an original synthesis. This has not happened in this case. The main sources are Bernroider and Sisir. The next layer of sources refer to the ion channel studies and also various works on quantum computing. They are all in Bernroider/Sisir's reference list and it is they who have synthesised these works into a hypothesis about quantum coherence in the ion channels. Other references merely back up conventional material as with Dennett and Crick and three standard text books, while Tegmark is there in the interests of neutrality. You can look at the Bernroider material to see that it isn't copied, their stuffs much more complex.

Its more difficult to know what to do about the claim that it reads like a research article. I'd be quite happy to redraft in another style but I'm not sure what to aim for. Clearly the fairly difficult nature of the material, the need for referencing and the requirement to keep reminding people of what the opposing views are create a lot of constraints on style. Persephone19 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above, OR. • Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The staggering bad faith shown by those claiming that this is original research is astounding. The article desperately needs to be wikified and copy edited, but the claims that this is original research or unsourced are completely and totally ignorant. Read the article (for some, this may be the first time); Look at the numbers (sometimes they're ranges of numbers) that appear in parentheses in the article; a single number is a single reference, multiple numbers separated by a hyphen are pointing to many different references. Look at the References section at the bottom of the article, where you'll find the references, conveniently numbered, that correspond to the references cited in the article. For the benefit of those who are of the rather large school of thought that believes that anything you haven't head of is "pseudoscience", take a gander at a Google News Archive search on "quantum consciousness" which finds a few dozen sources from newspapers nationwide. There are far many more articles, for the layperson and in scholarly publications, and dozens of books published on the subject. Alansohn 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• deletemerge (changed opinion see below) The article rests on the claim made in the first sentence, (reads in part "recent proposals from a number of scientists(26-31)" which are supported by references 26 to 31 (listed below), all "papers" by Gustav Bernroider. None of these papers have ever been cited in the ISI World of Science, none of the titles generate a single hit in the ISI World of Science title search, similarly a WoS search of "Quantum consciousness" AND "ion channel" in the topics generates zero hits. The journals "Forma" and "Neuroquantology" are webjournals not indexed by the ISI (but have Gustav Bernroider on the editorial board. I note that the journal Forma (references 27 & 31) is not peer reviewed per se, but papers are judged by members of the editorial board, "many of whom are engaged in research fields far from the topics of the submitted papers"(!?)), and I'm reluctant to treat them as primary peer-reviewed literature without knowing more about the journals (I note that many of the statements in reference 27 are italiziced for emphasis and end with exclamation points e.g. "Ion permeation is a quantum-chemical process! the same difference as predicted by the present dimensional analysis between the quantum scale and the action order behind spiking!", "the same difference as predicted by the present dimensional analysis between the quantum scale and the action order behind spiking!" which is highly unusual for scholarly publications.
  

References 26 & 28 are conference proceedings. Correct pages for 26 is Vol. 5841:205-214, the term "quantum conscience" appears nowhere in the full text of reference 26, or in the full text of 27. Reference 29 is not 2:pp.163-8, as the article claims, it is 1:163-8 (and the work "experience" is spelled correctly in the journal). My university does not have access to this journal (a bit unusual) so I know nothing about it's contents, but note that google scholar says it's been cited a mere three times (once by Bernroider). The most prestigious looking journal reference to buttress the introductory sentence is "Dimensional analysis of neurophysical processes" Physical Review E,61:4194 (only cited once, by Benroider himself, according to Google Scholar), but the reference must be wrong, since another article is at that location (hint: see reference #37) and a search of Physical Review E for either the title given, or the name "Bernroider" generates no hits.

26) Bernroider,G.& Roy,S.(2005) - Quantum entanglement of K+ ions, multiple channel states and the role of noise in the brain - SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) Vol. 5841

27) Bernroider,G.& Roy,S.(2004) - Quantum-classical correspondence in the brain: scaling, action distances and predictability behind neural signals - Forma,19,pp.55-68

28) Bernroider,G.& Summhammer,J.(2007) - The role of quantum cooperativity in neural signaling - Quantum Mind 2007: Conference abstracts

29) Bernroider,G.(2003)- Quantum neurodynamics and the relationship to conscious expereince - Neuroquantology,2:pp.163-8

30) Bernroider,G.(2000) - Dimensional analysis of neurophysical processes - Physical Review E,61,pp.4194

31) Bernroider,G.et al (1996) - Neural phase time coding from the view of the electrodynamic pertubation problem - Forma,11, pp.141-159 references

In summary, I can find no evidence that this a notable theory, rather this seems clearly a WP:FRINGE theory using wikipedia as a soapbox. Pete.Hurd 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Pete.Hurd. At best this seems to be the viewpoint of a tiny minority, and as such it is not notable enough for wikipedia. Tengfred 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pete.Hurd. Exceptionally committed comment! Eusebeus 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I reply mainly to Peter Hurd on a few points. The other scientists referred to at the begining of the article are Bernroider's collaborators, Sisir Roy and Johann Summhammer, who are in the references and also Menas Kafatos.

You are right about the Physical Review reference. It was listed next to Tegmark's Physical Review reference in Bernroider's reference list and I got it down incorrectly. I will alter this in a moment.

As a general comment on your analysis of the references, I think we should take account of 'Wikipedia Verifiability -guidance on sources. As one would expect peer-reviewed journals top the list but they are not the only sources suggested. Books from university presses, university level text books and academic publications other than those that are peer reviewed are also 'highly valued'. With respect to this Bernroider is at the Neurodynamics & Neurosignalling Unit, University of Salzburg and Sirir Roy at the Indian Statistical Institute.

'Using a Wikipedia as a soapbox' is a reference to neutrality. Any reading of the article will demonstrate that it clearly emphasises (with references) that Bernroider's is not a mainstream view and along with the reference to Tegmark it highlights decoherence at a particular problem to quantum consciousness theories,and indicated the abscence of any experimental evidence that Bernroider's proposals surmount the decoherence objection 82.36.240.102 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the above should be signed. Persephone19 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Tengfred, I would point out that Wikipedia has for some time had a Quantum Mind article, as well as articles on related theories notably Orch OR, quantum brain dynamics and the ideas of David Bohm. Ion channels is put forward as an addition to these long established articles. I don't think its controversial to say that Bernroider's model is sufficiently different from the others, and those from one another to justify separate articles. As it stands Bernroider's material contains much less blue sky speculation than those quoted above. Persephone19 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced, it is a fringe theory that probably passes WP:FRINGE. But the article is stuffed with twinkie references (it's still not clear to me how many of refs 26-31 actually support the first sentence, many are clearly parenthetical to the point) and looks to me to have COI / balance issues on top of the lack of wikilinking etc. Some of the references support the material, while other seem to be essentially WP:SYN. Other references merely document trivial statements (e.g. references 5, 6, & 7) and seem intended to puff up the number of references -which impresses some AfD !voters- and ought to be simply replaced by wikilinking to articles such as ion channel and action potential. I support merging Quantum brain dynamics and Quantum consciousness and ion channels into Quantum mind as long as the material in this article is trimmed of excess and off-point references. I think that'll make Quantum mind into a better article as well, all three articles are short, and will make more sense if presented together for comparison and contrast purposes. (changing my !vote above) Pete.Hurd 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that expansion of Quantum Mind, may be the best answer. It's a daunting prospect. Forgetting Bernrroider, there are atleat four main approach, QBD, Stapp, Orch OR and Bohm's implicate order. Separately, it may be necessary to say something about the whole decoherence argument and something about quantum computing. Also the Quantum Mind discussion page does not suggest a great deal of consensus. However, I did say on their page that I might try to add something. Persephone19 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as WP:SYNTH, but not as WP:OR, so should not be salted, and terribly in need of an expert's attention. The cite list needs to be [[WP:V|verified as well. Bearian'sBooties 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this synthesis discussion higher up on the page. The article is about one set of ideas. It is the authors of those ideas who have called on the support of other peer reviewed experimentation. The article is not very long. If you think you have an example where the editor has synthesised two third parties give the relevant examples and the article will be altered. Persephone19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A hoax or non-notable pseudoscience. This article cites some good scientific papers about ion channels, but they have nothing to do with "Quantum consciousness". BTW, this article does not really explain what "Quantum consciousness" is.Biophys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the University of Salzburg site to see that this is based on genuine material. I've just added the link for that. As for other some other quantum consciousness theories the widely touted pseudoscience label is incorrect. It is perfectly feasible to falsify the whole thing by demonstrating the abscence or at least non-detectability of quantum coherence in the brain. The normal definition of pseudoscience is that it is incapable of being falsified, i.e. 'the Face on Mars was put there by aliens.' But, yes, a para. defining quantum consciousness might be useful. Persephone19 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Quantum consciousness sounds like the thoughs proposed by Roger Penrose in his book The Emperor's New Mind. If that is what the article is about, then it's certainly not OR Rune X2 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Perhaps there is such thing as "Quantum consciousness" (aricle does not explain what it is), but it has nothing to do with ion channels.Biophys 18:56, 8 October 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. Jreferee t/c 06:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaci Starr

Kaci Starr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). Epbr123 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:PORNBIO ILovePlankton^(L—S) 12:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- as mentioned above already, this doesn't meet criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Iamchrisryan 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Magioladitis 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong technical keep. WP:PORNBIO was merged into Wikipedia:Notability (people) so the question is does she meet that criteria. Vegaswikian 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Can't see that she's sufficiently notable.--Bedivere 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP due to the merger, all porn AFD should be re-listed to establish consensus under the correct policy. Granted, consensus wasn't established prior to the merger, but let's pretend it matters. Horrorshowj 07:29, 8 October 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 - Consensus agrees that the blackbeltcombat.tripod.com site posts copies of sufficient reliable source material for the topic to meet the General notability guideline. -- Jreferee t/c 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced commando combat system

Advanced commando combat system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advert. Almost a speedy but not blatant enough. Done minor cleaning but would need sourcing of notability claims to be worth keeping. Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. -- Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Needs secondary, verifiable sources. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and source-able [15]. JJL 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and source-able. Dear Friends The ACCS is a well respected system of military martial arts popular with Indian Army. It appears that there is a group of individuals who are biased towards it and keep recommending it for deletion. The website www.commandocombat.com or http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com stands testimony to the fact that : (A) This art has received official appreciation of the Indian Army chief ( Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id59.html ) (B) This art has been received by many special forces like Garud, Para, Delta, Counter Terror forces, National Security Guard (Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id56.html ) (C) ACCS has received many acknowledgements, Trophies & awards from Special Forces (Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id132.html) (D) The founders have been endorsed by State Intelligence department (Ref- Scan Letter http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id60.html ) ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE OFFICIAL SCANNED DOCUMENTS FROM INDIAN FORCE HQS and not personal advertisements as may be alleged. So the proposition that this page sounds like an advertisement needs to be corrected. Most organizations promoting Krav Maga donot have letters from top brass of government forces other than from sergeants and Police. ACCS has scanned letters from Chiefs of Army Staff in 2001, 2003 and also a letter endorsing it from the present Indian Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor while he was Army commander of most significant command (Ref- http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id114.html ) Wikipedia must refrain from highlighting seargents who harp about their "new" systems derived from known systems like BJJ and Wikipedians must open their mind to newer systems gaining ground with second largest army in the world. -- Regds Col Sharma (retd) Indian Special Forces —Preceding Teacherpreacher 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC). (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Teacherpreacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com is a site promoting the UCCA which offer courses in ACCS and implies that it is the only organisation allowed to do so, it is there for a primary source. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, but http://blackbeltcombat.tripod.com/id53.html indicates that there are many secondary sources--in The Indian Express (18 June 200?), the Sunday Express (3 July 2005), etc. JJL 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree on that, some of those are about the UCCA teaching other things than ACCS (JKD for example). If kept needs some work on the tone as it is promotional currently. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I have now signed the above article, penned by me, sorry I was not aware Regds Col Sharma Teacherpreacher 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

• Keep - notable and source-able The following link highlights the achievements and sources of various citations received in their endeavor. http://jkdmumbai.tripod.com/id38.html [16] These articles are in National Newspapers, National & International TV like BBC, NBC, Canadian TV, etc. & also various magazines. Righead 5:18 PM, Thursday, October 04, 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC) — Righead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note This comment is the above users only contribution. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• What has that got to do with the subject discussion? - Righead —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:29, 11 October 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 Non-admin keep--Bedivere 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VID (TV Company)

VID (TV Company) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was speedied by Tregoweth (talk · contribs) a few days ago but although the article is in pretty bad shape I think it's salvageable. The "Logo" section reads like OR but it does seem to talk about a genuine part of Russian pop-culture. Pascal.Tesson 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per Pascal.Tesson ILovePlankton^(L—S) 12:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not to say the article as it exists should not be cleaned up, of course, but VID is a notable company that should have an article about it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not sure if it still exists, but back in the early 1990s it was very notable. Colchicum 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:35, 4 October 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. Although article was stripped down to a single statement, the remnant still fell short of verifiability. --Aarktica 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII

Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The page has existed since 18 November 2005, in that time not one reference has been cited despite the use of template:Fact some of which have been on the article for more than six months. If in the future new information from a reliable source is found, then the article can be recreated citing the new sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The talk page Talk:Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII and specifically these sections: Rename? (May 2006 ) This article is actually a disaster (Jul- Aug 2007) explain why others two think it should be deleted.

Note also there is already a much better article called Attacks on North America during World War II which covers similar ground to this article but is a better name for what actually happened. As one contributor to the talk page says "The topic is fascinating along the lines of a "what-if". Undoubtedly, there were small teams inside Japan, Germany and (perhaps) Italy brain-storming further plans had things gone extremely well for them, most of which were likely impractical & would never have been actually presented for consideration, let alone implemented". If someone comes up with one of more reliable sources to cover these contingency plans then the article can always be recreated relying on those sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I know this has been written about and there are sources, and if I can tomorrow I'll go look for some. The framing of the article is problematic, as there is a world of difference between "plan" and "intent" and "capability". The saying goes that the Pentagon has a plan for invading Canada somewhere in a desk drawer, and of course there were dozens of plans for invading Iraq over the years using different means. Germany's military certainly had "plans" for attacking and/or invading the US and there were "plans" for creating Roman-style colonies across Eastern Europe (the areas needing "Germanization") and there were "plans" for divvying up South America into occupation zones (Ian Fleming, I think, obtained a map). But intent was never quite there and capability in logistical terms not even close. On the other hand some of Germany's technology, such as the V-2, obviously had eventual uses in mind, and there was the Amerika Bomber project (mainly on paper). Finally, we have the angle the article doesn't even touch on, which is exaggerated American fears of a Nazi invasion. For now-quotidian reasons (production capacity, etc.) it was never a serious consideration; after a certain date sometime between June 1940 and December 1941 the tipping point was already reached and Germany could only have won in the long run if they'd settled for some sort of temporary European hegemony and bided their time. So the fears were never justified. (Some would argue they were just as unjustified during the Cold War; see Red Dawn et al.) But the fears were real and continue to be part of the lore and mythos of the war, that we had to "stop" Hitler before that happened. Anyway, I'm more confident than you that there's available citable material and that there's notability (i.e. not just wargeek wankery). I'd like to see this article reflect that. And yes, this is separate from the actual attacks article, which is "real" history as opposed to "what-if". There's a relationship but not so close that this belongs in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep if sourced. I gave a superficial try online without much success., but it needs a more thorough searchDGG (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• If cited sources had been provided this would be an obvious keep, but non have been provided in 2 years of the articles existence despite {{fact}} requests. To give example of the problems with this article: At the moment paragraphs like this "(Fall Felix) and Operation Sealion, planned the occupation of Ireland and Operation Ikarus, would have provided some support bases for installing the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine infantry seaborne or Luftwaffe Airborne forces for the invasion." fall foul of WP:NOR, first there are no sources for the facts "Operation Ikarus" and the assertion that they would have been bases for an invasion of the USA. As I said above if it is deleted and someone comes along with new references that can be used for an article with citations then it can be recreated. But as it stands at the moment if the uncited material was deleted it would be a blank article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep', but a complete overall. I mean there's no sources for this? I've seen like two different History Channel docs on it. This is a total disaster of a page, but it shouldn't be deleted entirely Doc Strange 16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• But there is not one paragraph that carries a citation. There is nothing to keep. As I said above if in the future someone writes an article that is properly sourced on this subject then it can always be recreated, but currently it does not meet the criteria of a notable article -- if it did there would be third party sources available to include as citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep... providing that it is sourced correctly. -- Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can I take that to mean that if there are no verifiable cited reliable sources before the end of the AfD process, then you would be in favour of deleting it? If not how long should an article go without cited sources before it is deleted? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep concerns a major historical topic during our planet's most terrible war that even the History Channel had a program on. See this forum for some additional discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Forums are not reliable sources --Philip Baird Shearer 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Books have also been written on the topic: TARGET: AMERICA Hitler's Plan to Attack the United States] and the forum just reaffirmed my memory of the History Channel having a show on the topic. One thing I will say is that the article should be renamed to not have the WWII abbreviation, i.e. Axis plans to invade the United States of America during World War II would be more formal. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When an editor has such a book and wants to write the article then good luck to them, but if by the end of this AfD process no cited references have been provided this article should be deleted because a blank page is not desirable. Or are you suggesting that we should keep text in Wikipedia that has no references because in the words of Jimbo Wales quoted on WP:V:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I did "hear it somewhere", but I also wrote a Pol.Sci. primary course paper on the frequent assertion that Japan was not a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. in the run-up to Pearl Harbor. (Uh, my position was neutral to skeptical. Many of my sources differed.) I am not against pruning the article, but a good portion of it can be sourced, as I wrote above. --Dhartung | Talk 19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, per above. Notable topic. — RJH (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sink to the bottom of the ocean, like any axis invasion without help from UFOs would have been, as anybody with the slightest inkling of military logistics understands (which one would presume includes the Axis general staffs). Attacks on North America during World War II are one thing (and the the nominated article is nothing but a sub-par duplicate of it), invasions another. Weapons like the Amerika Bomber or the Maiale midget submarines are not an invasion plan in themselves. Or did the US invade Japan in 1942 through the Doolittle raid? Those visions of fallschirmsjägers paradropping in Vermont or kamikazes smuggled through the Mexican railroad network via Clipperton are nothing but unhinged hallucinations.--Victor falk 12:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above if someone comes up with a reliable source and can create an entry something like this "From December 1941 until June 1943 when the German high command shelved it, Major Maier and his staff worked on a contingency plan to invade the US via Siberia and Alaska" (J. Smith (1995) "Nazi contingency planning and all that", academic press, ISBN ...), then there would be a case for keeping it. But at the moment there is nothing like that in the article so it can be deleted until such time as that sort of information becomes available. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Somewhere in my political science notes from decades ago is where the professor discussing the Nazis dealt with what would have followed a victory over Britain and Russia. He said that no immediate invasion of the U.S. was likely or necessary. Instead, the Axis would economically dominate the U.S. in trade with the rest of the unconquered world,during a cold war of some duration, while exploiting the colonies of the conquered European powers in Africa, Central America and the Carribbean towards eventual preparation of bases in the Americas for attacking or dominating the U.S. Perhaps the Reich had a file drawer full of plans for which railroad bridges the German paratroopers would seize to allow troops to cross the Mississippi from Mexican bases, or where the amphibious landings would be from their eventual bases in the British Carribean possessions. The U.S certainly had 20th century plans for attacking Mexico and Canada, and for defending against combinations of Mexican-Canadian-Japanese-German-British forces. The one book and the History Channel seem to appeal to the popular imagination with improbable long-range high-tech direct assault from Europe, rather than a cross-Atlantic convoy like the one which went East from the U.S to invade North Africa in 1942. In other words, Axis invasion prospects for invading the Americas and ultimately the U.S. were a concern of WW2 U.S. leaders. General Leslie Groves was reportedly recruited to the Manhattan Project with the promise that even if the Japanese and Germans conquered the rest of the world including Canada and Mexico, that the U.S. could still win if he succeeded in building atomic bombs. So keep this, prune it of unsourced speculation, reference it to at least the book , and find more historical documents. There had to at least be Axis propaganda books and films showing their ultimate conquest of the U.S. for public consumption. Edison 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• If we prune out all the unsourced information as it stands at the moment we will end up with one factual sentence about WWII: "Although Hitler declared war on the United States of America on 11 December 1941". Better to delete it and when an editor comes along with a reliable source the article can be re-created --Philip Baird Shearer 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't mean to be flippant, but the article's title (and topic) is "...in WWII", not "...in a contra-factual post-WWII scenario". I could vote "weak keep" to that myself too.--Victor falk 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Cleanup or Delete The article seems to have only minor sourcing, so I'd suggest a major cleanup, removing unsourced information. If that leaves the article without sufficient relevant information, or if the cleanup is not performed in a timely manner, I'd suggest deletion CharonX/talk 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to concepts for attacks as precise plans for a full scale invasion (as the cancelled Operation Sealion) is the wrong word, dreams might fit better in that regard. The whole matter is notable as such, so we should keep as overview article that should link to the weapons or persons involved, then cleanup by moving details into these articles, in order to be discussed and referenced there, or dismissed as hoax. I'm not sure about merging such an overview into Attacks on North America during World War II as we want to keep done deeds apart from failed attempts, abandoned preparations and pure proposals. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. — Matthead ^discuß!     O       18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, merge some content to... the article about actual attacks as a blurb on plans for more. I stand by what I said before, the article is a disaster:

Japanese plans should be cut entirely, I can probably find sources to back me up that they had planned on a quick strike at Pearl Harbor concurrent with a land grab betting on America to sue for peace right away. They were so sure we wouldn't fight that they went a bit beyond their initial plan. IF Midway had turned out differently, they MIGHT have targeted Hawaii.

Then there's the assertion that Japan would have attacked America around the end of WWI to help Germany. Japan and Germany weren't to chummy at the time, Japan having relieved Germany of all territory in the Pacific, for example Truk.

Italian plans section has 1 ref to Nazi Uboat attacks on the East Coast, but none about Italian plans discussed in the rest of the section. Anynobody 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Has a few sources, and the topic is notable. Unless it is shown to be full of hoax info or some terrible bias, just tag it with 'refs needed' and similar templates.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is just too much unverified material in this article. Once that has been deleted, its non-viable. --Gavin Collins 08:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is now 2 days since this AfD was made. Several editors have said that they can/will add citations, but so far the only one we have for a fact is that Hitler declared war on the USA. We also have one from a book entitled "What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been". There are two others. One for a First World War plan and the second (from a non reliable source) covers attacks by a U-Boats (not an invasion) on New York harbour. This subject is already covered in Attacks on North America during World War II#U-Boat operations. If this is a notable subject there should be several books and scholarly articles (reliable sources) and Wikipedia editor who know enough about the subject to put in some more reliable sources. At the moment if all of the unsourced material is removed there is not enough left for this to be even a stub of an article: see User:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand box. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - heavily edit down the article to the referenced parts even if this leaves the article as a stub. Perhaps some edittors from [[WP:MILHIST] can keep an eye on the article to prevent a rebloom of unreferenced additions. -- Whpq 16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is less than a stub because the introduction assertion is not referenced, nor is the introduction a summary of the rest of the article, so what do you suggest we do in this case? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unless there this a major rework, with getting all the speculations out, and adding reliable sources. But I really doubt that there will be much left afterwards, so just delete it. Cheers, MikeZ 13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with reservation -- certain articles, such as this one, are interesting SPECULATIONS and should be labeled as such to facilitate discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.55.219 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Piotrus above. It is not unlikely that there were plans -- & to say otherwise would fall into the logical trap of attempting to prove a negative. However, there has been lots of speculation over exactly what these plans were, far more than whatever evidence of them exists; this is a subject that has fascinated Americans since the 1940s. Deletion would seem, in effect, to send the message that this topic is not notable; perhaps stubbifying the article -- or reducing it to a paragraph (I could furnish a couple examples of "Axis plans for the invasion ofthe US in Popular Culture") -- would be a better choice. -- llywrch 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

to date not one reliable source about any Axis invasion plans of the USA has been included in the article. I have now removed all the paragraphs and sections that did not have citations. I have not yet removed the lead but it does not have a source to support it. As I said above if there were contingency plans for the invasion of the US (and most major armed forces have contingency plans for every eventuality) then when someone comes up with a reliable source that documents them we can recreate this article. But at the moment there are NO RELIABLE SOURCES at all in this article to justify keeping it. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete but allow for recreation. Even if no sources of the actual plans exist, even if no plans to invade were ever made, the newspapers at the time and various media to the present day have commented on the idea of the planned invasions. Citations can be found for the speculation. SolidPlaid 02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:PROVEIT, part of Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Among other things it says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." what you are suggesting is against Wikipedia policy. In the 7 days that this AfD, has been open -- and as you can see above it has been very widely advertised -- not one reliable source that could be used to write a summary introduction for an article stub has been presented. Wikipedia policies are quite clear that if no sources can be found there should not be a Wikipedia article about it. Of course if someone comes up with verifiable reliable sources then article can always be recreated. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. SolidPlaid 22:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable. If there are sources, and someone has the initiative to get them, they can recreate the article. As it stands right now, the article is less than a stub. The section about Germany is one line, and only states that Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec. We don't need another article to tell us this. The section on Japan deals with pre-WWI plans, not WWII, and a vague statement that Hawaii could be used to stage attacks on the west coast of the US. Parsecboy 11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. (I was requested to state my opinion here). Today, 9 Oct 2007, I see no text contents whatsoever on the subject. I remember reading somewhere about the note on the offer to Mexico, but it's from WW1. Info seems to have been merged into Attacks on North America during World War II, and this is IMO a good decision. Maybe (if applicable) this can become a stub section in Attacks on North America during World War II, and the "References" could be moved from here to there? I've read a lot on the Axis - particularly Nazi Germany. I can't remember ever having stumbled upon anything significant regarding an invasion of US. From what I gather this was way, way, way down on the Nazi agenda (an interesting note - not a debunk though - is that Hitler in "Mein Kampf" implies that he does not seek war with UK or US - he considers the British to be dangerously stubborn fighters - and goes on with painting a picture of US as an ideal state, ranting on how wise they were to "take care" of the "Native American Question"). Nope - no firm German invasion plan comes to my mind - only a stub in another article :) . Last, but not least, the weak contribution over the years seems to say something about this issue, right? "Find it, then show it." My regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The topic is, without question, notable. Undoubtedly, there are sources which could document plans for the invasion of the continental United States (and Canada?) during WWII. However, the existing article consists of the date on which Germany declared war (Covered already in multiple articles), and a mention of the Zimmermann Telegram, which is already covered in depth in its own article. There is no remaining material for this article, so it should be deleted. As noted, I would have no objection to a properly sourced article on this topic - but the existing text is unsalvageable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Zimmerman Telegram was WWI - which is my point, it has no bearing on WWII in this context. Its existance does not prove or disprove the existance of similar plans during WWII - it just fudges up the issue, and should be removed. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:37, 9 October 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. A redirect is not necessary to preserve attribution history, as this article contained only an image and a table of population figures sorted by state name, and has never had anything else. There was no copyrightable content to be infringed here, and if there were, it would have been the property of the (unnamed) source both articles were created from. —Cryptic 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of states and territories of India (population, area, languages)

List of states and territories of India (population, area, languages) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant. The article name implies that it contains consolidated info about populace, area and languages, however, the article has info only about the population. This info is well-documented in List of states and territories of India by population. aJCfreak yAk 09:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant to the article listed above. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Both the articles were created by Dorfen, who made his/her last edit in 2004. utcursch | talk 10:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Keb25 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete - I agree with above, the article is redundant. Iamchrisryan 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and delete: To the extent any content in the AfD'd article can be merged into the one it is redudant to , do so, fix any links to it to go to the good one, then delete (without post-merge redir, since the name is so poorly formed no one would ever possibly look for it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely redundant, almost like a duplicate. This article is not needed. STORMTRACKER 94 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and important notice about GFDL. As both these articles have existed since 19 March 2004, when two identical articles were created: [17][18] it is not unlikely that information has been copied from one to the other and vice versa. As the GFDL requires author history to be preserved, we always merge articles when there is a significant overlap. See also Help:Merging and moving pages about why and how articles are merged. Therefore, the articles have to merged, which in this case simply means redirecting this one to the more extensive and up-to-date version, as no real information has to be merged at this point. For the record, this issue (author history) is also the reason why delete and redirect and merge and delete options are (in the vast majority of the cases) inappropriate. Also, merging of obviously redundant articles can often be done without bringing it to AfD or any other discussion forum. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• This seems like something WP:SPLICE can do. -- Jreferee t/c 06:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Artw 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary duplication.--Bedivere 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redundant page. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 14:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of states and territories of India by population Gizza^{Discuss ©} 03:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Compare the population per state numbers in List of states and territories of India (population, area, languages) (undated) with ditto in List of states and territories of India by population (as at March 2001), then redirect. Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not going to touch this one. Can an experienced sysop help here? Bearian 00:15, 11 October 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 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scriptnetics

Scriptnetics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a very good hoax, similar to the article Fibernetics, also nominated for deletion today and presumably from the same author related to Rebecca Phillips. Probably the editors of both articles have the same ip-adress. The editor here also made only this article. This article has been even more work the fibernetics article but again: Not one of the references or names in this article can be connected with this term Scriptnetics, here presented. Google gives no links of this term in connection with the people mentioned in this article. Google search for Scriptnetics and cybernetics give only references to the wikipedia article or one of the many existing clones. This fraud has been noticed by an expert in the field User:Nick Green, and further investigated by me - Mdd 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hogwash. There is a legitimate company Scriptnetics in the Tablet PC/handwriting input field which would likely pass WP:CORP but this article has nothing to do with them. --Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX, and per WP:NONSENSE point #2. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as if it is not a hoax, then it appears to be a content fork from Process control. --Gavin Collins 08:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's an indecipherable jumble of jargon with unrelated links thrown in to help make it look legitimate. A WP:SNOW candidate? -- HiEv 20:33, 5 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherem (genocide)

Cherem (genocide) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article consists of a few poorly constructed and misconstrued sentences of a poorly-disguised WP:POVFORK by a user who seems intent on creating controversial POV magnets (see related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jericho massacre). If this topic has any validity as a term it can be legitimately included as a sub-topic in the fully sourced Cherem article. Otherwise, this is starting to look like a deliberate violation of WP:DISRUPT and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POVFORK given the Cherem article. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete I would be in favor of a snowball early close. Jon513 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This should not be deleted based on the user's motives here, this sounds like a legitimate subject. Can it be widened with sources and citations to make it look more professional? Hell Yes!! But in no way does this article contradict any policy. I definitely am for a strong keep since i see that this discussion was opened with clear intent to turn into evidence against a certain user that he is disruptive for opening this, it should not. this is a well known subject and requires its own article since mush can be written in it--יודל 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely a POV fork with intent to disrupt. There's not enough information to merit a separate article anyway, not without citations. Even if citations could be found, this could be added in a much more neutral tone to the existing article at Cherem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. --יודל 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP: Give me time and I will write this article for Wiki. I researched it for my honours thesis. The word harem in English comes from the Arabic haram meaning "forbidden". Essentially, the herem of ancient Israel was an extreme form of spiritual quarantine. Non-Yahweh worshippers were spiritually dangerous to Israel. Let me add, the Christian view of the future involves the return of Jesus and the destruction of all who do not worship him. Biblical Christianity, like Biblical Judaism are very serious beliefs. But in neither Judaism, nor Christianity are people called to take matters into their own hands, quite the opposite, even if someone does wrong to you, the Bible teaches restraint, and condemns revenge. Jesus even says "love your enemy". Jews were encouraged by the Old Testament to be hospitable to outsiders, the herem is a very specific and restricted feature of the Old Testament. In fact, God even threatens to make Israel herself herem if she rejects him.

I have literally hundreds of references on this topic from the bibliography of my thesis. I should add, the topic will be distasteful to many, is vulnerable to vandalism, and if I write it I will be accused of bias regularly, and it will not be true. I would actually appreciate a non-expert watching the page and participating in any discussion regarding such things.

It is a fascinating topic, and actually explains why "salvation" is so important in Judaism and Christianity. The blame for the genocide of herem falls fairly and squarely on the God of the Bible. And that God is perfectly happy to defend his actions. There is a lot of text in the Bible of God doing precisely that.

Personally, I think Wiki will run into problems if it censors articles because it cannot develop a system for handling heated but inappropriate criticism of "hot topics". Alastair Haines 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge: Stupid me, I only just woke up and didn't read everything first. There is an article on Cherem already and it is passable. The genocide aspect of herem is real, important and reflects no discredit on anyone. Joshua applies it to one of the Israelite community at Jericho. Many American states have death penalties. While I support deletion of this namespace as a POV fork. I also support writing up an accurate (hence distasteful) report of the war-herem in the Bible, within the Cherem article. If such material is excluded from the Cherem article it is censorship. POV forking is discouraged to facilitate co-operation and dialogue, not so that an unstated view can be suppressed. I will personally help anyone who wishes to research and write up the war-herem, within the Cherem article. Alastair Haines 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork from known POV-pushing editor Avi 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yossiea ^(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MPerel 04:58, 3 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missed call

Missed call (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:NOT, is essentially social commentary and no references are given for the major assertions presented. Orderinchaos 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just a junk article, not notable. Jmlk17 09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know guys, this thing is very prevalent in our culture. See [19]. I don't know for other cultures though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Could possibly be mentioned in an article on Telecommunications in India? Twenty Years 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Philippines is not India.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I don't see why we should not keep this. .. Elmao 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there are bazillions of articles on cell phone etiquette out there to source this. I think the money-saving angle is only one part of it. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ...which could easily be covered in the article entitled Telecommunications in India. Twenty Years 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, i added enough links to merit inclusion. it is not just a social commentary, it is a business, revenue and profit headache too. the apex body of indian telecom operators, coai has even instituted studies for tracking revenue loss. pls revisit the article to see the new links. Ankur Jain 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: hate to add this, but i believe there is a distinct anglo-american bias to article editing. just because you guys don't know about the widespread use of this thing, probably never having visited india or africa etc., that does not mean it does not exist. there is world beyond your countries.Ankur Jain 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I'd say you shouldn't have gone there. While systemic bias exists, that doesn't mean that anyone who criticizes an article you like is doing so because of systemic bias. The article in question is an unsourced, misnamed, poorly-written stub of no present reliable use to any of our readers. Fix that, and then see if people still want to delete it before accusing them of bias, please. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• If its so big, why dont i see any mention of it here? Twenty Years 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not Akashic records. Developing countries don't have a strong presence in the net so fewer contributors can represent them, just because you can't find much of it on-line doesn't mean that it isn't notable. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rename, cleanup and source, or delete: Aside from lack of refs (which I believe can be found; I've seen enough evidence that this is a real phenomenon), the problem is mainly that the article is about a specific phenomenon, not about missed calls in general. Every time I fail to answer my phone (cell or otherwise) then that is a "missed call" but it is not what is being described here as a missed call. I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic to suggest a better name for it off the top of my head. Adding links to other WP articles does not do anything to "merit inclusion". If it does not have at least one reliable source by the time this AfD closes, it should be deleted, per WP:V, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with American bias. If the phenomenon is notable, someone will create a reliably sourced article on it later. It also needs copyediting, as it reads like it was written in an e-mail or something, i.e. it has an inappropriate informal tone and imprecise, ambiguous wording. PS: Agree with Dhartung that there is likely more than one rationale behind calling someone and hanging up before they answer so that they call you back. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies for seeming to accuse. I take back the words on "bias". Other points noted - missed call is a wide word - includes a call missed accidentally too. may be we can call it "pitiful call" :)
  Ankur Jain 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I expected yet another dictionary definition, this time for "missed call", but was delighted to *GASP* find an actual encyclopedic article. Burntsauce 22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So by encyclopedic article, you mean poorly referenced, poorly written and failing notability? Twenty Years 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Poorly referenced? (newspapers and Reuters poor refs?), poorly written (now that's just hitting below the belt, still that could be fixed by cleanup but not Afd) and failing notability (something notable on developing countries not notable at all?) --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• shall we now decide to keep this page and delete the "deletion tag" on top?
  Ankur Jain 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  No, I'd hold off until consensus is reached. There's no harm in waiting another few days :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 07:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Generally, this sort of thing should be merged into another article. But, the lack of any sort of encyclopedic information seems to deter me from posting a merge. Some here have argued that its a business/profit making machine, if so, its lack of coverage certainly proves it, if some are to be found, this could easily be merged into telecommunications, as it wouldnt exactly merit an article on its own. If its prevelant in one culture, then woopdy-do, add it to the telecommunications article. Long story short: Its junk. Twenty Years 15:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is prevalent in more than one culture (not a good merge into India article alone) and just because it isn't notable in your country it is considered junk. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 8 October 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 under CSD G1/G4; Article was deleted as a hoax before on 24 September. — Edokter • Talk • 21:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draafstein

Article seems to be a hoax used to support trolling on the helpdesk by a SPA editor. This was PROD'd as a hoax but prod removed by IP editor. No sources exist or seem to exist to support the "facts" of this article. Fredrick day 08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article is most definitely a hoax. A quick google search shows up only three hits for this subject and all of them are not reliable sources. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I also think it's a hoax. Iamchrisryan 13:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- I remember this going by on the helpdesk... the language seemed to be akin to Pig Latin in that suffixes and umlauts were added to ordinary English words. Someone went to a lot of trouble to create what I believe is a hoax. Accounting4Taste 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think it's a hoax, too. No sources, no google entry, probably not real. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:36, 2 October 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 to the single's page. Will ^(talk) 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor (song)

I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Two articles on the same song. Someone must think the song and the single are completely different. Should be speedy. (What would this fall under, for future reference?) Rocket000 07:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Edit:This nomination is not a notability issue. This article is a duplicate with nothing to merge. I'm proposing deletion. Please, let's WP:SNOWBALL it out of here. Rocket000 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment See WP:MERGE. Best solution here, rather than AfD. --Folantin 07:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete anyway. Nothing to merge, we don't need the redirect (it would just turn up on WP:RFD eventually). I don't think duplicate articles fall under any specific speedy rule but maybe we can WP:SNOW it out of existence.--Dhartung | Talk 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G6 Non-contorversial speedy delete because page is simply a duplication of information that appears on the single's page. Would the deleting admin please remove the tag to this page from the top of the single's page. A1octopus 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge. Fails WP:MUSIC. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys even read why an article is nominated!? This song does not fail WP:MUSIC. It's simply a duplicate. Rocket000 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Actually, I had read your nomination and the article. In fact, I have read the article several times now and compared it to Songs criteria for notability. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I do not see the matchup and, at this point, still see a delete stance for this afticle is viable as there appears to be no notability displayed in this article. However, for whatever can be salvaged to be merged into the appropriate original should be done. I have added a merge stance to my original statement. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to the article on the single. 96T 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as I was able to wikify the article, including the addition of references. Seems notable enough for us. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Grand Roi, instead of reflexively !voting "keep" and adding irrelevant links or links that violate WP:EL to articles, why don't you explain how this article does not duplicate I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor, as everyone else who's commented seems to think it does? Deor 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was already that article. In that case, please merge and redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, double edit conflict. I was just going to say the same thing. This has nothing to do with notability, which the song definitely has. Rocket000 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize what the duplicate article was until Deor provided the link to the original article (Thanks!). Anyway, I did find some review references that I added to the article under discussion that could perhaps be merged instead? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, go on, delete. Worthless.--Folantin 18:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate. Artw 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete, there's some material on the duplicate page which isn't on the original, but otherwise pointless. Jeodesic 22:58, 2 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Moon MUD

New Moon MUD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG (as a product), no reliable independent sources known. The sources given are the game's website, and a private homepage. PROD was contested with comment: "This is not an organization, it's a game." Well, we might debate whether WP:ORG applies, in any case it fails WP:N. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 07:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This subject fails notability guidelines. A quick google search shows up very few or no reliable sources for this subject. It is also difficult to verify the contents of this subject as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lack of secondary sources means this article fails notability criteria of WP:WEB also. --Gavin Collins 09:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's [WP:WEB]] that applies here. Anyways, there's nothing to distinguish this from the thousands of MUDs out there. If there is, I'll chage my mind.--UsaSatsui 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB as above. Article content could use a POV check, too. Percy Snoodle 15:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Without being at all familiar with the MUD itself (outside the article and controversy), it seems notable to me that it is still up and running after so many years. My own experience with MUDs can't provide any that are still running. --LeyteWolfer 18:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Personally, I cannot see how WP:WEB applies, but WP:N sure as hell does. And this article fails it. Burntsauce 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Content distributed exclsively on the internet. It's not explicitly web content, but I think it applies. --UsaSatsui 22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • MUD games can be played without an internet connection. I'd say it does NOT apply, but from a distance I think we agree on what the outcome should be. Burntsauce 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • And webpages can be viewed offline, too. It's primarily an internet-based thing, and designed to be so. You're right, though, it's nitpicking...can there be any wikilawering more pointless than "Which notability policy does this fail"?  :) --UsaSatsui 23:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Fin©™ 09:10, 4 October 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Bradford

Taylor Bradford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A student athlete, notable only for his death. Jmlk17 06:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable student. How was this guy famous before his death? He wasn't. WP isn't a tribute site/memorial. Delete. Lugnuts 07:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's unfortunate, but people get murdered every day and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about him. TJ Spyke 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Although the information in this article can be easily verified, the subject is not notable at all before his death. Wikipedia is not a tribute or memorial site. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E - leaving aside the circumstances of his death, he does not meet the notability criteria. --B. Wolterding 12:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the reaction to his death (closing of classes on a large public university) alongside his notability as a Football player with multiple, non-trivial reliable sources is enough for a keep. Consider the AfD on Keeley Dorsey.--Thomas.macmillan 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The closing of campus after a murder is common now after the Virginia Tech shootings, a cop was killed several miles away from my college two weeks ago, and class was canceled the next day because the suspect was still on the loose. 131.94.65.85 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete - death doesn't make one notable. If it did, we would all be notable one of these days. Iamchrisryan 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete.It's not very informative. I say delete it.--Rory666 05:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Even though he was not a very well known player on campus, he was known for his leadership and his senseless murder should be noted. I'm sure there is a page for everyone of the Virginia Tech victims. Why not keep this one? People in the future would want to know how a player possibly made a difference in a football team's season. It could be expanded on by using the University's player information pages. I say if it is deleted, move his information to an article that could be created for the 2007 Memphis Tigers football season that could recap games, injuries, stats, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.169.186 (talk • contribs) — 70.146.169.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete didn't even play in a game for the Memphis Tigers according to the article. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A lot of people are "only notable for their death". That alone is not a good enough reason to delete. nut-meg 18:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If they are notable only for their death, they most probably do not qualify for inclusion since they gained attention only for one newsworthy event, and Wikipedia is not a news site. That is a very good reason to delete. --B. Wolterding 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Then we will have to do a lot of deleting. Laci Peterson, Polly Klaas, Marcus Fiesel Dantrell Davis all only notable for their deaths, all only notable for one event in their lives. Just because it is news, does not mean it isn't notable. If this was just some local news story, you'd be right. This was, and still is a national story. nut-meg 19:33, 5 October 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. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish bowline

Irish bowline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The "Irish bowline" knot discussed in this article shows no evidence of ever having been used or written generally about in the real world, thus appears to fail WP:N. While it was published in a single issue of Knotting Matters (the IGKT's official publication) no commonly available sources are available which discuss this knot, and generally it appears to be a "vanity knot", so to speak. The article has been tagged with various cleanup tags since early 2007. --Dfred (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N; fails the primary notability criterion (multiple, independent, reliable sources). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 20:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hard to believe that it's a widely used term.--Bedivere 19:05, 7 October 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. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities with the most billionaires

List of cities with the most billionaires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Vandalized listcruft; if this is actually sourced, it is probably a copyright violation. If it isn't, what are these figures based on? And who cares? Brianyoumans 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's from Forbes like the article says. I remember reading it, so that's how I know, but it's also sourced at the top and bottom and includes four links. It is referenced. I don't know if it would be a copy vio. It is a list completely by Forbes, but unlike Rolling Stone's lists, this isn't subjective, so I don't know what kind of rules are placed on it. Whatever the case, "who's cares" is NOT a good reason for deletion. -Rocket000 06:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• The original figures may have been sourced, but many changes have been made since; some vandalism, some based on sources not given. If it is going to be based on the 2006 Forbes article, it should be reverted to the original set of figures and left that way. Instead, people have tried to update it, badly. Brianyoumans 21:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I could go both ways on this. It's basically reproducing a Forbes article (or series of capsules) in table form, true, but there is minor interest on the wires in the stats as well as who's on top (a couple years ago, it was Moscow; now Istanbul is a surprise #2). Exchange rates, of course, influence the rankings enormously. It might have more significance if it had more than one year listed, but then it's even more of a list-copyvio.--Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Istambul is NOT afaik in second place; that is an example of how badly vandalized this article is. Looking back in the history, I was unable to figure out what the real rankings and numbers should be. Brianyoumans 17:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not a copyright violation--list of this sort are not copyright in the US; only the arrangement and presentation is. We can report that have have listed so and so. DGG (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Useless silliness: Will not age well (is probably already obsolete), is meaningless because of the exchange rate issue, isn't properly sourced (statistical things like this need more than one source to back them up, because stats are easily manipulated and falsified), and is generally non-informative - the article does not present any analysis of why a city might have more billionaires, and thus is like a List of the world's largest navels or List of buildings painted red. Essentially a nonencyclopedic list of indiscriminate information. It is also original research, specifically of the "novel synthesis" form - there doesn't seem to be a Forbes list of this sort, but rather a pair of Forbes articles about billionaires that someone has synthesized into a list of billionaires by location, without any reliable sources backing up that anlysis (the most obvious resultant problem is that many rich people do not consider themselves residents of any particular single city, and do not act in such a capacity, having multiple homes, often on multiple continents). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete : Uh-oh, someone took my idea and is running with it (see this Afd [20]) This will be waaay too difficult to manage, given how quickly money changes hands these days. If it were spanned over say a 5 year period, not counting the current year, then I could see it working proving enough sources were referenced, and possibly an analysis were offered (as mentioned by SMcCandlish). As for copyvio, I don't think it applies to facts, correct me if I'm wrong though (using the word facts loosly here). A^RendedWinter 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. There's no possible way this article could be kept accurately updated. Forget the fact that people gain and lose money daily (billionaires have a lot at stake in stock market runs). Consider instead that the list is in USD, which makes the list further subject to ongoing currency valuation fluctuations. Finally, we should ask why the list is in USD (see WP:CSB) as opposed to Japanese Yen or Turkish Liras. SkerHawx 19:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be in Icelandic Krona or the Chinese Yuan. C'mon, let's not get politically correctly carried away here. It's in USD because that's what Forbes measured it in. Also, the U.S. dollar is what the most people can relate to (especially English speakers); it's the most meaningful to the most people. It would be ridiculous to have it in Yen. Anyway, it doesn't have to stay updated if it's for one given year (2006). Rocket000 09:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment and if it won't be updated, and will only be a list of how many billionaires lived in each city a year ago, it reinforces the irrelevance of the article. SkerHawx 11:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (edit conflict) this is the list as of 2006, so it's nearly a year out of date. People move, and lose and gain money. It's a footnote to Billionaire (keep the refs), but not worth an article. Also, possible COPYVIO if the list appeared in Forbes and someone just typed it up here. Totnesmartin 09:51, 3 October 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.