Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Jenkins

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

There have been notability concerns regarding this article, and it was recently nominated for speedy deletion. It doesn't cite any sources, so I brought it to AFD for other opinions. Keilana 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above. Tavix (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I could not find a single google hit, and the only mention of him I could find is here. There is nothing on the website of Springfield Little Theatre about either him or "The Full Monty", which this article states was a show he was in. Nothing in the alumni section, nor any mention of "Skinny Improv". A clear case of not even coming close to meeting WP:BIO. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Notability isn't even asserted in the article. Pharmboy (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable person. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As per arguments above, no assertion of notability, little context. ><RichardΩ612 —Preceding comment was added at 12:23, 2 January 2008 (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jazz Singer DVD

The Jazz Singer DVD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for speedy deletion because of notability, but has been tagged and untagged at least twice. Keilana 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article fails to assert notability of the product per WP:N and may be nothing more than an advertisement for the product. Mh29255 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I still feel that any worthwhile content should be moved to the entry for the film. As an example, blade runner just had a new "ultimate" release with several versions, commentaries, documentaries, a carrying case, film stills, a book, etc... and warrants only a single line of text in the article for the film. Gront (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am the person who created this article. I did not create it for advertising purposes, but rather for reference. I had bought the DVD set, and as mentioned it was filled with numerous old and obscure movie titles. I created this article so that anyone who maybe also bought the set and wants to research the movie titles included, can go to one simple page and do so. Additionally, I do not feel that this article is any different than other articles detailing DVD collections, such as: Walt Disney Treasures: Wave Seven, Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1, Popeye the Sailor: 1933-1938, Volume 1, The Woody Woodpecker and Friends Classic Cartoon Collection, etc. Please do not delete this page, but rather clean it up or give me advice if you feel necessary. Mpmcarthur78 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are articles on collections of cartoons. While I feel that their appropriateness for an encyclopedia may indeed be questionable, your article is for a deluxe DVD set centered around one film. A separate article on the set seems superfluous without some sort of information other than what's on it. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete : This kind of information can be found on online stores. It could be added to the main Jazz Singer article, doesn't warrant it's own entry. 06:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomwiki (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, individual DVD packagings of a film have no independent notability from that film. It's not even worth a redirect as it's an unlikely search term.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Shorten and merge. Although I never use this as a rationale to keep an article, it's always sad when an article someone worked hard on doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. This information (of which much more detail can be found on the Amazon page) would be better off summarized and merged into the Jazz Singer article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Shorten to a single paragraph and merge into The Jazz Singer (1927 film). Wikipedia is not a DVD review repository. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge whatever is useful. There is nothing inherently wrong with providing pages about specific editions of a work... but they have to be notable and present reliable sources. gren グレン` —Preceding comment was added at 05:40, 9 January 2008 (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. Article is quite measurably improved from the beginning of the AfD nomination. Two WP:V sources seem adequate to keep it. I feel it could use more info and sources but I expect such could be found. Pigman☿ 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stardance project

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

There are no independent reliable sources for this upcoming movie project. Which makes it fail WP:V. per WP:CRYSTAL Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no reliable sources, no article, giving it not a snowball's chance in hell of inclusion in the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as no independent sources, and it is 'an attempt to bring', not even a true future project. No amount of future tags can fix that. Pharmboy (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I always feel nervous going against a snowballing consensus, but i feel this case was glossed over and not investigated far enough. The "attempt to bring" was apparently misleading, because this project was covered by two small yet reliable unrelated sources (The Montreal Gazette via Canada.com, Dalhousie University), and two days ago (per those reviews) the pre-production was supposed to be done aboard a Zero-G Corporation aircraft. The article is poorly written and makes this seem like entirely speculation, but I believe otherwise. Tag as expert, unreferenced, and cleanup, perhaps, but I think this project shows notability. If someone can show me specifically which part of WP:NOTE this fails, I could be convinced to change my mind. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think notability is the responsibility of the author to establish, and not the responsibility of others to 'disprove' (can't prove a negative). Pharmboy (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

True, it would be nice if every author built notability assertions into their article. However, if I see that there is notability, even if the author didn't take the time to show it, I think the article should stay. While there obviously needs to be oversight on articles, and a lot need to be deleted, the purpose of the AfD discussion is to take dubious articles and see if they meet guidelines. Massive cleanup, yes. Delete, no. The bigger point here is to have notable information be included on Wiki. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It is an unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific? Do you think it violates a certain Wikipedia policy, or would cleanup/rewrite/source make it more "encyclopedic"? Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• 'Summary' should be at the bottom of the article. Add introduction. The article should be categorized. And, find some reliable sources. It will be very difficult for the article to survive. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The first three of those things can be taken care of by editing, and Tanthalas has found sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Tanthalas has found the necessary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per Tanthalas. matt91486 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Good work, Tanthalas. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:51, 9 January 2008 (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 Characters of Shameless. Merge as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norma Starkey

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

Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• comment merge to list of characters is most logical, please rename if kept to Norma Starkey (Shameless) Gnangarra 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC) see below

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Make a list of minor characters, and merge along with some of the other characters. No point in deleting this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Shameless TV article by creating a list of characters. Editors there can fight out which parts of this character summary are appropriate, but I don't believe this character warrants her own Wiki article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the article Characters of Shameless already exists as such theres n need to merge Gnangarra 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Changing my opinion to delete. Of course, this needs to be applied to the other dozen or so characters, each with their own Wiki page... Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or Keep for now. I think a re-write of Characters of Shameless is needed. Majors go one place (each have own page as needed) and minors go into a single page. Lots of work for someone. Hobit (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as this stub has insufficient content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the necessity of having a stand alone article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Gavin Collins's reasons are good, but the conclusion I draw is the same as Hobit -- the characters article can hold whatever information is needed about the characters. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I think all the articles about characters in Shameless should be merged because they all seem a bit short. yettie0711 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solveig Sandnes

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

Nonnotable singer; no best-selling albums, and no references (Myspace doesn't count). The original author (see page history) has not made any other edits. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delte self-promotion, no independent source material. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If it can be verified that her single went to #1 in Japan she should meet WP:MUSIC!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Like HisSpaceResearch, I agree that the WP:MUSIC guideline of notability will be met if it can be shown in a significant, reliable resource that the song Marie hit #1 in Japan. However, I spent some time searching on Google, and I couldn't come up with anything except a couple insignificant mentions. Part of the problem is that any site that looks promising is in Japanese. Until this fact can be proven... Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Tanthalas39's research showing unmet WP:MUSIC. Should credible sources appear for that claim the article may always be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The SR P3 (a Swedish national radio network) placed several songs by her on its playlist in 1999: see here. The artist thus meets WP:MUSIC#11. I also see there that the singles are on Mega Records; if the albums were too (as is likely) then she meets #5 as well. Rigadoun (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I added that claim to the article and #5 is confirmed as well (though they are apparently on two different labels). Don't know about the #1 claim, though. Rigadoun (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Previous Afd here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solveig sadnes Precious Roy (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (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 Merge. This action is to be taken by interested editors and is not taken by the closing admin, due to lack of familiarity with the subject, and multiple target articles were suggested in the debate.

[edit] George (bus service)

George (bus service) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. There is nothing notable about a bus route - even if it is called George. There are no references provided to show that this bus route is notable. Further such articles are difficult to accurately maintain and thus their usefulness must be questioned. Gillyweed (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

MERGE into Metrobus (Washington, D.C.): This is a route assigned to them under contract, but which they do not control. Also, notify the creator of the article...which is not myself. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per AEMoreira042281. Mh29255 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Orange Line (Washington Metro) (note this is a different suggestion than that made by AEMoreira042281). While the picture makes this look spiffy, I cringe at the thought of maintaining articles for every bus route in the country (and world!). This bus only goes between two stops on the Orange Line; I think this is an obvious merge. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the consensus so far seems to be to merge, and if a merge is to happen, then it needs to go to Metrobus (Washington, D.C.). Merging with Orange Line would indicate that it has something to do with the rail system, but it doesn't have to do with the rail system at all. It's similar to Ride-On Route 31, which runs between Glenmont and Wheaton, but is the local route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (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. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elcom Credit Union

Elcom Credit Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This organization no longer exists. It was merged. Link is deprecated. Pearrari (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It needs better sourcing, but it was a large credit union in its day. Going out of business doesn't mean that you aren't notable ... would you delete GTE or Western Electric?Kww (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and respect your perspective. To answer your question, I don't happen to feel we should keep company obituaries, even if the company was notable when it did exist. A valid reason to keep such an article would be ongoing relevance, such as a legacy of financial disaster a la Enron, a legacy of remarkable innovation, or some other remarkable ongoing economic impact such as the companies spawned by GTE, I continue to feel removal is appropriate, but we should consider evidence if you (or anyone else) can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary, updating the article so it is clear that it is still relevant. Pearrari (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Once notable, always notable. History is important. Wikidemo (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Definitely. WP:N (Companies) doesn't say anything about this, but I would be shocked (and frankly, concerned) if we didn't have articles on companies that were obviously notable when they existed. You could consider merging these into the company they combine with, but then you have the issue of companies that just ceased to exist - better to all have their own separate articles. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as article has no primary sources to verify its content, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the community which it serves. Notability to come perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely. It's not so much an obituary as part of a lineage. Someone looking up the history of the new merged credit union would be interested in the historical records of the credit unions that comprised it. Why wouldn't one go to an encyclopedia to look up historical corporations? The GTE argument is valid here. That said, it would be nice if the article mentioned somewhere in the top half that this was a credit union in Australia and whether the "$" are Australian or some other country's. Bruxism (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like it fits our criteria for notability, citations, except when with BLPs, can be dealt with in editing. MBisanz ^Talk 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Notability is not lost once it's acquired; "organization no longer exists" is not a reason to delete. Keep, although it needs some improvements — for instance, one shouldn't have to read halfway through the entire article just to learn what country the thing is in. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L'Wren Nycole

L'Wren Nycole (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable fashion model. A Google search returns no results, proving unhelpful.   jj137 ^♠ 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear to be a notable model. The lack of hits for the name shows a complete lack of verifiability. (Note to nom: you typed in "Nicole" instead of "Nycole" in the Google search, but it doesn't matter, since "Nycole" turns up bupkis too.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - article demonstrates no notability and without any external sources, is impossible to verify. --BelovedFreak 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, possible hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Almost certainly a hoax. I've tagged it as A7 anyway as I can't see anything here that really seems like meeting WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I tried various other Google searches, and even went to the websites of the three fashion companies she purportedly modeled for - couldn't come up with a single mention. Probably a hoax, definitely no notability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As much of a hoax as spaghetti trees! Nuke it. ><RichardΩ612 12:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't appear notable. There aren't any verifiable outside sources. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2008 (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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classified (band)

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

Non notable band, seems to be too much claim of notability for a speedy. Google throws up nothing, but Googling is difficult due to the super-generic name, even when I try related keywords, such as the band's hometown. Prod removed by author with the comment "I have deleted the 'this article may be deleted' content as I do not believe that this article should be deleted. Classified have dveloped a large following through its myspace webpage." Article also seems to be slightly biased in favour of the band, possibly written by a band member, or a friend.J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The band fails the WP:MUSIC guidelines. I can't find any coverage of them in reliable sources and they apparently played their first live gig just a week ago. Good luck to them though, maybe they will become notable enough for an article in the future. Bláthnaid 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough for an article yet per notability guidelines. If they are indeed "Music's greatest secret..." then they may warrant an article one day, but not yet. --BelovedFreak 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly a speedy G11.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone requested the article be kept- see diff. J Milburn (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources. The band only really formed in Feb 2007 according the article. And also according to the article played their first live gig on Dec 26. So I doubt any reliable sources would be findable. As written, the page is more of a fan site than an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (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 Close. Some of these may be deletion candidates (though per previous practice, they should be redirected to school district pages), others should be tagged for merge, or may be notable. No unilateral decision can be made in a bundled AfD such as this. Editors should be WP:BOLD in making decisions on individual articles. Controversial articles should be brought back to AfD individually.BLACKKITE 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faxon Montessori

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

Non-notable primary school -- should be merged with school district page. Dougie WII (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also primary schools from the same school district:

Central Middle School (Kansas City) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

East Elementary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

J. A. Rogers Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Martin Luther King Middle School (Kansas City) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Northeast Middle School (Missouri) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Westport Middle School (Missouri) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Woodland Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- Dougie WII (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect all to Kansas City, Missouri School District. Dougie WII, if you think that an article should be merged, you can propose a merger, rather than bringing the article to AfD. Bláthnaid 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge all, I would only use AfD if somebody reverted a redirected article. I placed hundreds of merge school tags to let the creators of such articles know that they should stop creating individual pages for every school in the world. Also, I hoped that people would just merge away. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment author deleted PROD tag on first article that suggested merger. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, they'll do that, but if the information survives on a district page they'll usually not care that the article is gone. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Primary schools shouldn't be notable on their own. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Central Middle School (Kansas City). First junior high in its area, first million dollar school, notable architecture and plenty of sources here. Looking into the others. TerriersFan (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why? It's not the first million dollar school ever (only in Kansas City), and it's not even a million dollar school, the article's author says it cost around $900,000. I don't see how that makes it notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - there are enough sources available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nominator has confused deleting with merging. Use {{Merge}} instead of {{Prod}} in future. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- I haven't confused anything. All of these schools are already mentioned there so these should be deleted and redirected. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now, I'm confused. You said, in nominating, "should be merged with school district page" and in reply to AnteaterZot, "author deleted PROD tag on first article that suggested merger". Secondly, it is clear that these articles have not yet been merged to the district article. Further, if you desire to redirect them, there is no need to delete first and, I would argue, undesirable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• What is the process then for removing these primary schools? In the past I AfD or prod them and they were deleted or sometimes redirected/merged by whomever closed the AfD. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a process to redirect, just replace the page with #redirect target page. redirecting or merging is not the same as deletion; the prod tag was removed probably because it (as prod tags inherently do) proposed deletion. —Random832 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have reopened this AfD that was closed as redirect by the nominator out of process. There was no consensus for this action and and I, for one, don't agree with a merge or redirect for at least one of these schools. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Suggested way forward - one way out of this would be for the nominator to withdraw the nomination then the AfD can be closed as Speedy Keep. After that the nominator can merge tag the pages if he wishes (not a unilateral redirect) and we can discuss the proposed merges. TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think I'd rather just let the AfD go to completion and let whatever happens happen. I really don't care what happens to these articles, if people want to keep them fine -- I'd rather spend my time here working other articles. I thought I was being helpful by nominating them since it seemed the consensus was already that only high schools were notable and elementary and middle schools are not. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - most (but not all) editors regard high schools as notable and they are nearly always kept at AfD. All editors regard elementary/middle schools as having no inherent notability consequently the proposed criteria at WP:SCL which, if passed, they would have to meet, whilst at present they have to meet WP:N. However, they deserve individual consideration. At the moment I am looking into the notability of these nominated schools. It may be that they finish up being merged but they deserve a look for sources first. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The type of articles you mentioned as meeting WP:N for Central Middle School (Kansas City) are extremely minimal, just saying there was a fight there, some students are tardy or skipping school there, it was the first day of school there today, etc. If these make a school notable than every school in the world should be notable by default then. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry, that misrepresents the sources. There are more sources, on a wide range of issues, than I have seen for many middle schools. Sadly, they are mostly behind paywalls and I'm not prepared to mortgage the house by paying to see them all :-) Having said that it is certainly the first middle school in its area is notable and (though I can't source definitively the first) possibly the first middle school in the US is notable. Most elementary/middle schools have far fewer sources so no need to worry on that score :-) TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can verify that in the greater Kansas City area, most of the usual news outlets do not provide free access to archives older than 5 or 10 days. There is a big business in this region that resells access to this type of local archived news content. The fact that the sources are currently not cited is not equivalent to an argument against notability; on the contrary: the fact that it is asserted that they exist, and normal websearches show numerous hits for docs behind paywalls, indicates that it is notable, and that we hope somebody can provide the references from a stack of newspapers in their mom's basement or whatever. This will never happen if the articles are deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all as default, and nominator merge-tag or list separately... this cluster nom of schools is confusing as a combined nomination, and some clearly are notable. Concensus will be impossible with everyone differently saying delete these, merge those, keep these... JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all. While some of these should be ultimately be merged, none of them need to be deleted and the merge discussions can take place separately on the respective article talk pages. RFerreira (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. NBeale (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - for Central Middle School (Kansas City, Missouri) there certainly is a claim of notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all the middle schools for now as possibly notable; Delete the primary school. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2008 (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. GlassCobra 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Shell

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

This article was nominated for deletion a little over two years ago; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell. I believe we interpret notability different nowadays, which is why I'm nominating it again.

The reason I think this should be deleted is the lack of reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate notability, as required by Wikipedia:Notability, or the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (people). See basic criteria section; the article provides absolutely no independent coverage to satisfy this. Of the three references cited, 1 and 2 are to personal websites. Not considered independent. 3 is to a Wikimedia PDF, which isn't independent either. Now, consider the two external links. First is the same personal website, not independent. The second is a four-sentence Wikimedia Foundation bio, which is, yes, not independent coverage either. I've searched for more sources, but I have not been able to find a single reliable, independent source which devotes more than two sentences of coverage to Shell. Not a single one. Two sentences - or even three or four - is most likely not significant coverage by anyone's standards. Uncle G makes a very good point in the prior afd, which I suggest be read.

Regarding the arguments at the old afd: none of them brought up independent coverage of any sort. Reading some of the arguments for keeping, I'm rather surprised the closing admin considered them at all reasonable. "keep I just voted to keep some article on a website that sells wristbands for fans of Crystal Palace, so I pretty much have to be an inclusionist for the next week or so, so yes, keep. Youngamerican 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)" I suppose he might have been attempting humor. Otherwise, enough said.

"Weakest keep ever. Bomis doesn't fit my "deserves an article on every CEO ever" criteria, and Wikipedia, in terms of the prominence of it, doesn't deserve an article on every board member ever in my eyes. And yet, we are Wikipedia. Obviously. And, honestly, I'm voting to keep because Mr. Shell is so notable in a Wikipedia context that it will help the project to have an article on him around. Did that make a lick of sense? Lord Bob 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)" I guess this must not have been the prevalent opinion in 2005, but I'm sure that by 2008 no one considers being connected to the Wikimedia Foundation a reason to keep articles even when they would otherwise be deleted.

"CEOs are notable, and board members of the 45th most popular web site further increases notability. Unfocused 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)" This is what I mean when I said we judge notability differently - in October 2005, this was considered good enough. Now, however, actual sources are required to establish notability. Being a CEO of a company with an article does not confer automatic notability, nor does being a former board member of Wikipedia. If you think he's notable, please show some significant (more than two sentences) independent coverage. Otherwise, I suggest deletion. Picaroon (t) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Also note that the "whatlinkshere" results come from his inclusion on {{Wikipediahistory}}, not many actual references in other articles. Picaroon (t) 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. He seems like he would be notable given his work (per Unfocused), but I can't find any significant coverage either. I wonder if this should be somehow userfied or put into project space as information about Wikipedia history, though. Rigadoun (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep CEO of Bornis is notable. WMF or no WMF. DGG (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG, notable as the chief executive officer of Bomis, and any connection with the WMF enhances that notability. RFerreira (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources are given in the article to prove notability. The question is not whether his positions are "notable" in the sense of important, the question is whether there are multiple reliaible sources. And from the article so far it seems not. NBeale (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2008 (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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coleman Leuthy

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

Not sure if the article claims he is notable as a teacher, mycologist or mountaineer, but none of them passes WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. no sources; no notability. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 22:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It talks about him just fine, but I don't see an actual claim of notability that meets wp:bio. Pharmboy (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources or notability. --Crusio (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete non-notable as mountaineer, which seems the strongest claim. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2008 (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. Hut 8.5 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Asorson

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

Non-notable biography. Jfire (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This looks more like a resume than an article. He has had some swell jobs, but not particularly notable. Many wikilinks != notable. Pharmboy (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't assert notability. Looks like it fails WP:BIO. Well-written, but the subject just isn't notable. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and highbeam.com search provided no information OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2008 (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 all. PeaceNT (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door

List of places in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of locations in TV show, mostly original research or non-notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages as unnecessary pageforks of the above article:

Gallagher Elementary School (Codename: Kids Next Door) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kids Next Door Arctic Base (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kids Next Door Moonbase (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) treelo _talk 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sector V Headquarters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Tavix (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete more in universe stuff that has no place outside the main articles as it isn't notable outside that context.... Pharmboy (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This isn't notable and and isn't encylopedic material. Also adding another related article you might have missed. Tavix (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Needless cruft, non notable. Nuke it! ><RichardΩ612 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all Really, they're huge lists of trivia, non-notable (both in-universe and out-of-universe) content. Yngvarr 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Richard. Mh29255 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all as fancruft with no real-world notability.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Notable show, video game, etc. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I created the place list article to down the size of the main KND article. (See the situation) However, I felt that's unnecessary now. --JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note that if any content is merged back into the main article the history will need to be kept as a redirect. —Random832 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (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. Rigadoun (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia Watch

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Sources have been found for this article now ([1],[2]). I withdraw this nomination. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Unsure about notability, but in any event its unsourced right now, and if no 2nd party sources can be found for this article, then it fails WP:V and should be deleted. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Islamaphobia is notable indeed, and maybe the website can be linked there, but it isn't really notable enough to have an article. While searching, I found mainly the site, this wikipedia article, and some blogs. Maybe someday it will be notable. Or better yet, maybe someday it won't need to be, but on both issues, that day isn't today. Pharmboy (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• I have now added more material from a reliable source which provides significant coverage of the website's focus and contents. I think that, as well as Hari's review, is sufficient to confirm notability. Hence, Keep. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Larson's paper is only one non-trivial mention. Hari's personal website is not a RS. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The other two sources you mentioned are trivial coverage. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hari article was originally published in Attitude which makes it a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability is not established with non-trivial coverage by reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The rules regarding websites are too restrictive in my opinion but this one doesn't make it even by my inclusionist standards. The Hari quote just says the website is rubbish, which it clearly is. Nick mallory (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there appears to be at least two reliable sources discussing the website to a significant extent. I'm sure that suffices the criteria mentioned in WP:WEB. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (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 16:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheng Xian

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

This person was mentioned once in history, in the discussion regarding several characters who themselves were not of particular historical importance. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete for lack of an obvious redirect candidate. JJL (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the Chinese Wikipedia article certainly had more to say about the person, and my copy of de Crespigny's Biographical Dictionary of Later Han to the Three Kingdoms confirms that the person was mentioned many more times than once. His execution by Sun Quan led to the rebellion of Dai Yuan and Gui Lan, and thus the assassination of Sun Yi. _dk (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment it would be helpful to have more sources in the article in that case! JJL (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Being remembered from the 2nd century AD seems to be notable in itself.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lean toward Keep When it comes to historical figures I'd rather keep and add info as found. It's not like a modern celebrity where the info's all over the web or it doesn't exist.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliable sources found by _dk. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to be a perfectly notable historical figure. matt91486 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - certainly passes WP:BIO (as governor of subnational entity, the commandery). It's recentism to apply that differently for 2nd century figures. Rigadoun (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2008 (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De Repente

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

Yet another crystalline CD. No sources. Google search turns up nothing. Track listing appears to be completely fictitious. Kww (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified unless CD can be confirmed with sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails the notability guidelines for albums, and for general articles. The article states that the album has a release date of October 2008 and to quote the relevant guideline, unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources. No sources are provided or appear available for the album or any of the singles (3 out of 4 of which also have future release dates). Notability for an album is generally preceded by notability for the performer, but Ms Dias fails all of the notability guidelines - not the subject of independent non-trivial coverage, no charted hits on a national level, no gold-certified records, no international tours, has not released two (or even one) album, is not uniquely representative of a musical style, no major awards and has not been a member of any previous notable band. All we have left is an unreleased album by a non-notable singer, with a speculative track list and no sources of any kind. Euryalus (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable; completely fails WP:N guidelines. --BelovedFreak 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone; I'm sick of articles like this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per Wikipedia:Notability --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 22:24, 5 January 2008 (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 as non-notable. Appropriate redirects may be created if deemed helpful. Pastordavid (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haymaker Sandwich

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

Non-notable sandwich. Article admits it is practically unknown outside Troy, NY. All information on sandwich is already found in article on Bill Craver. Redfarmer (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable local recipe. RMHED (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bill Craver. Not notable enough for its own article. --BelovedFreak 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge as seemingly having no stand-alone notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge with Bill Craver. 71.162.255.83 (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Can I !vote moral support? I have ties to Troy, NY but can't come up with a valid keep reason.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The stub is weak, but the topic itself might be notable as a valid example of local cuisine. This is notable for the same reason that Cincinnati chili, the Hot Brown, the East End Hoagie, and the St. Paul sandwich are notable, but for the fact that Troy is a smaller city than most of the associated cities. The question is how notable is the haymaker to Trojans? Is it the stuff of legend? When and how often is it actually consumed? How widespread is the sandwich, or the legend? All these I think must be taken into account before the deletion. Bruxism (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Heh, I go to school in Troy, and this is the first I'm hearing about it. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I did some searching and came up completely blank. No one within Google's broad reach has anything to say on this subject, and I suspect it is non-notable even in Troy. I'm willing to change to a weak keep, per Bruxism's logic (above), if anyone can find some reason to think this sandwich is really notable in at least that one location. Tim Ross·^talk 09:59, 9 January 2008 (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 Nomination Withdrawn. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boryeong Mud Festival

Boryeong Mud Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Might not be notable. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I'm really on the fence here because, on one hand, it seems to violate WP:ADVERT. The article is horribly written, not wiki-fied, and includes an advert at the bottom. I couldn't even figure out where the festival was held based on the article but had to go to the festival page to find out it's in South Korea. On the other hand, it does seem to pass notability based on G-hits and it seems like something is worth salvaging based on that. Requires extreme cleanup though. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but Cleanup. Agreed with Redfarmer, this does seem to violate WP:ADVERT. The article needs to be fixed up significantly (i.e. wikified), but it does seem to be notable enough to be an article. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: After cleaning up the article a little myself, deleting the phone number, and talking to the user on his talk page, I'm changing my vote from weak keep to keep. The user provided this link to a Time magazine article about the festival if there is still any doubt as to its notability. -- Redfarmer (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, a festival that attracts 1.5 million visitors is clearly notable, and User:Redfarmer has cleaned up the tone of the article. --Stormie (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - plainly notable as a festival. However, I have removed further chunks that are not directly related to the festival. BlueValour (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Nom withdrawn, clearly notable now, and nice referencing work!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:19, 2 January 2008 (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. Bongwarrior (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Change, Goodbye Gravity

Welcome Change, Goodbye Gravity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable EP from non-notable band that is also currently up for deletion (see relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Morning Of) on non-notable record label whose article was previously speedily deleted. I think the key word here is: non-notable. Redfarmer (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete although this could also have been bundled with The Morning Of. Tavix (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (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 (non-admin closure). D.M.N. (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IANAL

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also runs afoul of WP:NEO as, while there are many sources that use the term there do not appear to be reliable sources that are substantively about the term. Previous AFD closed as keep on the strength of such arguments as "I found it useful and interesting," which are not strong arguments, or bare "keep" votes. Otto4711 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Clear violation of WP:NOT#DICT. Perhaps it could also be included in something like List of Internet Acronyms if it were kept on Wikipedia. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The term is considered among the "most popular" internet acronyms, and it has both an interesting origin and a substantive real-world import (in contrast, say, to "IMHO"). I've begun sourcing and expansion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Popular" is not the standard for inclusion. And to again reference WP:NEO: "To support...an article about...a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Otto4711 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I said "most popular" because, in fact, I added a reliable secondary source saying so. It would do you well to track whether the article has changed during an AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mister Snarky, I do keep track of the articles regardless of whether I'm snarkily advised to or not. I notice that most of the sourcing that's been added is for such things as who said "I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV," which is certainly important to source but has very little to do with the actual subject of the article. My point still stands, that even if the acronym is insanely popular, popularity does not equal notability and how popular it is has absolutely no relevance as to whether the article should be kept. You've been doing these long enough, you really ought to know better than to try to pass off that kind of rotten argument. Otto4711 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The term is beyond wp:neo at this point, and has transended a few blogs (slashdot) and websites. It is a little weak granted, but you see the phrase everywhere, and it has spawned other phrases. A quick googling shows the phrase is used in many other areas as well. It is the 'defacto disclaimer' in the internet world, and the broad usage (216,000 ghits, which is nothing to sneeze at) has to say something about notability. It really doesn't belong in a dictionary, as it is more than a simple definition. It hasn't hit the level of snafu or fubar but the bar for notability isn't that high. Yes, the article needs work, and that is also a defacto non-reason for deletion. It could be better researched, cited and written. Pharmboy (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect--just jargon. JJL (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I have never heard of that before and I don't think I ever will. Non-notable for an encyclopedia. Tavix (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So everything that you've never heard of should be deleted? Are you kidding me? I assume then that you'd vote delete for Cramér–Rao bound too? 99.9999999% of people will never hear of that in their lifetime (how many people do graduate work in signal processing?) and even less will understand it. Cburnett (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with Dhartung's improvement, and sources. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep More than a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Popularity, age, and hilarity (lol, anal) are irrelevant. Length of the article is also irrelevant. Don't be wowed by its long article, people; the content, however long, is in clear violation of WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEO. An article should not exist just to 1) define a term (WP:NOT#DICT) 2) advise how it's used - "Wikipedia is not a jargon or usage guide" (WP:NOT#DICT) 3) describe its etymology (WP:NEO). This article does all of these but nothing else. Triple whammy. It should be archived as a good example of a terrible jargon article, but it should be deleted nonetheless. TheBilly (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]

• Comment Be aware that WP:NEO applies to terms that are not yet in dictionaries. IANAL, however, appears in several. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I simply don't buy any of the delete arguments. Could it use some work? Of course, what article couldn't? Cburnett (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, It's like LOL but slightly less known. 80.192.11.98 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is a referenced article that survived an earlier discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• The existence of references in an otherwise unsuitable article is irrelevant. Its survival of an earlier AFD, on such poor arguments as were offered then, is irrelevant because consensus can change. Try making an argument that actually addresses the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:22, 5 January 2008 (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 Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Md5deep

:Md5deep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD) Non-notable computer forensics tool --- no references in the article, no news hits ever, 2 book hits (virtually every security tool can wind up in someone's book). There are several scholar hits for the tool, but they are overwhelmingly attributed to the author of the tool and published in "forensics" journals, which are at the fringe of academic security research --- moreover, most of the journal hits simply list the tool alongside such basic tools as "md5sum". This article has been edited repeatedly by the author of the tool.

Withdrawn by nominator --- tqbf 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted and the content demoted to a more general article on crypto filesystem forensics. --- tqbf 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I had never heard of it before today, but found 25k ghits, including http://www.linux.com/feature/118616 and http://www.netadmintools.com/art362.html. Seems to be a stock package in Ubuntu (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/md5deep) and even found some hits relating to Mac. Utilities are kinda tricky, but this one seems to be written about in several areas. It is in the public domain (not gpl) and appears to be commonly distributed. That makes me think it is notable enough. Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  Netadmintools is a blog, and per WP:SPS isn't a source that verifies notability. Candidly, I missed the Linux.com article; a couple more !votes that cite it or your argument, and I'll withdraw the nom --- though I still think the encyclopedia would be improved if we demoted this content and combined it with information about other tools like md5sum. --- tqbf 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  While I am not normally a fan of using blogs as sources, when there is no doubt that the subject of the article *exists* and there is an overwhelming amount of blog activity on it, I think you can't ignore it. This is typical of tech issues, as blogs are a handy way to discuss how-to, etc. Not saying they meet wp:rs, but overwhelming numbers of references have to count as something of notability, under these very limited circumstances. And yes, there are other cites as well. I didn't search it very hard after finding linux.com. Pharmboy (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I, on the other hand, have not only heard of this program before, but actually use it. It's hardly non-notable, although the article may need a minor copy-edit. Alloranleon (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, ok, ok. Too quick on the trigger finger this time, and I apologize. That said, while I have you (I'll strike the nom in a few hours) --- would you oppose a merge+redirect with MD5sum into an article that also mentioned Tripwire? It seems weird to have all these tools split out. --- tqbf 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

  I apologise if I sounded confrontational; it wasn't my intent. :) As for the merge+redirect, I wouldn't oppose it at all. Cheers. Alloranleon (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2008 (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. Nothing to merge (basic info is already there), nothing verifiable to keep, and typo makes it an unnecessary redirect as well. Fram (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson, (Life On Mars)

Nelson, (Life On Mars) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable fictional character. Harland1 (^t/_c) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep but expand and cleanup. Main page for Life on Mars (TV series) states character appeared in twelve of sixteen episodes. That being said, however, I've never seen the show so I'm not sure how significant those appearances are. Moreoever, the article reads like a fan site, has limited information, and no sources, so it needs some significant cleanup. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Life on Mars (TV series). I see little or no indication that independent reliable sources support a spearate article for the character. The description in the cast section of the main article can easily be expanded if any of the information in this article is verifiable and non-trivial. If kept it does need to be moved to eliminate the comma from the article name and to clarify that it's a character from the UK series and not the upcoming US remake. Otto4711 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep, Cleanup, and Rename to Nelson (Life on Mars). He's an important character in the series, but the tendency on AfD these days is against individual articles on fictional characters, places, weapons etc - I see no overwhelming reason why this particular character _needs_ his own article. Tevildo (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm confused. If there is no need for the article and there are no reliable sources for it, what is the basis for keeping it? Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • * smiles * - Hence the "Very Weak". If you want to AfD (say) Harry Mudd or Grand Moff Tarkin, characters of equal significance in their respective universes, then be my guest. Tevildo (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nothing worth keeping, even a redirect would be of virtually no value. A minor character in a TV show, absolutely no real world notability. RMHED (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have no objection to a deletion instead of a redirect, especially since the comma makes this unlikely as a search term. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as wholly unreferenced w/o evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doubtful that reliable, secondary sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Life On Mars characters. --McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (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. Hut 8.5 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Salee' Amina Mohammed

Dr. Salee' Amina Mohammed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not have any reliable sources to establish notability and satisfy verifiability. The article has been tagged as unreferenced since September 2007 with no improvement. A google search turns up some of her postings on blogs but no reliable sources. A news search finds one mention in an article which looks to be just getting a quote from her, but the article is behind a pay wall. The other news result is a press release. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by user:Fugitive Recovery Agent but declined as the article does assert notability but just has no sources to back it up. Whpq (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Article asserts she is an ambassador of goodwill but gives no sources to back it up. Non-notable. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - would be notable if it's all true and any sources could be found; I can't help thinking someone really eminent in these fields wouldn't need to quote the Guinness Book of Records so much. Article created by an SPA who has done nothing since. JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources. Basking in the notability of others. It's telling that no other article links here which could be expected of someone who was notable. Emeraude (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a possible/partial hoax.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:32, 2 January 2008 (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, coverage found in reliable sources during AFD appears to establish notability meeting WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Morning Of

The Morning Of (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Makes a couple of claims, but none are enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. SmartPunk and PureVolume are not major record charts, so those claims certainly don't qualify under criterion #2. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No notability, failing WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. Jmlk17 05:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, was able to find a couple of what appear to be third-party sources for this band: ([3], [4]). Could be enough to tip them over the WP:N line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep. The Times Herald-Record article that Lankiveil found is sufficient, I think - band passes on coverage (the two articles) and the tour that's mentioned in the article. There's also a (short) bio and a review at allmusic [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)...and a couple more reviews:[7], [8].--Michig (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Definitely adheres to WP:MUSIC - band has received coverage and reviews in secondary sources, especially allmusic guide which is generally considered notable. The other articles are either borderline and meet criteria sufficiently. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:30, 22 March 2008 (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 articles on company and its alleged founder, with no prejudice against creation of proper article about the company. DS (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vast banket

This is a very strange article. There is a company in the Netherlands called Vast Banket, but it's a small family company, barely notable. The only coverage they have had are press releases, such as this one. The "professor Banket" in the article appears to be a hoax. Banket is the Dutch word for banquet, it's not a surname. And the history of the company? Well, the claimed rivalry with Dr. Oetker, which allegedly dates back to the 19th century, is bogus: as evidenced by the press release linked above, the company was founded around 1950. It's a minor company, nowhere near the size of Dr. Oetker. This is either a hoax, unverifiable, not notable, advertising, or any combination of the above. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. I smell WP:Hoax. Claims "Dr. Banket" discovered baking soda? -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of notability, as nominator states there is indeed a smallDutch company by that name making confectionary. Hence only part of the article is hoaxie (but tat can be remedied), and should not be ground for deletion. The remaining text however lack notability, which is a ground. Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Smother with a vast blanket as a hoax. (Baking soda is natural, baking powder is a 19th century invention.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the claims above fail WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up Vast Banket certainly exists, and I have enjoyed eating their products, and is more notable than some firms that have WP articles about them. The article is unencyclopaedic however and much of the content is either spurious or unreferenced. Describing Oetker and Banket as 'battling behemoths' is a great turn of phrase, but is clearly an exaggeration of any real rivalry.Riversider2008 (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the company exists, the article does not deal with that company but with a fictititious prof Banket.

• Keep but clean up references This article needs is references properly integrated.racingstu 16:57, 4 January 2008(UTC)

• The current references do not support any of the text of the article (I checked them, Dutch is my native language). Arnoutf (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of notability. See also recently added ‎Adelbert Banket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boson (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 January 2008 (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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dominic Saldhana

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

Non-notable saxophonist who has reached the dizzy heights of playing in a hotel lounge bar. Google search for "Dominic Saldhana" -wikipedia [9] produces 19 distinct hits, most of which do no more than give his name and none assert any notability. Article reads like a combination advert/CV. Emeraude (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There you have it, young musicians: if you dedicate yourself and work really hard, you too might be playing in a bar by the time you're 82! Ok, ok, delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, playing in a hotel doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSIC. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough to be included --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per comments above. We should probably delete all the music samples on the page, too, since they are all directly uploaded to Wiki. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails all criteria as set out in either WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC - no national tours, CD's, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (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. PeaceNT (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International football results

International football results (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Original concern was "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service". Furthermore, the article has no set inclusion criteria. – PeeJay 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I am the editor of this article and I´ll be in charge of updating this artcile every single day. This article informs, which is the main aim of any encyclopedia and I would be grateful if you gave me a chance to continue with this article. If the page is not up to date you may delete it if you wish. There are other articles in wikipedia which are very similar to this one. Eg. Ireland national results and fixtures, China national results and fixtures, etc... so it would be unfair if this page was deleted as there are articles of this type and I´ve put in a lot of effort to make this article.Qampunen (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete, Wikipedia is not a sports page. We already have Portal:Current events/Sports, if you absolutely have to do this. Corvus cornix_talk 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Agree with Dark Green. Wikipedia is not a sports page. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Qampunen, the article only starts from December 2007 - are you planning to enter all international games in history? Articles should not be biased towards recent events. There are many external sources which are almanacs of international football games, such as http://www.rsssf.com/intland.html. It would be preferable to update national team articles, national competition articles, etc on Wikipedia instead. -- Chuq (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is in how this is organized. There are articles about the CECAFA Challenge Cup and the King's Cup, and about the individual teams whose friendly matches are listed here. I appreciate that the author is presenting a global view of matches happening anywhere in the world on a particular day, and that he/she would maintain it... but the format does, indeed, resemble a sports page. We don't have daily NBA results either. On the other hand, a worldwide list of the matches that lead to World Cup qualifying (or another type of tournament) would be worth maintaining. Nom has a point, in that there have been no inclusion criteria (or boundaries, if you will) along which to organize the article. Look for whatever's been done, drop the day/month/year format, and consider other ways of organizing the information. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Articles that cover qualification for the FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Football Championship already exist, and I'm sure similar articles are there for the other confederations' tournaments. – PeeJay 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong and snowball delete. This fails WP:NOT harder than anything I've ever seen.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as per all the above, and the fact that a lot of the games already listed to not involve proper national teams. - fchd (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish national team results. Punkmorten (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- Every reason has already been listed, it should be deleted already. michfan2123 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and nom. Wikipedia is not a news source. Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 00:03, 3 January 2008 (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 per Criteria A7, non-notable group. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The National Socialist Party of Great Britain

The National Socialist Party of Great Britain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable far-right party. Previously deleted at it's old title, I can find no reliable sources. Prod removed by author. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. No news coverage either trivial or non-trivial. Groups pages suggest it only has 12 members. Ben W Bell talk 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe that the party is notable, due to the small spectrum of far right parties in the UK increasing it's prominence, rather than on comparison to all UK political parties, and that one so extreme as this deserves mention due to that. Not only that, but this article was kept up for a good few weeks before with spelling errors, irrelevant information that can be found elsewhere, and a huge bias - and yet now that all those have been changed, after it was deleted for "blatant advertising", it is up for deletion again, while notability was not taken as reason before. I've repaired all the issues previous creators of the page have made, as anyone who's page is being deleted should but now it's up for deletion again. I think this page should be kept.

Bellringer1 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Possibly even speedy as they are not registered as a party Whitstable (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - nonsense / hoax article - "National Socialist Party of Great Britain" - returns mirrors and blogs. Addhoc (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Just one return on Google when searching -wikipedia, to a private blog, which is odd for a party supposedly started in 2005. More searching required before I make up my mind, since if what the article says is correct, there needs to be an article. By the way, it is not a legal requirement for a political party to be registered in the UK unlesss it intends to contest elections, so Whitstable's comment is irrelevant. Emeraude (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But would a political party not registered as a party instead be a political pressure group? Which would surely make this a non-notable organisation, due to the lack of reliable sources about it? Whitstable (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. If it calls itself a party it's a party; registration has nothing to do with it. And what makes you think that political pressure groups are non-notable, with or without sources? Emeraude (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this particular case, it is a non-notable something - not that pressure groups are all non-notable, which is clearly not the case! Anyway, let's forget about it, not worth delaying this AFD over! Whitstable (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Trust me, the party exists. The recruiting campaign will no doubt get them reported on the news as something like "An alarming increase in racism" or "Virulent fascists roam the streets" or something similar. The party really goes public with recruiting this year, so you may hear more about it as time progresses. All of the information on the article is true, I assure you.

Bellringer1 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, with no prejudice against re-creation if they do get into the news - we'll then have some suitable reliable sources that can be quoted. Until then, though, they don't merit an article. Tevildo (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete they get 5 ghits 3 of which are wikipedia, completely non-notable. RMHED (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment And one of the two ghits that isn't a Wiki page is using the name as a disparaging term for the UK Labour Party. Whitstable (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Loved the website-- 12 anonymous members, no address except the e-mail kind, no events scheduled--- any asshole with a computer can voice an opinion on the internet. I just did. Mandsford (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7, move on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:03, 2 January 2008 (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. Fram (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Barton (journalist)

Peter Barton (journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable journalist for a barely notable magazine, who has written two non-notable books. No coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Possible autobiography. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly no autobiography, it's a direct translation of nl:Peter Barton (auteur). Ravage is definately not non-notable, it is a highly reccommended magazine in the Dutch left-winged scene, probably the biggest there's ever been. Read nl:Ravage. Against deletion. Pee-Tor (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Aecis^Brievenbus 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed, this guy's notability is about as non-existant as David Hasslehoff's humility, and likewise his relevance is null. Alloranleon (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete lack of notability. Does not appear to be an autobiography though but a translation of a Dutch Wiki article, which was mainly added for reasons of disambig (ie the author is not even truly notable inside the Netherlands, let alone internationally). Arnoutf (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't say tha too quick, Enkeltje Veenhuizen caused the Wissel prison in Veenhuizen to close down becouse of lack of security. Pee-Tor (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 1. As far as I can tell, prison De Wissel is still open and in use. 2. Barton's stay there received little to no coverage in reliable sources, only a few mentions in far left underground incrowd media. 3. Could you provide some data on for instance sales figures of Enkeltje Veenhuizen? Aecis^Brievenbus 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • 1. De Wissel is now an isolation quarter for Groot Bankebosch, after being completely reorganised. It isn't the half-open detention center for shortly punished which it used to be. 2. It's just what you call 'reliable sources'. I find Ravage higly reliable. Also, De Internetjournalist, Nieuws uit Amsterdam and GeenStijl are not really left underground incrowd media. 3. No, I can't, I don't work for the publisher and my last name isn't Barton. Pee-Tor (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability NBeale (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2008 (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. Take advantage of existing categories, create more specific ones as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of buildings in Lower Manhattan

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

Delete list of some buildings in a notable street cannot become encyclopedic article. This info, if needed and if there are some notable building here, con be mentioned in the main article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete in agreement with nom. Any notable buildings with valid links can be sub-sectioned in the main article. I might have weak kept if there had been more valid linked articles with brief info on each, but judging by its current state and what it currently provides, it's a delete for me. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete in its current form, this is listcruft. Per above, notable buildings for Wall Street and other LM streets can be sub-sectioned on their main articles, if the street itself is notable. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Merge, or Userfy - this info should be preserved in some way. It was originally split out from the Wall Street article, so there might be some resistance to having it put back there. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and Categorize. Articles could be linked together in a category. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this is what categories are for. If anyone wants to userfy it then nobody's stopping you from doing so.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:10, 2 January 2008 (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, obvious copyright violation of [10]. An article discussing this top 100 and its reception and importance may be possible: an article mostly existing of a reproduction of the list is definitely not fair use. Fram (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine top 100

Time magazine top 100 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Someone has expressed concern this is a copyright violation. I think it probably qualifies as fair use, but I thought the community should have a look at it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep. There're no legitimate copyright problems here, so long as the list in its current form hasn't been ripped exactly from a Time publication. If we considered such things copyright breaches, we wouldn't be able to reference anything relating to magazines and their contents. Alloranleon (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rename [[Time magazine top 100 movies]]. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, this is assuming it is not a copyvio. If it is a copyvio, then the article can be speedied. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Y'all might be interested in this: [11]. 3 copyvio deletions. Might Time be protecting their rights to this list? Someone might want to message one of the deleting admins. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• RE above Right, good idea. Just need to find somebody with the balls to do so... Assuming you meant they may have a conflict of interest. ;) Alloranleon (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or maybe merge somehow with Films_considered_the_greatest_ever. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, how many times do we have to go through this? This is, without question, a copyvio, since it's a subjective list. If this were a list of the highest-grossing movies, which can be sourced by objective numbers, then it's not a copyvio since those are facts. This is opinion. Therefore, it's Time's intellectual property, and cannot be here. Corvus cornix_talk 18:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment How's this: [[12]] for an alternative source? Alloranleon (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because somebody else violates copyright doesn't mean Wikipedia can. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No prose, sources, bad link, no claims of notability (for the list). Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge, if it isn't indeed a copyright violation, if it is Speedy Delete. Seems somewhat suitable to be an article, but would be nice if it could somehow be merged with Films considered the greatest ever. Hello32020 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per copyright violation. If someone can proove that is isn't, I'll change my vote. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, when it comes to copyvios, the onus of proof is on the nominator. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not hardly. There are standards on Wikipedia. Intellectual property is clearly copyrighted. Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My point is, if we tag something as copyvio, we have to determine, copyvio of what, specifically. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep How many times do we have to go through this, indeed. The list here is a very small portion of the material they published on this. --it's valid as fair use of an excerpt, and its valid as reporting. DGG (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (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 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tuberculosis victims

List of tuberculosis victims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete This topic do not deserve for a encyclopedic article. This article documents the name of some notable people who died from tuberculosis. But such list is unencyclopedic. Firstly, tuberculosis is not a serious disease like AIDS, Anorexia nervosa etc. If we want to create lists of people died due to a particular disease, then numerous such trivial lists can be created, like List of malaria victims, List of fracture victims, List of gastroenterotitis victims, List of pancreatitis victims. list of colitis victims etc. etc. If we create such list after lists of all the diseases mentioned in medical science, then wikipedia will not become encyclopedia, but some "Do you know" or "Quiz" or "Believe it or not" type website. Secondly, as I have told above that tuberculosis is not a serious disease like AIDS (at least due to the advancement in medical science), hence list of tuberculosis victims cannot become an article. There may be articles like "List of AIDS victims" or "List of Bird Flu victims" because AIDS or Bird Flu are serious disease now, compared to tuberculosis. In wikipedia there are articles like List of deaths from anorexia nervosa, List of deaths by accidental drug overdose etc. because the cause of death is a serious issue in today's medical science and society. But tuberculosis or malaria etc. numerous diseases are not. Hence I am nominating this unencyclopedic article for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename Strong Keep. Changed my mind ;). This is a decent list, and it would be a shame to waste the efforts of all those that have contributed to it thusfar. Alloranleon (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions: "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs). Do not use a title like: Xs, famous Xs, listing of important Xs, list of notable Xs, nor list of all Xs." Aecis^Brievenbus 17:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Secondly, as I have told above that tuberculosis is not a serious disease like AIDS (at least due to the advancement in medical science), hence list of tuberculosis victims cannot become an article. What utter nonsence. It is a serious disease to those who died from it! Yes, it may not be a common way to die in the developed world of today, but that's no reason to remove it. So if a cure for AIDS is found tomorrow, then the afformentioned list should be removed? This article provides some historical context to the way we lived. Also, this list doesn't need to be renamed. It doesn't need the qualifier "famous" or "celebrity" as anyone on that list should have their notability already asserted. Lugnuts (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I created this article, quite a few years ago. Whether "tuberculosis is not a serious disease" or not seems almost beside the point, although I note that a lot of people seem to have died of it. More importantly, tuberculosis was, for want of a better word, a cultural phenomenon. Many, many literary and creative figures had it. It is reflected in their works, which cannot be put into context today without some notion of its sheer prevalence. Susan Sontag's Illness as Metaphor contains an extended discussion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Note also that the page was started at List of famous tuberculosis victims and has been moved here in the interim. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename per AlloranleonStrong Keep. It seems incredibly creul and short-sighted to believe that, simply because tuberculosis is not a major cause of death today, it's not a significant cause of death. It is very notable since thousands died from it, particularly in the late ninteenth/early twentieth centuries. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Changing my vote to strong keep. By the way, are you serious about maleria not being a serious killer today? Last I checked, you still have to get a maleria vaccine to travel to many parts of Africa in order to, well, not get it and die. -- Redfarmer (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry, there's no effective vaccine for malaria yet. The parasite's complex life cycle makes it hard to target.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Please read the link I provided in response to Alloranleon. The naming conventions quite clearly state that the names of articles, lists, templates, categories etc. should not contain words like "notable", "famous", etcetera. Remove those words from his proposal, and you end up with its current title. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep "Firstly, tuberculosis is not a serious disease like AIDS, Anorexia nervosa etc." Are you serious? Do you know anything about the history of this disease or, indeed, its current drug resistant resurgence? That's the single silliest thing I've ever read on Wikipedia. Doesn't the long list of notable people who've died of it tell you that it's been a major cause of death? The Anorexia list, which you seem quite happy with, has all of seven names on it. Nick mallory (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed the claim that Malaria isn't an important disease either. It would be hard to think of two diseases which have wreaked more effect on humanity throughout recorded history. I seriously urge the nominator to read up about these subjects, rather than seek to delete information about them. Nick mallory (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd say we have consensus here. Anyone for fast-tracking the closing of this proposal? Alloranleon (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Nick mallory...nothing more to say. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, a major killer throughout human history. It is only because of medical advances in the last 150 years that it has been overtaken by diseases like cancer, which tend to kill later in life. The treatment up until almost WWII was sanitorium care which greatly affected the lifestyle of the afflicted, including many artists for whom this became a defining event. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The above is a good argument for keeping Tuberculosis, but not for keeping this list. Emeraude (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a good argument against the nomination rationale, when he said "Firstly, tuberculosis is not a serious disease like AIDS, Anorexia nervosa etc." Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Reading that tuberculosis was once the #1 infectious disease killer in the world (now second to AIDS with malaria #3) did not impact me as much as seeing a list of the many people listed in Wikipedia whose lives were shortened or deeply affected by this disease. Petersam (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but... Keep the article because of the tremendous impact of this disease in shortening the lives of so many prominent people. BUT it needs much improvement, including (1) references to sources and (2) more information about how these people were affected by TB. There was a lot of good content in Tuberculosis in history and art as of 2 August 2007 that got removed when that article was renamed to Tuberculosis in art; that content should be moved into this article. Meanwhile, this article may have some spurious content -- for example, the Wikipedia articles on Lord Byron and W.C. Fields say nothing about TB or consumption -- maybe they did have TB, but the situation illustrates the fact that sourcing is needed in order to help weed out spurious entries. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  
• Strong Keep I came to this article because I was looking for the information. The references look strong. What can I say, people search for weird stuff on the interwebs. Wiki should have the answers. Contributer did a great job. --nescio quid dicas (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Nick Mallory and a disease that affects two billion people with nine million cases becoming active each year is a serious health concern. --Sandahl 00:49, 6 January 2008 (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. Fram (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of atrocities

List of atrocities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no acceptable definition of atrocity which will not allow a meaningful list of atrocities to be built. This list will have all the problems and non neutral points of view that the list of massacres has which is in a constant state of POV edit warring. (see Talk:List of massacres and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres)

The Atrocity article says "In general use, an atrocity or massacre designates a politically or ethnically motivated killing of civilians. In international law, more precise terms are war crime and crime against humanity". If the list is only to be constructed from definition of international law then they should be in lists of war crimes and crimes against humanity where there is a strict legal definition. Not a vague list generated from politically or ethnically motivated points of view.

Making the list a "list of alleged atrocities" would be an even worse idea as anyone can allege that anything is an atrocity. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or Merge Recommend deleting the article, unless it can be modified to something like List of Genocides. In that case, recommend complete deletion.Alloranleon (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a list of genocides called Genocides in history, but to be in that list a verifiable third party source must be cited. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Unlike "war crime", there is no objective criteria for stating that an event was an "atrocity". This article is just a list of events that Wikipedia contributors think were atrocities. As such, it is not valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment FYI, this list was excised from the atrocity article, where one contributor seems hell bent on adding it back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: agree with nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with the nom, the criteria for being on the list is far too vague Whitstable (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Yes, most definitely too vague. Malinaccier (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Criteria for entry is too vague or open to interpretation, bias and dispute. Apart from problems the article doesn't really add anything which does not already exist.-AlexCatlin (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe that an article on this subject is needed, but that it must allow all events that can be third party sourced. As i have said else where, in order to judge if a claim is true you have to know it exists in the first place. Perhaps the name should be alleged atrocities Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• Strong Delete it doesn't get more POV than this. RMHED (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy. This is very well-sourced and must have taken a considerable time to write.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as "atrocity" is a more subjectively defined term than "War crime" or even "massacre". Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - well-intentioned but intractably POV. Biruitorul (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (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. Fram (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serena Dalrymple

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

Non notable child actress, article appears to have been written by her friends. There does seem to be a web-presence, but no decent, reliable sources as far as I can see. Appearances appear to be minor. Prod was removed by the author. Both the author and an anon have blanked the page at different times. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed my opinion. See below. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Completely agree regarding lack of notability and biased tone. Alloranleon (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO in several ways. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agree with above, that it fails WP:BIO about an actress with "awesome acting skills" who recently "quitted Showbiz" according to the article and "at these very moments" she "no longer is going to make a comeback in the Showbiz industry". The entire article is awash in redlinks and bad English (I just gave some of the most glaring examples). Look, if she's famous in the Phillipines, i'd suggest a transwiki to the Tagalog Wikipedia. Also, i'd suggest a coat of salt on this due to the actions by the author of the article mentioned in the nomination. Doc Strange (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If she is notable in the Philippines, then she is notable enough for Wikipedia, which is a global encyclpedia. enwiki is not US/UK/AU/NZ/CAwiki. cab (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Isn't notable enough, and agree looks to be written by her friends and is very biased. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep given that she has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in various Philippine newspapers [13][14][15][16][17]. Various awards she has received are also confirmed at [18], and confirmation of the roles she has played can be found in the various mentions in a Google News archive search [19]. WP:COI problems should be fixed by editing, not deletion. cab (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep now, given the sources. "enwiki is not US/UK/AU/NZ/CAwiki" is absolutely correct.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• My opinion has changed to keep. Decent sources appear to have been cited regarding her notability, but sources for those awards would still be nice. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• The problem, as I see it, is that Philippine institutions (such as award-giving bodies) don't keep very good websites. For instance, the Awit Awards website doesn't keep a list of past winners extending to way back before the Internet hit the mainstream. There are, in fact, some institutions that do not have a website. So in the end, we'll be forced to rely to old-school newspapers from library archives. But, yes, Serena did win some awards, I remember hearing of it (just that, I can't remember which one for which movie and when). --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's alright to cite old newspapers- if you have access to those archives, then citing the papers in this article (and other, similar articles) would be a fantastic help. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable child actress. --Howard the Duck 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable actress in the Philippines (actually more notable when she was a child actress). She used to be the leading star in about a dozen films, and very notable Philippine comedians were on the supporting cast of these movies (e.g. Dolphy, Babalu, Redford White, Carding of the Reycards duo). I even saw some of her movies myself when I was younger =P All those movies which are (still) red links? She's the leading star in allthose movies, and at the time she earned a huge sum that she was able to support her family, including her two other sisters. She keeps a lesser profile these days, which started after the death of her mother, but that doesn't mean she isn't notable. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable former child actress, but we need to find valid sources (but they are in libraries by now). Starczamora (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable child actress. See her IMDB profile. Has starred in a lot of movies, and has won awards in the Philippine version of the Oscars. --seav (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2008 (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 of this discussion was Delete (non-admin closure) --Strothra (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of people associated with Wall Street

List of people associated with Wall Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge in Wall Street: In wikipedia there is already an article Wall Street. This info can easily go there. Such trivial info canonot deserve for a separate article. As such numerous articles can be created like List of people associated with Tajmahal, List of people associated with New York etc. etc. This info can easily go in the section of the Wall Street article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Instead of burdenoning the Wall Street article with such a list, it seems like it would be much more suited to a category, something like [[Category: People associated with Wall Street]]. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Redfarmer's idea of a category sounds better to me. Malinaccier (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no objective inclusion criteria possible. Otto4711 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic and far too POV. RMHED (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. List is not encyclopedic and not objective. Mh29255 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective. A category may be acceptable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:39, 2 January 2008 (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 with a suggestion to merge the content in the history to List of Heroes episodes by someone more knowledgeable on the subject. Regardless of where the consensus stands on original research and plot synthesis, there have been insufficient sources presented in this discussion (and the article) for me to ignore the arguments that this is unsourced and hence fails WP:V at this stage. So, what I have found to be the consensus is that, as a result of this discussion, the article is to be redirected and anyone can get the old content and modify it into the central article, because the arguments about WP:V are persuasive. Applying a combination of strength of rationale and frequency of rationale, I feel that there is a consensus to merge and redirect. However, in future, I respectfully request that merge discussions take place editorially.

I have protected the redirect per WP:CSD#G4 and to uphold this consensus. If you feel you have written (in your sandbox) an article which counters all these concerns, please file a deletion review to have the draft evaluated by a consensus to see if it can be reinstated in place of the redirect. Similarily, if you disagree with this close, feel free to ask for a review also. Daniel 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truth & Consequences

Truth & Consequences (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, (nbc is not a reliable source in this case, in the wikipedia sense of the word), I can't find any third party sources to verify the lengthy plot summary that fills 90% of the page.

I would also like to point out the apparent lack of self-discipline of the Heroes wikiproject. In this diff you can see they acknowledge the need to merge the individual articles into one list, and set it as one of their tasks. This was 2 months and 3 weeks ago. Not only have they not got round to starting the process as far as I can see, but they also created a whole load more articles on individual episodes, such as this one created by User:Edokter, who is a member of the heroes wikiproject.

Furthermore they keep adding random non-free screenshots of random parts of the episode into the infoboxes. How can these images significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic when they show only about 0.1% of the episode ?

Please note that WP:Episode seems to be highly disputed now, especially by the users writing these articles, so as a courtesy to them I will not base this nomination on that guideline. Please consider this article as any other that has no sources, and appears to be original research based on simply watching the series. The heroes TV series is notable, each episode in itself is not, though the occasional ones may be.

• Deletion request proposed on the basis of All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed and Content not suitable for an encyclopedia (WP:DEL#REASON and WP:NOT#PLOT). Jackaranga (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep with no predujice to a merge; WP:EPISODE specifically request users do not nominate episode articles for deletion. Will ^(talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That is unacceptable as an argument for speedy keeping. The nomination is, as clearly stated above, that the article is original research and unverifiable. WP:EPISODE does not override our content policies and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Articles that are original research and unverifiable are discussed at AFD and deleted. If you want to make an argument that is not in contravention of our content and deletion policies here, you need to show that this article is both verifiable and not original research, by citing sources where this subject has already been discussed and documented outside of Wikipedia first. You have not done so. Certainly the article itself does not. If WP:EPISODE is guiding editors in the direction of abrogating the project's fundamental content policies, then WP:EPISODE is faulty and should be fixed. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle G, I believe you are quite right, policy supersedes guidelines, also Sceptre the WP:EPISODE says Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research, this is exactly why I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it is unverifiable and original research, please refer to the first 3 words of the nomination. This put aside I would like to base the AfD on policy only as the episode guideline seems to be disputed at the moment. This having been said, if anyone of you would like to merge the article, please feel free to do so within the 7 day AfD period and I will be more than happy to remove the nomination. However saying merge and then more than 2 months later still not having done it, as I showed above is not a solution. Jackaranga (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• But what is the ultimate point of actually pressing the delete button on this page? A redirect to the LoE would be much easier, and less drama. And in this case, it's a plausible redirect term for Truth and Consequences (the game show, the NM town, etc). Will ^(talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just for the record, the TV game show and the New Mexico town are Truth or Consequences and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. Note the difference. "or," not "and." Edison (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, cite better sources and condense plot. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The episode itself serves as a source for the majority of the information on the article. You don't need a third party source for that sort of information that is freely available in the episode. Supposition and deriving meaning from the episode and putting it into the article is original research, but detailing the plot and happenings on screen in the episode are not. Ben W Bell talk 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The source only cites the air date, for which NBC is the only reliable source. WP:OR is largely exempt for plots, as the only way to complile them is to watch the show and descirbe the plot yourself; no third-party is able to help you there. I will state that the article lacks real-world context, ie. production and critical reception. But having a plot alone is better then no article as all. — Edokter • Talk • 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong. There are no exemptions to the Wikipedia:No original research policy. It is a fundamental policy that covers all content. If no third party has already done the research, then the primary research doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It is inappropriate for editors to watch a television show and then create primary documentation of that television show in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. If a work of fiction's plot is not already documented outside of Wikipedia, it may not be documented inside of Wikipedia, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It is not a place for documenting the undocumented. "Wiki" means fast, not first. It is not the place to come to write up the plot of a television show as it airs — as is exactly what has happened here.

    So, once again: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this television show has already been discussed and documented outside of Wikipedia first. You have not done so, and, as such, have failed to rebut the argument that this is original research and primary documentation of the heretofore undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Except watching a program and describing the plot, as long as you don't put an interpretation on it, is not original research. The episode itself is the reference. By your definition of original research everything is original research. By that definition finding a reference and putting it in your own words is OR, just locating a reference would be OR, which is isn't. The information for a TV episode is easily verifiable from watching an episode, this is no different to reading it in a book or reading it on a news website and does not constitute original research. Even the Wikipedia article defines OR as "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." The data on the episode page is a summary and synthesis of a previous publication [the original broadcast]. Ben W Bell talk 19:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Strongly agree with Ben W Bell on his refutation of the OR claims,--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Heroes episodes or a seasonal list. While I disagree that the nominator has shown that the Wikiproject believes the articles should be merged (the diff shows that they recognize the need to condense the plot summaries) I do agree that with the lack of independent reliable sources about the episode it is best to have the episodes in a single list. Should sources later develop that discuss particular episodes in detail, then I would have no prejudice against recreating the article but as it now stands the article should be M&Red. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep with no prejudice to merge; assertions regarding "original research" are incorrect and do not apply here. Descriptions of the plot do not constitute original research; that would only be valid if there were attempts to interpret what was depicted. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of Heroes episodes. Stand-alone articles consisting of lengthy and overly detailed plot summaries based only on watching the episode are unencyclopedic and contrary to WP:OR and WP:N. If a show is notable, then an episode list is appropriate. If an individual episode garners awards or critical commentary and analysis in independent and reliable sources, then an article about it might be appropriate. Edison (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• This article consists of a plot description and some production minutae. I have no objection to a non-interpretive synopsis of a plot being primarily sourced provided it is referenced ({{cite episode}}) and contains no opinions, interpretations, or conclusions. I agree with the nominator, and while I would prefer a more Wikipedia-appropriate reliable source than the publisher themselves, I would not nominate for deletion on those grounds alone, surely those minutae can be sourced elsewhere given some time.

  However, this article consists of a plot description and some production minutae. It provides no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the Wikipedia notability guideline in a nutshell. All things considered: notability, poor sourcing/referencing, and PLOT? Delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and stubify. Messy, but a little cutting and a cite or two more can fix the problem. Hit show, but not my thing. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This assumes that there are additional cites to reliable sources. None have as yet been forthcoming in the course of this discussion. What sources do you put forward in support of your opinion? Otto4711 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, applying OR to this makes no sense. If you want more sources, [20] is good - it's a blog, but it's the director's blog and can be considered reliable for this article.-gadfium 01:47, 8 January 2008 (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 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of people associated with Bletchley Park

List of people associated with Bletchley Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I just added the title above to separate this AfD from the one above it. This is not my nomination, I have nothing to do with this article, please read how to do an AfD before doing this again, whoever nominated this article, it makes the AfD page incomprehensible when the comments below are under a heading about a TV series. Jackaranga (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Bletchley Park: In wikipedia there is already an article Bletchley Park. This info can easily go there. Such trivial info canonot deserve for a separate article. As such numerous articles can be created like List of people associated with Tajmahal, List of people associated with New York etc. etc. This info can easily go in the "In popular culture" section of the Bletchley Park article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "in popular culture", these are people who worked on an historically important project. If that isn't encyclopedic, I'll eat my hat. "Associated with" does not necessarily open the door to other miscellaneous articles, if that's what you're concerned with. There's no way this could be recast as "List of people from Bletchley Park, for instance, even if they lived there temporarily. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is useful reference information. 1) I'm confused by the suggestion to put this in a "in popular culture" section. In what sense is this information related to popular culture? 2) This information cannot "easily" go into Bletchley Park -- indeed, I split this list out of that article in January 2006 because it was becoming too large to fit there. 3) I would argue that a list is useful in addition to having a category because it can be annotated with extra information. — Matt Crypto 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's unwieldy to try to contain this information in Bletchly Park. I disagree with the "in popular culture" assessment. Many of the people listed are notable both for being involved with the project at Bletchly Park and for subsequent work elsewhere. There exists two categories: Category:People associated with Bletchley Park and Category:Bletchley Park; if it is deemed necessary to "deal" with this article, I'd suggest using the already-existing mechanisms to associate people with the project (which would simply mean adding Category:People associated with Bletchley Park to the main Bletchley Park article). Yngvarr 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - too long a list to merge into main article, and not non-trivial information. Many of the people at Bletchly Park were instrumental in both the war effort, and the advancement of electronics, encryption/decryption and computing after the war. Ben W Bell talk 17:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Make into a category, not an article. Malinaccier (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This list contains useful and interesting information, on an important subject. Now, in general I like categories more than lists (I find them more useful for navigating, and for all sorts of other reasons), so I am intrigued by Malinaccier's proposal: it seems like something very much worth pondering. Is there something peculiar about this list that would make it better suited as a list per se, instead of a category? Turgidson (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the article more carefully (and trying my hand at some small edits), I noted something specific about this list —something that may set it apart from lists that could be better turned into categories: it appears to want to (briefly) indicate the future careers of the Bletchly Park code-breakers (and some of those careers, such as that of J. H. C. Whitehead, were truly outstanding). Is this the intent? I'm still not quite sure, since this is not done uniformly, and not explained—but perhaps this aspect could be developed, so as to fully support keeping this article as a list? Turgidson (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the original intent. Having a category is good, and I believe we do already, but I don't think it's sufficient, largely because you can annotate a list with information -- such as what they the people did at Bletchley, and whether (as was very often the case) they did something else notable in their lives. I've always understood the role of lists and categories to be complementary on Wikipedia; you don't necessarily have to have just one or the other, but both can be useful. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the category does exist: Category:People associated with Bletchley Park — I've seen it before, for sure, but memory sometimes fades, thanks for the reminder. And, yes, I'm with you for having both categories and lists (each one has i's strengths, and perhaps, sometimes, its weaknesses), though I still prefer categories when everything else is equal, as in the case of the (alas!) defunct Erdős number categories. In this case, though, given the real potential for expanding the list with info about subsequent careers of the Bletchley Park people (in a multi-column table, yes, great idea!), I am now convinced this subject merits both a category and a list (something I would not say for every category or list, only for select few). Turgidson (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The number of later-famed people associated with the project is long and encyclopedic. It would be good to source both the major positions held and what they are later known for (maybe a three-column table). --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A table's not a bad idea at all; it might be easier to peruse than a bullet point list. — Matt Crypto 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is so long it would be cumbersome to put it into another article, and the fact that so many very notable people were associated with Bletchley Park is in itself notable. This information is certainly not "trivial". (And the suggestion that this is "popular culture" material makes me wonder if the person who suggested that has any idea what this is about.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject; objective criterion for inclusion; not trivia or "popular culture"; list is long enough to require its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons already given by others, and suggest that nominator should read WP:LIST and WP:CLS before nominating any more lists for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Bletchley Park was a seminal event in the history of 20th century technology, at the level of the Manhattan Project, (q.v. Category:Manhattan Project people). This list is exceptionally valuable resource.--agr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2008 (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. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study

List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merge with Institute for Advanced Study: In wikipedia there is already an article titled Institute for Advanced Study. A list on the faculty members do not deserve for a separate article. This info can easily go into Institute for Advanced Study article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant against Category:Institute for Advanced Study faculty. Tevildo (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and also Merge. Per nominator and Tevildo. Malinaccier (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, more unfounded listphobia. There are hundreds of faculty lists for educational institutions already, many of them far less notable than the IAS, one of the premier pure-research institutions in the world. Lists are superior to a category because they can give information like dates of tenure and professional role. This could be improved with sources and more information, but it's already far too long to merge into the IAS article itself. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this list adds information about field and tenure beyond what could be stored in a category list, and all of the redlinks on this list are highly notable scientists that should have their own article. There's much more that could be done to raise the quality toward Wikipedia:Featured lists status, including referencing, but as a list/article on its own it is certainly worthy of being kept. — Catherine\^talk 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Categories are inferior; they cannot be organized and they cannot contain the additional information on each listing that is found here. This list is too long to fit comfortably into the main article. The Institute for Advanced Study is important, and a large proportion of the people on this list warrant their own articles. The fact that the Institute's faculty consists largely of people warranting their own articles is in itself notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Better kept separate from the article on the Institute. The organization is different. This would be an excellent topic for a featured list. The information already in it cannot readily be put in a category, and a category cannot grow the way a list article can. Fg2 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty much a textbook example of an encyclopedic list. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons already given by others, and suggest that nominator should read WP:LIST and WP:CLS before nominating any more lists for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - objective inclusion criteria; long enough to require its own separate article; contains additional information that not appear in equivalent category. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2008 (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 Ignition (album). D.M.N. (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Magic

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

Non notable album track with no useful information. Never released as a single. Previous Prod deleted, finally got around to AfD Nouse4aname (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, rubbish explanation. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ignition (album), which is actually quite a good album, unlike what The Offspring did later which was crap.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, should have suggested that option too, but I wanted the decision to be saved somewhere incase of future edits that revert it back to a pointless stub! Oh, and what do you mean crap? "Why Don't You Get a Job" was awesome.....Nouse4aname (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a rip-off of The Beatles' Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. I just don't like their later music. But Wikipedia is not a forum. The current consensus seems to be that redirecting non-notable songs to the appropriate album is the most acceptable thing to do - better than deletion in some ways, yet it other ways it could prove problematic considering the number of album track names that exist - if redirects existed for every track on every notable album, people may find that they end up on a page when they were actually looking for something else.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a legitimate concern, but in this particular case, anyway, I don't think there's any overlap for the phrase "Dirty magic", and any future overlaps can be worked out when they happen TheBilly (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to album. No reliable sources at present and lack of notability. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. I own this album on a worn-out cassette tape and like this particular song as well as all the others, but it's not one of their more important ones. Per WP:MUSIC, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." TheBilly (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2008 (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 Merge to Metal Slug (series). Marasmusine (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allen O'Neil

Allen O'Neil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Metal Slug (series)#Characters. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Fantasy universe figure with no real world notability Whitstable (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Brewcrewer, no need for a separate article. Someone another (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (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. I'm going out on a limb here and being bold. There us no concrete assertion of notability (at least nothing that is verifiable, the number of Ghits is low and there is a question over whether the article was self written. Mallanox 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gman Blues

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

Nickname of non-notable musician Gary Wesselhoff, who obviously has no article of his own. There are some Ghits of Wesselhoff as a writer, but nothing substantial as a performer. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/Redirect – Sorry to disagree, I believe he has established notability based on these hits in Google as shown here, [21] In particular this article; [22]. However, the Wikipedia article should be redirected to Gary Wesselhoff and the article posted there. In addition, it does need a complete rewrite and should be tagged as such. Happy New Year Shoessss |  Chat  17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Shoessss |  Chat  17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know that I agree with you the article should be at Gary Wesselhoff. We have a precident for putting articles at the name a person was most well known as in the field they were involved in (e.g. Mark Twain and George Eliot) whether or not that is their real name (i.e. not Samuel Langhorne Clemens or Mary Ann Evans). If the article were to be keep, I think it should stay where it is and be rewritten. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I took a look at the article Shoesss said was particularly noteworth on ChicagoMusicGuide.com. I noticed the author of the article was simply listed as "Staff Writer" so I took a look at the site to see if they had a list of their staff writers and, wouldn't you know, Gary Wesselhoff is one of those Staff Writers. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I took another look and realized this is his staff writer biography. That defnitely knocks this out of the nobility field for me. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This one was a tough one for me. One the one hand, Shoesss is right that there are eleven pages of Google hits for the mans name. On the other hand, on looking at some of the hits I found two trends: 1) Many of the hits are not for him at all but for an author of the same name. 2) Many were links to Myspace-ish networking sites for musicians. 3) Of those which were actually articles on the musician, most that I looked at were written by the musician himself. I was not able to find an independent article about the musician. In addition, the username which created the article only made one edit in October, to create the article in question, which leads me to speculate this may have been the musician once again self-promoting himself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Still Keep - Even with Redfarmer (talk) objections. The “Chicago Music Guild” is a verifiable and reliable source. Do we penalize the individual because he is on staff there? I assume, and as far as I know the protocol for every newspaper is that a writer submits his piece to the associate editor for that section who must approve or disapprove. The piece is than passed to the editor of the section for the same decision. At that point it is typically passed to an independent editor for a thumbs up or down. Than finally published. I see no collusion or cabal here. By the way Happy New Year All.Shoessss |  Chat  14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's "Chicago Music Guide," not "Chicago Music Guild." The site seems to be a local Chicago Web Zine which features a few articles on music but mostly reviews of musical acts which have played in Chicago. Their mission statement seems to imply they don't discriminate between notability or not, as their mission is to help "all musicians," and, indeed, the only act I see they review which has any national/international notability is Avenged Sevenfold, who apparently played a show in Chicago recently. I really fail to see how an staff writer's bio on a local web zine, coupled with self-written articles strewn across the net, establishes the person's notability as a musican. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, just to press the issue a little further, his writer bio, besides saying he's a musicain, also says he's been a "Recording Engineer, Network Analyst, and Lead Sound and Stage Carpenter." Do you think a writer's bio on a local web zine would establish his notability in any of those fields? If not, why do you think it establishes his notability as a musician? -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - LOL, I admit I am an incluetionist! Yes a made up word. I always question any individual editors imperious opinion that an article should be deleted. My feelings have always been, “ when in doubt KEEP. Shoessss |  Chat  15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But I don't think there're any doubts here. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7 (and tagged as such) - authoring a web zine and signing up for networking sites in between fits of self-promotion does not make a musician notable. The article makes utterly no claim of notability, and could even be tagged under somewhat liberal interpretation of G11 (blatant advertising, in this case, a self-promoting vanity bio). The closest the article comes to a statement of notability is the line, "So far gman hasn’t been on the grand stages of rock, but it is a mark he is moving to." Maybe once he moves to those grand stages, an article will be justified. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (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. Most of the keep arguments actually have good reasoning, while most of Delete arguments seem to be not offering arguments for it, as JaapBoBo rightly points out. I'm also concerned that because of the constant "Delete - POV fork" argument that there is some sockpuppetry here to try and get the article deleted. Therefore, after looking at the debate (and removing possible sockpuppet reasons) its almost certainly keep. The renaming issues can be further discussed on the article talkapge. D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs

Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a personal essay on Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs. It starts with a POV title and goes downhill from there. I tried redirecting it, but the creator and sole editor reverted me with a charming edit summary. As far as I can tell this essay is partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references (not since the opening chapters of A History of the English Speaking Peoples have I seen quite so many references to quite so few sources) and is in sundry ways unacceptable, violating WP:NPOV from the outset. Since the creator won't allow it to be quietly redirected, here it is for the community's consideration. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep

This is really ridiculous.

The article was created because there was lack of space in the Zionism article. I proposed it in the talk section [23]. Below that, on the same talk page Ceedjee says 'I think the idea of having an article dedicated to this topic could be useful.' and Telaviv1 says 'It might be necessary to create an article "Zionism and the Arabs", which would be of interest to a lot of people.'.

I suspect JzG has only taken a superficial glance at the article. He refused to substantiate his allegations: 'partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references' on the talk page of the article and went directly to a nomination for deletion. Maybe he doesn't like the thruths stated in the article and thinks there are many sources that would claim something different. I'm quite sure the article uses sources from both sides and gives their bearing in a neutral way. Improvement is of course always possible, certainly in such a new article, and if JzG is interested I'd be happy to cooperate with him to improve the article.

The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources (which are both in it). Also, to call 'Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinian Arabs' in itself pov would be an admittance of a personal pov of an editor that these attitudes were immoral, while they might just as well be moral. I grant that the article might lend itself for pov-edits from one side, but (1) that is true for many articles on wikipedia, e.g. the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni article gives a lot of attention to his Nazi-ties, and (2) the article is already quite long (readable text of the article is now 44 kB), so e.g. 'Palestinian Arab attitudes toward Zionism' can better be treated in a separate article (which we could link to directly below the title of this article).

I propose we first discuss whether there is substance to JzG's allegations on the talk page of the article before taking any decisions. I already started the discussion, and I hope JzG will join it. --JaapBoBo (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but rename - This proposal of deletion is a bad idea. I wrote on the talk page that I considered (too) there was some pov-fork and maybe a little PoV issues in the article BUT the way to solve this is certainly not first in deleting whole JaapBoBo's work and just after in starting this process of deletion... Currently (but it should be discussed) I think the best title for an article on the topic would be Zionists and Arabs in Mandate Palestine referring to 2 books used in the bibliography of the article (Flapan, Simha, 1979, Zionism and the Palestinians - Gorny, Yosef, 1987, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948) and also to Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, whose subtitle is Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate. Ceedjee (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the whole problem, for me. The term "Zionists" is pejorative, and rehashing the arguments on one side of the debate made by a handful of books is not what Wikipedia is for. Per WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE, we shold cover such arguments in an article that covers both sides of the dispute. This has served us well in the past and has gained critical acclaim for our handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean when you write that "the term Zionists is pejorative" but this is only true today because it is a way to delegitimate Israel. Historically and for the period covered by the article, it is not. Majority of Jews in Palestine were Zionists (and proud to be).

For the remaining, I think we have the same point of view except I deplore the procedure. Ceedjee (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that JzG/Guy has dropped most of his allegations, and has reduced his criticism to the criticism of Ceedjee. As Ceedjee points out 'Zionists' is the usual way to refer to Zionists before 1948. So I think there's no problem with the title in itself. Apparently there is only a problem with the subject covered by the title, which is percieved as one-sided. Equivalently creationists could have a problem with the article on 'evolution', because they percieve that as one-sided. Ceedjee would like to extend the subject to include Palestinian attitudes toward the Zionists and the British. In view of the size of the article (already 44 kB readable text ) I'd propose to deal with that in a separate article, and to prominantly link the articles. --JaapBoBo (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't read like something that appears in an encyclopedia. It seems to be a collection of material from various sources welded together into an essay. The fact that it is from one editor is a little worrying inasmuch as that implies a lack of consensus, particularly with the ownership issues from that editor. The article doesn't seem to follow the title but perhaps would be better retitled to "Zionism and 101 reasons I dislike it...". Unfortunately the article does look beyond repair, not without gutting it to neutralise the forking going on. Shot info (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my view the article as it is now is already quite NPOV. The 'Transfer idea' section is from causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. It needs copy-editing, but many editors contributed to it in the course of about half a year. I consider it NPOV. The sections in historical order 'During ...' are taken from Zionism, although I added some texts that were not included there because of space-considerations. This part is also fairly NPOV. The first three sections were added in the last three days. I don't think they are very pov, but improvement by other editors is welcome. This is of course normal in an article that is only four days old.

WP:syn is not applicable here. There are no conclusions that are not in the sources. As WP:syn says: Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I could mention that it reads like it is copied from the sources, but there is enough original research and synthesis in the article (on top of clear ownership problems) as well as it reads like a personal essay...rather than an encyclopedic article. You are more than welcome to have this hosted on your own personal website, but unfortunately POVFORKs don't belong in Wikipedia. Sorry, comments from the editor with the ownership problem isn't enough to sway my intention to recommend this article for deletion. Shot info (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a mostly well-written article that deserves inclusion. It could stand to be copy-edited, but that's another issue, so keep. Alloranleon (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename first of all - the title is too one-sided, it should read something like Relations... whichever should follow (must admit I haven't read it in whole). Afterwards it deserves a thorough peer review. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Avani patel (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment: Actually the title is not one-sided, as it is a neutral title for the subject covered. I admit the subject covered is one-sided. However there are many books covering this 'one-sided' subject. In Gorny's work only the Zionist attitudes are discussed. The same in Finkelstein's work. Flapan gives about 10 percent space to discuss the Arabs, but he also discusses mainly the attitudes of the Zionists. Teveth discusses only Ben-Gurion's attitude. Note that Gorny and Teveth are pro-Israeli historians. Have they been accused of onesidedness? No, because in this context onesidedness has nothing to do with NPOV.

Why should Wikipedia adopt a different approach than these respected historians? --JaapBoBo (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see... I think. Actually, as I am unfamiliar with literature on the subject, I will have to rely on your word here in terms of the attitudes of the historians you mention, as well as how respected they are. Now, as there are two sides to every story, do you think it wouldn't be prudent to include the opposite view in the article, so as to balance it? Is there literature by/of/on Palestinian Arabs and their attitude towards the Israelis? Preferably by historians of equal stature? --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We should distinguish between the opposite view (on Zionist attitudes) and the opposite subject (Palestinian Arab attitudes). Including the opposite view is necesarry for balance and NPOV (as it is now views from both sides are already included). Including the opposite subject has nothing to do with NPOV, and it would make the article very large. Excluding the opposite subject is certainly not POV-forking as that would require exclusion of an opposite view. The three books and the chapter by Finkelstein I mentioned take this approach.

E.g. in the article you can read that the Zionist movement had a policy of excluding Arab workers and that therefore few Arabs worked in the Jewish sector of the economy. Quite some reasons are given for this policy. Personally I think that the absorption capacity for immigration was a quite important reason, and fears of exploiting cheap indiginous labor (a socialist argument) a much less important reason. Yet the sources attribute about equal importance to these reasons, and that is why I wrote it like that. That's what NPOV is about. Adding that Jews earned 2 or 3 times as much as Arabs, and therefore few Jews worked in the Arab sector has no effect on the neutrality of the former. It introduces however a different subject. The problem I have with that is article size.

There is literature on the opposite subject of course, e.g. by R. Khalidi. --JaapBoBo (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to really bite into the article to continue this discussion, but we're both keep !voters anyway. Give me some time. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that historians do not refer to the Arab attitude towards Zionism and this would be an opposite subject ! It is even a main point on the subject because the Zionist attitude toward them was soon dictated by the Arab reaction and attitude toward them.

Tom Segev, a new historian who cannot be accused of pro-israeli bias, give numerous exemples of this mutual perception and interaction. He has chapters dedicated to the Nebi Musa riots, 1921 Jaffa riots and 1929 Hebron massacre, which are "Arabs attitudes toward Zionists" that deepely influenced Zionists attitude toward Arabs. And they are many other things.

But this is also explained in Morris, Righteous Victims or in Laqueur, The Unseen Question chapter of his History of Zionism (even if they deal less with the subject).

More, when we have 3 historians who chose precise (neutral) titles to their work, we should chose the same :

• Flapan - Zionism and the Palestinians
• Gorny - Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948
• Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete : Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate.

Particulary when 2 first are the one the most used references in the articles !

Ceedjee (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Zionist attitudes were affected by events and circumstances. This is also clear in the books I refer to. However despite that they limit themselves to the Zionist attitude. I don't think the Zionist attitudes were 'deeply influenced' by these events (the basic attitude was the same before and after the riots, the invocation of the 'historical right', and the 'Jewish labour' policy was not changed), but if they were then these events can be mentioned as events that deeply influenced the attitudes. In fact Flapan and Gorny mention them and their effect, which was mainly that the Zionists realised that there was forceful opposition to them (and more to be reckoned with in the future), and that the British restricted immigration, which in turn was disliked by the Zionists. These facts can be mentioned, but if they are discussed completely it is clear that also British attitudes should be mentioned and discussed. That would make the article even bigger. Why should we do this if it is completely unneccesarry for NPOV? There is nothing in WP:NPOV that says inclusion of the opposite subject is necesarry?

Flapan's and Gorny's titles are about Zionism in relation to the Palestinian Arabs. Their chief subject is Zionist attitudes and not Arab attitudes. By the way their titles are not neutral: for the pre-1948 era 'Palestinians' is not a word easily used by pro-Isreaeli writers, and 'Arabs' is not a word easily used by pro-Palestinian writers. That's why I chose the more neutral 'Palestinian Arabs'. I chose 'Zionist attitudes toward ...' to limit the article to that, and if the title is changed to 'Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs' it will not be limited to that. In that respect writers of books have much more freedom in choosing their title, while at the same time limiting their subject. Segev, along with many others, did not limit himself to this subject. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Segev just added the British in the picture but he puts them in the context of the Arab and Jews relationships.

The best title would be Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine

What precisely in WP:NPOV prevents the current title ? Nothing. This policy doesn't deal article titles but -as you wrote- the subject is one-sided, which is never very good.

In history, a fair picture of events or thoughts or attitudes can only be achieved with the appropriate context and the context of the Zionists attitude was the Arab attitude and vice versa.

Finally if we create Zionist attitude toward Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Arabs attitude toward Zionists we create some pov-fork's because articles will deal with the same material. Ceedjee (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the issue of the length but I think that

Considering that most editors favor a very strict interpretation of NPOV (not only inclusion of various views, but also inclusion of opposite subject) I guess I have to give in. So I'll accept extension of the subject.

Ceedjee's title (Zionists and Palestinian Arabs in Mandate Palestine) seems reasonable, although it doesn't include the pre-1917 era. I'd prefer 'Mandatory Palestine' to 'Mandate Palestine' (30.200 vs. 6.100 hits with google), but otherwise it's okay with me. I do think though that we would have to write in the intro that the article focusses on the attitudes. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, the article is a POV fork. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...

Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?

Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. POV fork. Tavix (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you develop ? Maybe it could be corrected...

Is a new title that cover a wider subject not a solution ?

Do you mean that the context should be merged in the main article (zionism) ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep article topic may be POV by nature, but it is an important topic and seems fairly well written. Needs some editing. Rename may be reasonable, but I don't know what to rename it to... Hobit (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. The argument that it was a split from Zionism in unconvincing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the Zionism talk, it does appear to be. Was it a staged thing? I'll assume good faith. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork as per Guy et al. Avi (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Burn with fire then salt Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Was that a poetic vote for deletion or just pure randomness? :) Alloranleon (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a notable subject which should have an article. Any POV issues can be fixed by editing. As for the assertion that "zionist" is a pejorative term, that's just ridiculous. I'm sure any of the people whose attitudes are described in the article would be proud to be called zionists. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and then merge redlink with Fascist attitudes towards Subhuman People - per Kyaa . --Jack Merridew 13:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger. PR^talk 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• POV-fork supporters are offering no arguments

Please give me a braek here!

• I have given arguments as to why the article is not a POV-fork: The subject/title in itself is not POV, because it lends itself to incorporation of pov's from both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sources
• Although it is not required by WP:NPOV, which says nothng about including the opposite subject, I agree to change the subject to include the opposite subject (Arab attitudes toward Zionism), and rename it accordingly
• The content of the article as it is now is hardly pov (according to Ceedjee, a moderately pro-Israeli editor who knows really a lot of the I/P conflict before 1949: maybe a little PoV issues in the article
• There really was a space-problem in the Zionism article, as TelAviv1 has repeatedly removed my additions with 'article length' as the only argument.
• Please take a look at the talk page to see how Guy/JzG 'defended' his arguments: partial, inaccurate, biased, a POV fork, cited from a handful of references etc.

If none of the 'POV-fork' supporters is offering any substantial arguments as to why it is a POV-fork, and if the result of this 'trial' is a 'delete', than I will certainly object! This would be unfair. Certainly on Wikipedia a consensus should be reached by discussion and offering arguments, and not simply, as I fear is happening here, by letting some editors have a superficial glance at the article and base their vote on that. The Guide to Deletion page says: Always explain your reasoning..

Please, if you find it a POV-fork, try to convince me of that. Thx. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Actually reading it, its an objective balanced article.DGG (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well...

What do you know about this subject to state that it is "balanced" ?

Judging the NPoV of an article requires to know all the pov's it must introduce.

But it is worth keeping the subject, indeed.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Phil Bridger; notable indeed, and enlightening to help understand many of the underlying issued that divide the two sides. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Ryan (WTC whistleblower)

Kevin Ryan (WTC whistleblower) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Given that the sources that the articles cite are his own works, there are major original research problems, not to mention that it doesn't really establish notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia isn't a myspace page for conspiracy lunatics. Nick mallory (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment LOL. Asserting that there exists a conspiracy, regardless of who or what it involves does not automatically make a person a 'lunatic', Nick Mallory. Besides, if we applied that line of reasoning to all articles on Wikipedia, we'd have deleted every conspiracy-related article long ago. ;) Alloranleon (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against articles on popular conspiracies, so long as they give proper weight to the overwhelming evidence that Neil Armstrong DID land on the moon, the early middle ages really DID exist in history and that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is NOT a shape shifting alien etc. Your quick step of straw man/thin end of the wedge logical fallacies doesn't address the issue of this man's palpable lack of credibility or notability. Nick mallory (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. A Google News search shows that Ryan got a burst of widespread WP:RS coverage in 2006, mostly in debunking the conspiracy theories. Beyond that he's mainly covered by the conspiracy sites. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nick mallory is right, Wikipedia isn't Myspace, and it seems quite a lot of this is original research. Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 14:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. By the way, someone may want to note that the creator of the article is spamming the discussion page for the article with Youtube videos on Mr. Ryan. -- Redfarmer (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per • Gene93k and Redfarmer. Alloranleon (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Argh delete Avruchtalk 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A site manager for Environmental Health Laboratories who wrote a letter to NIST and sued his company? Delete. RxS (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Notable It has been written very much about this person regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement, and that was the reason why for example I made a search on this person here on Wikipedia, so I would say he is a notable person. You can for example read about him in Washington Post and American Free Press to just mention a few and is also mentioned in several articles here on Wikipedia. Twilek (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This edit summary doesn't help but give me the impression that the user is inflating the importance of the person (himself?). "Prominent"? And with all due respect to you, Twilek, you've made no edits since March 2007 prior to your comment on this article. That's a little odd, as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What so odd about not being a very active editor on wikipedia? The only reason why I did a comment on this deletion was that I actually made a search on this person, because I read about him in some other articles and have seen him in a movie lately, and when I saw that the article was up for deletion I just wanted to say that he may be notable because people may search for him (or it can be just me, sure. I actually do not know). If that is not enough, sure, go ahead and delete this article, I actually do not care that much, I just wanted to say that people may search for him, nothing more... But I think it is a bit odd that you judge my opinion from how active I am on wikipedia, to this day I have always thoght that the great thing about Wikipeida is that everyone can contribute, not just a chosen crowed of extra active elite editors. I actually often do some minor edits on wikipedia as anonymous user, just because I'm just too lazy to login ;) but this time i actually logged in, because I know that people can be picky if you comment deletions and discussions anonymously, but then I get shit for it anyway ;-) Twilek (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, unsourced, rants, probably originally written by the subject, and quoted in unreliable sources. <sarcasm>Aside from that, a reasonable article.</sarcasm> — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (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 all as non-notable, and duplications of material already in Chick tract. Redirect all but The Little Princess to Chick tract (in case some cares to do a dab page there). Pastordavid (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Death Cookie

The Death Cookie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The Assignment (Chick Publications) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Contract! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Little Princess (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a Jack Chick strip that appears not to be independently notable. I proposed a merger to Jack Chick but only two people commented, and one of those suggested it was not notable and there was nothing worth merging. I count fewer than 1,000 Google hits provably for this, and few if any of those count as reliable sources. A redirect to Jack Chick would be fine, but as I say I can't really see any justification for having this article on just one of Chick's strips. Add to that the fact that it is written almost entirely from the primary source itself, and I think the argument for removal is pretty strong. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Chick tract (rather than the main Jack Chick article). I agree that the individual tracts don't automatically deserve their own articles. Based on an unscientific sampling of references to individual tracts in the general on-line world, a case might be made for "Big Daddy" or "Doom Town" or "The Sissy", but none of those three have their own article - "The Death Cookie" isn't in that league of notoriety. Tevildo (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - I've expanded this AfD to include the three other Chick tracts that have their own article. My opinion above applies to all four, with the exception that The Little Princess should redirect to the Shirley Temple movie (The Little Princess (1939 film)) rather than Chick tract. Tevildo (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, considering the number of articles we have on "The/A Little Princess", I think The Little Princess would be better off as a full-blown dab page. Tevildo (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Chick tract per Tevildo. I'm not sure any of the Chick tracts would have notority in their own right. I mean, when I see one on a bus or in the restroom, I may pick it up just to giggle a bit but I don't usually remember them by name. I just remember it was a Chick tract. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. Looking back, I agree that too much of the article is devoted to plot summary, but there are at least two reliable third-party sources. Catholic Answers is described on Wikipedia as "one of the largest Lay apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States," so their opinion on this issue is probably notable enough to include. (See [24]). Another discussion of the comic is on About.com. According to Wikipedia, "The content is written by a network of over 600 journalists, called Guides, who are experts in their particular fields." Since this discussion was published on About.com, a former Top-10 website that is owned by The New York Times, and written by an expert in the field of atheism/agnosticism, it also deserves inclusion. This article could be condensed into a paragraph-length summary in the main article on Chick tracts. *** Crotalus *** 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as they have no independent notability, right?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per JzG, individual tracts have not demonstrated notability sufficient for a fork. Most useful content already exists in related articles. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Chick tract, but let's see if we can get rid of the overly-long plot summaries that can be found by reading the source material. (Not that I recommend reading the source material, though.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:30, 7 January 2008 (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 the only significant author has requested on the article. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rainhut

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

Not notable book, appears to be spam, especially considering the name of the creator. Dougie WII (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No sources and no basis for notabillty. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No notable book-spam MBisanz ^Talk 08:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, just beat me to the punch! Non notable science-fiction novel by a non notable author. The only hits Google provides are the usual "books for sale" links that do not establish notability. Notability is not established or even asserted in the article. Lankiveil (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete Per CSD A7 Alexfusco⁵ 20:19, 1 January 2008 (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calcium Lime Rust

Calcium Lime Rust (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I removed the PROD tag from this article as I am contesting the proposed deletion. The prod was added by User:Peasantwarrior, and the reason given was "Not notable / important. Unreferenced (only reference is products web-page). Also, one section falls under Wikipedia:NOT#HOWTO. Partially fails WP:NPOV." CastAStone/^/(talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep notable product along the lines of drano, although desparately needing cleanup.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per my comments on the talk page: "While products are not exempt from being culturally significant, I sincerely doubt there's any potential with this one". Nobody's been murdered by CLR like with Drano. They don't compare. This is just one of hundreds of thousands of products that doesn't distinguish itself in any important way TheBilly (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you're saying that only products used in crimes become notable? I thought they only needed to be written about, silly me. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice straw man there, but I was saying....well, I was saying what I said. Please don't put made up words in my mouth TheBilly (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

They are your words. Either explain how the use of a product in a crime is necessary to notability, or kindly excise them.--Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per TheBilly. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but source. I have a DIY magazine that recommends this in its Q&A section for one thing or another about every four months. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notable product, if only for their incredibly corny ads on Australian TV they used to show a decade or so again. Needs to be copyedited to get rid of the promotional tone though. Lankiveil (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep Delete - Little more than an advertisement, and as such is in desperate need of deletion. Well, I tidied up the article a little, removed the ad-like tone and removed the link to the manufacturers' web-site. Where it's notable enough to remain, however, is a different matter entirely... Alloranleon (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per TheBilly, WP:NOTE, WP:ADVERT and WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It reads too much like an advertisement..."It removes calcium, lime and rust quickly and easily, usually within a few minutes."--English836 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article no longer sounds like an advertisement, but needs a lot more work. Mh29255 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable off brand product. Tavix (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. No non-trivial coverage cited. About as notable as Scot Young Research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The article as rewritten is not excessively promotional, and numerous newspaper articles talk about it,per the Google news archive search [25], so there is some potential for referencing and expansion. That said, some of the articles are doubtless (even in Forbes) in response to the company's press releases (though the same could be said about a great many references) and basically say what the product should and should not be used for. If the article described the product based on its chemical content, from Material Data Safety Sheets, and its history and market share, from the busines press, it would be a vast improvement. As for it being "off brand" I disagree. In its niche it is a major product, widely sold in stores in my area. Edison (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (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 as a non-notable albums. If/when it is released & covered by third-party references, recreate. As to WP:CHANCE, it suggests giving authors a chance - say a week or so - to bring articles up to the minimum guidelines. This article is ten months old, and the AfD lasted a week. Pastordavid (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ain't That Life (album)

Ain't That Life (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Note: See discussion on Talk:Ain't That Life (album).

This is another article on an unreleased album by Jessica Andrews (even though two of its singles were issued). The only "source" is her MySpace page, which definitely doesn't meet WP:RS; the only other source the page's creator could turn up was an unofficial fansite, which doesn't appear reliable either. Therefore, this phantom album cannot possibly be verified. (Also, Andrews doesn't seem to have had a record deal since the collapse of DreamWorks, her previous label, in 2005, so there's almost no chance that this could be released anytime soon.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 07:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for now if the album isn't going to be (and probably never will be) released. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, and since it's not an official release probably not notable under WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep What is the point of deleting this album? When it gets released, this article will just be recreated. So leave it. Yes, I know I wrote the same thing on the other one but I don't have anything different to write.

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that two years is enough of a chance. The album clearly isn't being released, and there aren't any sources to verify that it was even recorded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand posted is an essay, and not a policy or guideline. He has recently been using it in various AFDs, as he can't find any other reason to keep it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To give a possible article a chance is solidly based on WP:Deletion policy--that deletion is the last resort. Anyway, closing admins know what things are essays, and which essays have general support. Where this article stands, of course, I dont know enough to say.DGG (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources after 2 years means no sources, ever. On the off chance that someone ever writes anything about this album, the article can be created using that reliable information.Kww (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Three songs from the album have been released and it may eventually be released, I see no reason to delete. Cerebellum (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom MiracleMat (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think this album is notable enough to wait longer than two years to find a source for it. It will probably never be released, so this page serves little purpose. Kavanagh21 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see the need for a relist. Vala M's argument is not based on any recognizable policy, nor is the one used by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Cerebellum's argument at least has wishful thinking going for it, but no policy that I can detect. The deletes have it.Kww (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• I found a bit on the album on Jessica Andrews GAC biography page. http://www.gactv.com/gac/ar_artists_a-z/article/0,,GAC_26071_4885839,00.html Does this help? Vala M (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good find. However, that's just one source, and probably not enough for a full page. That might be good enough for a section on the album on the main Jessica Andrews page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found a few other links. Including her website's biography page. http://www.jessicaandrews.com/bio/index.html I don't know how credible this is but I'll add it anyway. http://countrymusic.about.com/od/festivalstn/a/riverfront_thu.htm

And this http://www.tv.com/jessica-andrews/person/183274/summary.html http://todayscountrymusicvideos.blogspot.com/2007/12/jessica-andrews-who-i-am.html

There are many different pages on the album on the internet. I don't know why this isn't considered notable.

Vala M (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2008 (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 as non-notable album. May be re-created if ever released and covered by third-party reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satisfied (album)

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

Unreleased album by Ashley Monroe, fails WP:V. I can't find any sources to verify the track listing here -- All Music Guide at least verifies the album's presence (see here) but does not provide a cover or track listing. This album is probably not going to be released, either, seeing as she's no longer listed in her label's roster of artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable. Can be recreated easily enough if it ever resurfaces as a legit release. Lankiveil (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep What is the point of deleting this album? When it gets released, this article will just be recreated. So leave it.

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• She's been dropped from her label, so there's almost no chance that it'll be released now. Also, there are no sources in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia isn't meant to be a crystal ball. If and when the album is either released or becomes an unreleased legend similar to SMiLE, then that's the time for an article - not before. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've given this article a chance since back in January '07, when "I Don't Want To" peaked on the charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete album will probably never be released. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, same rationale as for Ain't That Life. Cerebellum (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom MiracleMat (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 7 January 2008 (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. Policy based delete arguments vs. weak keep arguments. Fram (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ignika

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable fictional object. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional object with no notability outside of the Bionocle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep, it's a subpage of the lego movies. It's linked to in about 80 other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by You got to love the negro man (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: spoiler-like stuff, with unreliable references, not neutral POW, die. --Drhlajos (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Well put-together article with references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:32, 6 January 2008 (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 Debate closed as moot. Article has been redirected to Characters and groups in Bionicle.

[edit] Rahaga/Toa Hagah

Rahaga/Toa Hagah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional characters with no notability outside of the Bionocle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete per Lankiveil. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Toa of Gravity January 8, 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takanuva

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are primary sources. Ridernyc (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional character with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete per Lankiveil. Phyesalis (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Unlikely secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2008 (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. Fram (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toa Inika/Toa Mahri

Toa Inika/Toa Mahri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional characters with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete per Lankiveil. While article has sources, they're from discussion forums (from what I can tell, links aren't reliable). Phyesalis (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold textKeep. Could someone tell me why EVERY SINGLE fictional(specifically bionicle)article HAS to be deleted?Oh, and "someones" blog is official.

• Keep While sources are from discussion forums, the information referenced is from the series writer's posts only.

in other words a primary source. Ridernyc (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2008 (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. Closed early due to the unanimous result and the withdrawal of the nomination. Sandstein (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holodomor denial

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

This article has multiple issues but I'll try to stick to the main ones.

1. Firstly, the article violates WP:NPOV/Article naming which states that article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality and that they should not suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. The term "holodomor denial" is heavily loaded because (a) it draws a calculated parallel with Holocaust denial which is generally agreed to be a despicable phenomenon, and (b) because it is essentially an accusation of denialism - ie, a "pejorative term" which carries "the implication that the person or group denies scientific or historical truths".

2. The definition of "holodomor denial" given in the article - , ie "holodomor denial is stating that the...great famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine which...claimed millions of lives, never took place" is an original research thesis which has no apparent support from reliable sources. A google search reveals that the Ukrainian government passed a law in 2006 declaring the holodomor famine to be an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people, and that the government is currently drafting a law making "holodomor denial" a crime. The Ukrainian government appears to be the only reliable source utilizing the term. Thus, "holodomor denial" means genocide denial, ie denying the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine was an act of genocide [26] [27] [28] - a definition at odds with the definition given in this article. This distinction is of great importance because almost all the content of the article is based on the false premise that "holodomor denial" simply means "denial of the famine". Once this premise is removed, virtually the entire content becomes untenable.

3. The article is a POV fork from Holodomor, and from other articles such as Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer where much of the content has been lifted and then reshaped in the new article in a loaded manner. By taking a loose and fallacious definition of "holodomor denial" as its main premise, numerous individuals and organizations can then be labelled "holodomor deniers" because at some stage they denied or downplayed the severity of the famine. But if one takes the definition of "holodomor denial" as employed by the Ukrainian government (the main promoter of the term and the only apparent source of any reliability which employs it) as "denial that a genocide took place", then most of the content in the new article is untenable and there is virtually nothing left which is not already covered in the Holodomor article itself or the other articles, but in a more NPOV way. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rename the article at least to something that is a lot less inherently POV as outlined in argument #1 by the nom. Definitely has the look of a POV fork about it, but it looks as if this belief may have seriously been held in the past, even if nobody seriously holds it now. A keep/delete opinion will be forthcoming. Lankiveil (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep -the constructed parallel with Holocaust denial is a personal opinion. The facts are: Holodomor denial referrers to the denial of the great famine called Holodomor [29]in Ukraine that is clearly spelled out by provided refs [30][31] in the article while Holocaust denial referrers to the genocide against Jewish people. Whether Holodomor denial also means a genocide denial depends on the international recognition of Holodomor as an act of genocide, not on the constructed parallels listed above.--Termer (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Termer and the other editors of this page have been persistently raising red herrings like this on the article's talk page for days (when they've bothered to respond to my concerns at all, that is). Termer's supposed references do not even mention the term "holodomor denial", let alone attempt to define it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Gatoclass I interpret this yet another personal opinion of yours as a communication problem between you and me and the rest of the editors involved. Perhaps you never took a look at the refs and are not aware of the fact that the great famine in Ukraine is called holodomor [32]?And that the famine called holodomor has been denied? I've already suggested to you rename the article The famine called Holodomor denial [33] but for some reason you ignored this suggestion as well like you have ignored the references in the article.--Termer (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep What the term means is a content issue and not a matter for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Huh? Plenty of AFD's involve "content issues". The top two criteria for deletion mention content, the second one which states (I quote): "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." I am asking the community to make a judgement about whether or not a page with an inherently POV name like "Holodomor denial" and moreover with content based entirely on a demonstrably false assumption about the meaning of the term, with no reference in support of it, is content suitable for an encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Since it seems beyond dispute that the Ukrainian government is passing a law against this, the subject is evidently suitable for this encyclopaedia. The presentation, title and tone of the article are what you object to and this should be resolved on the article's talk pages, not here. Deletion is not necessary to address your concerns - you are just coming here because you have failed to sway the consensus of editors working on the article, right? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming for a moment that the subject was legitimate as you suggest, does one really need a separate article to state that the Ukrainian government is passing a law against holodomor denial? This information is already on the Holodomor page itself, where it should be. Gatoclass (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One does need a separate article since suppression of information about the famine dates to the famine itself and that initial suppression is a significant player in current interpretations. For example, as Stalin suppressed awareness of the famine in the West and as a result failed to receive aid as in earlier famines, e.g., when Hoover managed massive grain aid to the USSR in the 1920's, what was his goal? To merely avoid embarrassment? To accelerate collectivization by increasing the numbers of starving incalcitrant peasants? This is worthy of separate examination on its own outside of the events of the Holodomor and contributing factors, which is the topic of the main article. I'm sorry, but your (Gatoclass's) nomination for deletion appears to be fixated on certain aspects, projecting them in a generic fashion (as in not approving of the term "denial"), and concluding this is all non-encyclopedic.—PētersV (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I think the establishment of Holodomor as a catastrophic famine is supported well enough to name statement that the famine did not take place as Holodomor denial. The article is not about the definition the article is about a historical theory that IMHO is notable enough. Holodomor is already quite long, so separating the material into a separate article is reasonable. The article is indeed need to be checked on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV conformity, but IMHO is salvageable Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well-researched article, on an important topic. Lots of editors have worked hard to bring it to this point in a matter of days. Contrary to invidious assertions in the nomination, the material was not "lifted" from other articles, such as the ones on Duranty and Fischer. Indeed, there was absolutely no mention of the Holodomor in the Louis Fischer article previously (see this version); material developed in this article here was condensed and ported there (by me, in fact) since then. As for Duranty, yes, there was much more in that article to start with, but considerable effort has been spent in developing further that stuff in this article, and putting it in better context. And this is only a fraction of the work that went into the article, work which has not been made any easier by the nominator, who since slapping a POV tag, with a claim that the well-known statements by Duranty on the Ukraine famine in The New York Times were only "alleged", and with a claim that the title of the article brings an "odious similarity", has worked very hard at bringing myriad reasons to spike the article, of an ever-widening scope, never once trying to listen to a counter-argument, or to seek consensus. And the arguments for keeping the article are many, and they are coherent and logical, and they do conform to WP policies and guidelines. Turgidson (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I started this AFD because I felt no-one was responding to my concerns on the talk page, and because you insisted on tag team reverting even so much as a disputed template on the basis that my concerns were invalid. So I felt I had little choice but to consult the wider community over the outstanding issues, in hopes of at least getting a more constructive debate going. I chose AFD because, quite frankly, I have never had a response from an article RFC or other process, and thought perhaps I could get more response from an AFD, and also because I thought, obviously, that an AFD debate in this instance was justified.

I have tried to outline my concerns in my opening statement above. The article title is loaded and thoroughly unencyclopedic in my view. To make matters worse, the article uses an original research definition of this already loaded term in order to widen the field of targets. In addition I fail to see why the information presented here cannot be included in the already existing Holodomor, Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer pages (indeed, much of it already is).

Although I personally feel that any valid content at this page would be better included in the individual articles mentioned above, I am not implacably opposed to the notion of having a page which traces the history of public responses to the holodomor, although I have some doubts as to whether such a page will not eventually end up looking like a POV fork in any case. What I am opposed to is the framing of the entire debate through the loaded lens of a "holodomor denial" charge, and with an erroneous definition to go along with it. If the page name were changed to something more NPOV, and the flawed definition rectified, that might be enough to salvage the page. But if you are going to insist on keeping the loaded term and the flawed definition, as you have been doing, then I feel the only remaining option is to have the page deleted. Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the claim that I engaged in "tag team reverting" is just plain false. I did agree on the talk page that the tag was not justified—but that's miles away from actually editing the article and removing the tag. Please show me the edit where I did what you claim I did, or otherwise, please retract your statement, or make it more precise, so as not to impugn my editorial integrity. Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Horlo removed the tag.[34] Then Bandurist removed it. [35]. Then Horlo removed it again.[36]. That looks like tag team reverting to me. You didn't perform any reverts yourself, you just stood on the sidelines and encouraged it. [37] [38] [39]. (Those three posts aren't a bad example of your dismissive attitude to my concerns over the last few days, BTW). But regardless of who exactly it was who did the actual reverting, it's clear I was facing a group of editors determined to keep a tag off the page by sheer weight of numbers. Gatoclass (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting the record straight. And, I didn't "sit on the sidelines"—I was, and I am, helping write the article (you know, some people do that, from time to time, not just talk). And, did you ever stop to ponder why so many editors disagreed with your tag (and now disagree with your AfD nomination)? Could it be (wonder of wonders!) that they had (and do have) some valid reasons, backed by facts, references, sources, sheer logic, and WP policies? Turgidson (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you once again for the gratuitous sarcasm. Did I ever stop to ponder why so many disagreed with me? Sure I did. And in that regard I couldn't help but notice that all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords. Just as this AFD is currently accumulating a host of "Keep" votes from Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Hungarians and so on.

But the other reason I think I came up against considerable resistance is because my concerns were not merely cosmetic, but structural. That meant potentially rethinking the whole article, and naturally editors who had worked hard on the existing content were reluctant to contemplate that. That's only natural of course - in fact, I can't be sure I wouldn't respond the same way in similar circumstances - but that is not to legitimize the response.

As to the jibe about contributing to the article itself - why would I want to waste my time carefully composing revisions to article content, when the other editors have demonstrated they can't even tolerate the addition of a mere POV tag? Apart from which, since this article has significant structural problems in my view, those problems need to be addressed before one starts adding to content. The strategic plan comes before the tactical maneouvres. Gatoclass (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the barb about "all of the editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin" deeply offensive (though, like almost everything you say, devoid of basis in fact). So what if an editor is of East European origin (or for that matter, any other region, or continent)? Would you ipso facto question the value of his or hers contributions, and the good faith behind their editing, based on their country of origin? I find this is in violation of both WP:AGF and basic human decency. As for the boasting about "strategic plan comes before the tactical maneouvres", it needs no further comment from me. Turgidson (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. But when I come across editors who are apparently having great difficulty reconciling themselves to what seem to me to be fairly straightforward NPOV issues, then naturally I start to wonder why. As for your finding my observation "deeply offensive" - there are offenses given and offenses taken, and I am not responsible for the latter. I mean, would you seriously claim to be completely uninfluenced by your ethnic background or political beliefs? Surely not. Why then would you take offence at my comment? I'm a tad mystified. Gatoclass (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting my comments. That was not a "boast". Gatoclass (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents, for whatever it's worth these days (what with exchange rates being what they are): The minute someone invokes someone else's ethnicity or nationality as an "explanation" for their opinions, the person doing the invoking loses every shred of credibility he may have ever had in my eyes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way. K. Lásztocska^talk 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right! People's opinions are never influenced by their national loyalties. How could I ever have entertained such an outlandish notion? Thank you for setting me straight. Gatoclass (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood my point. Of course people's opinions can be influenced by national loyalties, historical events etc. What isn't affected is the validity of those opinions. K. Lásztocska^talk 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that Gatoclass guy just lost all of his credibility with that comment. Is he suggesting that anyone who "appears to be of East European origin" should have their opinions discounted? Laughable. Ostap 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea Ostap. Why don't you throw in a straw man? It might save you from having to think. Gatoclass (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. Ostap 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

At least when it comes to instances of Soviet wrongdoing, I guess. Geez, is experience worth nothing in this day and age? K. Lásztocska^talk 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep :
  • 1) The subject is topical as the Ukrainian community marks the 75th anniversary of this tragedy all this year.
  • 2) The subject is notable as the Ukrainian government has tabled new laws to make Holodomor denial a crime punishable by Ukrainian law.
  • 3) The subject, although the term {Holodomor denial[ gives us 450 hits in Google English. In Google Ukrainian it gives us 16,800 hits, In Google Russian it gives us 213,000 hits. The number of hits is increasing as the subject becomes more notable.
  • 4) The term was introduced into usage in 2002. It was first used by Prof. James Mace and in the same year also Dr Taras Kuzio here from the University of Toronto. A number of conferences have taken place in 2007 where Holodomor denial was one of the subjects discussed. The definition and the phenomena does not qualify as original research.
    • So why haven't you been able to supply a source which supports this definition? I have supplied several sources above that clearly demonstrate the Ukrainian government uses this term to mean "denial that the famine was a genocide", not simply "denial that there was a famine". But still you insist your presumptive definition must be right. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Here is an English language source for an article specifically named Famine denial in 2002 Famine denial The Ukrainian Weekly, July 14, 2002, No. 28, Vol. LXX
        • Thankyou for further proving my point. That editorial clearly describes the famine as "genocidal" and equates "famine denial" with genocide denial. Which is just the point I have been making. "Holodomor denial" does not merely mean "denial that a famine took place" it means denial that a genocide took place. But whether or not a genocide took place is still a highly contentious issue, even amongst academics, as that very editorial concedes. And yet, here you are, blithely accusing umpteen different groups and individuals in the article of, in effect, genocide denial without for a moment reflecting that this is not a generally agreed-upon, encyclopedic fact, but only one particular POV. Gatoclass (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 5) The editor nominating the article for deletion has no prior knowledge or experience in this subject nor language skills which would allow him to gain a greater incite into this topic.Bandurist (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 6) The article is not discussing the facts regarding the Holodmor, the number of deaths, materials from Ukraine, or the controversial subject of Genocide and the Holodomor. The article strictly deals with the act of denial of the Holodomor, and contains a list of people and organizations that have denied the existence of the Holodomor over the past 75 years. It also looks into the mechanisms and the implications of denial and its continuation.
  • 7) In the opinion of this editor, the tags were only put there specifically to antagonise the editors and to discredit the subject. All the facts given pertaining to the article have been sourced and disputed claims discussed.
  • 8) The article is too large (and continues to be expanded as new information is added) to condense it into the Holodomor article. The study of Holodomor denial, its workings and reasons, has been the subject of a number of seminars and conferences, and will continue to be a subject in the area of Holodomor studies. Bandurist (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the term is current is scholarly and governmental usage, and is a well-documented phenomenon. Moreover, the split from the main article is beneficial because that was getting too long. The nominator should remember that a neutrality dispute arises from third-party disagreements (and he has shown none to demonstrate people questioning the validity of the term), not when a single Wikipedian disputes it and chooses to hold the article hostage with trifling objections. Biruitorul (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The term may be "scholarly" in the sense that it is extant and traceable to a reliable source, ie the Ukrainian government. What is not scholarly is to write an article from the Ukrainian government's POV, which is what has been done here. Although in fact you haven't even managed that, since you've mangled the Ukrainian government's own definition of the term and substituted it with a broader one of your own. Gatoclass (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not getting it, what's wrong with having the POV of Ukrainian government added to the article? Like already have been pointed out to you, [40] in case you're aware of any other POV's regarding the subject, please feel free to add these to the article. Since according to WP:NPOV in case multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.--Termer (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per the other keeps. There is no reason to delete this article. The Holodomor article is too long to include this notable topic, and the article is well referenced. Ostap 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is scholarly, encyclopedic, well-written and thoroughly-researched, and describes a real and documented phenomenon. Those calling for its deletion seem to be the ones motivated by political goals, not the article's authors. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Reading the history of article's formation shows quality contributions from a number of different contributors. Since this is a delicate topic these contributions were well vetted by the wider community of editors especially for POV and original research and the result seems to satisfy the wider community as Wiki valid. Eduvalko (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Given Soviet suppression of the existence of famine during its course, a topic sufficiently within its own right of an article, and certainly merits being continued. —PētersV (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per almost everyone here (for my arguments see talk of the article) and relist as DYK.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional keep. By conditional, I mean two things. First, the accusation that 'Holodomor Denial' is an original research statement must be disproven in the very first sentence of the article (i.e., which published works cite the term). And second, the scope of the article must be made very clear. I personally believe that the article should not be renamed, but instead, it should be explained where such terminology originates (hopefully, not the Ukrainian government). Bogdan ^що? 00:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, all arguments I was going to use have already been mentioned. Holodomor denial is yet another example of Communist propaganda, which has never cared for sufferings of ordinary peoples. Holodomor itself is one of the biggest tragedies of humankind in the XX century Tymek (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Bandurist. Notable topic, well referenced and well written article. Martintg (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawing nomination

I think it's probably time to close this nomination. I never expected the nomination to succeed, given the obviously divisive nature of this subject area, but I had hoped to attract a few disinterested parties to join the debate since I appeared to be fighting a lone hand at the article's talk page against what I saw as significant POV issues. It's clear that strategy hasn't succeeded, and I realize now this is not an appropriate venue to try and promote discussion of relatively complex content issues.

Furthermore, having read the comments on the article's talk page above mine, it's clear that I was never in fact alone in my concerns, the very same issues that I raised about this article had been raised by a number of different editors prior to my involvement. So I think the danger I perceived that this article might remain in the hands of just one likeminded group, was probably somewhat exaggerated.

Obviously, I am at fault for not taking more care to first familiarize myself with prior discussion on the talk page, if I had done that I would not have felt the need to initiate this process. So for that omission, I think I should apologize. In closing this AFD then, I would just like to express my thanks to all those who took the time and trouble to comment. But I think it's time to take this debate back to the article's talk page where it really belongs. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2008 (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. Fram (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toa Metru/Toa Hordika

Toa Metru/Toa Hordika (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and there are no sources at all. Ridernyc (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional character with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete per Ridernyc and Lankiveil. Phyesalis (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (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 --JForget 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toa

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

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional race/group with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Comment The sidebar is broken. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this is the first, not second, nomination, and have restricted the sidebar to show only related AfDs. –Pomte 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this referenced and well-organized article. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article has no reliable sources, and is hardly more than a plot summary. The complaint tags currently on the article (articleissues, self-published and primarysources) seem well-justified. If anyone has a plan for fixing the article that would correct the tagged issues, now would be a good time to offer it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I"m the one who added the tags normally I would give more time before taking things to AFD, but it quickly became apparent that people were just going to be constantly removing tags and ignoring them. Ridernyc (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I added a Development section and cited The Washington Post. These are notable. I've also cited Frank Provo and Brett Todd of GameSpot. --Pixelface (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

these section would great in the Bioncle article covering the entire franchise, there no reason for every aspect of bioncle to have it's own page, particularly when you look at the main article and the massive work it needs. Ridernyc (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep based on recently added sources. However, this needs a massive trimming as well. As for the remaining related articles, redirect them here with a (very small) relevant merge of apprpriate material. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

the sources added talk about the entire franchise and only mention the character in passing. There are not articles about the characters. Have you looked at the main bionicle page if you trim the cruft from you would have a stub all this should be rewritten there. Ridernyc (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (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 Redirected to Brotherhood of Makuta (which also needs major attention). What little encyclopedic information there is can be merged to that article. There is little reason for this article, with no reliable primary sources, and failing WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT, to exist separately. BLACKKITE 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Makuta (Phantoka)

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

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fictional group with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep This valuable information can be found no where else on Wikipedia.Swirlex (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, or Move Deletion is not the only option. This article would fit in the Bionicle Wiki.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per EmeraldWithin. It appears to be notable, although most of the refs are blogs. Has any attempt been made to fix the tagged problems? Bearian (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (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 Errand of Mercy. GlassCobra 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organian Peace Treaty

Organian Peace Treaty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. This Star Trek related article has absolutely no real-world notability, has been unsourced besides a single DS9 episode for 3 1/2 years now, and...well, that's it. This isn't Memory Alpha. UsaSatsui (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I just added two citations.Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the subject of the article has no wide notability outside of the Star Trek universe. The sources provided are not really sufficiently independent of the subject. Take it to Memory Alpha. Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

• Comment You don't seem to understand the basic concept of Independent sources for which the cites provided seem perfectly adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, forgive me if I'm wrong, but one is an episode of the television series, and another is an in-universe encyclopædia written by Mike Okuda, who has worked extensively on the series. The other one is independent, but looking at the indicated page on Google Books ([41]), it doesn't seem to have anything but a brief plot summary of the episode in question, and doesn't seem to jive with the sentence that it's referencing. Lankiveil (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

• Comment Mr Okuda's work on the series and that encyclopaedia make him an authority and so that is an excellent source. Independence is provided by citing a second source from a person without the same associations. Jiving and other content issues are a reason to improve rather than delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I apologise; there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm going on notability grounds here, not verifiability. I agree that Okuda is an expert (I own the first-edition of that book myself), and the content of the article is what happened on the show. But Okuda is not sufficiently independent in my view to establish notability. Lankiveil (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

• Comment - There are plenty more sources out there - I just picked two. My work of a few minutes shows that the article is easily capable of improvement. Per WP:NOEFFORT, AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• You picked one (Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't really count as independent). And it is a good source. Good enough for me, at least. But I don't think one book explaining it's use as symbolism is enough to give it it's own article. If you could find another, even one making the same argument, I'd change my vote (I can't withdraw with all those redirects down there)...in the meantime, I think one source is certainly good enough for a merge. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Errand of Mercy. Alloranleon (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Errand of Mercy. This isn't Memory Alpha, but it couldn't hurt to redirect. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Errand of Mercy. Plausible search term but not suitable for an independent article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have strong feelings between keep and merge but I strongly feel that refering to Mr Okuda's works as not secondary are non-productive. Are we saying that to be notable in regards to a fictional work it has to be disuussed in a book that's not about the fictional work?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It may be secondary, but I'm not sure how a Star Trek Encyclopedia can establish real-word notability (and in fact, the manner in how it is used doesn't.) --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The heart of WP:N and the very term "Notability" is that it's "worthy of notice". If something occurs in a show, and is then discussed an a book, distributed by a major publisher, ans available in bookstores nation/world wide, i see that as notable regardless if the book is named "Star Trek Encyclopedia".--Cube lurker (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Being covered in a work that is exclusively about a single topic doesn't really count in my eyes. Unless this treaty is very significant in Star Trek, like the Prime Directive it should not have an article. Now, if there's more than a passing mention of this treaty, if the Encyclopedia goes on for 2 or 3 paragraphs about this particular treaty and it's importance to Star Trek and it's universe, that's a different story. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike's book is an authorized adjunct to the series by one of the Trek universe's creators. It's not an independent source. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Highly notable event in highly notable fictional universe. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• sadly, Redirect to Errand of Mercy. This was supposedly an event of great importance but the series had to largely ignore it later due to its constraints on storylines, so it never gained wider significance. A trivial mention isn't enough for real-world relevance, and a branded encyclopedia is not independent enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and then redirect. No real world notability. --Jack Merridew 13:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are times when the original content is so bad or inappropriate that it should be deleted before redirection. I don't think this is one of those times. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect - To Errand of Mercy, not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Errand of Mercy the only episode where this is a major plot point. There may be a little content to merge but not much I would think. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Khitomer Accords and Treaty of Algeron to new List of treaties in Star Trek. Khitomer Accords has some notability but would benefit from additional context. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Errand of Mercy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eye Alaska

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

Alt-rock band that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The only sources I can find for them on Google are a couple of reviews of shows where they played the support. Notability is perhaps asserted through one of the members of the band being the brother of a member of Thrice, but I don't think that notability inherits that way. Lankiveil (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete notability doesn't inherit in any way. Aipzith (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non notable. Tavix (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thrice is a notable rock band who are signed to major label with a Gold selling record, but a member's brother's band doesn't assert notability as it isn't inherited. Doc Strange (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• My apologies for the misconceptions of standards; by all means delete the article if you feel you must. Have you that power? HalcyonBrine (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (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 nom withdrawn. Kurykh 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] By this Axe, I rule

By this Axe, I rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Poorly written article, non-notable book. —BoL 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, was later recycled into the very notable Conan the Barbarian books. Was able to find this source fairly easily: [42]. Agree that the article is in poor shape, but that is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Lankiveil (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
• Comment I would like to withdraw, but, yeah, unless reliable sources can be found, I'll continue to stand. —BoL 06:30, 1 January 2008 (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.