Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 16#Level of support for evolution

< February 15 February 17 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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, G11. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smelling a copyvio, but the page they reference is down. --Hojimachongtalkcon 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE)

[edit]
List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OR, listcruft, redundant info that will become dated. In general, a non-notable page that only has meaning to hardcore wrestling fans. Prod was removed. Booshakla 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something, I specifically didn't say the info wasn't "notable". I said it was unreferenced and has original research, and has no additional analysis or encyclopedic content. I'm not claiming that the overall general topic is or isn't potentially "notable". Dugwiki 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, A7/G7. Kusma (討論) 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.listz.com

[edit]
Www.listz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website, it seems. The article does assert notability, but there are no references and it's not even clear what the website is exactly. I'm not even sure if it's listz.com or liszt.com - confusing. I'll leave it up to the faithful AfD voters. DLandTALK 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Management Skills

[edit]
Management Skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be the management philosophy of a "Robert L. Katz" who is described as a management expert. However there is no explanation as to why this person or his philosophy is notable. Doesn't appear to need to be covered by Wikipedia. WjBscribe 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Proto ► 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of World Liberty Index

[edit]
State of World Liberty Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of countries and their "liberty." Has no reliable sources or references to the "index". Appears to have been made up by one person and it fails WP:NFT. Earlier prod deleted. Selket Talk 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. The first problem I have with this here is that it's been covered (at least, so says the article), but there's nothing to back it up. The second part I have is that it's also rather opinionated - as it comes from a Libertarian POV, it is going to be easy to violate WP:NPOV here. I think, though, that if the first problem is taken care of, eventually the second problem will take care of itself. Solve the first one and I'll change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, let me say that the index itself (and not the article) is quite POV (see here for methodology). That being said, here are two sources that have cited it: [3] and [4]. -- Black Falcon 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think I can work with this. Changing the vote. Let's put these links on there.
  • Delete It seems to have a strong POV to capitalist based western living, in that its point bases is based on people being able to do capitalist things such as personally buying land, that simply don't apply in other ecenomic based counteries. It seems to be a private (and poor) attempt at measuring living standards by captialist freedom. Reguardless of that, the web site itself does not pass WP:WEB and the index itself is not notable (mainly due to no one using it as per the above POV issues it has).--155.144.251.120 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks quite interesting to me. But include a table, with flags, wiklinks, etc., to make the whole thing more visual, and easier to follow. Turgidson 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article in order to allow Wikipedia readers to access information which I feel is valuable and interesting. Furthermore, the information presented is verifiable (by looking at the project webpage and looking at secondary sources, which can be found with a Google search). Regarding the POV comments, please note Black Falcon's statement above that the Index is POV, not the article (just like an article about the Klu Klux Klan, for example). Also, the objections explicitly raised in the nomination are invalid:
  1. The Index webpage is linked to multiple times in the article text and as an E.L... a pretty valid source when the question at hand is the content of the Index. (contra: "Has no reliable sources or references to the 'index'.")
  2. The article certainly does not fail WP:NFT -- it is mentioned and cited by numerous sources.
However, an implicit objection was made which might be valid: non-notability. ("Appears to have been made up by one person". Note, however, that the theory of relativity and Ulysses were made up by one person.) I don't know on what criteria "notability" ought to be evaluated in this case, but I invite those editors who have not yet done so to read Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability before voting against the article on that basis (and also to perform a Google search and note the numerous references to the Index). Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note also that Notability is not a specified requirement for Wikipedia articles. Articles are only required to be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, and this article meets all of those qualifications. The "Notability" criterion which is often brought up in deletion discussions is done so (legitimately) usually because of concerns relating to the Verifiability requirement, but since the article only attempts to report on the contents of the Index (and these can be easily verified at the project webpage, which is linked from the article), such a non-notability criticism is not legitimate in this context. Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comments and have changed my "comment" to a "keep". -- Black Falcon 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per User:Turgidson. --Zelse81 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article badly fails WP:NPOV currently due to the "Libretarian Philosophy" section. Also, Dave_Runger, please be aware that your arguments on the inclusion criteria are somewhat suspect. First of all, while WP:NOTABILITY is not in itself an ABSOLUTE requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is an ABSOLUTELY valid reason for deletion as well as a guideline accepted by the majority of Wikipedia editors for both purposes. Further, google hits are not an accurate gauge of notability, they should only be used as anecdotal evidence in concert with other sources of information. Also note that WP:ILIKEIT explains that "valuable and interesting" (as you and another have described the article in this discussion) are not themselves valid reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if we momentarily accept the premise of your argument, this article still fails WP:V. Sources must be from reliable, third-party published sources, especially in a case like this in which the subject matter concerns a global review and is based on other, similar lists (which do, by the way, satisfy WP:V). If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted. However as it stands right now, I have to say delete. I can very easily create an index of similar sorts, that measures some arbitrary concept, find real research to back up my rankings, and calculate the index based on that evidence. Then I could just as easily plant this information online, maybe spread it around a bit, have it cited by some blogs, create a wikipedia entry for it, and maybe submit it to Digg or Fark. Even if I do all of these things, it would still not fit into an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the "Libertarian Philosophy" section POV? The index website itself says that it is libertarian-oriented. The index was created by "Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party". That section is not stating anything that the website itself does not admit to. -- Black Falcon 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section has a point of view. It is not saying that the founder is Libretarian, or that the index is Libretarian, it is saying a combination of those things intended to put forth a point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if this were not the case, I believe the article has further problems, thank you for only addressing one of them and ignoring the rest. --IRelayer 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need for sarcasm. I still don't see how the section is POV. "Pro-individual freedom, pro-economic freedom and pro-limited government stance" are, in fact, the very tenets of libertarianism. If it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck, it's not POV to call it a duck. However, to satisfy the concerns you've raised, I will replace it with a more neutral and better-sourced section tomorrow. Also, I did not "ignore the rest", but rather focused on what I perceived to be the most important. So, to reply to the other points you've raised:
  1. WP:Notability is a guideline which I belive should be followed (my agreement with User:Dave Runger above was about the frequent conflation of notability and verifiability. However, this index is noted in a number of sources, which I will add to the article (again, tomorrow). However, as a Google search will show, the index and its rankings are discussed by a number of sources (in my opinion unforunately as I believe the index to be a terrible cross-national indicator of "liberty").
  2. WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not sure to whom you were referring, but I personally don't like the index. In any case, this is a a criticism of "keep" votes rather than a reason to delete (and I think you have appropriately used it as the former).
  3. WP:V is about "verifiability" rather than being "verified". Most of the information in the article is in fact already verified, and that which is not is certainly verifiable.
In all fairness, you did state that "If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted." My comment was not intended to dismiss your arguments, but rather to try to understand why you perceived that section to be POV. I hope you will take a look at the revised version of the article and re-evaluate your position in light of its new state. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Yes, and in all fairness, I'm like to see these sort of things handled with tagging rather than AfD...but this isn't a perfect world. Black Falcon, thank you for your timely efforts to correct the article. I believe this article now meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Notability is a different issue.--IRelayer 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is espousing that it is valid (or invalid). The index itself is POV, I agree, but it is notable and the article is not POV. Please do not confuse the quality of the article with that of the index itself. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot comment on the real notability or relevance of the index, but I find it an interesting ranking and it's hardly on an obscure topic so I think it's safe to say others would be interested as well. I strongly disagree with the POV issues: as has been pointed out already, the index may be biased but its article is neutral. Mushroom Pi 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was, that if I make up Selket's world technology index and rank all of the countries by their deployment of technology, Selket's world technology index doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because nobody reputable recognizes it. This has nothing to do with POV or validity of the index, my complaint is that this whole thing is published by some guy in his garage. --Selket Talk 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selket, even if your analogy is a good one (and I'm not saying it is, as you might be hard-pressed to find as many sources citing Selket's world technology index as the number that cite the State of World Liberty Index), I fail to understand what would be so bad about having a Wikipedia article about something some guy published in his garage. This article only represents the subjective evaluation of the State of World Liberty Project's founder. Therefore, his published views on the internet and citations of the Index by other sources is quite enough to establish verifiably that the Wikipedia article is, in fact, accurate in the claims it makes. The Wikipedia article is written in a NPOV, even if the index is not. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not a piece of original research. (The article merely reports on research/analysis done by the State of World Liberty Project, which in turn is based on the work of reputable organizations such as The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal, Freedom HouseReporters Without Borders, etc.). I believe that I have demonstrated that the article meets the three qualifications demanded of Wikipedia article. Deletion votes seem to be based either on the erroneous belief that notability is a necessary quality of Wikipedia articles (though the Index might be "notable" anyhow) and a misunderstanding that a NPOV policy means that the subjects described in articles must have a NPOV. This is utterly false; the articles themselves are, however, required to be written with no POV. Dave Runger(t)⁄(c) 09:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selket, if your Selket's world technology index was noted in multiple published sources (like this index), then yes, it should have a Wikipedia page. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard is not "published sources", it's "reliable published sources." The two "news organizations" linked from the article are Aruzza (a self titled consulting company) and the Turkmenistan project. --Selket Talk 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My further 2 cents: The page is looking better and better! Just keep on truckin'! Turgidson 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added 10 more sources (government and news reports) about the index to the article. However, I am hesitant to continue working on the article until this AfD is finished. There have been several comments about the article being POV, but no one has noted exactly where the POV is. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please clarify, I'm very confused. I'm working on trying to improve the article and just can't see where the hell the POV in the article is. The first paragraph is this:

The State of World Liberty Index is a ranking of countries according to the degree of economic and personal freedoms which their citizens enjoy; each country is given a score between 0 and 100. The Index defines freedom as "the ability for the individual to live their lives as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same." Only one report (the 2006 State of World Liberty Index, released 12 August 2006) has yet been produced by the State of World Liberty Project, but the organization has stated that it will continue to release updated reports annually.[1] 159 countries were ranked in the 2006 report.

Where is the POV? It is a ranking of countries according to freedom. Maybe it's not a good ranking, but it's a ranking nonetheless. The definition of "freedom" is a quote. And only one report has been produced--that's a fact as well. I'm not sure where you see it as presented "as if it were objective and factual". I do not think this is a good index, but I can't see what problem people are having with the article. -- Black Falcon 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa_Portelli

[edit]
Elisa_Portelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Person. A virtual unknown presenter, on a minor channel The Dinkle 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have "practically the same meaning" at all. But considering you can't even spell simple words like "werth" or "defination", it's not surprising you don't understand the difference. 172.141.87.72 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Clarke

[edit]
Julian Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Some assertions of notability provided, preventing speedy, but I can find nothing to indicate that they're true. "Julian Clarke" turns up many hits on Google, but none appearing to relate to this guy, and certainly no reliable sources corroborating anything. "Music label" has an article here (likely soon to be speedied), indicating that it's the subject's own "secret project", and similarly turns up very little. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Observing Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion's "Conveying meaning" will show that this is probably not suitable for there, either. - brenneman 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of palindromic phrases in English

[edit]

This article is nothing more than listcruft. It does nothing for the understanding of the subject that the article Palindrome does not already adequately do. As discussed on the article talk page, this list is becoming unwieldly. This does not belong in wikipedia, per WP:NOT, as it is an indiscriminate list with no encyclopedic value to the reader. The page caters only to those who already know well what palindromes are, and who want to make a game out of listing them. It needs to be deleted and salted. No need to merge content, as the concept is well covered elsewhere. Jerry lavoie 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Top Spot]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same arguments and observations apply.

Palindromic words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Palindromic phrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

note the first 5 responses to this AfD were prior to my adding these 2 other articles. Jerry lavoie 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Rise to vote, sir.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[tut-tut] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[사전 사! 영한사전 사! 영영사전 사! 한영사전 사!] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We've got too many lists already. What is possibly encyclopedic about "Flee to me, remote elf"? The lists are impressive and extensive, but Wikipedia is not the repository of all human knowledge. This isn't the appropriate place for them. eaolson 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[So many dynamos!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Sides reversed is]Noroton 12:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a great list. Can it be saved somewhere on some related Wiki site? If this isn't somewhere else on the Web, it would be a sad waste to lose it. Noroton 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Addition: My comments also apply to the two other oceans of palindromes the nominator has lined up at the guillotine (how's that for mixed metaphors). [kook] Noroton 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Spit on no tips.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Oo! Doodoo!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with this is it will always grow to its current state or worse if it stays. Would you !vote in favor of keep and full-protect? I doubt it. Let's make it go away, according to our already well-established policy.Jerry lavoie 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Oozy rat in a sanitary zoo.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion until transwikied, and if it can't be transwikied, I'd want to keep it. This puppy's too cute to be put to sleep in the pound. Looking over this vast sea of human ingenuity and not liking it is like stepping to the edge of Grand Canyon and saying, "Eh." C'mon guys, have a heart! Noroton 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Flee to me, remote elf.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Mirth, sir, a gay asset? No, don’t essay a garish trim.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yeah, guilty as charged and shameless about it. Maybe I should start WP:WHERESYOURSOULPEOPLE?. I'm trying to find out how Wiktionary appendixes would work and if this list would be OK over there. Noroton 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [Ode protocol: loco torpedo.][reply]
[redivider]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
at this point only one of the comments left before the other articles were added has not been recommented by the user. I have asked this user to come back and state whether their opinion counts for all or not. If they do not come back, we can just discount their !vote for the other two articles, no need to start over.... it would be a pointless waste of time. And not similar enough???? they are identical articles except one has single-word palindromes, and one includes other languages. The exact same arguments apply to all of them. If you disagree, you can !vote on each one separately.... there is no policy for an all-or-nothing close by the closing admin, they often disposition articles differently per the concensus reached... why waste our time? Jerry lavoie 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joke, in reference to all those variations that begin "A man, a plan ..." I thought it was quite good. Matt 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[Σοφός – wise man]Noroton 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palindromatic comments: O, stone, be not so. I say to you deleters. And Bibliomaniac, there are some real good ones here: No, son, onanism's a gross orgasm sin: a no-no, son. Oh, no! Don Ho! Campus motto: Bottoms up, Mac! Lived as a devil. Naomi, sex at noon taxes, I moan. Tulsa night life: filth, gin, a slut. Evil; all its sin is still alive. E-file: no evil to laff a lot, live one life.
I hope nobody minds, but I found palindromic comments that seemed to fit almost all of the comments here. I don't think they should get in anyone's way. After all: ''No evil to laff a lot, live on! Noroton 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion? Noi tele da! .............. can't blame me for trying! ;) --Candy-Panda 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[retrosorter] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Interesting. The pages are a start. Definitions could be added and the list of examples kept. I think that all the pages are good actually, but I think that he foreign language examples should go on the appropriate language wikis, with links on each page to the other language pages. Snowman 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ailihphilia] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that examples of palindromes are needed for illustration, in a similar way that an article has a photo (which is likely to take up a lot space on the wiki servers than a list). I know that "interesting" is not a reason for inclusion in the wiki; howerver, none of the wiki rules are concrete. Snowman 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Especially the English single-word palindrome examples. Matt 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Additional comment: I see that the single-word page (Palindromic_words) has been "has been transwikied to Wiktionary". The talk page provides a link to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words where the material has been copied. Obviously we don't want the list maintained separately in two places, but I have two questions. First, why would anyone think to look for a list of palindromes (or anthing else for that matter) in a dictionary? Second, even if they did, how would they find the page at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words? Typing "palindrome" or even "palindromic words" in the Wiktionary search box does not lead you to that page in any obvious way that I can see. Matt 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[reviver] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why user:Matt (who started this paragraph) has not used a signature that is in a standard linked format. Snowman 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the help desk at Wictionary whether these lists could go there, and I was told they could. I see no problem in what is essentially an unencyclopedic list moving over to Wictionary if it's OK over there. (I suppose nothing is a sure bet and it might be up for deletion for whatever rules they have, but the administrator over there thinks they'd fit in.) As Wictionary articles, they could easily be linked with the Palindrome article here, just about as easily as a Wikipedia article could be. I think this is the best solution. I'm a bit skeptical about foreign-language palindromes in the English Wictionary, but they could be farmed out with links to other-language Wictionaries, it seems to me. As to whether people would find the list: I think most people who fall upon those lists of palindromes now go there from the Palindrome article, and that won't change. If they find it through a search engine, that won't change either. Here's my discussion at the Wiktionary help desk:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk
Noroton 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just slapped the Wictionary-suggestion notice on the two articles that hadn't been moved there. As for the one that's been copied already, it looks like one article is available in the first link but not the second, more direct link to Wictionary. Maybe it's a matter of time or of decisionmaking over in Wictionary. [tattarrattat] Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe that's it. Maybe the intention was to put the content at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Palindromic_words, but for some reason it never happened and it got put at the apparently unfindable http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words instead. If the links from the Wikipedia palindrome article can be made to point to the lists at Wiktionary then that's better than losing the content altogether I suppose, But I still maintain that a dictionary is not the place for this sort of content. It makes no sense to me... Wikipedia is where it should be. Matt 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
[Anna, Enok, sytytyskone, anna! "Give me the detonator, Enok, will you!"] Noroton 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Arbitrary" well, I dunno. They're all palindromes, after all.Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hesitate to call "Butt raft fart tub" even a phrase. There's no meaning whatsoever attached to that string of words. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, but I don't think it's typical. Noroton 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are certainly more suitable for the wiktionary than for here, much like the lists of idioms that were recently transwikied. I don't think this is meant to be the place for a depository of any given type of interesting word usements. Agent 86 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Ora trovo: vortaro!: "Golden find: dictionary!"] Noroton 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[가련하시다 사장집 아들 딸들아 집장사 다시 하련가] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[표 세 명값 자책한 과부가 부과한 책자값 명세표] (I don't know what it means either, but if we delete it without it being transwikied, you will never, ever know, Nuttah68, and who will be miserable then ...?) Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a wiki list of palindromes is useful for reference. It might not belong in an encyclopedia (especially some silly entries), but it should be in a wiki somewhere. So please don't delete this page until a suitable replacement wiki is found. Powerslide 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ سر فلا كبا بك الفرس :: May your horse not stumble whilst you ride it.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This rationale is unreasonable. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is the only question at stake here, not whether it exists somewhere else. However, it has been copied to Wiktionary already. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As with other Brahmi-originated scripts, palindromes are rare in Telugu. However, one prominent example stands out for our discussion:-
  • వికట కవి (vi-ka-Ta-ka-vi/ 'A cunning poet')
"Popular folklore has it that the above term was reputedly coined by the Hindu Goddess of Wisdom, Saraswati to describe the 15th century Telugu poet, Tenali Ramakrishna, after he had tricked her into bestowing him both wealth and wisdom, when she specifically asked him to choose either of the two and not, as it were, both."[Comment by way of example to make the point that there is at least some encyclopedic content here, rather than palindrome meant to describe the argument or compliment the editor, as with the others] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Al kasada sakla. Take this and put it in the safe.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[مودته تدوم لكل هول و هل كل مودته تدوم :: His style lasts through all horrors, and does every style last?]Noroton 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent 2 Targa

[edit]
Silent 2 Targa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sailplane product. Many sentences are copyright violations from http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2_targa1.htm and http://www.alisport.com/pdf/silent2_silent2targa_eng.pdf. The article is written like an advertisement and not much is worth salvaging. BuddingJournalist 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi BuddingJournalist, Please explain what is a Non-notable sailplane product. If notable means worthy of note : remarkable b: distinguished, prominent I strongly disagree with you.... The Silent 2 Targa is remarkable and distinguished compared to other sailplane and if you are not able to understand why, please let me have the possibility to explain this concept. You say: The article is written like an advertisement, I disagree: this is a technical description of a sailplane, it simply states how the sailplane is made. Dansco2903
    • See WP:NOTE for Wikipedia's definition of notability. Is the Silent 2 Targa the subject of multiple, third-party, reliable sources? I think phrases such as "innovative", "unique", "very easy and fun to fly", "very good", "nice", etc. constitute the advertising tone, and are certainly not just "a technical description of a sailplane". There's still the copyright violation issue, too; numerous sentences are copied straight from http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2_targa1.htm. BuddingJournalist 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, appears to be using Wikipedia as a host for a press release or catalog entry. ShaleZero 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N and copyright problems. /Blaxthos 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP != product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to copyvios and general spam but leave open for creation of an encyclopedia article. Nuttah68 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Pissedness Factor (GPF)

[edit]
General Pissedness Factor (GPF) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Apparently made up term, with zero Google hits. Saligron 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Bucketsofg 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbarded

[edit]
Bumbarded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious neologism. Maybe WP:NFT. Possibly even vandalism. De-proded by anon editor with no explanation. eaolson 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Twisted Outlook

[edit]
A Twisted Outlook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that it meets WP:WEB criteria; self-reported stats are relatively modest ("up and coming"); doesn't crack Alexa top 100,000; only one minor media mention. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. I hope it looks less like an advert now, and I apologise for how it looked in the first place. I won't add any more links.

Hello again, thanks again for keeping this up while changes are made. ZimmerBarnes, I was just wondering what you meant by a "neutral resource"? Thanks for the save vote.

I must go to sleep now (3.30am), I'll get right on this in the morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfmmushroom (talk • contribs).

Comment Tfmmushroom, read WP:WEB (notability guidelines for web sites) and WP:RS (for what constitutes a reliable source). Also, if this Twisted Outlook web site happens to be yours, please read WP:COI before anything else. SubSeven 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Webaliser" meaning self-reported site stats? Those stats still do nothing towards the subject meeting WP:WEB requirements. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webaliser being a top application for displaying a website's statistics. How else can someone convey a site's stats other than by typing it? A screenshot of the stats page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs)
I know what Webaliser is. The point is that self-reported web stats do nothing to satisfy WP:WEB criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WEB and WP:Notability. Note that the former states The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shield of Achilles

[edit]
Shield of Achilles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An object in a book is generally not notable, on top of which the article is an unencyclopedic mess. Lesnail 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save. I deleted the rambling "mess" of the article, though the information could be added back if it was better organized. The Iliad is a famous work of fiction, while I'm not familiar with the specifics, the shield might be of particular importance in the overall story. ZimmerBarnes 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the content that is left enough to warrant an article? It's already mentioned in passing in Achilles, but this article doesn't add any knowledge of the Shield. Further, without the description of "great detail" as written by the poet, what else can be written about the Shield? Cedlaod 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is slightly inaccurate--the shield is an object in the poem, but "Shield of Achilles" usually refers to the section of the poem where the shield's creation by the god Hephaestus is described. And it's the description that's important--it's one of the first and most famous instances of ecphrasis in western literature, and therefore very important in the history of aesthetics. Books have been written about it--for instance, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laokoon; A.S. Becker, The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis. On the other hand, I'm not going to be able to expand this article any time soon, and I doubt that other editors will get to it soon, so I wouldn't be that upset if the article disappeared. By the way, there are a few other articles on episodes of the Iliad and Odyssey--Deception of Zeus and Nekuia spring to mind; if Shield of Achilles is deleted, editors may wish to look at those articles as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Definitely a legitimate topic. From just my cursory education in classics, I know this is signficant. There's supposed to be some kind of artwork on his shield with some important symbolism. It's also a motiff in real art. Sofixit. Savidan 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shields are lame. Swords are much cooler.--Perceive 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Akhilleus and Savidan. Very famous passage from one of the most influential works in Western literature. Imitated by later poets such as Virgil (the shield of Aeneas in the Aeneid) and Auden. At the moment it's just a stub but plenty of room for expansion. --Folantin 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the object itself is not terribly notable within the story but the descritpion of it really is a key passage that is very influential. Eluchil404 10:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I think it's now a passable short article with room for expansion. --Folantin 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest speedy keep. Note that the version of the article edited by ZimmerBarnes and Folantin is not the article that was nominated, which appeared to duplicate a long swatch of a prose translation of Homer directly. The description of Achilles' (replacement) shield is a passage from the Iliad that is easily worthy of a separate article, much as the Catalogue of Ships is. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I nominated it for deletion, but now that it is about the section of the poem rather than about the object, I am happy with keeping it. Lesnail 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into The Iliad Is there such a thing as mythcruft? This would define it. Kyaa the Catlord 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Folantin.
  • Keep. - Kittybrewster 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While generally against such articles, this one supercedes any claim of non-notability. /Blaxthos 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kai kit wan

[edit]
Kai kit wan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The pills are supposed to help with "urogenital inflammation." What?? That disease is not described anywhere else in Wikipedia, so the medicine for it, though it does exist, is not notable. YechielMan 01:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaou

[edit]
Kaou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be a translation from a Japanese original source, and it's not a good translation. Actually, it's almost incomprehensible. I tried to piece together some references from the Internet to consider a rewrite, but I couldn't find anything in English. Please list this article under Japan-related deletions, if there is such a thing. YechielMan 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum If the article is properly referenced to pass WP:N and WP:V at the end of this debate then consider my vote changed, if the article remains unreferenced then the article clearly fails policy and needs to go, until it can be recreated encyclopedicly (is that a word?). Jeepday 15:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The section you cite tells us that "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality" (emphasis mine), and no one has claimed that the references on this topic in English are of equal quality to the ones in Japanese on this very Japanese topic. Do you have any reason to dispute that the references are reliable sources showing notability? Dekimasuが... 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is encyclopedic; at least two Japanese encyclopedias, Japanese Encarta and Heibonsha World Encyclopedia, have an entry about it. --Kusunose 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per UncleG, and rename to Kaō (with Kao redirect) per WP:MOS-JA. The sentences appear to be direct (machine?) translation from the Japanese, but that in and of itself is not a deletion reason. Perusing google ("kao" + "signature"), it seems to be a common enough word in antiquities circles (swords, and other Japanese handmade goods) [6] [7] etc. Neier 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a machine translation of the top part of ja:花押. It obviously needs to be re-written or translated, but that doesn't require deletion. Rename per Kusunose. skip (t / c) 09:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per User:Neier. However, oppose translation from jawiki version due to the lack of reliable sources and inline citations there (and the fact that it conflates the concept of Tughra with that of Kaou, when they're two different things with separate roots). Better for us to roll our own from scratch, adding facts to it as we find sources (though we can certainly use that one as a guide). cab 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Per the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is or likely may be challenged, or it may be removed. Two editors have attempted to validate the article and failed. The question is not should we keep a poor translation, the question is does this article pass the three core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jeepday 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that this is not verifiable is pretty ridiculous. User:Kusunose has already pointed to reliable sources (two Japanese encyclopedias), proving that this subject actually exists (i.e. not a hoax) and is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And have you tried a google search for 花押 and looked around among the fifty-eight thousand hits you get? There have been whole books written on the topic ([8] in the first page of results, for example). cab 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response No offense intended but the Article Kaou as it is fails WP:V and per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.. The topic may be notable but the article is challenged and remains unverified. Per the first sentence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. We are not talking about concepts of poor translations, or if a given subject is notable. The question is about the article and as it says in the AfD template Please improve the article if possible, so improve it so any argument about the notability or verifiability becomes moot. Jeepday 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: Problem with page: Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations). Solution: Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. There's quite a few steps that could be (and should have been) taken to get attention for this article before AfD'ing; asking for verification on relevant wikiprojects or regional noticeboards, for example. It's a complete and utter waste of everyone's time and effort to delete this just in case the people with the ability and interest to verify and clean it don't happen to have free time in the next 4 days. cab 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been improved. It is in good English and has sources. It's no longer an orphan. As a stub, it covers the most important points of the topic. Fg2 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Please do add the sources soon, though. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Bianchini

[edit]
Vincenzo Bianchini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I actually think that this article is a probably a CSD as it is right on the edge of gibberish. It's a Google translation of the Italian Wikipedia entry for this individual. I'm skeptical of the notability of this individual and, because of the language, can't realistically discern any assertion of notability. Either way, it can't be saved without a complete rewrite from scratch.

As I was uncertain about CSD nomination, I attempted a proposed deletion. This was removed on the grounds that a Google search turned up a few hundred hits about this individual. Even if we agree that this subject is notable (and I'm not on that team at this point), I can't see how a non-sensical article asserts that notability. I also note that the original author of this article shares a last name with the subject, for what it's worth. Planetneutral 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the deletion proposal, not for being opposed to deletion, but to give the deletion wider visibility and discussion. If there are translators and editors with specialized knowledge of Italian and the fine arts, they might be able to help with the wording and comment on whether the individual deserves an article. The article's barely over a week old, and hasn't had any cleanup tags to call attention to the need for work. Fg2 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can find the translation department at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which is across the road. Uncle G 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close AfD is not the place to make a translation request. --DavidHOzAu 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I did not phrase well, but I was not making a translation request. I'm arguing that the article fails WP:BIO because the low quality of the translation makes it impossible to identify an acceptable assertion of notability.
    • It's possible that someone with dual fluency can help clarify that, but I think notability is clearly in question at this point and I don't think that said ambiguity points to a speedy close of the discussion. If anything, it should be prolonged to allow for someone with the appropriate language skills to weigh in on the notability of the individual (and thus determine whether that translation work is even worthwhile). Planetneutral 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The italian wiki itself is unsourced and tagged in that sense and a similarly translated text has been inserted into the spanish one. --Tikiwont 11:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC), expanded Tikiwont 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, leaving the translation issue apart, I went trough the Google pages but many of them are about persons with the same name. Essentially I found only this [9], which so far does not seem to be a basis for meeting WP:V and WP:BIO, but I am open for new aspects. Tikiwont 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC), corrected and expanded.Tikiwont 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, our main problem here is with WP:V, which ion itself is a reason for deletion. On the other hand I am not so sure about the notability issue Alf photoman 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup I don't see how we can evaluate notability at this point. I think that we need to see sources and a better translation. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed on the better translation, but do we have meaningful sources? I'm not seeing any from which to do a purposeful cleanup of this article. Maybe Xanthoxyl will have success from print sources. Planetneutral 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Cleanup Another copy has been left at fr:Vincenzo Bianchini; given that the article is short and simple I could translate from that. He is mentioned here. I will try some reference books. Xanthoxyl 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given the article a quick wipe down, retranslating from the French version. Basically he was a minor Italian sculptor who lived and worked in Iran and who had some degree of fame in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Xanthoxyl 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comprehension improvement to be sure, but I'm holding out for whatever verifiable sources that you find. That Iranica article doesn't make much of a case for notability. Planetneutral 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, he does exist (eight of his books are in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma online catalogue, the last one dated 1970) but he is not conspicuous on Iranian websites and he doesn't even have an entry in the Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, which makes him about as non-notable as you can get. Their entry for V.B. refers to a 16th century Venetian mosaicist. His resistance leader brother-in-law Mariano Buratti is much more famous. Probably this article is best left at it:Vincenzo Bianchini. Xanthoxyl 07:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanniya

[edit]
Kanniya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

After a quick google search, I've become convinced this is a hoax article, and even if not, it violates NPOV. Can anyone find a criterion to speedy it? YechielMan 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:36Z

Marc M. Cogman

[edit]
Marc M. Cogman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable person. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. I nominated for speedy, but it was contested. Real96 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep for both. Sandstein 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

[edit]
List of bisexual people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list, contrary to WP:NOT#INFO. The list invites continuous addition of entries that violate WP:LIVING. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. The list itself adds up to a major POV conflict. Some of this information is includable, as it is cited, but the place to do that is the persons entry, not such a list. Delete and salt.

I am also nominating the following related page because the same arguments and reasoning applies.

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jerry lavoie 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire. Impossible to maintain; nearly impossible to verify; sure to become either impossibly large or remain completely arbitrary; serves no useful nor informative purpose. In short, Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both Unmaintainable and is pushing WP:LIVING. Has no real point from a research perspective.--Dacium 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed, impossible to maintain. I tried to remove some really bad sources from List of bisexual people but it's just too big and badly sourced. Also per WP:BLP Garion96 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep, I am convinced, this list List of bisexual people does need some serious cleanup and reliable sourcing though. The {{verify}} tag has been on the article already for over 6 months. Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You succeded in removing those entries, which were indeed terribly badly sourced. The other entries seem to be based on fairly sound references (usually a report of the person in question "coming out"). WjBscribe 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though I have added Ted Haggard and others to this. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. Either that, or rename as canonical gay list DavidYork71
  • Keep. The lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E to see what these lists should look like once reasonably complete and properly sourced and formatted. There have been recent attempts to force compliance with WP:BLP and most of the entries are sourced. I have removed unsourced entries for some time and was about to turn to removing NNDB sourced entries along with others backed by sources that fail RS. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people who are notable in various fields are important in terms of social studies. These lists also allow brief information about their nationality and occupation that Category:LGBT people cannot provide. The list is maintained and the inclusion category is clearly expressed as: "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed." WjBscribe 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is not the problem I have with the articles, per se. Although the articles invite unsourced material, and would require continuous policing. My real problem is the fact that as a collection of names, the list itself is non-notable. whether certain notable people are LGBT or not may be notable for certain people, aI agree... but this article creates a pro (or con) POV slant... and does not by itself provide encyclopedia context.... what next? List of right-handed people? List of people who like turnips? People who...... the list could go on. But not appropriate for wikipedia. Jerry lavoie 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell whether its a pro or con slant, there probably isn't a POV slant at all. The fact that people are gay, lesbian or bisexual is far more significant than that they like turnips. It would be great if we can say sexuality is no big deal. But actually it is. The fact that people come out as gay etc. is a clearly notable fact about them and worthy of being catalogued in an encyclopedia. The examples you cite in comparisson are clearly trivia, this list is not. WjBscribe 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not disagree with you more. Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody. If I can live my whole life without needing to catalog all the gay people in the world, why can't everyone? If the Rosie O'Donnell article and the Ellen Degeneres article say that they are lesbians, based on obvious tons of citable reliable sources, I have no problem with it... but what encyclopedic need does a person have who says "I wonder who all the gays are in the world?" Jerry lavoie 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the vast majority of people are straight"[citation needed] Hint: see kinsey scale Jerry lavoie 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then make that "the vast majority of people are assumed to be straight - making this list even more necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aside from inciting an emotional response and inflaming this discussion, what possible purpose could the African American statement above serve? This discussion is not about race, national heritage, or turnip-liking. It is about an indicscriminate list. IF (capitalized on purpose) LGBT people need to know other LGBT people, they do not necessarily need to get that information from wikipedia. Wikipedia inclusion policies are about the encyclopedic content of the articles, not about fulfilling needs of selected groups of readers. If the vast majority of people are to be presumed to be straight as you said, then we can presume that the vast majority of readers will not have the need you described to find this list here.Jerry lavoie 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - this issue is emotionally laden for me - I admit. But the purpose of "throwing the race card" is valid. If having a list of African Americans is encyclopedic, then so is a list of LGBT folks. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. Bbagot 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with SatyrTN, you can't have List of African-Americans but not List of LGBT people. These attributes might be viewed as irrelevant to some people, but historically sexuality and race have been very important attributes. If it's important enough for history, why not for wikipedia? Cedlaod 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is an inappropriate inflammatory argument (See Race card). Jerry lavoie 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large ≠ indiscriminate. You might want to take a closer look at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --N Shar 04:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WJBscribe. And for the example (A-E) you've given, can I just say ... WOW!!! Now that is a good list! As for the criticisms raised, Zeus almighty! Lists belong on WP (see WP:LIST). In fact, WP allows for a distinct category "Lists of people by ...". Grouping people by sexual orientation is not the same as grouping them by their attitudes on turnips. Whether we like it or not, being a member of a sexual minority has impacted (and still continues to impact) the lives of such individuals--it is not a "non-defining or trivial characteristic". As for the charge of being indiscriminate, please have a look once more at WP:NOT#IINFO. -- Black Falcon 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, why LBG but not T on these lists? Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See List of transgendered people (though it seems to be in a shocking state). There doesn't seem much point including those in lists that are already very long. WjBscribe 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But where's John Amaechi? Seriously, the maintainability concern raised by several people above is valid, as more people are willing to openly identify as L, G, or B. It may be impossible to include everyone who fits the criteria. Also, the sourcing for these lists has to be as stringent as possible. But I think the list serves a useful research purpose, and its format allows it to include information that a category can't. (And hopefully no one disputes that the various categories about sexual orientation are useful...) I'm not sure, however, that there's value in maintaining a List of bisexual people separate from the other lists; it might be better to merge that one. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no question that these lists need work. The list of bisexual people has been very bad for a long time, and even the much-improved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E still cites self-published websites. However, to those arguing that this is trivial: if universities start offering degrees in the study of people who like turnips, then yes, we certainly should have a list of brassicarapaphiles. Personal lack of interest in the subject is no more relevant than any other IDONTLIKEIT argument. —Celithemis 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. While I think most lists on Wikipedia are silly, these lists are no sillier than most, and less silly than others. Until Wikipedia policy determines that all lists should be scrapped, these should stay. Great Keep arguments, by the way, and not much of a case made for deletion, besides, "I just really don't like it". Jeffpw 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is going to be unwieldy as hell, but there are certainly people to maintain it. Though, I'm not sure about the list of LGB people - isn't that covered in the separate lists, or...? --Dennisthe2 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is everyone who is gay, bisexual or lesbian. What exactly is too general about List of lesbian, gay or bisexual people? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean adding a word like "important" or "notable" before people, concensus is against this e.g. List of tall people. The criteria for inclusion is within the article and only those who are notable should be listed, but adding this element to the title is usually disapproved of... WjBscribe 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. --Dennisthe2 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is quite discriminate and just because it might result in vandalism and edit warring is not a reason to delete the article. Ever article is a target for vandalism - hell one of the most vandalized articles I've seen is Antartica, which isn't exactly a controversial subject. The claims are quite easy to verify, especially if the person is openly homo/bi-sexual.
As for being "unencylopedic" I'll just repeat what I said on a previous comment:
The thing is, this isn't really an article, it's an list. As such it serves more as an index to articles, so it doesn't have to be encyclopedic in the same sense as pages about specific people linked to on this list do. See WP:LISTS for specifics on what type of lists are appropriate. This list fits under all three purposes - information (people searching for a list of famous bisexuals for whatever reason), navigation (as I said before, it's an index/table of contents to these articles), development (the LGBT project is quite active and this is certainly helpful for them).
Koweja 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What exactly is "indiscriminate" about these lists? They have very clear criteria of entry. Obviously anyone's inclusion on the lists needs to be cited. But as long as that is done (and this is not difficult to enforce), I fail to see how this is any more indiscriminate than any of the lists of Jews, for example. — coelacan talk — 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A persons sexuality is almost never the reason they are notable. I can't imagine List of Heterosexual People would last five minutes on Wikipedia, this almost seems like Wiki:Point to me, if I'm honest. Jcuk 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am fed up with these lists. The set of people eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedic list should be defined by some notable trait. The set of people eligible for inclusion here is potentially undefined and also based on a non-notable trait. I could see that a list of Popes or platinum-selling musicians might be encyclopedic because the set of people listed would be manageable. This list is completely unmanageable. And I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • This is not a list of every bisexual person in the world nor is it intended to be. It is list of people who are bisexual and notable. According to WP:LIST, lists should include notable persons. So, notability is already a criterion. Moreoever, being a member of a sexual minority is a defining trait. Lastly, regarding the privacy issue, this list only includes people who are openly bisexual. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP People want to know about homo/bisexual famous people, and they aren't necessarily gay either. That's why the GLBTQ encyclopedia exists. Per Koweja, this meets every requirement on WP:LIST, is not frivolous, and as mentioned previously, minority groups have lists, that's why there are lists of people by religion, occupation, and yes, sexuality, people are interested in reading these and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to produce this information that they seek. OK, so the bisexual list contains unsourced entries - is it our fault that NerriTunn (talk · contribs) wants everyone in the world to be bisexual? We keep removing them, she keeps putting them back. WP:LGBT has been working on making these lists fully comprehensive and sourced - delete these articles and you delete weeks (cumulatively) of our work to make these lists presentable. They are certainly not indiscriminate, we have developed guidelines within the project to define the criteria by which a person may be placed on the list. I have been tardy on the conversion to tables - if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month.
To address Allon's point above, if public figures wish to keep their sexuality a secret, then they can and they aren't on the list. But if we have non-trivial, reliable sources about it, then they go on. Sexuality is no diffferent from any other part of them - if it is notable, it goes into Wikipedia, and that's policy.
To sum up, I ask that these lists be kept because they are notable, within policy, and with a body of people willing to maintain them. We just haven't got them looking at their best yet because we've been busy. This AfD tells me that I need to shove this to the top of my priority list and I will do so if these lists are kept. And to all thos epeople who say that such a list is unverifiable and impossible to maintain, see List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why actually is there a seperate list for bisexual people? Since they are also included in the other list. If keep, would it make sense to merge both lists or to remove bisexual people from the other list? Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because bisexuality is a separate sexuality from homosexuality, so it deserves its own list for people who want to look up bisexual people: however, when people look up the list of GLB people they're more looking for "not straight" people rather than just gay people. So the distinction's there if people want it, but the GLB list is the main one people look for. That's how I see it anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of makes sense. But I still prefer either 2 lists, one bisexual, the other gay&lesbian. Or all in one list. Makes it also much easier to mantain. The way it is now List of bisexual people is basically double info. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but if you see it like that then List of LGB people is simply double info of List of people by name. Why have any list of people in it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it more as...for instance if list of politicians would als include all the people from the list of American politicians. Which is double. I also don't think strongly about it, it would just be easier to maintain, considering the vandal magnet (I assume both lists) are. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as one of the people who has worked on this list recently, please keep this. This is hardly an unworthy list, while yes, sometimes sexuality doesn't matter in the lives of people, for many it does (see Paul Cadmus, Tom of Finland and Natalie Clifford Barney.). There is a movement with this list towards making sure that every entry is cited with reliable references and this is on many watchlists to make sure that extraneous and uncited entries are removed. To tell you a little story, when I was just coming out of the closet myself, seeing a similar list (Wikipedia didn't yet exist), helped me adjust to being gay. To be able to see this list gave me something to feel good about: to know that I was in the company of many great men and women. As a gay man, yes this list is important to me, but it's also important information; hardly indescriminate. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sexuality of a person considered otherwise famous is, for the most part, trivial information. It's not really something which should be handled via a list like this due to the sheer size of the list which could require massive change at any time. For example, Anne Heche was for a while Gay, then she decided she was Bi, now (IIRC) she's decided she's Straight. So will the list contain people who are LGBT at the moment (which would require DAILY changes of many different entries on the list), or will it include everyone who was once LGBT (which could lead to WP:LIVING violations if the person now objects to the term)?
While the comparison to left handed people may be correct in terms of the scale of the list, the scope of what is required to maintain the list is entirely different. Someone cannot one day reveal that while they have been pretending to be right handed for years, they actually favor their left. Likewise, switching from right or left handed to ambidexterity requires months of training. Statistically, someone who is left-handed today is going to be left-handed in ten years. The same is not true of a person's sexuality. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, we do have a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified list, so she could go there. Not a problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some editors here think that being gay is not a notable trait. I think it is. That's all I mean. I feel that individuals are fundamentally different from each other, but I guess that doesn't really matter here. (Forgive me for being pithy in my original post...) Watchsmart 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list needs a lot of work, but given how it should look when it's cleaned up, I think it's necssary and encyclopedic. Dev920 has been working like a dog, with myself and a few others chipping in, and the state of the list is gradually improving. Openly LGBT people are a minority, and bisexual people a minority within a minority. To suggest that non-heterosexual orientation is of no consequence amounts to ignoring the contents of every article in Category:LGBT, first and foremost the concept of coming out. This needs to be a list more than a category because sourcing is such an important aspect of this (per WP:LIVING) and because elaboration is needed. While there have been arguments about who should be included in the list (see talk page) I still think this list can and should be on par with Wikipedia's list standards. Don't give up on it yet. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom As a deal has been struck by prominent parties on each side of this debate to correct the major concers with these articles and still keep them, I request for an admin to close this debate as Keep per agreement. To make this easier for a closing admin, I request that nobody else add a comment below this line, unless you do not agree with that outcome. If this remains the final comment, an admin could close this under WP:SNOW, with reasoning that both parties have agreed to keep it, so delete outcome does not have snowballs chance. Let's allow a peaceful closure of this debate and celebrate collaboration. Jerry lavoie 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, a number of users have expressed delete opinions in this AfD. Much as I might want it to be, the mere fact of your nom being withdrawn does not mean this AfD can be closed early. You cannot speak for everyone of those users (who might not be agreeable to the lists surviving in any form). Nor are those who have expressed keep opinions bound by what Dev920 has said. I think this AfD must now run its course. WjBscribe 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enoigh <shrug> I tried. Jerry lavoie 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also preferable to let the AFD run its full course because speedy keep does not establish as much evidence of consensus as does a five day AFD closed as keep. — coelacan talk — 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it does appear to be a page that may require sprotection now and again. Kukini 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, The list is just as deserving of a place on Wikipedia as any of the other relevants lists such as the lists of African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Left-handed individuals, etc. The requirement was that these individuals are already notable. I believe the list does merit inclusion. Face it, anyone notable identifying as GLBT (like it ot not) makes news. It is obviously of interest to someone if it is till newsworthy. ExRat 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Once again some people want to censor all information related to the glb community -- who's next, the Jews? African Americans? Catholics? Latinos? Democrats? WP should seriously consider implementing an anti-bigotry policy and ban violators. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right, have you actually read the comments of the people who prefer deletion? Garion96 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, and let's quote from a few: "Delete and salt", how should we interpret "delete and salt" repeatedly used above? is this an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps -- words not chosen at random -- or is it an allusion to Rome's treatment of Carthage after years of bitter warfare? In either instance, it's abusive. Then there's the "Delete with fire", when burning of homosexuals was common. Would anyone seriously entertain analogous phraseology like "lynch this article" if used in relation to an African American subject or "gas and burn this article" when used in relation to a Jewish subject. Then there's a few who write from their hearts: "I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to" Gosh, notable people should be able to keep everything else private too, right? Let's delete all private things, even if they've can be found in a verifiably public source, like all that watergate stuff from Nixon's biography, after all I'm sure he would have prefered to keep that a private matter too. Hoowey. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your point, but I also think you see too much in comments used all the time on AFD. Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, right. How about this one from the person who proposed the deletion: "Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody." That doesn't sound just slightly as though User:Jerry lavoie wants the list gone for . . . personal reasons? ExRat 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't sound like that at all to me. Besides, Jerry lavoie (the nominator) already changed his mind. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret my words, ExRat, try a small dose of WP:AGF, it actually tastes good. My point was that when interviewers ask Clay Aiken over and over again if je is gay, after he has definitively stated he is not... I feel bad for him. The same thing happened to Ricky Martin. Not that being gay is bad... being constantly asked about it in public after clearly stating you don't want to be, is humiliating. My worry about these lists is that wikipedia could perpetuate such humiliation by providing such a visible and clearly abused vandal target. As I stated above, since the LGBT wikiproject pledges to patrol these articles, my concern is abated. Jerry lavoie 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know there are people who say that lists and categories can exist side-by-side, but I really feel that this is better handled with a category rather than trying to list potentially thousands of people, inviting the addition of NN names as well as the inevitable "let's play a joke on my friend and list him as gay" nonsense. 23skidoo 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page is useful to all people who are interested in the personal life of celebrities, as there were many gay and lesbian actors who were forced to keep their sexuality a secret and lead double lives. Onefortyone 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is an unpleasant undertone of homophobia in the way this list is treated - as if bisexuality were something odd or 'tabloidy' or wrong. Many younger people can feel less alone knowing that bisexuality in many different degrees is something so many successful people share. Soane 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards

[edit]
Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
2001 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2002 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2003 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2005 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)
2006 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore)

This article was previously subject to an articles for deletion nomination, was deleted, and is now being relisted following a deletion review debate. The key issue raised in the deletion review was that sources were introduced late in the original debate and not all the participants may have had a proper chance to evaluate them. bainer (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources assert some notability, even in the mainstream press. As far as I can see, the awards are well-recognized within the web comic community. Regardless of the current quality of the article, a well-written article can be written about this subject that is verifiable with reliable sources. --- RockMFR 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Multiple independently published sources have noted these awards in a non-trivial fashion (NYT, TV, etc); these are the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art (webcomics). The case is crystal clear. Balancer 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the awards are so notable that /they themselves are a source of notability/ for the comics they are presented to. Nardman1 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This sounds almost circular at first, but consider this: The fact that these comics won awards is why these comics were covered in this NYT article. --Random832(tc) 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There new york times is a trivial piece. Here's the whole content from that article that is about the award:
It utterly transparent that the author isn't actually talking about the awards, noting that this was several months after them should provide some clue. This source fails utterly to establish that this is "singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art." the attack of the show's re-broadcasting is great and all, but we don't have articles based upon everythingthat ever was on one show. Well, perhaps if the show was 60 minutes... but that's hardly the case here. unless we're going to go for wholesale abandonment of freedom from bias based upon passionate defence, this article must be deleted unless multiple non-trivial sources are added. I understand that there is an active "web community" to whom this awards' importance is claimed to be obvious, but the criteria are really straight-forward, that this claim be proven not just asserted.
brenneman 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long Comment with no real point. I see where you are coming from. And I might even agree with you to say that the article isn't about the WCCA. But I think the article demonstrates something interesting. The author of the article is using the WCCA as a way to get into different web comics. For him (in the article), the WCCA is a prop... something to get him talking about specific web comics. Maybe that's what the WCCA does... it provides a starting point for people to approach the subject of web comics. It shows people which comics are liked and respected by other artists. As far as I can tell, this is the most notable award for web comics. I think it's a good idea to keep it around. -- Ben 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment It is simply incorrect to say that the quotation above is the total sum of the references to the WCCA in the article. Read the article instead of just using your search function and you will find a number of references further down using pronouns and indirect references. This has been asserted and debunked so many times that I'm having a hard time maintaining the assumption of good faith. The NYT article should be read. It is not trivial except for very unusual values of trivial. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If G4 and NYT think it is the notable enough to use as the best commics and then surely that is notibility established.--Dacium 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep main article, delete year articles I do agree that this needs work, but the sources that are provided are enough (even if not by much) to establish notability. And "everything that ever was on one show" is a bit of a straw man - it was a whole episode. --Random832(t

c) 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment I would agree that, for now, it would make sense to keep the year data inside the main article and only break them out once this has become unwieldy. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a whole show in Attack of the Show!, but look how incredibly minor this show actually is... Can we just step back from the fact that this is about webcomics for a moment, and look at how desperately thin the material availible from reliable sources is? - brenneman 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a niche. Are we going to start deleting places of local interest because their towns' local newspapers have low circulation numbers worldwide? --Random832(tc) 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oi, mate, you really don't want to go there: That guideline is the result of a long seige by editors who thought that "all schools are notable." There's an unsteady equilibrium now between people who like reliable sources and people who like schools, but if the strongest argument you've got is that there are more like this one than I rest my case. - brenneman 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment The strongest argument is that it's met the test of inclusion including two articles in independent media. If you'd stop making disparaging remarks about the sourcing, we wouldn't be "going there" at all. Two is the standard, two are given so the article stays unless there's some double secret guideline about webcomics I don't know about. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, we can't — because it's the overly restrictive definition of "reliable sources" that's being applied here that's causing the problem in the first place. Essentially, there's a bias among the anti-web (and, therefore, anti-webcomic) crowd that says that web sources can never be reliable, and that's being used to expurgate anything on the web from Wikipedia. It is about webcomics, because it's about the web. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. The original deletion enabled the anti-webcomic jihad. Deleting this entry, then using that to deny that webcomics that win these awards are notable, is noting more than creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and denying that webcomics can be notable at all. These awards are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement, and if this entry is deleted, we might as well delete any article having to do with anything on the web. -- Jay Maynard 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral on the list articles; the list of previous winners should be treated the same as the lists of previous winners of the premier awards in any other field. If that means merging or deleting, so be it; if that means keeping, then keep. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm rapidly giving up on talking sense here, but first:
    1. There is no "jihad."
    2. Please provide a reliable source that these are the "are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement."
    3. Plenty of webcomics get no-web coverage: When I Am King is the first I think of.
    4. "[D]elete any article having to do with anything on the web" that fails the bias and verification policy seems reasonable to me.
    brenneman 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. bibliomaniac15 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has not garnered the type of verifiable coverage in reputable independent sources one would expect of a seven-year-old supposedly "notable" award, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. What, if we really stretch our standards, we might possibly almost have two reputable sources? We have better sources for last year's revisions to the Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award. [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also, the point of view that this is "the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art" is ridiculous when you have the awards' committee members blogging things like "The WCCAs are horribly mismanaged, they are not well organized and they don't do what they are supposed to. I know this because I have been part of the administrative process."[14] With a dearth of reputable sources, I don't see how to write this article without giving undue weight to wikipedia editor's personal points of view and original research about this topic. -- Dragonfiend 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment you seem to be arguing for raising the standards for sourcing beyond WP:WEB. Shouldn't you be over there instead of doing it on a case by case basis? That would seem a much more fair solution. This doesn't mean that I agree that more than two sources should be the standard but that doing it for an article while leaving the standard at a lower level is even worse than changing the standard badly. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An award given a solitary High School to its students is different from the WCCA that awards to an industry. Arguing that Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award and this article must share the same property even though they are completely different is a false analogy known as comparing apples and oranges. This isn't helpful and weakens your viewpoint. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that an award given at a solitary high school is different than an award given to an "industry." One difference would be that we would expect better sources for a seven-year-old "industry" award than we would for any single school's perfect attendance award in a single year. But instead we see the opposite difference, that we seem to have far more sources for an award given in a single year at a solitary high school than we do this seven-year-old award given to an entire "industry." Feel free to draw fruit comparisons. Maybe: "If an attendance award were an Apple, and we shouldn't have an article on the Apple Attendance Award, then we shouldn't have an article on any fruit-based awards with less non-trivial coverage than the Apple Award, so if the Orange Juice Choice award has worse sourcing, then we shouldn't have an article on the Orange Awards." Mmmm ... is anyone else getting hungry? I know am. In fact, I'm really hungry for enough reputable sources that we can cover this topic from a neutral point of view. --Dragonfiend 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. With that in mind, there is at least enough information to fully cite a stub... maybe not enough for a full article, but the article should at least be started. Anyway, it should be short work to make a stub out of the existing information, and when more sources come to light, we can of course restore the appropriate statements from the page history easily. Myself, I'd just leave it as is — asserting notability on a verifiable topic is good enough for me when the topic is obscure... there are bound to be at least one unsourced statement in an article anyway. Probably the best thing to do here is to leave it alone and simply wait for the sources to appear in the media. --DavidHOzAu 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is irrelevant if a webcomic blogger like Straub on Halfpixel the one you linked (sorry: your quote was very similar to something Kris Straub said, and I didn't think to check that he was actually the one you linked to. My bad) likes the award. The very fact that he posted about them indicates further notability on the subject. Notability does not equal popularity or likability. Whether or not they are any good, the WCCA are still very, very widely recognised in webcomics. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The very fact that [someone on this awards' committee] posted about them indicates further notability on the subject"? It seems you are saying that if the members of this awards committe are aware of the awards, then that shows how well known the awards are. I disagree, as I would fully expect an awards committee to be aware of the awards they give out. Further, he is blogging on how little known the awards are: "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That NYT article is effectively about the WCCA, just imagine an article discussing the recent BAFTAs say. It would look at the award itself and then dsicuss the winners (even if you don't think they are worthy winners - actually you can probably get more copy out of them that way). Same here - it is the hook for the article and is the thread winding through it holding the whole thing together. Obviously it needs work but that looks to be a good start. (Emperor 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Merge the years into the main article (possibly a section for the award and then the winners sorted by year). The big comic award entries have the awards in the article so I don't see why this should be different. See Eisner Award, Eagle Awards, etc. (Emperor 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I've added the six other articles that are hagning off the arse of these two mediocre sources. - brenneman 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found above. I'd like to remind everyone here to remain civil. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep - sources provide substantial evidence of noteability. In particular, those independent sources consider the awards as something that gives noteability to the comics receiving them. Saying that such coverage is "only about the individual strips" is like saying that coverage on the academy awards is "only about individual movies". --Latebird 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an utterly nonsensical argument: The point is that the only coverage in reliable sources consists of a small listing of the subsets of the winner. Look at the Academy Award page, at the bottom: There are two entire books written about the academy awards. Why is it so utterly difficult to make this very simple point? - brenneman 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because in a different case books are also available, doesn't make an argument about a specificy type of article "nonsensical". You're making it sound like hollywood-type fame was a requirement for noteability. If it's really so hard to understand, my point has been made much more eloquently by MrErku below. --Latebird 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established by sources. Yes, the awards may be limited to the niche community of online webcomics fans (although I believe it includes tens of millions of individuals), but it is notable within that community (and even somewhat outside of it). Also, I have no interest in webcomics nor articles related to webcomics (and have never edited such articles). -- Black Falcon 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is this even being nominated? Adam Cuerden talk 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as to the main article Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, neutral as to the individual year articles. These awards may not be extremely notable but they have received sufficient mainstream attention to justify an article here. --Metropolitan90 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend and Brenneman, who have established that there is not sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to form the basis of an article on this topic, be it from the point of view of WP:V or WP:N. Sandstein 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment yet extensive coverage is not actually part of the standard, is it. Moving the goal posts continues on the delete side. Two sources needed according to standards, two sources cited, suddenly that's not enough. No doubt there will be more articles popping up as this year's winners are announced. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the NYT article just gives it a passing mention and the podcast isn't sufficiently independent. The website for these awards is pretty simple, and contains exhortations to 'spread the word'. The forums are very quiet for a supposedly notable online award.--Nydas(Talk) 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forums are non-notable, so why does the forum activity enter into this debate? And what does the layout of their website have to do with anything? That seems like a total nonsequitor. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an Internet-based award that has run for six years and is supposedly well-known, it seems remarkable that the site should be so minimal. There's no information on how many webcomic artists actually vote in the awards. A few dozen? Hundreds? This is a website for a small band of hobbyists, no different from websites about homebrew or origami.--Nydas(Talk) 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't see how that is at all relevant. The quality of the site design has nothing to do with its notability, nor does forum activity, nor even the number and quality of the voters have anything to do with it. For all Wikipedia is concerned, the WCCAwards could be appointed by a single shadowy figure who fakes all the votes. This is not a discussion of the quality, or professional level of the WCCA, but its notability for inclusion. That is all. Besides being the subject of an article in the New York Times and on a public television show, the WCCA have been regularly referred to by Kristopher Straub, Howard Tayler, and many times by Jeph Jacques, three very well-known comic authors that I pulled out from the very, very tip of the list of webcomics I can name of the top of my head. I am sure a quick google check could yield more. The top names in webcomics are discussing these, which indicates they are not a tiny, unimportant niche in the webcomic world. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been the subject of an article in the NYT, it was a passing mention. I disagree with your assertation that the nigh-impossbility of providing sourced information about this site's voting processes is irrelevant: Attribution is a core policy. How is an encyclopedic treatment of this site's achievements, impact or historical significance possible if the site itself is minimal and, as you suggest, asking for information about it asking too much? As for the webcomic world, I believe that webcomics constitute a fairly small subculture and that webcomic fans have an unrealistic view of their popularity. 'Notable in webcomics' doesn't mean notable, any more than 'notable in origami' or 'notable in homebrewing'. Why can't these awards just be mentioned and linked in webcomic or Keenspot, as is normal?--Nydas(Talk) 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my post below re. validity of the NYT article - namely, what exactly would an awards article have to say to be notable in your books, besides describing an award and listing and describing its winners, a process that takes up about 2/3 of the article?
I do agree that attribution is difficult, and a paring down of this article is probably in order. I don't claim to know much about the WCCA besides that they exist, and pretty much all the webcomic artists I know of get excited when they win one, even the big names. I, for one, don't care to edit articles I don't know a thing about, but I think it would strengthen the Keep argument if someone who did know something were to edit this a bit.
Regarding the importance of the webcomic subculture, it is (ok, getting sick of "irrelevant". New word? um...) unimportant what you "believe" the size of the community is. I would be supporting the inclusion of an article about the Origami Artists' Choice Awards if they had been written up in the New York Times as an example of the internet awards given out to origami artists on the internet, had it been brought to my attention. Especially if a few people who were interested in origami then joined the discussion and listed several origami experts, citing their discussion about said awards and showing that experts in the field were aware of and gave a hoot about the "OACA" one way or the other.
The reasoning behind your argument yields the end result, "I don't see how Okazaki fragments are all that notable. Can't they just be contained in the article on DNA replication?" If Wikipedia is not in fact about creating articles that meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and expanding on those articles to the limit of available noteworthy knowledge, I am a little confused about what we are doing here. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A BBC article about the Webbys from 2001, showing what a genuinely notable award can expect in terms of coverage. Quotes from the creator, their motivation, the quirky speeches, info on the judges and a selection of nominees, context and so on. No such coverage exists for the WCCA. If the NYT did an actual write-up of these awards, rather than three or four paragraphs, then the article should be kept. If there was sustained coverage every year, as one would expect for popular awards, then there would be absolutely no question about it.--Nydas(Talk) 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, you have me in the sense that that shows a lot more information about the Webbys than the NYT article does about the WCCA. Clearly the Webbys are more notable than the WCCA (can't say as I'm surprised), and that is a better article. Regarding annual coverage in a newspaper, comparing the WCCA to the webbys is very misleading: the BBC coverage of the Webbys seems to be mostly "BBC won a webby award last night..." type stuff, in which the resource in question clearly has a vested interest in the awards. In fact, that is also the case in the article you linked, where it appears BBC's intial interest was in their own winning of the award - not that I am calling the article into question, it is definitely valid.
However, I would say the NYT article is still very clearly not trivial, and I am not sure where you can come out saying it is. Even if only pared down to the barest bones of absolute direct reference, as Brenneman has done, one comes out with a solid paragraph of information. The definition of non-triviality according to WP:N is: "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." with the further elabouration: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 6 January 1992.) is plainly trivial. These stress, at least from my perspective, that a "trivial" reference is in fact trivial. It does not spend a paragraph describing the topic in question, in relative detail, nor does it go on to refer back to the topic in nearly every subsequent paragraph of the article. A trivial mention of the WCCA in a New York Times article would be something like, ";There are also awards, like the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (link)", the end, proceed with article as planned.
Be careful not to apply a judgement call to what is trivial and what is not, based on how important you think the WCCA is. Unless triviality is some ephemereal, hard to define concept - which WP:N does not seem to suggest, else notability would be subjective - there is no way to claim this article is trivial. Not to mention anything of a notable television show devoting an entire episode to it, which Brenneman would like to shrug off, but which is certainly a "non-trivial, reliable published work, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did say the NYT snippets were passing mentions, not trivial. However, the NYT article is about webcomics generally, and there is only one paragraph that provides any hard information about the awards themselves, and not very much at that. The TV show did not 'devote a whole episode' to it, it was one of several segments. Whether this segment truly counts as an independent source is questionable, given that it was the WCCA 'Chief Executive' that was hosting it. With both sources being frankly borderline, the lack of further, ongoing coverage clinches it for me; an encyclopedic article can't be created with what is available.--Nydas(Talk) 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should possibly be mentioned that the BBC was nominated for two awards there (along with other news-related sources). Not even to mention the real-life and high-profile ceremony. Just two sidenotes since there is a slight difference of scale here. --Sid 3050 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was getting at in the first pgph, but you say it better. Also, I am intensely curious why pokemon are so important that wikipedia needs over 400 entries on the statistics of each pokemon in the pokedex (whatever the hell that is), but webcomics are so amazingly unimportant that despite a New York Times article bringing up the major webcomic award and talking about it for anywhere between 1 and 7 paragraphs, said webcomic award is not worthy of wikipedia. /sigh/ done here for the night. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't know what the naysayers expect a NYT article to SAY about an internet webcomics award. One would hardly expect them to write a dissertation about its history and management/nomination practices. One would expect, in fact, an article exactly like this one, for almost any award. If this NYT article is non-notable, I can't really imagine a notable article being printed. More importantly, this seems like a strong case of wikilawyering to me. Whether or not there is a dearth of printed articles about the WCCA, almost anyone with ANY involvement in the webcomic industry, from casual readers to authors, has heard of and recognises the WCCA. What is the definition of notability? Is it a tallyup of how many newspapers have mentioned a subject, as WP has lately been leaning towards? Or is that just meant to be an arbitrary measurement of something like, I don't know, how notable something is within its field? Because I would say this is pretty bloomin' notable to webcomics. It doesn't really matter in this debate, since this article meets wp:n anyway, but it is definitely food for thought. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for the individual year articles, neutral. It seems to me one would expect most annual award information to be on the WCCA site itself. However, if the WCCA is notable, I suppose the individual years of it are. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, make that a weak delete for the 6 child articles. At this stage I don't see any purpose to them as there is not enough to build a huge article for the WCCA in the first place. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article -- I think it meets WP:RS now -- but I don't think we need to keep lists for the individual years. A link to the WCCA site should be sufficient. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the reasoning that has been given above. Current sources are NYT, AotS, and a radio interview (which I admit I currently can't find proof for on the official site since it took place 19 months ago, but the announcement doesn't strike me as a fake and has not been contested). This year's presentation will be at Megacon. No opinion about the individual years, though. --Sid 3050 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notabilty asserted due to the fact the awards represent an entire industry. Notability asserted due to multiuple coverages in known publications (NTY, G4). And a comment - award presentations - even well known ones - can be boring and often don't attract huge coverage in media, but that has nothing to do with the notabilty of the award. The WCCA is highly notable within the webcomic industry, and deserves a place in wikipedia. Timmccloud 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the main article, merge the years into a single article or with the main article. To repeat my argument in the undeletion, 'As per the NYT article [15] and most of an episode of "Attack of the Show" [16]'. As I said, independent mentions in a mayor national newspaper and a popular cable/satellite television show (on G4TV) should count for something. The fact that the writer of the NYT article disagreed with many of the judges choices (and apparently disliked the medium as a whole) is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the writer thought the awards were important enough, or representative enough to devote 7 paragraphs to them and its winners in an 18 paragraph general article about webcomics (actually, rereading it, the WCCA's seem to be used as one of the articles main 'hooks'). And finally Websnark, while possibly not a valid source for notability, being a blog, mentions them several times: [17], [18] and [19] at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclapton (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Oops, forgot to sign --15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Grr, messed up signing again --Aclapton 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since I'm satisfied that both are verifiable and notable. I'd be more explicit, but quite frankly, the point's been beaten into the ground by now. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. If any webcomic is notable, then this is also. The year-by-year ones are good suppliments to the main, keeping large lists out of the page. LukeSurl 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article, delete others. The main article has seen significant improvement. While FA status is so remote you’d need Hubble to see it, the article merits inclusion in its current shape—notability is established, major points are cited with more or less adequate sources and NPOV seems to be maintained. The lists aren’t necessary or useful, though; if there is a real need to have webcomic articles organised by WCCA nominations and awards, categories should do the trick. —xyzzyn 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is, there has been a roll on effect. When the WCCA article was deleted, many webcomics were then AFD because of notability concerns, and THAT led to the WCCA catagory being deleted as well. So unless the deletion of the catagory gets overturned (and it was deleted because the WCCA was deleted - starting to see a pattern here?) we can't use catagories as a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs).
      • I hadn’t read that CFD; apparently people there thought a list would be better. However, a single article with a list of award winners ought to be enough. By the way, the article should say how webcomics are nominated and how the winners are chosen. —xyzzyn 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article at least, appears to be well-known. No opinion on the year/list articles; they could probably be either deleted or turned into redirects. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. The lists should go as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that somethings notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Hiding Talk 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, WP:NOTE? WP:WEB? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try again: Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that an article's notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. You stated "notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS" I'd like you to clarify where exactly in WP:V, per your statement that it is in there. Thanks. Hiding Talk 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thinking goes something like this: WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." WP:NOT#IINFO: "articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" Is it an "exceptional claim" to say a website has had impact or historical significance? Yes. Do exceptional claims require strong sources? Yes. Do "strong sources" equal multiple non-trivial sources? Yes. Is this how our WP:NOTE content guideline recommends we should act on our WP:V and WP:NOT content policies? Yes. -- Dragonfiend 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment WP:V also states that "dubious" and "self-published" sources can be used as verification for articles about the sources themselves given some very minimal conditions. As I've pointed out earlier, it is trivially easy for an article about a webcomic - and I'll point out this applies to any content primarily distributed online - to satisfy WP:V; the only question is whether or not it meets notability standards in the first place to merit an article. The standards for notability are outlined fairly clearly, and resoundingly met in this case. Balancer 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main article; WP:V isn't in question, and I feel the sources given are sufficient to meet WP:N; I don't see them as trivial. The daughter articles don't seem necessary; I'm leaning toward delete for them, but a merge or partial merge and redirect might be an option. No strong opinion. Shimeru 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I point out above, the number of reliable sources that discuss the WCCA is less than the number of reliable sources that discuss me (Guardian and WSJ). Would keep voters support an article on a (needless to say) entirely non-notable me? - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you had two articles - what in those articles makes you notable? We are talking about a group that publishes industry awards - that has recognition across it's industry, and it's notablitly is supported by a few articles. I see nothing notable about you that matches what the WCCA does, and your argument (and anyone that agrees with you) is on the nature of WP:ILIKEIT since "you have more google hits than WCCA does". Specious argument. Timmccloud 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you were a primary focus of those articles, then yes, I'd vote to keep an article on you -- you'd meet WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BIO. Why would you think such an article should be deleted? Shimeru 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Francis. bogdan 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Francis, you want an article so bad I'll write you one, but let's not compare apples and oranges here, eh. They may both be fruits but they taste different, and an article on you may be an article, like the article on the WCCA, but they cover different topics. So let's go right out and delete everything less notable that Francis, God help us if Jimbo shows up and demands the same treatment, or does it only work for Francis? Let's examine the article on its merits. Wikipedia is case by case and has shades of grey. Wikipedia is a broad church. Wikipedia works when we respect each other, listen to each other and work to a solution. Let's try and achieve that here in line with our policies. Show me where this does not meet a policy. Hiding Talk 20:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not notable enough to merit an article, neither is this organisation, the point being that a couple of trivial mentions in mainstream press does not a make something notable. - Francis Tyers · 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the point is that you think these are trivial mentions and that you think they aren't notable enough. The NYT article used the awards as a hook, criticised them but placed a value on them. The NYT article assessed them as relevant to the field of webcomics, discussed them as part of the medium. It was not trivial. Triviality is a throw away "The WCCA were awarded on Tues night". Triviality defined in the guideline as follows:

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

      • This was not trivial coverage by that definition. It wasn't a brief summary of the website. This wasn't reporting the internet address, it wasn't an internet directory listing and it wasn't telling you update times, in fact it deferred to the awards in picking strips to cover. Not trivial. Hiding Talk 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per RockMFR and per Balancer. Notable within the community of webcomics, has mainstream coverage, and can be expanded into an informative article. I would also suggest keeping the individual entries, but if not, merge them in. --Falcorian (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete this? People are just going to end up recreating an article for the WCCAs without realizing that it's already been deleted, assuming that they are mentioned on a webcomic's entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.168.17 (talk • contribs) 02:16, February 18, 2007.
  • And, since the anti-webcomic jihadists are all admins, this will get slapped on as soon as the deletion is re-confirmed (again, by an admin). -- Jay Maynard 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's really disheartening. I'd like to think that wikipedia would encourage edits and contributions by new people to encourage its growth and popularity. That would just send the message that my opinion doesn't matter.--Thaeus 24.82.168.17 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC). (Note: the earlier unsigned comment was also mine.)[reply]
  • Have you read the definition of "trivial"? Hiding posted it about four paragraphs up. If the awards are important enough that a new york times author saw them as a valid entry-hook for the webcomic world, they do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "trivial". Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was written by Sarah Boxer. At a guess I'd say it should be to justify "her" choices. But the assertion that she used the awards to justify her choices is not evidenced by the article, and is not trivial per the guidance offered on triviality. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud the effort, but at this stage the author's opinion is pretty much invalid. Her article has been published already, and clearly makes more than trivial mention of the WCCA. Whether or not she intended the mention to be trivial is not the issue: very clearly, the mention is not trivial. I know you know the definition of trivial, brenneman, so I am in the dark as to why you think this doesn't meet it. At best, one might call this a "casual" mention, but it covers far too much ground to be trivial. Allowing the author to amend their opinions on a published work defeats the entire purpose of using published works, namely that they are in print and unchanging.
Note that I am not disparaging the effort, I do want to hear the author's opinion. Just establishing that it really doesn't affect the debate. Erk|Talk -- I like traffic lights -- 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • brenneman: "Rather than reading tea leaves, I've written to the author of the time's article and asked her to comment as to her intent when writing the article."
  • Bravo, but that's the very definition of original research and thus cannot affect the article in any shape or form. Unless we are going to let everyone edit there article as they want? And I can't wait to see if this develops into another look how silly they are on Wikipedia article. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep another silly example of contorted lawyering about Notability wording. This is clearly notable and verifiable, enough with the crap. All the somewhat esoteric, subcultural stuff on wikipedia is what makes it cool.Rdore 06:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the existing sources seem sufficient. The NYT article doesn't look like a trivial reference. --James 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a paragraph-long "blurb" is indisputably a trivial reference. There are a lot of other sources cited. That list of sources looks formidable, but when one looks through it, one finds that the article's subject is "name-dropped" or barely mentioned (trivial) by many, and that the rest are of questionable or no reliability (Comixpedia, a convention site with no apparent editorial control). As to arguments that "this has been used as an argument that most webcomics aren't notable"? Most webcomics aren't notable! Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And people claim there is no anti-webcomics jihad... Go read the Wikipedia definition of "trivial" above: even a single paragraph discussing the subject does not meet that definition. -- Jay Maynard 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are some confusion about the format that Comixpedia uses and as a long time reader, and previous contributor, I can shed some light on this. Comixpeida.org is a comic wiki, not to be confused with comixpedia.com (although they have the same publisher). Comixpedia.com consists of one magazine part, which is under editorial control. The content is contributed by staff writers and freelancers to editors. Back when I contributed, you got payed for what you wrote (a rather symbolic amount though, it was 10 US$ for columns and somewhat more for articles if I remember correctly), but I admit I don't know if they still do this. The current month's magazine content can be found on the right side of the frontpage. The second part of comixpedia.com is the community/news section consisting of forums and blogs. The way the frontpage news work is by community contribution. A person writes in their blog on the site, and the newseditor promotes it to the frontpage if he/she finds it to be of interest. Epameinondas 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a 1-paragraph mention, it's spread throughout the article, the person copying it here compressed it, so it looks smaller. They also arguably left out other references to the awards. I don't know if it was the copier's intent to misrepresent the citation, but they are one of those arguing for deletion. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misreading the sources. The convention site is being used as primary source, and thus is reliable. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Notability. Several fairly high profile comicblogs report on the WCCAs. Journalista, The Comic Journal's blog, written by former managing editor Dirk Deppey http://tcj.com/journalista/?p=294, The Beat, Publishers' Weekly's blog written by Heidi MacDonald co-editor at PW's comics week http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/01/29/web-cartoonists-choice-awards-noms/, The comics reporter, written by former managing editor and executive editor of The Comics Journal Tom Spurgeon http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/your_2007_wcca_nominees/

Epameinondas 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Is this really the right way to go about an AfD for the "year" articles? It doesn't look like the individual pages have AfD headers. -- Ben 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These awards are sufficiently notable to be documented. Deletion arguments are weak. Merge the years in and leave redirects if desired. Brenny, you know better. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article. Sufficient notability has been demonstrated, and WP is not paper - there's no pressing need to come up with reasons to delete this. However, I'd say weak delete to the year articles, we don't really need to archive information available elsewhere, and they're strewn with red links which are unlikely to become (and stay) pages given the recent attitude for deleting webcomic articles. -- Mithent 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main article, Delete yearly articles. Notability requirements have been filled, and the fact that there are criticisms over the award's organization does not in any way affect whether or not it should have an article. If someone wanted to delete the Oscars on the grounds that it's all politics, they'd be laughed off the site. - Zaron 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Main article is clearly notable, per arguments above; Neutral on year articles, but agree that they should be tagged. Willow 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current procedural argument to establish notability is currently based on minimal foundations but these are solid enough to support the existence of an article. The argument against the NYT article supporting notability requires that the mention of the WCCA be trivial, that is, the NYT article would not be substantially changed or significantly reduced by the removal of references to the WCCA. My understanding is that it would be significantly changed in that one or more introductory paragraphs would be lost and the structure of the NYT article would be lost, reducing it to a series of isolated comments on a random and, to the read inexplicable, sampling of comics without any basis for asserting that they are in any way representative of web comics or to show that they have not been carefully selected by the NYT reporter to support her positions regarding web comics. I believe this argument shows that the WCCA were not a trivial part of the article and since there appears to be a consensus that the article as a whole was non-trivial it therefore follows that the mention of the WCCA was non-trivial.
I would not necessarily support keeping an ever expanding list of past winners and nominations. It is probably sufficient to list the past or current years nominations, the past winners of all awards and, for years beyond that, the winners of two or three 'headline' awards.--BoatThing 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reason not to list all past winners, but I think giving a separate article for each year's awards is overkill. - Zaron 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back. Looking over the vast number of categories given, it would be one hell of a mess to stuff it all into one panel. It might be best to keep the other articles. - Zaron 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (G1).--Húsönd 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Sonic riders 2

[edit]
Characters in Sonic riders 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOT Sonic Hog 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crocket Manipulator

[edit]
Crocket Manipulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsense, Searched for all variants on the web and at Hilti.com Pjbflynn 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker)

[edit]
Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The article makes two claims to fame, but Googling the first: "Stuart Hall" + "Channel 7 Television" gives 1 result. Googling the second: "Stuart Allen" + "Propeller TV" only gives 7 results. (Not to be confused with the highly notable Stuart Hall (television presenter))Saikokira 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Blank Label Comics.--Alf melmac 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starslip_Crisis

[edit]
Starslip_Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page fails to follow some Wikipedian guidelines, such as this one (#5: where is the significance? Nothing of merit is listed), and this one (no significant coverage, no awards of merit, etc.). As well, even admins have been quoted as saying that the previous AfD nomination was valid in its criticisms, even if the person starting it did so for improper reasons. FJArnett 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC) — FJArnett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep - the first guideline listed by the nominator doesn't really apply, technically: the article is not about the website [starslipcisis.com], it is about the webcomic Starslip Crisis. Also, it does, in fact, meet the second guideline mentioned by the nominator - check the awards section in the article.
In addition, this nomination seems to have been requested by Straub himself here, where he said that he doesn't wish the article to remain on Wikipedia because he "wouldn’t want anyone to think the people running Wikipedia’s webcomics project knew anything about the strip". In addition, another commentor posted the following:
"Here’s hoping Starslip gets well and truly deleted, it’s not like they actually know about your comic anyway, they just want to reinstate it to save face and pretend they aren’t as close minded as you proved them to be".
(Note: the preceding is just for informational purposes so that other editors can make their own decisions - I'm not taking this as a bad-faith nom at all). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (1) The comic is notable as it has been nominated multiple times for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. (2) The comic is notable b/c Penny Arcade (itself a notable webcomic) has referred to it [20] [21], and "Tycho" wrote the introduction to one of the books. (3) The author, Kristofer Straub, moderated a panel at Comic-Con 2006. [22] --zandperl 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability and verifiability established above. Rogue 9 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per previous discussion, what we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either. --Dragonfiend 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't really feel that this is notable or verifiable enough, but i'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not satisfied with the notability of the awards it has won. Can some of the keep voters demonstrate the basis for its notability? Savidan 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I remember hearing of Starslip Crisis on at least two separate Internet contexts at least six months ago. I've never read it, but after reading the article, it sounds like an interesting comic. By the way, many notable AND non-notable webcomics (indeed, many print comics and print comic strips) have trade paperback collections; both Garfield and El Goonish Shive have collections available. One point I've not heard yet in this discussion: notability is based on context. For the larger world audience, any Parkour enthusiasts or Free running clubs outside of the originators are largely irrelevant; the same is likely true of past Toastmasters World Champions of Public Speaking, but as a Toastmasters AC-B myself, I would recognize the names of at least the past three if I heard them in passing. Webcomics are largely more notable within their intended audience, as is everything else. There are people who don't know anything about Brian Peppers, and people who don't know anything about Bahrain; if those people are called on to decide the notability of such articles, they're not as likely to find it notable as people who know more about the subject. On whose context does Wikipedia depend? --BlueNight 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgive me if you're familiar with it already, but reading WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_subjective might answer some of your questions. -- Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like that may be wrong though, as we seem to be having arguments over what constitutes reliable published works as detailed in this part of the guidance: "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." I'd suggest it is subjective, the arguments support that and that that section be stricken. Hiding Talk 11:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to Kristofer Straub. As much as the WCCAs are going to get an article, I've voted in them. So I have no faith in its capacity to confer magical notability dust upon other articles. As sources go, it is also profiled at the ComicCon Pulse. After that, I poked through all the links Google will let me see on both "Starslip Crisis" and "Starshift Crisis" but don't see anything not already mentioned that would be especially useful in writing a decent article (WP:WAF). Therefore, I would rather merge it and the not-very-well-sourced-either Checkerboard Nightmare into their creator's article (which now has a section on this whole brouhaha. Wheeeee...). Nifboy 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do know that series Pulse "Intro to Webcomics" items were written and submitted by the webcomic's authors? I think there was a pretty open-door policy on them, with none of them rejected. --Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a special case, and I feel the circumstances of what happened compel us to allow this article to live for at least a while as a matter of fairness. In recognition of our error, let's give those interested in the subject a few months to work on this without interference. Everyking 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why that would be -- whether they were sock puppets (seemed obvious to me) or just goofy new users, their sillier arguments (Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc.) were pushed aside to focus on actual content standards, which the article didn't meet then or now. I think the idea was that the puppeteer was going to nominate the article based on a bad Alexa search and back it up with things like "hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions." Then when it would get deleted for those reasons, the puppeteer would say it was all a joke and that the Alexa search was bad and he really was a convention guest and we would all be really embarrassed and keep his article. Instead, we ruined the joke and said "Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc. aren't particularly useful for writing encyclopedia articles," and deleted it based on our actual policies rather than somebody goofing around with puppets. In other words, clumsiest attempt ever at WP:POINT with WP:SOCK backfired on the little WP:DICK. --Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "sock puppets (seemed obvious to me) or just goofy new users" Whatever happened to "Do not bite the newbies"? This particular new (or, rather, returned) user is pretty ticked off with a certain webcomic artist about wasting his time with the first AfD and far from being anyones puppet, sock or meat.--BoatThing 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AFAIK, we still require RS, verifiability and notability. Was this webcomic "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works"? The article does not indicate anything like this.
To zandperl: being referred in a trivial way from Penny Arcade does not make it notable. It's like claiming that I'm notable because my name was briefly mentioned in a couple of articles published in notable newspapers. bogdan 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you speak on why it is not? If you were being honest here, you'd admit that you're destroying information because you can... and perhaps because you're a tad bitter over the author's stunt. If winning awards at the WCCA doesn't establish notability in webcomics then nothing does. And don't even think of turning that around to say that no webcomics are notable because many clearly are; otherwise, there wouldn't be so much controversy over the current deletion spree. Rogue 9 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in your opinion the New York Times article is trivial, as are all the other sources. That doesn't make them trivial, and I don't think the article is on shaky ground. The article meets our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Are you suggesting our policies have less worth than our guidance? Hiding Talk 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't twist my words. New York Times is not a un-reliable or trivial source in my opinion. Try to read the arguments carefully. There is nothing more than a transient mention of the webcomic in the sources. It should be non-trivial as is explicitly stated in our guidelines. And yes, policies are more important than guidelines; but please familiarise yourself appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not twisting your words, and please don't accuse me of doing such. You wrote "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." I took that to mean the whole of your words were talking about the awards. And I am well aware of the difference between policy and guidelines. However, if you believe I need to familiarise myself with them, perhaps you should stop relying on them, since I wrote the guidance and had a hand in the policy, and I would hate to think I wasn't familiar with something I wrote or that people were relying on something that was written by someone not conversant with policy and guidelines. Hiding Talk 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, in your opinion the New York Times article is trivial, as are all the other sources. Your own comment Yes, the sources provided for the article are trivial and not worthy of substantiating articles with. If you think they are, then you are confusing Wikipedia with Usenet or some other public forum. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your point is? First clarify to what your statement "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." refers, and then we can establish whether I misunderstood your meaning or not. I take it to mean, as I stated above, that "the whole of your words were talking about the awards". Is that not the case? If not, I would suggest that at any rate I have established to what my words apply. As to what I am confusing Wikipedia with, nice words but perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia with your own personal playground if you think that it is only your opinion that is important. I do hope you don't dismiss everyone who disagrees with you in such a manner. I'm not going to get into a debate over sources until you clarify for me what sources you referred to with your statement "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." Hiding Talk 10:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must apologise for the previous statement, I did not intend to assert myself on you. In my opinion, these awards are neither notable enough to be included on Wikipedia nor should they be used to assert and substantiate the notability of a webcomic, purely based on them. I hope I make myself clear here. I believe if you are rooting for the article because they have been mentioned in the New York times, the argument is not valid. As there is only a trvial mention of the WCCA in the article, which is not enough to make it notable for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology accepted. I'm still unclear as to what we are discussing. Are we discussing Starslip Crisis, which has not been mentioned in the NYT; or the WCCA, which has, and which you assert is a trivial mention and which I assert is not, and which you further assert should not merit inclusion since it fails a guideline, and which I further assert should merit inclusion since it meets policies. If we are discussing the latter article's deletion debate, I suggest we don't do it here. If you want to make the case that the WCCA aren't of enough value to ascribe notions of notability outlined at WP:WEB, go ahead. I'd merely point out that the important points are the policies, and that what needs to be examined is whether the article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. This isn't the place to discuss subjective notions of triviality regarding the sources of an article not up for deletion here. Hiding Talk 10:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grounds for meeting WP:N for an article are in general stricter than the grounds for something being well known. The fact that the WCCA clearly meet those grounds, of course, means that the frequent attempts to conflate "notable" and "well known" on webcomic AFDs in relation to the WCCA are inappropriate. If we conflate "notable" and "well known," then clearly this is a notable comic because it is well-known. Do you understand that? Balancer 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Well known"? No one outside of a very small fraction of certain online subcultures seems to even be aware of those awards. They certainly don't seem to garner much media attention. One of their administrators says that "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening, despite [his] repeatedly pointing out that we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them."[24] --Dragonfiend 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that a very significant fraction of those regularly reading webcomics that have won WCCAs are aware of the WCCAs... which in itself constitutes a rather large number of people if you start adding up readership figures. They do not garner much media attention off the internet, but do garner a fair amount of attention on the internet. Just not as much as they'd like; call webcomic artists demanding attention whores as a community if you like. See search engine results, a prime indicator of net attention, which show the WCCAs coming up higher on a number of interrelated searches than the mammoth Eisners and Reubens (e.g., the basic comics+awards search), sometimes even outranking the perennial Usenet-favored Squiddies. Balancer 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing to search engines is a moot point. We are not dealing with blogs, fan-cruft and the silly things users do online and then create forums and galleries on them. We need solid and reliable sources, which this article unfortunately does not possess. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you conflate notability with being well-known. Pointing to search engines is (mostly) a moot point in establishing notability. It is, however, a very direct way of establishing how well known something is. Google is in general a very good indicator of how prominently something features on the internet. The WCCAs clearly are well-known. Balancer 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the WCCAs are clearly well-known, and independent by the standards of awards commitees everywhere, then WP:WEB applies to give clear notability to Starslip Crisis on the "awards" clause. Balancer 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you get "clearly well known" out of "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." This award is small time and relatively unkown and the people running it readily admit to it. --Dragonfiend 10:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it out of that. I got it out of independent criteria, not the blog of some administrator who thinks the project they work on isn't getting enough attention. Clearly he thinks they deserve to be better known; also clearly it is already well-known. Read more carefully next time. Balancer 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've rewritten the article to remove some original research and better reflect what can be sourced. We're not here to regurgitate plot, we're here to explain what something is to a general audience. We aren't the first and last stop on the road to finding out what this strip is all about, we're a map to where the stuff can be found which tells you what this strip is about. Hiding Talk 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't matter if it is re-written. It still fails verifiability, not truth - it doesn't matter where it was nominated, doesn't matter what it won, etc. There are no independent reliable sources to verify the content of this article save from the nominations themselves -> delete.--Konstable 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which are a reliable source for that information. It does not fail verifiability, not truth, it uses primary source for verification. Hiding Talk 11:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I see are one-liner mentions. This does not support the material of a whole article.--Konstable 11:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's what I'm getting at. What we've got that can be verified independently is the first two sentences. Is that enough to build an article on. All the rest, I hope you will agree, can be fleshed out from primary source material. But is that first two sentences enough? If we had a stub with just those two sentences, sourced from a reliable source, is that enough? Would that be a stub worth having? Would that make us a better encyclopedia or a worse one? That's what I think the argument is, that's what I think we should be discussing. What better serves our readers? What are we here for? Let's forget the point/counter over well-known and triviality, this is basically what it is all about, isn't it? What's not enough information to write from? Hiding Talk 11:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interpreting them as subsidiary to policy. I don't like to give more weight to a guideline than to a policy. The policies are the key, in fact to quote from WP:V,Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Now I can't see a mention of notability there, I can't see that those notability guidelines form a part of what should "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles", so forgive me if I ignore them somewhat. I think that's what policy dictates me to do, but if I have it otherwise feel free to enlighten me. Hiding Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't agree that much can be fleshed out from the primary sources. There has to be enough third party sources to build an article. Then add a small portion from the subject itself. - Taxman Talk 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so what are we saying? Stubs are no good? Surplus to requirements? What do we do with them, merge them to where the information may be useful? Delete them? What are we doing here, what's the goal? An encyclopedia of the stuff we consensually agree we like? Where's the line? It's not a black and white issue we have here, is it, it's light and shade, and we dapple our canvas with care. What do we need? What is enough. Because it changes daily. We know this comic strip exists, but that's not enough. We can verify it exists, easily, but that's not enough. We can verify a point of note, that it was one of the first Blank Label Comics. But that's not enough. How do we decide what is enough? How do we explain to people who don't get it that that's not enough? Is it enough to say, look, go read that page over there, that's why? Does that work when that page doesn't really get specific? Or do we need to take the time to work out what isn't enough? What do we do when there is some merit for the information somewhere? I mean, we agree there's merit in a mention of the strip being made somewhere on Wikipedia, right? So should we explain that sometimes, until there's enough material to work with which allows us to write from a full neutral perspective, when there's enough sourcing to allow us to balance different point of views, when there's enough to seed an article and allow primary source material in, then the time is right? Do we allow primary source to build an article? And should we explain that sometimes we do allow articles to rely more heavily on primary source? And try and work out what the difference is? It's not easy working these ideas out, and we should never pretend it is. We shouldn't pass people off on poorly written guidance. We shouldn't even parrot it. We should take the time to consider the best thing for the article. We should listen to the article. Where does this article want to be? What do the independent sources tell us about this article? They tell us it is by Kristofer Straub and it was one of the strips with which Blank Label Comics launched. So it makes sense to include the information there. And if a stub isn't enough here, to allow people to digest that snippet and decide where they want to go first, either to Blank Label Comics or to Straub, then we've got to work out where to redirect it. We've got to take the time to work these issues out. Or we are just a headless bureaucracy. And I don't believe in that Wikipedia. I don't believe in a Wikipedia where we try and score points, where we just battle our position, where we fight and call each other names. I believe in a Wikipedia where we at least try and understand each other, and work towards a consensus, an outcome where we can all point to something conceded and something gained. Where we can share war stories and laugh. Where we build an encyclopedia. Is that fair enough? Hiding Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just find some of the above arguments hopelessly overwrought. I have been following the debate from the external websites where this issue is being discussed (the "crusade" within wikipedia to delete webcomic articles). They are right, the Wikipedia itself is not notable. Its a joke as an "encyclopedia" when 50% of the time (90% all stats are made-up), any major article I look up has a chance of being polluted by some bored grade school kid vandalism. I say, WP:NOT#PAPER in this case and just move on. --Eqdoktor 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominated for the webcomic equivalent of an Emmy award, notable within its niche. Wikipedia is not bound by the limitations of paper, and to remove the article from our encyclopedia on such shaky grounds would be a disservice to our readers. Silensor 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love it how not enough reliable sources to build an article is considered shaky grounds. That's got to be the saddest thing for the progress of the quality of our project I've heard in a long time. - Taxman Talk 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love how you think there aren't enough reliable sources. That's the point of dispute here; you can't just assume that there aren't enough reliable sources and then use that as evidence that there aren't enough reliable sources; that's simply begging the question. Rogue 9 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the evidence is that no one has been able to produce any reliable references other than one line mentions and the reliability of those sources is not beyond reproach. If you can provide the needed reliable references we're all listening. If you can't, we need to delete. - Taxman Talk 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, deletion is not the only solution. Merging would be the right move here, since we have reliable sources to allow a one line mention in a larger article. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't see it, do you? Okay, fine, I'll spell it out: The deletion process is hopelessly corrupt. Any tomfool can put an article up for deletion, and can apparently also make ten sockpuppets to vote for delete because for some unfathomable reason, it seems that delete voters aren't checked. It takes just a few people to take the hard work of a dozen or potentially scores of editors and just make it disappear. And when you're supposed to be making the sum of human knowledge, that is ridiculously counterproductive. Rogue 9 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no I don't see it. There is no ballot box to stuff, so it doesn't matter how many not-a-votes some fool casts. What matters is the strength of the arguments, and in the previous discussion the sockpuppets made a bunch of goofy arguments for deletion (never been to a convention, bad alexa rank, etc.) that were shot down in favor of the policy-based comments from actual editors. It doesn't matter if a goofy sock puppeteer nominated the article for silly reasons; his reasons were pushed aside and the article was deleted for good reasons -- this article, then as now, does not meet our content policies. Sure, this is the encyclopedia any idiot can pass the time by making up 20 imaginary friends for himself to talk to, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:NOT a web directory, and we don't have enough verifiable information form third-party reliable sources to write a neutral article on this topic without slipping into original research. --Dragonfiend 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to those reliable sources that provide enough material to write an article. - Taxman Talk 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of Fuffy Pink Bunnies! Everybody relax, take a deep breath and step away from your keyboards. This AfD is getting far too heated. Calm down. --Aclapton 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Remember Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man LukeSurl 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While popular, this comic is not truly notable -- It has failed to make an impact in the webcomics community. JackSlack 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. It should be deleted in accordance with the wishes of our WikiOverlords on project Webcomic Witchhunt. Also, deleting it will encourage a whole bunch of potential Wikipedians who read about this to instead give up on Wikipedia in disgust before they even start. After all, you know how much our lords and masters hate having to explain to new people that while all Wikipedians are equal, some are more equal than others. Thus, making Wikipedia a laughingstock should be encouraged at all times.
  • Keep, and restore the excised content... Wikipedia's core content policies (not the vague and subjective and even contradictory bureaucratic bloat that has evolved around them) do not equate using primary sources with performing original research (which it isn't)... that is using multiple sources (primary or otherwise) to synthesize something new. Even if the only source for some information is the author's own output, it should not matter, so long as it's not a matter of grandiose/self-aggrandizing claims. Therefore even the excising of information that cannot be verified except by using the comic's own website is unnecessary. The question of whether or not the comic is notable is a separate one from whether or not the information presented is verifiable.... but following the policy failure that is the web notability guidelines does -not- make Wikipedia better, or improve its credibility. Short term solution: ignore the guidelines. Long term solution: jettison them. Clinging to them like a protective talisman will only alienate the largest group outside of die-hard-wikipedians who find any relevance in Wikipedia: the internet-savvy folks. Or did I miss something where the goal of the project to make a resource used only by Wikipedians? Alexandra Erin 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your interpretation of the core content policies are at odds with both their spirit and the letter. There is nothing ambiguous about needing multiple reliable third party references. There are two paths we can go by, yours which amounts to almost no efforts to set minimum information quality standards and the other which will ensure high information quality. - Taxman Talk 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine results in no degradation of information quality. Yours results in an "encyclopedia" that will only be paid attention to by the people who choose to spend their time catering to the increasingly complex, irrelevant, and bizarre rituals that have evolved to support its existence. Multiple third party sources do establish (tautologically) that a subject is notable enough to be mentioned in third party sources, and thus "deserves" an article... but once such notability has been established for the topic of the article, there's nothing gained by using those sources exclusively for the body, as some are saying. "Okay, so this subject comes up in multiple third party sources. Clearly it's worth mentioning. But there's not enough information in these sources for the article to say anything useful. Delete!" It's a pointless, double-layered notability test that would only make sense if Wikipedia was under severe space constraints. The fact is that accepting a third-party source's information about something non-contentious, like say, the characters in a fictional work does 'nothing' to improve the quality or reliability of information as opoposed to going straight to the primary. Their ultimate source is the first-party source. Reliable third-party sources have fact checkers, you say? They go back to the first-party source, too. The core content policies are unambiguous that simply accepting first-party information is not original research in and of itself, and while a lot of rather dense shrubbery has sprung up surrounding the relatively simple and workable ideas in the core content policies, "Ignore All Rules" trumps everything if the rules aren't making wikipedia better. This silly game of "Well, even if you and I and anybody with a mind to do so can go check out the page and verify that the information is accurate, that doesn't make the information verifiable." is just that... a silly game. Whether ones cites a primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, or googolnary source... the citation still comes down to nothing more than editor saying, "Well, I read this stuff right here, in this source that anybody can go check out if somebody wanted to contest it." On the other hand, if somebody wanted to put in their take on the Jungian symbolism behind Starslip Crisis and said "Just look at the strip... it's all there!", THAT would unambiguously be original research... saning (yes, I said "saning"... imagine a verb, "to sane.") down the content policies needn't open the much-feared flood gates to reams of unverifiable speculation as some people need to fear, any more than acknowledging that in the Brave New World that has such online fricking encylopedias in it web-based notoriety really IS notability will turn Wikipedia into a directory of crappy Geocities pages. Alexandra Erin 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy and reasoning are out the window when I like it and I don't like it comes around. Hopefully the people that don't appeal to policy will be ignored. Only when that happens can we move to deletion discussion where policy is the deciding factor. To the extent the discussion here has been around interpretations of policy, its' been productive. - Taxman Talk 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, WP:POINT is more than sufficient in this case. In my bolder, more active days I would have killed this nomination the moment I saw it, process wonks be damned. There's been way too much grandstanding over webcomics lately, and going for an AfD so soon after the last one is just continuing that trend. It's disruptive, and that trumps the comparatively trivial squabbling over inclusionist and deletionist ideals. This could have been dealt with by continued discussion on the related talk pages. A redirect could have even been hammered out there without the need for an AfD. But instead we get this. It's disappointing. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifable information to Kristofer Straub and replace with protected redirect. That's how I'd close it, at any rate. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a reasonably well-known webcomic and there is no substantial dispute that the content is true and accurate. Lines must be drawn as to notability but this comic reasonably surpasses them per several of the sources that have been added to the article since last week's events. There is plenty of clearly non-notable material in thousands of articles here that needs deletion, but the amount of time this community spends on policing the precise borderlands of notability in instances like this can sometimes be disproportionate to the return on investment. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment One point that I can't resist making -
Are we trying to claim that the author of the comic is not considered an expert on his own comic, and thus his own comic isn't considered a usable source at all?
because, from WP:OR -
that would be the only valid reason for denying the use of the comic itself as a source. It does not violate WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:OR unless you argue that an author isn't an expert on his own work, because we have a single, reliable source, so long as we do not draw any interpretations from it. It would make a small article, but not any smaller than the less well-known fictional books or movies we have on the site.
Under Wikipolicy, an article CAN be written from the comic. It is incorrect to say that it can't. The question is whether one SHOULD be written - ie, notability. Or, if you'd like to make a sweeping statement, whether we should have articles that are little more than book summaries. Both of those are perfectly legitimate debates to have, but one that I have no interest engaging in myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 29.138.2.170 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment on the above unsigned comment: You seem to have missed WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Dragonfiend 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also WP:NOT#IINFO: ‘Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.’ —xyzzyn 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there is that (which I had, admittedly, missed, and means that I have a number of books to flag for AfD under WP:NOT), but I was mostly arguing against the belief that primary sources couldn't be used at all, which is what some in this AfD seemed to be suggesting. Any fictional work that passed WP:N would, properly written, be capable of passing WP:NOT, however, as there would be verifiable awards/interviews/references that would need to be included as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.2.170 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Well, there are three arguments against that, two of which follow the letter, and the third of which is follows the spirit. This is to the point of spectacularly splitting hairs, but such is what happens when an argument gets this ridiculous. Note, please, that I am refering to just about all parties on both sides of the ongoing webcomic issue.
Like I said, there are legitimate arguments to be made, but they aren't WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Though I'd enjoy seeing you argue WP:OR and WP:RS. 129.138.2.170 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Someone who doesn't want to be associated with this debacle[reply]
Comment edited for vertical space. Also, this is the Starslip Crisis deletion discussion (take two), the El Goonish Shive deletion discussion is this way. —xyzzyn 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long comments, I should have done that myself. I'm not certain I understand your comment, though... Never mind, I figured it out. Guess I need to be keeping better track of which webcomic author is which, sorry again 129.138.2.170 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)same person[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Side Elementary School

[edit]
West Side Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Washington Middle School (Cumberland, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Penn Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northeast Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Humbird Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Belair Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a group nomination for a series of articles about primary/middle schools in Cumberland, Maryland. All the articles were created by user Alleganywiki, they contain no encyclopedic information and they do not assert the notability of the subject, not even remotely. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Húsönd 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: Need I remind you people that creation of wiki pages for every school is officially endorsed by the wiki school project!! Notability is entirely relavent...Just because is not Notable for somebody in Japan doesn't mean that's its not notable for somebody that lives in the region of Maryland...futher, each school is tagged with a stub that requests that users add more informaiton to them with time... (See, Portal:Schools)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of given names

[edit]
(View AfD)
List of German given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Arabic names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swedish given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Roman female names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Latin forms of English given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Scandinavian given names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Traditional Names in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a couple references on put on the article Ghanaian name. The subject looks to pass WP:N but the references could be better addressed for WP:V if anyone has better references please add them. Jeepday 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. kingboyk 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of trivia

[edit]
Lists of trivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pointless list of lists of trivia. Fundamentally unmaintainable: what is defined as trivia? BuddingJournalist 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literary characters with nine fingers

[edit]
List of literary characters with nine fingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that literary characters had only nine fingers seems pretty trivial to their notability. WjBscribe 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't seem Important.Corporal Punishment 04:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this list should be, as User:N Shar has noted, "Loss of fingers in fiction". Missing or losing a finger is not a defining characteristic of fictional characters. So, delete. -- Black Falcon 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terribly indiscriminate list, could go on forever. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Quite apart from which, who cares? Moreschi Request a recording?
  • Delete Not only irrelevant, trivial, and indiscriminate, it is indeterminate (particularly in that the current limitation to nine begs the creation of articles for 1 through 8 fingers, heaven forbid). Even if it were about fictional characters with any number of missing fingers, I doubt there is more than a handful (sorry, couldn't resist) of characters in which this trait is critical to the story. Agent 86 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but comment I would say delete since the list appears to be unreferenced and possibly involves original research. (Is there a citation available to an already published list analyzing characters with nine fingers?) However, that being said, I do want to point out that, contrary to some of the opinions above, WP:NOT#IINFO does not deal with "lists of trivia". That particular section of policy is quite specific on what it covers, and trivia lists are not part of it. In fact, an attempt to add "almanac style" lists to WP:NOT#IINFO last year failed due to lack of consensus. Thus I would discount arguments which say it violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Dugwiki 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While WP:NOT#IINFO might not expressly deal with lists or trivia, I disagree that the policy is inapplicable to this article simply because it is a list or because it deals with trivia. The policy stated in the first sentence, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" always applies. The illustrative list that follows is clearly not exhaustive and does not preclude the application of the general statement of the policy to any class of entries. Agent 86 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are misreading what the phrase "indisriminate collection of items of information" refers to. In this context the section is referring to information that, while true, is still "that which editors may discriminate against". The first paragraph of the policy section then goes on to specify that the bullet points below are areas which have editorial consensus, and that "other areas do not necessarilly have consensus". Trivia in particular is one of those areas that does not currently seem to have strong consensus in its definition or how to handle it, and thus is specifically not included anywhere in WP:NOT (let alone in that particular section).
      • Now, it may very well be the case that in the future, if consensus is achieved, a trivia section will be added to policy, possibly under WP:NOT#IINFO. But until that happens, you can't simply use WP:NOT#IINFO as a blanket statement against "trivia", because it is specifically worded so as not to talk about trivia and "cruft", etc. That section is very specific on what it covers. FYI, this topic is discussed in greater detail on the WP:NOT talk page, so I'd recommend directing further comments about WP:NOT#IINFO there. Dugwiki 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy rubio

[edit]
Amy rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible vanity or hoax. No google hits or IMDB page for this actress. —Brim 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. (A.k.a I redirect, anyone who cares can merge from the history.) - brenneman 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Accomplices who have appeared on Punk'd

[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate unreferenced list of trivia. If kept at the very least it should be sourced and merged to the Punk'd article. Otto4711 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These people are not notable because they punk'd their friends. Some of those friends are notable themselves, in which case their appearance might exist on his/her own article. On the other hand, if they aren't notable themselves, they certainly did not / will not become notable by punking their friends. Cedlaod 04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of celebrities who have been Punk'd from Season 6 to Present Just FYI, a list of people does not have to consist only of notable people. Only the list itself should be somehow notable. For example, a cast list for a tv series or movie will often contain non-notable actors, but the cast list as a whole would be considered notable and even essential for an article on the subject. For the TV series Punk'd, we are dealing with what are essentially the equivalent of reality show contestents, similar to Survivor or American Idol, etc. Therefore a list of the people who are punk'd and who are the punk accomplices makes sense. I do think, though, it would make sense to merge these two lists, so that you can see in one line the Punk victim and the associated Punk accomplice. I think this would serve people interested in reading about the show much better than having seperate lists for the two. Dugwiki 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above xCentaur | ☎ 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of stalked celebrities

[edit]
List of stalked celebrities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

complete violation of WP:BLP, many of the refs shown fails WP:RS, it also looks like every celebrity is in that list, they all get stalked or something?, and many isn't a celeb at all, like William Lloyd Garrison come on, this is a unneeded poorly sourced list that would possibly get wikipedia to some serious legal problems, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the bible entries, like Jacob and King David Jaranda wat's sup 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Runnels and Shawn Spears

[edit]
Cody Runnels and Shawn Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable professional wrestling tag-team. Just because a tag-team wins a title in a lesser promotion doesn't mean they meet WP:N. We've had professional wrestling tag-teams before that won more notable titles, i.e the World Tag Team Championship, but don't all need articles. Most likely transistional champions anyways. Delete — Moe 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Current Disney Channel Shows

[edit]
List of Current Disney Channel Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant article; information can already be found on List of Disney Channel series. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as original research and per author request, as Mattisse - who substantially rewrote it - now also requests deletion. If anyone wants to have the text back, e.g. for selective merging to some other article, I'll provide it on request. My best wishes go out to Dr Hossain also, but please understand that you will have to find some other place to publish your research. Sandstein 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Death and Adjustment

[edit]
Philosophy of Death and Adjustment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article created to give support to the non-accredited Bircham International University, which is itself questionable. No sources, no relevance, reeks of WP:OR. Not convinced that this deserves its own article that isn't already in death. FGT2 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article cites some sources, but like the nominator says, this article was created to support Bircham IU, and the paragraph about Mohammad Samir Hossain is a big pile of OR. Anything in this article that's not OR belongs in death, or other articles --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, due to the obvious motives behind the creation of the article. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without speculating about the motives for the article's creation, this still is an essay that just throws together Philippe Ariès and the cultural history of depictions of death with Elizabeth Kubler-Ross on mourning. It would be original research if it tried to reach some kind of conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PigmanTalk to me 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Since the article is newly created, shouldn't time be given to see what form it takes? The topic itself appears to be one that could be considered meaningful. Apart from the reference to Bircham IU given above as a reason for deletion, I didn't see anything in the article that would have led me to correlate this with Bircham IU or any particular institution of POV. Or is the idea to merge it as a section of Death? Bbagot 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and nominate again if not improved in a month. The article is about a very real topic, there are researchers there besides EK-R & PA. I think it could be improved to a shorter description of the field that would not be an essay or OR, &, given a chance, I think that will happen. Birchan IU, on the other hand, is suitable for deletion & I'll nominate it when we've reached a conclusion here. This article wouldnt support it enough in any case. DGG 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Akhilleus and Chairman S. There just doesn't seem to be enough here to justify a separate article. TheRingess (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls Help Me! Pls Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.197.18 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per DGG. I am willing to work on it some and remove any promotional material. Give it some time, then DGG will nominate it again. I am touched by the letter above. Mattisse 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As usual I'm inclined to trust DGG's judgment. If this article is still worth keeping after purging it of promotional material, then great. However, I wonder, isn't this content just something that ought to be covered elsewhere, at more developed articles that we already have, such as thanatology? I'd rather hold off on !voting until I hear some feedback on that question. — coelacan talk — 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have improved the article. It is wikified and referenced. This article is addressing the psychology of death from a scientific point of view. Wikipedia has no such articles now. Further, the research added by the gentleman from Bangladesh is on non western subjects. I am sure there is western research on the subject, as psychology/psychiatry has moved from philosophy to being scientifically based -- I just don't have time to find it now. Mattisse 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering that myself. FGT2 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a way of saving this article from deletion and simultaneously addressing the issues of original research, but it will take a really large overhaul. My suggestion, though it might be a stretch, would be for a new article to be created addressing Dipesh Chakarbati's ideas in Provincialising Europe, which is being used as a text for both Historiography and Cultural Histories studies. This would be a long process--a person would have to read this, and also consider the academic reviews of it (access to Jstor or a long time in a library), then create an article specifically about postcolonial thought and historical differences within which the conflicting ideas of death could then be addressed. OR, the entire article could be re-named History of Death as a sub-article of death but would have to include lots of other examples that might not square with your own research. Keeping it within the psychology section as an emerging area of interest doesn't work either way, unless you can find some academic journals addressing it. Or, get your ideas at least mentioned in a journal. --Chalyres 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You may be right. But this article is one day old. It needs a chance to evolve. I added four or five research articles and references to it for now. No one would ever create a stub if they had to go through the process you are suggesting in order to put a one day old article on Wikipedia. I agree it is a complicated subject and could go many directions. It turns out there are many research-based articles available and it is a very active field of inquiry in many disciplines including medicine, psychology, and sociology, with very important treatment and policy implications. Mattisse 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't only a day old. In fact, it is a recreation after a speedy afd. FGT2 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the "cleaned up" article doesn't make sense, and fails to address basic clarity and importance. The person above claims its science, but the article describes philosophy. The article purports to be supported by scholars, but those scholars do not mention the article subject matter/title.
  • The person who created admits he made the topic up and wants to promote it. This article lacks value. Chalyres, as an avid reader of the subaltern school, what on Earth does Chakrabarti have to do with this? This article was created with promoting a fraudlent school. While this might have to do with postcolonial thought there is no sourcing to prove that. FGT2 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are TWO GOOGLE HITS for "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment." One of those hits is this article! FGT2 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do think the title is wrong. The article is not about a philiosophy of anything. It is more about attitudes about death, how they vary among ethnic and other groups, the impact of these attitudes on personal adjustment and ability to deal with trauma (the original article), on public policy (e.g. when to euthenise), how doctor's attitudes toward death affect patient care, how to treat bereavement etc. Mattisse 00:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This article is about death, which we have an article on. I am not convinced this derves its own article. FGT2 00:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article has been substantially re-edted, and those who had questions about the earlier version might want to re-examine it. There remains one unsourced paragraph, to be removed as OR if published source not found. (& not finding a 5-word philosophical phrase on Goggle doesn't say much--but a better title should be possible; but I think the p. shouldn't be moved during this debate.) There were more knowledgeable people here to help on this article, and I waited a day or two in order to defer to them.
I would have commented on this AfD whether requested or not--it's the sort of topic I often comment on--though I might not have seen it as soon. And I do not necessarily vote the way requested; there are even 1 or 2 connected articles here I will propose for deletion myself. I have sometimes even improved an article a little & still voted for delete if I couldn't improve it enough. DGG 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, and I question the validity of its content in relation to the title. What do the sources and content have to do with the title? The article deals with death, for example, the first citation is for "death is an event to be postponed." This is not a philosophy. It deals with death in certain cultures, which is on wikipedia already.FGT2 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have changed my vote to delete. The article can be written under a more appropriate title. Since I basically wrote it as it stands now, I have all the reference and source material and can write an appropriate research-based article. The title seems to be so extremely upsetting to people that rather than just simply changing the title, I'm in favor of deletion as a solution to end the misery here. Mattisse 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some elaboration - Dear all, Its me the researcher of the Article - Philosophy of death and adjustment. I will briefly inform you about the main event of the research and the theme behind it.

From very early childhood of mine I could not accept that my parents will die someday. After some years I could not accept the truth that all of my near ones will die someday. I was going through some depressive disorder and having treatment. When I completed my MBBS, I saw that many of the troublesome thoughts and events on this earth relates to existance and preventing from ceasing to exist. In market, in history and even in human life. But death in life is such a sensetive event we merely keep in our mind in everyday life that we will die someday. But our mental health and overall civilization on this earth is very much maintained and managed after this very truth in our subconscious mind. I needed a remedy for this subconscious problem for myself and any other people who suffers like I do. So I started to read and search for articles that describes how a man can adjust with the universal truth of death, not when ill or dying or old, rather in every day healthy life. Surprisingly I found none on it and I decided to do my research on this subject. Then Primarily I defined death and the main theme was for most of us was "ceasing to exist". If death were not such ceassation, then it would not be such a disturbing element for human psychology. So I started to search the philosophies of death. I found the Arie's one, the Kubler-ross one etc. But none of them could finish in a descent line of accepting death for a person who is healthy and not ill. The only way was to eradicate the philosophy of cessation from the death philosophy. Then I realised that only religion enlightens upon life after death, that is death is not the end at least, but no scientific study on it that can be brought and used for psychiatry. So I took 5 groups of muslims in Bangladesh and one end of them had the highest belief in life after death and the other end had little or no belief in life after death. Then I assed their mental health and found that the more one believes in death as non-ceassing event, the more healthy he or she is mentally. Also I used the kubler-ross theme to evaluate the five groups' capacity to accept death. Surprisingly, by a scale (according to KR research), the most adjusted ones were also those who took death as an event but not a cessation. Thus without advocating for religion, I showed that if the concept or the philosophy of death is maintained as something like an event, not an end, then a person can remain healthier in respect of mental health and also adjust with death more easily. I had an "Excellent" grade after the evaluation of my research evaluator. Now a days, while I give psychotherapy to patients who are not adjusted with the truth of death in their physically healthy life, I use this concept for those who believe in any religion showing death as an event with an afterlife and I find excellent prognosis in their treatment. Now I hope you understand why I am so much dedicated and serious about the article"Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". The name of the article means nothing to me, what matters is that it is a huge resourse for the future of psychiatry. Also I will be very glad if you edit my article more and more and ask me any question you need to know.

Regards Samir 203.112.218.36 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, all of this is very interesting, & consolidates a lot of material I have heard of but not understood, but the WP is not the place to present the OR. The place to present your study is in a peer-reviewed journal; the place to present your analysis is in a scholarly review. That people with some religious views accept death is understandable, but the details are interesting. That done, then a summary for general readers based on these public source should go here. If the culmination of your articles depends on this work, you should withdraw it for now. DGG 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Finally the research was examined, evaluated and graded (Excellent) by the academic board under -

Dr. Ferran Suay Lerma

Teacher & Researcher at Universidad de Valencia - Spain

Doctor in Psychology Universidad de Valencia - Spain (1989-1993)

Licentiate in Psychology Universidad de Valencia - Spain (1981-1986)

Regards Samir203.112.199.121 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be renominated in a month, work should be carried out so to make it NPOV, wikified, proved notability and encyclopedic.--Sharz 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) P.S Article creator should no that Wikipedia maintains a policy of "No Original Research".[reply]

For FGT2 only-

I believe I have introduced Dr. Larma as an acceptable person, not like the accussed Bircham International University. Any further detail should be obtained by those who needs that. But I will request for not discussing anything odd or suspiciously about Dr. Larma just for an ordinary article or person like myself.

For all-

Thanks to all for so much discussion that helped me know many things. I will humbly request all honorable editor to erase or move the too much(!?) controvertial article, if needed, to stop this very hard discussion for me. If any of you are interested to know about my full introduction, you will find it in any good library of UK or USA in the Dictionary of International Biography, 33rd edition published from Cambridge, UK. Please visit the web site of the Bircham International University to know all about it. If you think that there is any lie in them, you might want to take any legal step against them too and I am saying it because I should be at least this much sensible for any educational institution, I hope you all should agree that one must be given the chance to speak for himself(or itself) before he or it is given any introduction full of hatred. So far all I have heared from this discussion about BIU is borrowed from some sourse other than BIU itself. Also the trend of such discussion is good but should be more polished for all the contributors. We, the ordinary people from all around the world want to see wikipedia with due respect, not like the Bircham International University. I want to say good-buy on this matter leaving all in all yours' hand.

Regards

Samir 203.112.199.242 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is admitted by the author to be OR. The small number of non-OR sentences may be consolidated into pre-existing articles on death, grief and mourning as appropriate; the rest should go. We should also note the author's request to delete, though this is of course not binding on us. WMMartin 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Degrees from certain nonacreditrd universities are accepted in many U.S. States. The link on the Wikipedia article reference above Bircham International University show that degrees from universities such as this one are accepted in most states. Since this article, the first entry written by a newbie from Bangladesh, was slated for deletion on the day it was created, I feel this is a case of WP:BITE. I have offered to help this person with his article and have found him to be very reasonable and kind. He is educated in a field similar to mine. I am acquainting him with Wikipedia policies. Whether you delete this particular article or not here does not matter. I am sorry this new user was treated in this manner, without kindness or respect, and I apologise to him on behalf of all of us. --Mattisse 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What link at Bircham International University are you talking about? Several links call this place fraudulent such as this story "Oregon education officials describe Bircham International as 'totally bogus'." Or according to Texas it has "No degree-granting authority from Spain" (the place it operates from). Please post a link that shows this place to be legitimate. Also I fail to see how this person was treated without respect. FGT2 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To me discussions at this level of detail are inappropriate here on an article created a few days ago by a first time user and nomimated for ADF immediately after. I struck out part of my comment above upon realising this. To me this is a case of WP:BITE. The user has been polite and willing to learn. I do not understand why more understanding and kindness is not being accorded him here. Mattisse 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks properly sourced and relevant to me, thanks to Mattisse and DGG. Not sure why it was nominated less than 24 hours after creation - someone must have been a tad overzealous. DanielC/T+ 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am sympathetic to User:Mattisse's comments concerning WP:BITE. It is also a very serious question as to how one kick-starts a new academic field. 80+ years ago, you just did it, put your name on a door and started offering degrees. Eventually, maybe much later, you were accredited, but that is a political process that has evolved only "recently". However, what rankles me is the user:talk spam which (a) (unfortunately?) resembles the Nigerian money-transfer scam which has now mutated in many many forms (b) name-dropped Harvard but was enrolled there too short of time (??) and (c) name dropped Kuebler Ross but found her website "on the date of her funeral" -- she died 3 years ago, (e) refers not at all to its cousin subjects (geriatrics, gerentology, ageing, etc) and (d) the pleading tone. In the end, though, it's business. It's an "interesting topic" and should not, according to the "rules", have been created. And I do not think it was too hasty to suggest "delete". Finally, the content of the article can easily be included in other appropriate articles gerentology, ageing, death and dying, etc. Please, Samir, publish something somewhere (there are on-line sites where you can do this), then an article can be made. --Otheus 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Otheus

1)Samir was a very new user of wikipedia. He made mistakes in his several steps.

2)He only got scholarship for 12 courses at harvard in honor of a dead indian professor, and no further courses were offered from harvard for anyone after those 12. He did not have the money to pay and study.

3) Samir does not know why he was born on the day of his birth day cause he never wrote his fate, same was the case of finding the funaral date of K-R.

4) Samir had to struggle till now by pleading and begging, cause he is a genuine citizen of Bangladesh where sometimes human feel happy to be alive let alone with honor and dignity and scopes for free aducation.

5) Finally this article is too young in the science to have a name for itself or tagged with others. But whether you like it or not, you know that you will die someday though you may be young and healthy now and I will never believe that one accepts this truth very gladly unless he does not understand death or sadly he may be insane. So we need to pull this thorn out of our throat, because, we can't pull death out, even when we are young and healthy.

Regards

Samir himself

203.112.199.125 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reaffirm Delete: Dear Samir, Wikipedia is an excellent way for people around the users to discover knowledge. But in order for Wikipedia to be respected as a repository for such knowledge, there must be certain guidelines, restrictions, rules, if you will. One of these key guidelines is that Wikipedia articles should be based on existing material, referenced by reputable sources. You, Dr. Samir, are trying to become such a reputable source, is that not so? I believe with your persitence, and by focusing your energies in the proper venue, you will succeed! And when you do succeed, then the demand for such an article will follow. Meanwhile, keep in mind what Wikipedia is, and more imporatantly, what Wikipedia is Not. Best Wishes --Otheus 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Print expense management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced essay that is a thinly-disguised advertisement for NaviSource's software. Google for "print expense management" gets only 19 hits, which is unusual even for corporate jargon. [26] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google must be different in India. In the US "print expense management" results in 298 hits and "business process outsourcing" results in 1.3 million hits. "Print expense", 37000 hits is the second largest expense for corporations. Indeed, managing this expense as an ASP is new. Expense research, February 15 2007 — Expense research (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dhartung is exactly correct per the national origin comment. The comment represents a complete lack of moral propriety for which I have nothing but contempt. I am condemned by my own words before those who selflessly strive to provide a correct and objective information depository. I humbly and honestly apologize to Mordecai and to the entire community. My poison words and inflective to avenge a perceived attack were uncalled for and is reprehensible. I have brought shame on myself and my family. I humbly apologize, I am very sorry. Please do with the article what you gentlemen feel is correct as I know you only have the best interests of the community in mind. Clearly my attempt to shed light on a new and emerging technological service has failed. While the public markets have only recently, within the last 90 days, cast their vote on print expense management with the $160 million funding of InnerWorkings, it seems clear the technological application may be too new for wikipedia standards. PEM represents a huge and growing market first identified publicly in these documents. Print Procurement: A Services Purchase Exception Aberdeen Group “print is an area ripe for optimization” article speaks to a burgeoning interest to manage print expense in a new manner utilizing technologies proven in other expense fields, notably ASP.

Report Policies Precede Procurement Automation but Technology Ensures Compliance: The Category Spend Management Report Series 2004: Advertising, Marketing and Printing Christa Degnan, Aberdeen Group "companies are seeing the need to implement standard procedures and systems to respond to the top pressure in the market today to cut costs"

This article is the first we could find citing the potential of using the Internet as a foundation to manage an expense that had previously been managed only manually by multiple cyclical site visits by technicians, salesmen and inventory control personnel. Cost Cutting Printing with less red ink. By Alex Nyberg Stuart, CFO Magazine Print expense represents “up to 3 percent of revenues at most large companies”

Mordecai, we appreciate your good work. It was late and I was stupid. I am very sorry. If there is yet time to salvage the article we would be more than happy to provide further documentation.

  • Delete. As the nominator notes, a "thinly veiled advertisement" with abysmal, buzzword-laden prose and vague piffle about "solutions". The PEM ASP addresses the compelling need for a single source print expense management solution. This comprehensive solution includes managing, sourcing and distributing data generation, variable data publishing, print materials and print consumables. Oh thank God there is an application service provider (ASP) prepared to meet this "compelling need". Who could it be? Fortunately, there is an external link. . . - Smerdis of Tlön 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reluctant though I am to mention Google hits : Google returns a putative 299 hits for the term "print expense management," but narrows that to 19 unique pages and (I assume) 280 duplicates. In any case, most of these 19 are scraped from the article under discussion. That aside, this article is indeed a thinly-veiled advertisement. Per the gentleman from Tlön, it should be deleted. -- Docether 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. The text was irritating enough, but then I got to the category section and saw that the author had put it at the top of the information technology category. Don't take us for fools. Gazpacho 12:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Okay To Be Different

[edit]
It's Okay To Be Different (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non Notable children's book. Orphaned. Also, the whole article is NPOV BuyAMountain 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, which I assume, although s/he doesn't explicitly say so, is BuyAMountain's view.--Smerus 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has been widely reviewed and seems to be a notable educational resource. --Tikiwont 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI I noticed that the reference section for the article wasn't appearing due to a typo in one of the tags. I fixed the typo and the reference links for the article are now visible. Whether or not the references check out, I'm not sure, but at least now you guys can see them to take a look. Dugwiki 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a wikipedia standard for what works of literature are notable and which are not, or is that left up to the individual? How is it determined which books are allowed to be entered in wikipedia versus those that are not? Bbagot 20:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the main notability guideline WP:N, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. For books this is supported by WP:BK, which, however, won't adress books for children in particular. As noted by the nominator, the article was not in good shape, so I've removed some POV and added some references that might indicate why this one might be more notable enough than the typical book in its category Category:Children's picture books. Tikiwont 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although there were some deletes, the general consensus was to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hanson-Young

[edit]
Sarah Hanson-Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural renomination, following a relisting from a previous Deletion review debate. Titoxd(?!?) 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a novel idea. How about we contribute to articles rather than go around chasing articles to delete? I know that idea is way out of left field... Timeshift 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift, when a deletion review consensus results in a decision to relist an AFD, that is not "chasing articles to delete". In fact, it is bringing an article back for one more chance to prove itself.--Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite the section of the notability guidelines which supports your assertion that losing candidates aren't notable? There is a specific section that says that notability is not the subjective opinion of editors. Please evaluate based on the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources to cite are right there in the article. The fact that they haven't yet been woven into the text of the article is immaterial here. We are merely concerned with notability here. The sources can be woven in as citations at any time. If you're bothered about this, gofixit. — coelacan talk — 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said is not entirely true. For example, before making the comment, I checked if any of the sources mentioned Goongerah, and none of them did. Thanks, Andjam 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that bothers you, the way to gofixit would be to comment out the Goongerah bit, then. — coelacan talk — 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, gaining a minor-party nomination twice doesn't make you notable, especially if you fail the first time. She's far from a certainty to get elected, and some routine news reports hardly make me think she's a more notable than any other Senate candidate with some party backing. Lankiveil 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N#Notability is not subjective. Can you explain which part of the WP:N#The primary notability criterion is lacking here? — coelacan talk — 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My local primary school has an article in the local paper every week, summarising the various goings-on. This does not make that school notable. Likewise, anyone standing for a candidacy in a state election is probably going to have a couple of cursory, local news items produced about them, yet unless the person is somehow otherwise notable, this doesn't set them apart from the pack. If we include this individual, then we might as well create an article on every Green, Democrat, Family First and One Nation candidate out there ever, because I'm sure they've all received at least some coverage. Lankiveil 06:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of lots of independent coverage in reliable sources, which makes her notable, even if some other unsuccessful electoral candidates are not. --Eastmain 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:If she's the lead candidate then how come the article is so poor to end up at AfD? What does it say for a party that the lead candidate has had that little notable coverage that the problem isn't working out what to include (per Pauline Hanson) but finding reliable sources to quote? Maybe if she wins something she will become notable. I'm sure the worst result here will be no consensus but the article is in a dreadful state and it's no wonder it was nominated.Garrie 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would normally lean towards delete, but for the last comment by Coelacan re its relatively short duration in this window, and broadly agree with Garrie. That being said, this person does not appear to be notable, just as I would have argued Rachel Siewert was not notable until her election to the Senate position for WA. Opinions as to electability (anyone read Family First's voting stats in that state?) are really irrelevant here. Orderinchaos78 13:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If no-hopers like Ross Daniels and Troy Williams are worthy of wiki pages, then surely Hanson-Young, who stands a much greater chance of winning election, is as well. Dlw22 13:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Point well made by Dlw22, this is what I was getting at in the deletion review. As to the comments made by Garrie about the article being so short, I'm with coelacan. Maybe we could actually improve it, rather than being so quick to delete. I agree with Andjam's point about non-verifiable information, although it's a shame we couldn't find any sources for that little-known extra information. PabloZ 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just don't see her as famous enough to merit an entry. --Roisterer 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of other less notable candidates have articles, and I see no sense in deleting the article only to have to recreate it later. Rebecca 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is not about fame, nor whether one wins or loses an election. Plenty of sources are cited for a decent article to be possible, and that's what WP:N is intended to assure. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She is notable but the article should be cleaned up. Makgraf 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO full stop. I started to clean up the article, but online references are difficult to find. Information given can be confirmed in snippets only. Nonetheless, there is now one reference (two, if the Amnesty International site that confirms her employment is taken into consideration) and an expanded article. At some point, the primary editor has blanked out the beginning of a much better article including information about why the Australia Day Award was bestowed, presumably because he or she could not cite online references (See the page editor for this text). My feeling is this article can be improved. At worst, it could be merged with Greens South Australia --Greatwalk 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is as notable as those for similar Green Party activists Jenny Leong, David Risstrom, John Kaye and Jamie Parker. I believe all of them fail WP:CRYSTAL because they rely on the outcome of a future event to secure their claim to notability. At the same time, all of them have enough genuine supporters to prevent consensus on AfD.
Assuming good faith from all sides, this suggests that the notability guidelines on candidates (as opposed to elected officials) needs amending to allow inclusion of pages for major figures in minor parties, regardless of whether they have held office. It could be argued that these figures are activists who succeed in delivering social change and have a far greater impact than major party backbenchers who win office and are never heard from again.
Even this doesn't justify Jamie Parker who is not even a candidate. But let's leave that aside. We'll never get consensus on deleting these articles. The extensive debate would be better directed at considering the notability guidelines instead of arguing 'angels on the head of a pin' things like whether we can find a source for Ms Hanson-Young's Amnesty International job. Jeendan 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamie Parker doesn't meet WP:N because independent sources are missing at present. But, as you say, let's leave that aside. All the other articles you menion are about Green candidates, that list sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article. Of course WP:CRYSTAL does not establish notability, but then none of these articles, S H-Y included, contain unverifiable speculation about the outcome of the election. I'm not sure why you mention WP:CRYSTAL in this context. --Greatwalk 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subjects of these articles would easily be considered notable if they were elected. They haven't been and we are speculating that they might be to justify the articles. If Ms Hanson-Young was not a Senate candidate with a chance of election, there would be absolutely nothing in her article to indicate notability. So - she is potentially notable because a future event might make her notable. That's what I mean by WP:CRYSTAL. Jeendan 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I am not arguing to delete the article. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines, but there are plenty of people who disagree, and have successfully disagreed on similar AfD's for other minor party candidates. Wikipedia is the sum of its editors - if there is a continued and vehement consensus to retain articles that fail guidelines, perhaps the guidelines need review.
P.S. Jamie Parker does not meet the guidelines because he has never done anything notable and he is not a candidate for anything notable. It's not to do with the sources. Jeendan 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. For an extreme example, look at Helen Robinson, whose only claim to fame is being a veterinarian and getting 6% in an election. The sources are fine - a source for the profession is unnecessary and the election result is sourced to the VEC. Despite that, it fails WP:N because Ms Robinson's prfession and political history have had no impact that would justify a page. Despite that, the article would survive any number of AfD's because certain minor party candidates have a great deal of good faith support in Wikipedia. So perhaps WP:N needs changing to better reflect what the Wikipedia community thinks is notable. Jeendan 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A person's impact has nothing to do with whether (s)he is notable. A subject's nontrivial secondary source coverage determines whether or not it is a notable and appropriate encyclopedia subject. In this case, the person has been covered nontrivially in multiple reliable sources. That's all. If other candidates have received a ton of source coverage but had little "impact", they're notable. If yet others had a lot of "impact" but received only trivial coverage, they're not. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we disagree - a person's impact on politics, culture, history, religion, academia, medicine, whatever, is what I would measure notability by, not the number of newspaper mentions we can find on Google. Genuine "impact" will inevitably generate coverage, which will allow the article to be sourced. But not every newspaper mention is notable - just because we can source something doesn't qualify it for an article.
I can provide literally thousands of source materials for ship movements at Port Botany, but I don't think we need a Wikipedia page on it. We're struggling to find more than ten mentions of Ms Hanson-Young, yet it is strongly argued that she deserves a page. Jeendan 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Greatwalk, meets WP:BIO. Candidate for major party in national election. --Oakshade 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 08:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last For One

[edit]
Last For One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Korean breakdancing crew. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, with assumption. I found a minor source and a more major one. Trivial mention in the BBC. The reason I'm suggesting to keep this article is because I'm assuming that other sources exist, but in Korean. If they made it into the UK news, then this does sort of assert international presence, which implies the existence of foreign sources I can't access/verify myself. Also, needs major cleanup. --Wafulz 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Exeter link indicates several international trips. I think this would pass the dance equivalent of WP:MUSIC if there were one. --Selket Talk 00:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zsa Zsa Riordan

[edit]
Zsa Zsa Riordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior level skater. She has never competed internationally for Poland or the US. Notable competitions for juniors include the ISU Junior Grand Prix and the World Junior Figure Skating Championships. She has only been on the podium at Polish Nationals on the junior level. While some junior level skaters at the United States Figure Skating Championships have their own articles, it is because they have competed internationally for the US and won medals on the Junior Grand Prix (or, in the case of Mirai Nagasu, because they will compete at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships). Riordan has done none of these things and is therefore not notable. Kolindigo 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi. Could you explain how you think she passes the criterea? I'm not sure I understand what criterea you're using to call her notable. She hasn't stopped being a junior level skater and she hasn't started competing internationally (I waited until now to renom to see if she was going to Junior Worlds). I'm curious, because you made the same assertion in the first AfD, but never explained what you meant. Kolindigo 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her two medals were on the junior level, not the senior. Kolindigo 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a strange procedure to move for AfD on grounds that seem to apply only to this article. I cannot see that there is any established Wikipedia policy that requires deletion.--Holdenhurst 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't that the point? A discussion on a WikiProject page doesn't establish any sort of policy. Start a policy page, advertise it on WP:VPP, get a consensus on these proposals (if you can) and then apply them.--Osidge 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The objection isn't "grounds that seem to apply only to this article", but rather, the criteria specified in Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports..." Riordan clearly has not competed at the "highest level" in the sport of figure skating. She has only competed at the junior level (not the highest, or senior level) within her country; has never been a member of her country's national team; and has never participated in any international events that have "equivalent standing" as elite or notable competitions within the sport of figure skating. The reason why it may seem that Riordan is being singled out here is that none of the thousands of other non-notable figure skaters with similar levels of achievement in the sport are the subject of Wikipedia articles. Dr.frog 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fascism and Freedom Movement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of the Fascism and Freedom Movement

[edit]
Secretary of the Fascism and Freedom Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This article is simply a wikitable box containing three names, only one of which relates to a WP article. No further explanation is given. I have copied the table to the article Fascism and Freedom Movement where it appropriately belongs. The topic does not justify an article to itself in these circumstances. Smerus 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep & expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agent M

[edit]
Agent M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural renomination where a CSD A7 deletion was overturned at DRV; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8 for the whole debate. Concensus was to relist here; as such, as this is purely procedural stemming from the DRV close, I abstain. Daniel.Bryant 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Gordon

[edit]
Howie Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Former Big Brother contestant and current lightsabre salesman, all his biographical information already exists in the Big brother 6 article. Much of the biographical information about him appears to be either wrapped in hype from CBS, or from Gordon himself. Although there are an abundance of Ghits which mention his name, most are trivial (the show being the primary subject), chat forum or blogs. There is a shortage of coverage from reliable independent sources for biographical details. Ohconfucius 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rather annoyed and reluctant keep. Personally I find the Big Brother concept to be among the most brainless ideas to have "graced" the TV screens around the World, but unfortunately, the high viewership of the program turns the contestants into celebrities. According to WP:BIO, "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" pass the notability criteria, and this person has apparently been on not only the Big Brother 6 series, but also an "All-Star" series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep', if we stick to the words of WP:BIO we don't have a choice ... maybe we should change WP:BIO Alf photoman 15:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't watch Big Brother, but he seems to have had his fair share of published interviews and articles according the references and external links. Passes the notability test. Dugwiki 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlea Evans

[edit]
Ashlea Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unspectacular fashion student who was the first to be eliminated on Big Brother 6 (US). Surprising for me, she previously survived two AfDs: 1 and 2. What is equally surprising is that the article has not progressed beyond a pathetic stub despite the previous attempts to delete. There is precious little about the individual of note: Scores 292 unique Ghits, almost all of which I would consider trivial: the overwhelming majority are from sites which advertise or discuss Big Brother/Reality TV. The CBS site is probably the most reliable articles around about this individual, but this is show marketing and thus not independent. There is an article on when she interviewed Soledad O'Brien. She also had a few photos taken for Maxim. -Edit: my bad, they are of someone called "Jenn" Most of the others are blogs, chat or forum, and fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We need to stop having pages for every little-known reality contestant. -- Scorpion 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments on first Afd. --Djsasso 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but the result of the afd from just about a month ago was "keep". So unless something has significantly changed here, I'm recommending keep the article to remain consistent with previous afd discussion. (If we don't generally abide by the afd keep decisions, there will never be any closure on otherwise potentially controversial decisions.) Dugwiki 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm afraid you are wrong: neither January 2006 nor September 2006 were "just over a month ago". ;-) Would people think about this article any differently if this were the first nomination? I wish editors would address the central issue of whether this is an encyclopaedic stub with sufficient independent relevant, reliable information to populate? Ohconfucius 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - make that "a few months ago" for the September/October afd. The rest of my comment still applies, though. Unless something has changed in the article or policy or consensus since that last afd, why is this being renominated? Dugwiki 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, as you pointed out in the Osten Taylor afd, each article is being considered on its own merits. It's not so much a matter of being "consistent" with Osten Taylor as consistent with the previous afds for this article. Just because Osten was deleted doesn't mean this one necessarily should be. Dugwiki 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I doubt she is notable, but I think people should not keep trying to continually reverse keeps that they dont approve of. It interferes with the working of AfD. DGG 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since it would appear her article is not being flesh out, she should then be merged into the main article Big Brother 6, unless more relevant information can be added to article to raise it from stub class.
  • Keep Though I would say merge if this were the first time this article was nominated for deletion, the fact remains that this article was already up for deletion not once, but twice already... both time resulting in a decision to keep. Therefore, I have to vote the same way I did last time. We can't just keep putting things up for deletion until we get the desired result. C'mon. A-Supreme 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny J. Blair

[edit]
Johnny J. Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible vanity biography. Is this person important enough to warrant a wiki bio? Cxbrx 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbagh Singh

[edit]
Dilbagh Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy: obvious COI problems, but assertion of notability via OBE. No opinion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:21Z

The guidelines for page deletion are as below - For deletion due to copyright issues, when and how this should be done, and alternatives, see: Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

- For a guide to deletion discussions, especially if your content is listed for deletion, see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

- For the administrators' deletion guide, see Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.

This page does not violate copyright issues This page is not a subject in deletion discussion Apart from the above 2, I do not see how this page can be removed without administrator's deletion guide This is a public forum and I want to write something about my great grandfather so I can keep his memory alive Rest is up to you guys

Sardar Bahadur Dilbagh Singh .... comment copied here from article page by Mereda 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the name of the link in article on Sikh to 'Sardar Bahadur Dilbagh Singh'. I do hope that Ill be allowed to use this name By the way, my great grandfather was not a local hero. At the time when he was district magistrate in Lyallpur, it was one of the most influential cities under British Rule in India The title of Sardar Bahadur allowed him to hold public court in his home. I never met him but what I gathered from my family, inspite of the power he held, he understood the responsibility it carried with it.

  • Comment Like it says in the guideline WP:N, it's about having sufficient source material for a verifiable, encyclopedic article about each topic. There's no evidence here about written source material, so it's not viable. The article can always be recreated if evidence is found in future. Mereda 10:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people with a philosophy degree

[edit]
List of famous people with a philosophy degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - First off, "famous" is completely subjective. Secondly, listing the awarding of a particular degree within a particular discipline strikes me as an indiscriminate list. Otto4711 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep & add sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Olson

[edit]
Kelsey Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bumping from speedy: not eligible due to assertions of notability. No opinion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:33Z

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; already moved back prior to this close. - Daniel.Bryant 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pear of Anguish

[edit]
Pear of Anguish was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-12. The result of the prior discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear of Anguish.

This is not adequately sourced in my opinion, and the only reference for a "pear of anguish" comes from a website called "Occasional Hell" that also had this to say: it is not known whether the goatse.cx man has ever used this device. The closest thing we have to a reliable source, the Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, does not corroborate the bulk of the material presented, nor does it even refer to the item by the same title. Is there something to work with here, or are we grasping at straws? RFerreira 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see that we are going to have to settle this. The various names for this subject are "choke-pear", "pear of anguish", and "poire d'angoisse". Here is what the sources say:
    John Ogilvie (1883). The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language. The Century co. p. 462.
    "1. A kind of pear that has a rough astringent taste, and is swallowed with difficulty, of which contracts the parts of the mouth. Hence — 2. Anything that stops the mouth; an unanswerable argument; an aspersion or sarcasm by which a person is put to silence"
    George Morley Story and W. J. Kirwin (1990). Dictionary of Newfoundland English. University of Toronto Press. p. 96. ISBN 0802068197.
    In the entry for "chuckley" this cites the entries in the OED and the DAE for various types of "astringent fruit": the "choke cherry" (1796–), the "choke plum" (1556), and the "choke pear" (1530–1672).
    William Dwight Whitney (1889). The Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language. The Century co.
    A choke-pear is simply described as the opposite of a swallow-pear, i.e. a fruit that cannot be swallowed.
    John Bostock and Henry Thomas Riley (1855). The Natural History of Pliny By Pliny. H. G. Bohn.
    The text discusses a variety of pear named "ampullaceum" in Latin, and footnote #8 points out that Dalechamps has identified this with the modern (at the time) variety of pear that is named "Poire d'Angoisse". A source cited by Jorge Stolfi on the article's talk page points out that Angoisse is a region in Dordogne, in the Arrondissement of Nontron, that produced a hard, bad-tasting, variety of pear in the Middle Ages that people found difficult to swallow.
    By S J. Honnorat (1847). Dictionnaire provençal-français; ou, Dictionnaire de la langue d'oc, ancienne et moderne, suivi. Vol. 2. Repos. p. 851. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
    The entry for "pera" gives a long list of names of varieties of pear, including the "Pera Argonissa", which it states to be the "poire d'angoisse".
    Félicie d'. Ayzac (1860). Histoire de l'abbaye de saint-Denis. Paris. p. 341.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    In a list of the menus for various feast days throughout the year, the "poire d'angoisse", a variety of pear, is listed several times.
    Leopold V. Delisle (1965). Etudes Sur LA Condition De LA Classe Agricole Et L'Etat De L'Agriculture En Normandie Au Moyen Age. Ayer Publishing. p. 501. ISBN 0833708201.
    The text lists two varieties of pear that can be found "dans nos anciens textes", one of which is the "poire d'angoisse". In footnote #81 it cites several primary and secondary historical sources for this, pointing out that the variety is also known as "Bon-Chrétien d'hiver".
    John Webster (1996). John Russell Brown (ed.). The White Devil. Manchester University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0719043557.
    The annotation for line #234, where one character says "I'll give you a choke-pear." to another, says that a choke-pear is a "hard, unpalatable pear (often used figuratively for a severe rebuke or a setback)".
    William Hazlitt (2005-10-01). "My First Acquaintaince with Poets". In Duncan Wu (ed.). Romanticism: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing. p. 776. ISBN 1405120851.
    The footnote says that "A choke-pear was used by robbers: it was made of iron in the shape of a pear, and would be placed into the mouths of their victims. With the turn of a key, it would enlarge so that it could not be removed." This is a modern editorial explanation of the metaphorical use in the actual text. In the actual text, a work of scholarship is described as a "metaphysical choke-pear". As can be seen from Ogilvie and Brown above, there is a less colourful explanation of what a "metaphysical choke-pear" is. It's an argument that is unanswerable or unrefutable.
  • There are quite a few books that describe a "choke-pear", or a "pear of anguish", or a "poire d'angoisse" as a iron tool used to gag. Most of these books are works of fiction. A lot of authors in the 19th and 20th century have picked up on the idea that such a device existed, and incorporated it into their stories as a device to terrify the protagonists with. See F. Marion Crawford (1901/2004). Marietta, a Maid of Venice. Kessinger Publishing. p. 427. ISBN 1417945214. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) for example. Alexandre Dumas, père has one character mention a "poire d'angoisse" in chapter 22 of Twenty Years After (albeit that, unlike the authors of fiction who relish in giving gruesome descriptions of the thing, he doesn't specify what it actually is). Looking for non-fiction we come up rather short:
    Richard Head and Francis Kirkman (2002). The English Rogue. Routledge (UK). p. 627. ISBN 0415286778.
    This describes the use of a "choke-pear" by robbers. It is supposedly factual, but as the subtitle says, it is "Described in the Life of Meriton Latroon, A Witty Extravagant". The volume is written as a first person autobiography of a fictional character. It's hardly a work of scholarship. It's sensationalism, pure and simple. It seems wholly unreliable as a source.
    Edgar Block Frank (1950). Old French Ironwork: The Craftsman and His Art. Harvard University Press. p. 211.
    The description of figure #440 on plate #92 is that it is an object named a "poire d'angoisse, an appellation for which we have no English equivalent". The author deduces from the shape of the object's key that it was manufactured in the "early sixteenth century".
    m. fregier. Histoire de L'Administration de la Police de Paris. p. 83.
    The author describes the "poire d'angoisse" as an "instrument à l'usage de certains voleurs".
    Benjamin P. Eldridge (1897/2004). Our Rival, the Rascal: A Faithful Portrayal of the Conflict Between the Criminals of This Age and The Police. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 285–286. ISBN 1417959525. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    This is a far more reliable source. It describes the "poire d'angoisse", invented by a robber named Palioly in the days of Henry of Navarre complete with spring-loaded spikes and special key, citing M. de Calvi's Histoire General Des Larrons written in the 17th century as its source. However, it then proceeds to cast doubt upon the entire idea, saying that "[f]ortunately for us this 'diabolical invention' appears to be one of the lost arts, if, indeed, it ever existed outside of de Calvi's head. There is no doubt, however, of the fashioning of a pear-shaped gag which has been largely used in former days by robbers in Europe, and may still be employed to some extent. This is also known as the 'choke-pear', though it is far less marvellous and dangerous than the pear of Palioly."
  • I conclude from this that it is pretty much unequivocal that there is a variety of bad-tasting pear (grown in Angoisse in the Middle Ages) that is known in French as "poire d'Angoisse", and that in English a pear that is so sour that it is difficult to swallow has been known as a "choke pear" for a long time (alongside other sour fruits such as the "choke cherry", itself to be found documented in many sources as a species of cherry in North America whose fruit is exceedingly bitter, and "choke plum"), from which the metaphor of an argument that cannot be answered has sprung.

    As for the instrument of robbery: The sources that confirm the idea are either fiction or sensationalism. (As Securiger points out on the article's talk page, there's a lot of contamination of early 20th century scholarship by these fictions, too.) The sources that are actually reliable themselves cast doubt upon the whole idea. They confirm that an ordinary pear-shaped gag, without all of the acoutrements of springs, spikes, and keys, is known as a "poire d'angoisse" (and that's probably, from the context of the story, what Dumas was referring to).

    I have found no sources that confirm that this is an instrument of torture. Even the (reliable) sources from the 20th and 21st centuries that take devices from museums, of unknown provenance, and (like Frank above) hypothesize what they might be, don't hypothesize a torture device.

    Therefore: I think that there's enough from the above to make an article, especially given Eldridge's debuking of the idea and the abundance of sources that tell us that these are varieties of fruit. Keep, rename back to choke pear (per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions), and feel free to write an article. Uncle G 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move in accordance with Uncle G's comments. When the AfD discussion tells you even more than the article in chief does, this is an obvious suggestion that the article wants amendment rather than deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move rewrite. Excellent work, Uncle G. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a result of the amazing rewrite by Uncle G, I think it is safe to withdraw this nomination. RFerreira 06:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mac ozawa

[edit]
Mac ozawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy: article quality is not beyond repair, but there are still notability issues. No opinion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:35Z

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killroy and Tina

[edit]
Killroy and Tina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited. The article fails to adhere to our established policies of notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. Most of the mentions of and sources for this webcomic are coming from its own site, blogs, forums, chatrooms, personal sites, social sites, and other freely usable discussion media - none of which are notable or non-trivial, or convey importance in any way. The influence of the comic on media, culture, and society as a whole is very limited to nonexistant. NetOracle 07:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Horrors! It's Murder!

[edit]
Oh, Horrors! It's Murder! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy; but it does appear to be not notable. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:42Z

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, sock or no sock. What a mess (both AfD and article), please proceed for cleanup for the latter. - Mailer Diablo 18:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Goonish Shive

[edit]
El Goonish Shive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited. The article fails to adhere to our established policies of notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. Most of the mentions of and sources for this webcomic are coming from its own site, blogs, forums, chatrooms, personal sites, social sites, and other freely usable discussion media - none of which are notable or non-trivial, or convey importance in any way. The influence of the comic on media, culture, and society as a whole is very limited to nonexistant. Furthermore, the article reads like a fansite, and suggests that the unsourced and non-notable material was added as fancruft, and not by independent and disinterested editors. NetOracle 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make several academically convincing points, however I have to mention that El Goonish Shive is published in 2 books, and it has held a spot in or near the top 10 on the TopWebcomics list for many years. I'd say that merits keeping the article, though with some editing to make it less like, as you call it, "fancruft." As for "independent and disinterested" editors, who besides those who are interested in the subject would bother to write a wikipedia article about it in the first place? Coredumperror 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at those books, and even given the simple fact of print publication, I am still unconvinced as to notability. They appear to be sold by one web outfit, and lack distribution in established channels. From what I can gather, it basically amounts to limited-run publishing. Anybody with a few hundred dollars can have an on-demand publisher print their material, so I think we have to require that notability derived from print publication be limited to subjects whose printed matter is either backed by a major publishing house, or whose printed matter is distributed through a significant number of brick-and-mortar booksellers. As for the toplist [31], that hardly conveys notability. Toplists have been around for years, and anybody can basically get listed on one somewhere. I don't see many notable sites subscribing to them, either. NetOracle 08:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those books are not published by an on-demand publisher, however. They're published by Keenspot, which is a conventional publisher (ie, the books are returnable) that distributes to comic book stores and other bookstores worldwide. Just take a look at the wikipedia article. El Goonish Shive has been around for over five years now and so is one of the longer-lived Keenspot webcomics. This is hardly "yet another non-notable web comic", it's one of the more prominent ones. As for your complaints about the article's writing style, bear in mind that AfD is not cleanup. Work was just starting to be done on an overhaul of the article when this AfD was listed, see the article's talk page. Bryan Derksen 10:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Keenspot is definitely not a print-on-demand publisher. EGS is on Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble, and it has been sold by proper book stores in, for instance, my native Finland, on the other end of another continent. Please look before you leap, it makes things much easier for everyone. --Kizor 11:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (Schadenfreude toned down on the 19th)[reply]
El Goonish Shive has been around for over 5 years, and joined Keenspot over 3 years ago (Keenspot being rated "High importance" in the webcomic project assessment). The Alexa ratings, used by the top-level article "Webcomic", show elgoonishshive.com to have 1/3 of the reach of sluggy.com, with Sluggy Freelance being listed as among the most popular webcomics. If one assumes that different people use elgoonishshive.com and the alternate domain name egscomics.com, the number grows to half of the reach of sluggy.com. I would prefer the article getting tagged, not deleted. Ambi Valent 10:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one, thewebcomicslist.com ranks El Goonish Shive at #16 out of the 8376 webcomics it keeps track of. Bryan Derksen 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of ranking is methodologically meaningless. —xyzzyn 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose ranking the popularity of webcomics, in that case? Do you have any sources of your own? Bryan Derksen 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose neither a necessity nor a method of ranking the popularity of webcomics. I have no related sources of my own. Nevertheless, all webcomic ranking sites of that I am aware are fundamentally flawed and cannot be used to substantiate any non-trivial claim. By the way, popularity is not an inclusion/exclusion criterion, as far as I know. —xyzzyn 00:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many web comics are there for which you can you cite some independent non-trivial mentions? You might find one, maybe two. Even the most famous of web comics have few if any, and if that alone is grounds for deleting listings then there simply shouldn't be a webcomic assessment. Fdgfds 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent non-trivial mentions. - Francis Tyers · 14:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep El Goonish Shive is notable for several reasons. It has over 20,000 unique visitors daily and growing, it has inspired multiple people to start their own webcomics and / or start drawing again, it has resulted in some people addressing topics such as transformation and transgenderism that they might not have had the courage to touch otherwise, it is cited under Arbitrary Gender with a pictorial reference in "A History of WebComics" (a book by T Campbell published under Atlantic Press), it was a part of a Free Comic Book Day book last year and will be again this year, took part in a webcomic benefit for New Orleans, a character from the comic was featured prominently on a large two-booth sized banner that was up at the Comic-Con International ( http://www.comic-con.org/ ) in 2006 and will be there again in 2007, the author has spoken in a panel at Comic-Con for the past four years and is expected to again this year, the first book was available through amazon.com and sold out very quickly, and the first book is also now in its second print run meaning the first run has sold in its entirety. Danshive 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Dan, is that you? IIRC you're allowed to participate in AfD discussions, but you should certainly use first person mode when talking about what you've done. Fdgfds 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s Dan. —xyzzyn 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the current article is garbagedeletable, but per Dan’s comment can be improved. —xyzzyn 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As a regular reader of El Goonish Shive and many other web based comics I feel that the article as viewed is informative and well composed. Wikipedia may have it's own official document formatting policies but the extent that should extend is a rewrite. Tag it as in need of a rewrite. But don't delete an article based upon a one sided opinion of validity. You may not like the webcomic or have heard about it, but many of my co workers independently found it and I think that is meaning enough. --Maskawanian 15:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) — Maskawanian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Regarding the "single purpose account" tag, please do note the message a short distance below. Apparently Maskawanian had been a WikiGnome who only saw a reason to register for this discussion. --Kizor 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand why the deletion policy is so strict. I understand why it exists, there are literally thousands of webcomics that barely ran for a month and had no readers. But to extend that to a comic with many thousands of readers that's been going for years is absurd. More people read this comic than read many published books. Yes, it's on the internet, but why should that matter? Wikipedia itself doesn't get its entirety in a book in Barnes and Noble, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant to society. The fact that such a successful webcomic is being considered for deletion makes me think that the deletion rules need to be overhauled. This isn't a case that should be borderline at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.227.126.50 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep Published comic, popular comic, Keenspot comic. It's as notable as webcomics get, and I think this discussion is nothing more than an overzealous attempt at pruning. Fdgfds 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with above comment. Rituro 15:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article reads fairly well, though lacking citation, and given the number of visitors, and the presence of distributed printed media, I think it passes the notability aspect.The Mysterious X 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem seems to be that, while Wikipedia has a clear list of why an article could be up for deletion, some of the criteria is subjective. Good arguments have been established for why the EGS article should be deleted, and why it should not. At the end of the day, though, what makes EGS less notable than Bob and George or VG Cats (both of which have articles, and both of which are not currently up for deletion)? True, Wikipedia shouldn't be inundated articles for every upstart webcomic that dies after a month, but perhaps if a comic is regularly updated for a defined period of time, with a defined number of unique hits, it should qualify as notable?15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)71.253.15.176mikeszekely
  • Keep There is no way deletion of this page can be justified as EGS is VERY notable in the webcomic world, and as stated earlier has many 'real world' notable moments. --Zikar 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frequent reader of the webcomic myself, which may present bias, I believe that the webcomic is notable for a number of different reasons. Existing for five years is definitely an accomplishment as far as webcomics go, being in print should count for something, and Danshive's reasons ring true to me as well. The article as it stands will need to be edited, because it does not read like an encyclopedic article, I agree. Perhaps some of El Goonish Shive's accomplishments as listed by Danshive should be included in the article. In any case, it is my opinion that what we are dealing with here is an incorrectly created article, not an insignificant article. Masterflux 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having existed, and been relatively continuously updated for more than five years, the comic meets one of the (harder to achieve) sufficient criteria for notability that have been put forward. It has also been published (and therefor has a large enough reader base to support a publishing effort). The reader base itself, as has been mentioned, is also very large. Finally, the content of almost any article based on a creative work be it a movie, comic, novel or anime is usually centered around describing said work. Not only should tone of content not be considered grounds for deletion, but to expect or demand anything different in this case is nothing but folly. :Finally, would it be possible for someone to format this thing correctly. If nothing else, the period for consideration of this article should be extended, as right now it is almost impossible to tell that it is even up for deletion, much less figure out where to comment. Could very easily have been nothing more than a typo when loading everything up, but it does cast doubts as to how well all viewpoints will be represented. (I think, though, that if a "keep" consensus is reached under these conditions where those most likely to support the article wouldn't be able to do so, that it would be reasonable to uphold the decision to keep the article.) Icelight 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope my opinions are not given reduced weight due to the fact that I just created this Wikipedia account. Most of my edits in the past have been gramatical corrections since I only add content to articles where have a significant amount of experiance. However for a voice of opinion I thought best I register so my username be on the edit (to have your opinions weighed less is slightly demotivating and insulting). Heres hoping for a fair weight of opinion. Dan Saul aka --Maskawanian 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As has been stated before, an AfD is not a tool to use to say "clean this up." Considering there has been talk about how to clean it up, deleting this article seems very premature. Furthermore, I must seriously question the original nominator's research into whether or not something is notable or trivial. Considering the user has only been a named part of Wikipedia for 8 days at the time of this comment, and has almost 200 contributions, the vast majority of which (at least 2/3, it seems to be closer to 3/4, however) are supporting or nominating an article for deletion, I have doubts as to how well the user has been able to actually "carefully consider" said articles as they have themselves claimed.
I acknowledge that there are times when an article may be so obvious to be garbage that one could nominate it with only a general look and search on Google, however, considering the sheer volume of the user's contributions to such articles, I cannot help but question if he is only a vandal and a griefer, who has taken an agenda again Webcomics for his own personal reasons. I cannot help but think that it would be near impossible to have carefully considered so many articles, when many of his contributions to their discussion pages are mere minutes apart. Furthermore, many of his comments on whether to delete or keep an article seem to be rehashes of the same paragraph, changing significantly only when it changes topics (for example, the shift between his contributions on porn stars and web comics), while any lateral shift in the same field generally reads very similar.
I also acknowledge that the user in question may very well have done their research before beginning their contributions to Wikipedia. However, I cannot help but doubt such a thing for reasons as stated above (that the user has apparently simply rehashed the same paragraph, changing on minor wording, while in similar categories, user lacks any real proof in case of web comics, often mentioning only the Alexa ranking, and even then only when the topic of the article has ranked relatively low on Alexa, furthermore, user has stated that they are biased "While I am no fan of webcomics and their lack of notability and worth in general" and I will also acknowledge that, following this quote, said user admitted they would be willing to vote in favor of the web comic's article if it were cleaned up. However, the bias of the user must still be questioned if they so willingly volunteer they feel webcomics are without merit.)
I am in favor of keeping this article, so long as it is cleaned up and made to be less based on fancruft. Considering that there were, indeed, talks on how to improve the article on the discussion page, I feel that the AfD was premature and done with bias and animosity towards a genre. Furthermore, if a user looking into whether an article fits for an AfD, one would think the article's discussion page would be one of the first places to look for information supporting or dismissing the need for an AfD. Had the discussion of the article been looked over, it would have been made quite obvious that this was a concern, and efforts to improve it were being discussed.
Again, I vote to Keep this article, so long as it does, indeed, improve itself. --Caejis 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 1

[edit]
  • Comment As per the notability guidelines, I move to dismiss this AfD with a keep. The evidence supporting this is broken down by criteria points below:
1) I am not aware of any published articles about this webcomic, although there was a Keencast interview with it's author over the comic.
2) The author has been invited onto convention panels to discuss this comic.
3) The webcomic is a member of Keenspot, which is exactly in line with the requirements of this point.
Since only ONE requirement needs to be met, this comic meets the notability requirements. As such, non-notability is not a valid reason for deleting it. As the basis for this AfD was non-notability, QED this AfD is baseless.Fdgfds 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Edutopia (Published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, http://www.edutopia.org/ ) link provided a few posts above not good enough for notability? It specifically starts out referencing El Goonish Shive, one of its characters, and its popularity as a webcomic. Also, it is discussed in "A History of Webcomics" which is a published book. --Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment
  • Weak Delete, no sources with which to write anything even remotely resembling a decent, encyclopedic article (WP:WAF). References in places like this are nice but don't provide anything even remotely resembling relevant information. If it's not too much trouble; what, exactly, does The History of Webcomics say about EGS? Nifboy 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a copy of this to look it up in. Does anyone have a copy? 76.0.26.181 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment.[reply]
Sorry, the above comment was by me. 76.0.26.181 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Lomgren, no wikipedia account at the moment.[reply]

Random section break 2

[edit]
  • Keep As this comic has been around for half a decade, party to one of the most respected webcomic syndicates in existence, has been published in book form twice, holds a perpetually high standard of writing and drawing, keeps a consistent update schedule, and has a zealously devoted fan base. Undoubtedly, good enough for Wikipedia. Jeremicus rex 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of bolded "Keep" !votes on this page: 17. Number of "Keep" votes that present a valid reason for doing so: 0. (Hint: "I like it", "It's cool", "it's popular", "there's other stuff here" etc. are not valid reasons - see WP:ILIKEIT). Says it all. Chris cheese whine 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You seem to be mistaken; valid reasons have been provided. For example: It's up for deletion as non-notable, yet it clearly meets the requirements put forth for notable web content. You also seem to have miscounted the number of keep votes, but that's understandable since it's blatantly obvious that you haven't read a single comment. Perhaps you should read through WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as it seems to stand against you.
Of the three delete votes, two fall under "Arguments without Arguments" for being no more than a "Non-notable" accusation, and the remaining one cites an invalid reason - namely, the comment poster's inability to find sources.
Of the sixteen keep votes, zero cite their personal preferences as a reason. Although several cite popularity as notability, these are not in the majority. Only two comments meets the requirements WP:JUSTAVOTE. Although several reasons have been repeated, only one provided has been shown to be invalid and/or insufficient. If you wish to comment on the number of meaningless keep votes, then first you must actually present at least some semblance of an argument against the points provided.
I don't begrudge people their right to express their opinions or vote for delete, but dismissing arguments as invalid without providing a refutation is intellectually dishonest and improper behavior. Fdgfds 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being unable to find sources is a very valid argument. In fact, it is one of our core content policies, which are beyond the realm of consensus discussion. I suggest that it is you who is being intellectually dishonest here. I did read all the "keep" comments. Not one of them presents anything near to a valid argument. I challenge you to identify one of the above or below which is not only valid but also stands up to scrutiny. I would issue a rebuttal to all n of them, but I haven't the time, and to do so would only serve to disrupt this debate. Chris cheese whine 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't too good at this, are you? It's called "Burden of proof", and it's on the people who wish to prove notability, not those who do not. If somebody is voting to delete, then their claims they can't find anything are suspect. For all we know, they googled "Evil mimes invade Quebec" and found no sources to support the article's notability. The burden of proof is on those voting to keep to prove that it's notable, not on those voting to delete attempting to fraudulently "prove" a negative.
For positive proof, feel free to look at Keenspot's official list of the comics they publish at their website, http://keenspot.com/ . Being published by Keenspot grants it notability as per point three, period.
As for ad hominem attacks, that's an attack in the format of 'my opponent has quality X, therefore their arguments are invalid'. Take note of the fact that nothing I said attempts to discredit your non-arguments on the grounds of who you are, I simply demonstrated that they were invalid.
Further, you haven't refuted a single argument but instead have simply made vague and unproven allegations. If you want the article deleted, then it's your responsibility to discredit claims of notability. Demanding that you actually refute arguments you want to dismiss is not in violation of WP:POINT, while posting unsupported allegations and derailing the AfD discussion is. If you lack the time to contribute to this properly, then I suggest you not participate at all. Fdgfds 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have the burden of proof thing the wrong way around. The onus is on the keepers to provide evidence to support the argument that a given article belongs in Wikipedia, not the other way around as you suggest. Meeting point 3 of the guidelines is worthless, as all articles must meet the equivalent of point 1 (see WP:N), something which nobody has made any effort to prove yet. Chris cheese whine 10:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read the "Keep" comments, or did you just count them? Numerous citations of publications in a variety of fields and meeting Wikipedia's own article requirements should qualify as rationale beyond "it's popular" -An accountless browser —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.92.4 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I know this isn't supposed to be a "vote" and I've already argued in favor of keeping this article above, but figured I should throw in a bold-faced keyword anyway just to be on the safe side. Check up near the top of the section for my reasoning. Bryan Derksen 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to let it be known that I vote to keep this page, but I am holding off as I would like to point out that it is as a result of EGS that the webcomic KeenFans has come to be. It was created by fans of the comic to be a comic about the forums (and using some of the characters that Dan has created). Now that may not mean that much, but it is another comic (with it's own webpage, it's own characters, and using two artists) as a direct result of EGS. Squato 20:30, 17 February 2007
  • Keep: Published by Keenspot as per WP:WEB. If Keenspot does not count as an independent publisher, what does? Somercet 09:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 3

[edit]
  • Keep, meets notability guidelines. --Kuroki Mio 2006 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To both the above comments, it's no good saying "meets WP:N", because that in itself is meaningless. You need to explain why you think it meets it. We don't do proof by assertion (i.e. "it is because I said so") at AfD. Chris cheese whine 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the two don't appear to think we do. They - or at least jonjonaug - are asserting their agreement with the reasons given before. The likes of Kuroki's comment are quite common when the editor thinks that a case is clear enough. --Kizor 03:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As these things have for the last couple of weeks, the nomination is attracting fan attention. What is surprising is the politeness and reasonableness of their invovement so far (God knows it's easy to take nominations personally.) Off-site, the author is appealing for calm and forumgoers are banding to improve the article and its sourcing. I thank the fans for their courtesy and trust that my fellow editors will return it. --Kizor 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:WEB states as one of its guidelines The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Keenspot is an independent source as many others have said. Petrelg 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As previous comments note, this article fulfills the third requirement of WP:WEB due to being published via Keenspot both online and in print. The article could use reworking to better fit the format, but that is not a vaild argument for deletion. Binarywraith 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Kizor said in his comment above, the fanbase itself has been extremely polite and have argued throughly. I agree with the fact that it has met the notability requirement and that it should be edited and fleshed out. Deleteing this article seems premature. Steve J 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I suggest we need to keep this article. This comic inspired me to start drawing, and has definitely improved my world views as to racism and other sensitive topics. I also noticed that many of the webcomics on Wikipedia, such as 2Kinds (Which definitely improved my vires on racism, and should have been kept). Many webcomic authors are getting extremely hassled with other comics being struck off of wiki with no warning whatsoever (No AfD, nothing). I honestly want to know what some people mean when they say "It looks like it was made by the fans, and not by a non-reading person." Well honestly, not to be brash, but "No S**t Sherlock!" Some random person is not going to pop up and start typing on something they never read, and probably don't plan to. As much as I'm sure some people would like to say "POS, DELETEZORZ!" And move on to the NEXT webcomic they want to nuke, this one must be kept. This is where I learn about comics I read, and I am feeling increasingly rushed to read before they get deleted by some new dude. As self-correcting as Wikipedia is supposed to be, this is what you get when you add one or two really bad apples. They spoil the whole bunch. [/rant].
    Vikedal 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 4

[edit]
I'd also like to point this out:
"This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited. The article fails to adhere to our established policies of notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. Most of the mentions of and sources for this webcomic are coming from its own site, blogs, forums, chatrooms, personal sites, social sites, and other freely usable discussion media - none of which are notable or non-trivial, or convey importance in any way. The influence of the comic on media, culture, and society as a whole is very limited to nonexistant. Furthermore, the article reads like a fansite, and suggests that the unsourced and non-notable material was added as fancruft, and not by independent and disinterested editors. NetOracle"
"This is yet another non-notable web comic, whose notability, influence, and appeal seems very limited. The article fails to adhere to our established policies of notability, web content guidelines, verifiability, reliable sourcing, and encyclopedic standards. Most of the mentions of and sources for this webcomic are coming from its own site, blogs, forums, chatrooms, personal sites, social sites, and other freely usable discussion media - none of which are notable or non-trivial, or convey importance in any way. The influence of the comic on media, culture, and society as a whole is very limited to nonexistant. NetOracle"
Sounds familiar? The first one is from this deletion; the second is from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killroy and Tina. It's clear that he's just repeating the same paragraph without actually trying to determine if any of the claims made in his paragraph are true for this particular case, particularly since his language is worded in a cover-all-bases way that applies to as many different web comics as possible. This nomination was made in bad faith and should be rejected completely; making us spend days on it and 36 kilobytes just to prevent web comic deletionism only wastes our time. Ken Arromdee 17:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to the above poster. it is more and more obvious now that NetOracle is trying to Vandaise this wiki, and personally i beleve an IP ban against him editing, and keeping all the articles s/he has put up for deletion would be the best solution. 82.42.205.93 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC) - NinjaPirate.[reply]
    • Comment: In support of the above two posts re: NetOracle's bias against webcomics and a bad faith nomination, NetOracle's own user page contains a copy of the "reasons" for deletion. By his own admission, he is "busy trying to nominate every webcomic article for deletion [by] cut and pasting the following paragraph". Rituro 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: That was made by an anonymous IP. There is no way to guarantee it was him unless you can give proof. *Sighs* I'm on the other side and I'm defending him. Just give me proof that the IP is his and I will let you do that. Petrelg 23:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I have been working through it, and it appears the person who caused the statements on NetOracle's userpage was none other than the one called NinjaPirate himself. He also was the one that caused some vandaliztation on the Wikipedia Article and inflammatory comments on EGS'S tag about NetOracle. His thank you has nothing to do with revelation of the nom admitting his personal vendetta against webcomics, although stated elsewhere. He is thanking Ken Arromdee for finding his vandalization and bringing it to the table. Petrelg 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Got evidence? (Diffs, please.) —xyzzyn 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Gladly. Here's the contribution page of the proxy.[[33]] Next is the diff of adding some vandalism. [[34]] Here are the diffs of his vandalization of the Wikipedia page: [[35]], [[36]], and [[37]]. And the messing with the AFD Template is here [[38]] Enjoy. Petrelg 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Addition I want to make it clear that I am not siding with the nom; on the contrary, a look up a ways, you'll see I voted to keep. While our sides may be opposite, and he did indeed use the same argument for both this and another comic. He also has stated his aversion to webcomics elsewhere. One place he hadn't done so was his userpage. No Wikipedian, no matter how POV, trollish, NPOV, or WikiGnome or WikiFairy deserves to have his or her Userpage vandalized in order to win an argument on AFD. *Steps off soapbox. Petrelg 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 5

[edit]
  • Keep: Aside from plain numbers as to El Goonish Shive's popularity, NetOracle's personal preferences, and etc., it's important to remember that these sorts of articles are true to Wikipedia's nature. There are thousands of articles with only a few lines, but they still serve as gathering points for those who are interested in them. Though some users may with to disagree, Wikipedia has become likely the best online reference for a myriad of subjects, both popular and relatively obscure. Should all of the articles on small U.S. farming towns be deleted, since they only have a few dozen residents who would be interested in them? There hasn't been a press for this so far. The Internet is composed of an infinite number of groups with highly specialized interests. Wikipedia is an ideal Internet site in that it caters to, and accepts help from, this world of so many fragmented sets of hobbies and observations. While some may not appreciate a webcomic that a "mere" few thousand people pay attention to, the fact is that even a thousand regular visitors would generate large amounts of traffic for any single online resource amongst the crowd, especially compared to webcomics that haven't even become half as popular as El Goonish Shive. To conclude, if Wikipedia is to restrict itself to only allowing pages covering "notable" topics, it will cease to be of use to the millions who have built it up, those whose tastes never match up 100% with the mainstream focus. - Vintagejonny 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep As nearly all of the reasons I can think of as to why the comic is notable, including popularity of the comic, it being referenced in what would normally be called "notable" sources by most, and just about anything else that doesn't violate Wikipedia's fancruft regulations on this subject, I've decided to focus on the character in question as well. NetOracle has more and more proved that he is not experienced in the area of webcomics, to the point of admitting that he has only a week's experience in the area.
In "The noob" article for deletion (2nd nomination) (the topic was deleted for fancruft, lack of sources, and other reasons why NetOracle seems to be on this mad crusade) he verified his bias, lack of experience in the area, and why he believes that these "unnotable webcomics," as he likes to call them, are destroying wikipedia's image as a professional, respectful, informative website.
His direct quote from that article:
"Your comment concerning the timing of the discussion, and the hushed accusation of my intentions as being based in bad faith, is rather inappropriate. I couldn't have named a single webcomic as of yesterday, and only began to care about these things yesterday after I saw a solid case for deletion destroyed by insane levels of meatpuppetry and fanboyism. I have a strong concern that postponing this discussion until the author returns will only allow time for a similar meatpuppet army to assemble. I'm not here to attack a specific strip - I only became involved in this because I saw the professionalism of Wikipedia being compromised by a steady encroachment of fancruft, and wanted to remedy the situation. NetOracle" The_noob
And, on the same article, talked about why he believed the article Webcartoonists' choice awards should be deleted. His Quote again:
"As for the "Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards", this "organization" is not notable in itself. It appears to be some loosely-organized group of Internet cartoonists, established for the sake of mutual promotion.NetOracle" The_noob
In general, this could be said about any award, award ceremony, or the organization behind such formentioned awards, as it's meant to promote the winner, nominees, and the event in itself. Award ceremonies gain prominence when more sites, or people recognize it. Any subjective person could see this.
Sure, while these quotes and comments, especially on the awards stuff would fit better in their respective AfD pages, this was meant as something to go and prove his biased against such webcomics, and prove that El Goonish Shive is just another victim of his crusade. - Dalton2K5 22:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless of my own opinions on this subject, I have to note that we've reached (or crossed) the point where further discussion of the nominator's character would be counterproductive. The points have been made. --Kizor 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability asserted due to 1) Longevity of Comic 2) Printed versions 3) External references. And unfortunately, another unnecessary AFD of a notable comic by NetOracle, where we editors waste our time fighting his prejudice against webcomics as "fancruft". If this keeps up, I think a RfC on NetOracle is in order. This is now becoming a pattern.
    • Could you add those "External references" to the article's references section? --Dragonfiend 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those have been discussed in this AfD; apparently the exact details of one of them are being tracked down. --Kizor 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see. People are calling for an RFC on an editor because he thinks we should consider deleting an article whose only hope for a single reputable independent source is something we haven't been able to track down. That's a really bad idea.--Dragonfiend 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, no. We know what, where and by who this one is. From what I can see from several of his nominations, people are calling for an RfC on an editor who cuts-and-pastes excessively vague deletion nomination reasons, makes up standards ("Test of time" indeed), mistakes AfD for cleanup, refuses to use concern tags, writes "Non-notable web comic, and we're going to sack it" in edit summaries, uses cruft as an argument when there's an effort to remove said cruft and make the article more acceptable going on in plain sight, uses Alexa rankings as an argument though only when they work in his favor, openly admits to knowing nothing about the field he also says he's moving against, etc. That sort of thing. --Kizor 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sign of coverage in independent, reputable secondary sources, let alone any suggesting historical significance or achievement. --Dragonfiend 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 6

[edit]
  • Speedy Keep. It is obvious that NetOracle does not intend to back up any arguments of his own, so much as he desires to propose for every webcomic Wiki article's deletion. We should not be wasting our time on this, and as many of the other comments have noted, this comic does have notability through references in many other webcomics along with a few articles from the media and press. I am amazed this is still being "discussed." --Blinkstale 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. El Goonish Shive is a prominent member of extremely popular, invitation-only Keenspot. To quote admin BradBeattie, "there's an established precedent amongst the WP:COMIC crowd that being hosted on Keenspot is sufficient notability." As is discussed on top of this page, the comic has a print presence on a conventional publisher that extends to the likes of Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble (both very well-known distributors independent of the work) and proper brick-and-mortal bookstores to boot. I believe WP:WEB has been met with flying colors. --Kizor 03:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/confused comment First, El Goonish Shive meets the requirement for web notability that "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." ~ Wikipedia:Notability (web)
I am under the impression that it's long been agreed Keenspot counts as such. On that basis alone it seems odd to delete this article on grounds of non-notability.
Also, as a result of the recent burst of webcomic article deletions, and accompanying discussion/rants from fans/authors, I've realised that I'm entirely unclear on Wikipedia's actual policy regarding webcomics notability, and it seems like I will need to read a years' worth of discussion to figure out exactly what is and is not accepted. This is an extremely daunting task. I think I shan't be trying. A relatively concise, explicit explanation would be very welcome, though.
It seems to me that while very few webcomics (indeed, none but the most famous, equivalent in notability within their respective worlds (webcomics and printed fiction) to perhaps Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings) will be discussed at all extensively in non-webcomics-related sources, surely it must count for something if they are notable within the webcomics community. I understand that most likely this suggestion will be thoroughly ignored, an impression reinforced by the cliquey and elitist reputation Wikipedia has got in my usual internet haunts. However, I feel like it has to be said: if Wikipedia is to compare a category with one sort of following - webcomics - to a category with another sort of following - everything off the internet - in terms of what makes it "notable", then I do not think Wikipedia's policy is adequate.
Also, there is the matter of using AfD when perhaps it should be tagged as needing sources or references. Userfriendly is another webcomic article which lacks any links to references which would prove the webcomic's notability, and it is tagged appropriately, rather than being up for deletion. Esty 05:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keenspot is not a "both well known and independent" publisher. If it were well known, there would be no need to try to make the case that it is "notable within the webcomics community." This comic and its publisher may be well known in certain corners of webcomics fandom, but it is hardly well known in all of webcomics, and definately not well known in any general sense. This publisher (Keenspot) is certainly not well known in the sense that the content it publishes "will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion [of having] been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Meeting the WP:WEB guideline won't necessarily make or break an article, but an article with absolutely no third-party, independent sources fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." With no sources, it's pretty much all original resaearch and wikipedia editor's personal points of view -- non eof which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Dragonfiend 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All I can say to the Keenspot thing is to request that you read the comment by Kizor that is directly above my original comment at the time of me writing this. As for the rest, all I can do is repeat my easily-dismissed, probably invalid, opinion that webcomics shouldn't be held to the same standards of notability as, say, bands; if they are to fit identical requirements, I expect there would be fewer than 40 articles on webcomics throughout Wikipedia.
According to the Wikipedia Webcomics Project, this is an "okay" article. I expect that ought to count for something. Esty 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keenspot is well known for those who are interested in webcomic publishers. That the Wikipedia article lacks better references on Keenspot's activity and success doesn't devaluate Keenspot itself. As comparison: I only started reading Megatokyo a few weeks ago, and before that I thought it was just manga fanfiction with the low standards associated with fanfiction. Finding it both here and high on thewebcomiclist.com changed my mind, but Megatokyo certainly wasn't well known to me, and I have read web comics for years. My position rested on a false premise because I haven't bothered to look. And those people who bother to look on info about webcomic publishers will find information on Keenspot that supports the position that it is notable. I understand your "delete" position if it rests on the premise that Keenspot isn't notable (and that therefore none of its actions count), but I think that premise is false. Ambi Valent 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dragonfiend, you seem to be missing the point. this article is only up for AfD because of a troll, and the Webcomics Project guidelines actually side on keep.
      • To quote in full agreement what Phil Sandifer said to you over a similar situation: "I will point out once again that the standard you are applying is not the standard intended or endorsed by any of our content policies. This is not OR by any useful definition - useful both in the sense of being useful to writing an encyclopedia and in the sense of actually being used by Wikipedia." Looking at that policy page, the article draws from the primary source - the comic - without "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories," without independent "analysis or synthesis" of material, without "advancing a position," without a "novel narrative interpretation." Or if it has started any of these during the ongoing attempt to improve it, feel free to point that out. Aside from the brief fandom coverage, the facts in the article are either from outside references or unambiguously visible in the work itself. If we must blind ourselves to a work while making an article of it, then every plot description of every book, play, TV show or game on Wikipedia is immediately suspect. We have sources and references, the described situation of "absolutely no[ne]" isn't in play, though I am unfortunately too tired to contest in detail whether being known by a million or few net-users is "well known in any general sense." Damn you, body. --Kizor 00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not at all sure why Kizor is making apeals to the authority of another wikipedia eitor, but if he's going to, it's probably worth noting that he's quoting from the the "keep" reasoning an editor used for an article that was ultimately overwhelmingly deleted. --Dragonfiend 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because, as I mentioned, I agree with that argument and it's better phrased and worded than what I could write myself, therefore I'm quoting it. I'm frustratingly inarticulate on these things, you know. Further, the article was ultimately deleted in an entirely different nomination. The one where that was used resulted in a keep. --Kizor 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, you are quoting from an AFD improperly closed as a "keep", overwhelmingly reversed at DRV as in improper close, and then overwhelmingly deleted when relisted. In other words, you're quoting from someone who was wrong. See your talk page for more. --Dragonfiend 07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (NinjaPirate's insults removed, I believe that his points have been made clear and that this is not the place for productive discussion for his or near anyone else's antics. We're trying to have an AfD here. His comment is viewable here. If wrong, slap with fish. --Kizor 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
  • I went and looked at the Keenspot "swag" page to check which books are on sale, and then went and compared Alexa reach. Result: among the books EGS book 1 is on 3rd position, combo package (books 1+2) on 7th, book 2 alone on 10th (8 and 9 not being books). Alexa reach of webcomics to which those books belong show EGS on 4th position, behind Dominic Deegan, Wapsi Square and Scary Go Round (which all left Keenspot). Among those who are still at Keenspot, this leaves EGS with the #1 bestseller on the list, and among those with published books who are still at Keenspot as the #1 in Alexa reach (I haven't checked the Keenspot comics without published Keenspot books). Ambi Valent 01:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Think the page should be kept due to the comic's influence on other webcomics, not too mention it's incredibly large fanbase. As others have noted, El Goonish Shive is availible in 2 books, the first being "Read or the Owl Will Eat You!', released in 2003 by Dan Shive, the comic's author. I work at the Borders in a local mall and I have teenagers coming up to me every week asking for it, showing said fanbase. On a visit to a webcomics convention in Los Angeles, I have found more people 'cosplaying' as El Goonish Shive characters than any other webcomic, due to the imagination used in the character's design.
    • The above comment was made by: 21:12, February 20, 2007 Stoopid Monkey
  • Somebody asked me to look into this. Taking the Keenspot publisher, the lack of other sources, and the appearance of the article itself into account, I'm tempted to vote "Delete". It seems as though the webcomic meets the Wikipedia Webcomics Project guidelines, though, so I'll go for a weak keep and rewrite. Wellmann 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, there's a rewrite starting already. (Honestly, though, I don't get why an article's state, if not completely messed up, is an argument against it. Wikipedia by definition has an awful lot of volunteer workers around, and if they fail we can always revert to the December 2003 version or the like.) --Kizor 05:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would help me a lot when people who are more experienced than I am helped me in a section-per-section analysis where to trim and what can stay (just looking at sections, not every single entry, would be enough) Ambi Valent 10:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep No reason to delete... This is Wikipedia edit it and work with people to improve the article! -- UKPhoenix79 08:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The comic is hosted and published by parties independent of it's creator. As to the writing of the article, AfD IS NOT CLEANUP. Tag it for {{cleanup}} and move on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rule 52: Any editor claiming "AfD is not cleanup" must then on the spot undertake said cleanup themselves. Chris cheese whine 10:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is being done. There is an ongoing effort to clean up the article. There was when the article was nominated. It's clearly visible on the talk page. --Kizor 11:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don West, Jr.

[edit]
Don West, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy: assertions of notability. No opinion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 07:46Z

Apparently is a lawyer representing a few pro athletes; how is he in himself notable? --Hojimachongtalkcon 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an autobiographical article as well, which always makes me feel nervous. I don't see why he should be considered notable. Yes, he does represent a few professional athletes, but he hasn't been in any high profile cases, so in my opinion, he's not notable. --Адам12901 Talk 08:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make some sort of rule automatically deleting any article that has their myspace page as a link? --Адам12901 Talk 08:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, That is the unwritten rule here. --Hojimachongtalkcon 08:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Hospital Group

[edit]
Phoenix Hospital Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not cite any references to support notability Ideogram 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians by academic degree

[edit]
List of musicians by academic degree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - listing musicians by whatever college degree they may have earned in unencyclopedic trivia. Otto4711 08:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hon-Atsugi Station

[edit]
Hon-Atsugi Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Small not notable station with Directory-type listing against WP#DIR--Shakujo 08:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Important commuter station for Tokyo. 140.000 passengers a day make it the fifth largest of the 70 stations on Odakyu-Odawara line. Furthermore this is an article being translated from the not-at-all short Japanese article. More information besides the listings are currently being added. Bamse 09:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This station is moderately important at best, but if we start listing all the so-called important stations then we will end up with a directory. If deletion is completly unacceptable then this could be easily merged into the main article. There might be a case for this article in the 日本語 site but if we have translated articles in the english wiki with the details of every station in the world with similiar passenger numbers then wiki will melt-down.--Shakujo 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many articles about stations, some quite minor. Why delete this one? Totnesmartin 13:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marina gerasimova

[edit]
Marina gerasimova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I didn't find any source about her existence. The article creator has no other contributions. Looks like a hoax rather than just a non-notable person. Yms 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merged. Discussion about the place has moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daya Bay. Kusma (討論) 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Ao

[edit]
Ling Ao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability Ideogram 10:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to rationalize this article, "Daya Bay (Guangdong)", "Daya Bay", and "Guangdong Nuclear Power Station" (a redirect). Since the only thing notable about these locations are the Nuclear power plants, I suggest we combine all the information into Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant. --Ideogram 09:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not even sure that there is a place called Ling Ao. All I could verify was that the nuclear power plant is called Ling'ao; I guess we could merge everything into Daya Bay, which is clearly a verifiable location. Kusma (討論) 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have just one article on the nuclear power plant installation and not have one for the location at all. --Ideogram 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with either as long as redirects exist. Kusma (討論) 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there is no name for the collection of all four nuclear power plants. So I guess I will have to create two articles, Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant and Ling Ao Nuclear Power Plant, as linked to by Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, which appears to be the reason for this little constellation of articles. Any objections? --Ideogram 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge complete. Closing admin, please delete Daya Bay. --Ideogram 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If you create an AfD for it, please add my keep vote "real location of four nuclear reactors" to the AfD. Kusma (討論) 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we agreed to keep only one of the articles, either the location or the power plant. And as far as I can tell, the Ling Ao NPP is not located on Daya Bay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideogram (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The two reactors are only 1100 m apart and apparently the bay is called Daya Bay. Kusma (討論) 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there's a historic fortress on the bay, too. Kusma (討論) 17:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well put it in the article. It would be nice if you can get some reliable sources indicating why that fortress is historic. --Ideogram 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Annan

[edit]
Kim Annan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DropShock

[edit]
DropShock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable podcast that fails to meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. There are no independent, reliable sources in the article and I can't find any through google. Eluchil404 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Priolkar

[edit]
Anant Priolkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

hoax Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Goa Inquisition (book)

[edit]
The Goa Inquisition (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

hoax Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative press (U.S. political right)

[edit]
Alternative press (U.S. political right) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:POV WP:OR list. Intangible2.0 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While it may not be particularly well written, an article on the U.S. political right in regard to printed media is not itself out of bounds. It makes no judgements as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of this position. As such, I find it to be NPOV. If you have difficulties with specific statements that you believe are POV, then perhaps you should visit the talk page of the article and voice your concerns on how you feel improvement can take place. Bbagot 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOV. TonyTheTiger 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bbagot, but improve, as this is a very poorly written article. » K i G O E | talk 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Regis Philbin. Nomination withdrawn, redirected by User:Chriscf. PeaceNT 13:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Time for Regis!

[edit]
It's Time for Regis! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notwithstanding verifiability and notability issues, the article is grossly misleading. This is the first album of Regis Philbin, in 1968. But statements like "The album went on to become the highest grossing album of a new recording artist in the year and has been cited as an influence to several musicians of the time including greats such as Frank Sinatra, Liberace, and The Rolling Stones." and "The album consistently rates in top 100 lists in music publications since its debut..." make the article a joke. If the Amazon.com listing and the fact that Philbin didn't record another studio album until 2004 are guides, the article is absurd. An alternative could be to rewrite the article with a track listing, but I don't think the album is notable enough for that. Tinlinkin 11:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Indiciation of a consensus to merge to Collaborative fiction, which personally I think might be best. But this concept seems to be well-documented enough (though the article could be improved), I will add the merge suggestion template, to spur further discussion. W.marsh 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinovel

[edit]
Wikinovel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as CSD A7, but I'm not deleting that based on that because this is about a concept of wiki-based novels, not any specific site. That said, I'm not sure we should have an article on this; few people have tried writing wiki-based collaborative novels yet (A Million Penguins is one of the few examples, of not the only example, that has gained any media attention at all), so this probably suffers from general neologism problems. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete So then, where are the assertions of notability? The multiple non-trivial independent media mentions, the verfiable information, the Reliable sources. What I think we have here is an advert for Million Penguins trying (and failing IMO) to masquerade as an article about wiki novels. The Kinslayer 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying this article should be spared; I'm just saying I don't see what speedy deletion criteria this meets. Notability is a tricky one because we don't, er, have notability criteria for neologisms. It does fail quite a few of WP:NEO points, there's no sources that would say this is a particularly widespread term yet - that's why it's deletable material. I just don't see how it could qualify for speedy deletion - neologisms are specifically listed under "non-criteria", and one can't really argue this is blatant advertising. Thus, the Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Documenting the word once it can be confirmed to be in widespread use is Wiktionary's remit, not ours. (For one thing, that's primary research that Wiktionary editors are allowed to do and we are not.) An encyclopaedia article entitled "wikinovel" would be about wikinovels — what they are, who came up with the idea, how successful they have been, what their impact upon the world of creative writing has been, and so forth. Thus you need only apply the criteria of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. If the idea of wikinovels hasn't yet been documented, we shouldn't have an article. Now look at the several sources, cited on the article's talk page, documenting the idea of wikinovels. Uncle G 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup. So the big question is this: Is this a correct, widespread term? Does it warrant a discussion in a separate article anyway, or just a small bit in wiki? How famous of a phenomenon we're talking of here? I'm not so sure myself yet (just checked Google and seems I got whopping (193 distinct hits for "wikinovel"); perhaps the web links may convince me but I'm not really in condition to read a lot of stuff now. =/ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I'm concerned, 3 sources and 193 ghits does not constitute widespread popular use. More to the point, the kind of project it's supposed to be is not new, and goes by a name that escapes me at the moment, so essentially this is a new name for an old idea, the main difference deing that it is done through wiki making it easier to facilitate than the previous websites that do open-ended group-written novels. Given that, I say the claim that the idea 'began' in Februart 2007 is bogus. At the most, only the term 'Wikinovel' was coined in February 2007, which brings me to my next point. If the concept was only, er, conceived in February then according to the article it can only be 16 days old at best, hardly enough time for something to have made it's way into general usage. I'd have to say WP:NOT for something made up in school one day. It doesn't say that policy only applies to the students in school. The Kinslayer 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thinking of it in terms of a 'term' and looking for 'widespread usage' is still thinking about it as a dictionary definition, which, admittedly, is how the article was originally written. But a dicdef isn't what a wikipedia article is supposed to be. We want to look at whether reliable sources are discussing the idea, which they are (see my !vote below, and the !vote between here and there for examples, as well as the ones on the talk page). This clearly suggests to me that it is a notable idea; it clearly meets the description at WP:N, at least. BTW: I don't think something that Penguin Books have sponsored can be described as "something made up in school one day", even if it is a student project. JulesH 18:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did find a sort-of source here, but that isn't going to be enough by itself to establish notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, discussed non-trivially in a variety of reliable sources, e.g. The Guardian, The Observer, BBC Radio 5. The recentness of the interest in this idea doesn't make it non notable. JulesH 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rewritten the article to more closely follow Wikipedia policy. JulesH 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It wouldn't fail DICT if it was more notable.. so it can wait for then.. Whilding87 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it's a still emerging form of wiki doesn't make it non-notable.martianlostinspace 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are references on the page for private spaceflight that have the concept as their subject, so there's no question that it's notable. All notability criteria say that the concept has to be the subject of the work. Yes, I'm saying in this case that a specific example of the concept appears to be notable, but the overall concept of wikinovels does not. GassyGuy 18:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN Neologism. SakotGrimshine 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - recent (2/15/2007) blog entry on New Scientist blog and mirrored on other popular blogs (including 3qd show this to be a growing phenomenon. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those saying it should be deleted as a neologism: the guidelines at WP:NEO don't apply, as they are targetted for discussions about terms "as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources". Five such sources have been linked from this AfD, and more are linked in the article's talk page. This clearly invalidates any cause for concern relating to that guideline. At which point, WP:N is the only guideline we have, and that clearly indicates that this article should be kept. JulesH 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JulesH. Has received media attention. Has apparently taken off strongly - the guy on the radio said they had to upgrade their hardware on the first day. Penguin Books are notable. -- RHaworth 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The opinions. here seem to be divided into those who HEARDOFIT and those who hadn't. & i think it's clear by now that with the refs it is N. DGG 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kind of think of what is happening as similar to the discovery of the first extrasolar planet or first extrasolar earthlike planet, which would lead to the whole class of objects possibly getting a wp article, even though all the news is only about the one that was discovered. Over time more would likely be discovered, and any important planets could get their own page. So to me, since one exists, people are going to be interested in what a wikinovel is. They are likely to ask a good encyclopedia, and right now, we have the beginings of an answer. If more form or become prominent, we will have more data points from which to talk about what these are (and thus answer UncleG), but right now with only one we don't have much to say, but it is better than nothing, it is interesting, and, to me, it is encyclopedic.
Of course it could turn out to be a fluke (evidence could show that there are no real extra solar earthlike planets) and after some time we could want to delete the article, or make it an article about a short lived meme or something. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But as an encyclopaedia, we are not supposed to document things as they emerge - we are supposed to document things when they become notable. Wikipedia is not a news service, nor is it a collection of everything. If wikinovels do become notable, and it is perfectly possible that they will, to some degree that somebody actually writes something about wikinovels (and not about this or that example), then we can create an article. That's not to say there can't be a sentence or two at, for example, wiki, but it clearly has not been the subject of anything we can source at this point, and failing the primary notability guideline seems to preclude having its own article. GassyGuy 18:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloneaphobe

[edit]
Aloneaphobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Protologistic synonym for autophobia. Partly copyright violation from here, partly joke content. The few Google hits on "autophobe" relate to an album. I'm a keepophobe on this one. —Celithemis 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. Redirecting to Kahless for now, where he's already mentioned, the article history is still there if anyone wants to merge over extra content. W.marsh 18:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molor

[edit]
Molor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Here is the telling phrase "He has not been in any of the Star Trek television series or movies". This page is clearly not notable enough for a page of its own and at most it only deserves a small mention on the Kahless page. Philip Stevens 12:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fulton

[edit]
Michael Fulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No appearances in the top league = non-notable athlete. Rudely deprodded. Delete - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Simply, come back when the game is in the final stages of production/is planned to be released in the imminent (weeks) future/etc., when there's more non-speculative information verified in numerous reliable sources, and then recreate a fully-fledged article. - Daniel.Bryant 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 4

[edit]
Call of Duty 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing has been released about the game. Article contains no references and is pure speculation; violates WP:CRYSTAL. Article was previous deleted, found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty 4, and probably remade by a new editor who wanted to jump the gun. Recommend Speedy Delete. Scottie theNerd 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting notable content is asking for recreation. This is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL. There are 234,000 hits for Call of Duty 4. People are talking about it; reliable sources are covering it ... ergo, it is notable. The article is well within its rights to cover the speculation provided it doesnt stray into WP:OR. John Vandenberg 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What reliable sources? A Google search brings up forum posts containing speculation. There is no official statement from the developers at the official site, nor does the site even have a section for COD4. There is no notable content, nothing about the game has been released. As per standard procedure, delete the article to prevent misinformation and remake the article when actual information has been released. The nomination is for WP:CRYSTAL, not WP:N. Articles should not be written based on speculation alone. If nothing about the game has been released, then speculation is obviously a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Scottie theNerd 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CRYSTAL's first sentence is Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. With 234,000 hits for Call of Duty 4 it is definitely verifiable speculation. Note that I havent said verified speculation; there are tags to request verification. John Vandenberg 14:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Why can't people wait for an official announcement? Thunderbrand 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystalballing. Also the fact that the article contains [rumor] is a good indication of OR and crystalballing. --Tainter 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take off and delete from orbit. Author seems to have confused verifying the existence of speculation with verifying its content. ShaleZero 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the author can site his/her references then it could be an article. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-balling. Any sub-stub containing "not much is known" when referring to the subject is self-explanatory. There's no need for contributors to play journalist and sniff around the rumour-mills, as soon as there's anything concrete available on the game, the publicity will be as subtle as a curvy bunnygirl bursting from an oversized birthday cake. QuagmireDog 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now) as unreferenced speculation Although I'm sure there is speculation on internet forums and blogs about this game, what the article needs is published articles from reliable sources (which blogs and internet forums aren't). Delete this article as unreferenced speculation unless it is ammended to include reliable, published references talking about the game in a non-trivial way. If no such sources currently exist, then hold off recreating the article until more official info is available.Dugwiki 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amoungst the first page of google hits I found [43], in which Bobby Kotick, chairman and CEO of Activision tells Tor Thorsen @ GameSpot that there really truely will be another installment in 2007/08. With a bit more looking, I found [44], an interview with Grant Collier, President and CEO of Infinity Ward indicating they are definately working on number 4. I am sure there is more WP:RS on which to base an article. John Vandenberg 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sound like a good start. Add them to the article and I'll reconsider the delete recommendation. Dugwiki 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Please bear in mind that I have no care for this subject, so I am sure someone more interested can find more sources and expand the article given time. It is a tagged as a stub for that reason. John Vandenberg 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. I struck out my Delete recommendation and will instead recommend Keep pending stub expansion. I'm pretty sure the franchise is well known enough that it will probably generate a fair amount of press in the near term, so I'll give it some benefit of the doubt that the stub will be expanded slowly over time. I think it would also help if some of the additional information about the game from the published articles can be added in the meantime, so the stub isn't just a couple of sentences. Dugwiki 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sources don't seem enough. The GameSpot is a good source, but doesn't establish any notable content and only hints at the existence of the game in development. The CODHQ source is better, but again it only confirms the game's existence and reveals no information at all. The Neowin article, on the other hand, is not a reliable source: it's a forum post based on an unknown leak. Even though the existence of the game in development is now unquestionable, there is still nothing about the game itself to warrant an article. There's no need to jump the gun here; wait for an official announcement in published sources before creating the article. If we keep the article with what scraps of information we have now, it's going to be a speculation magnet. --Scottie theNerd 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, it probably will exist, based on the sources provided. However, the game is not yet notable as the sources are trivial. "It exists" and "it will exist" are enough to add a game to the GameFAQs database, but are not enough to add it to Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep There is minimal harm in having a truthful and referenced stub article for an upcoming game. The article clearly will be able to grow when the game nears release. — brighterorange (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is too early to say anything. This article should be re-created when Infinity Ward makes an announcement regarding the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.118.187 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 February 2007

  • Delete Indeed speculation. Usedup 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess the question is whether or not we should have a stub article about a game that we have confirmed sources for to indicate it is in fact under development, but about which we have very little other info. There are two ways to look at it, from what I can tell. We could say "since we know the game is actually under development, and is part of a large enough franchise that it will certainly eventually have more information down the road, we can keep this article around as a stub for that information as it becomes available." The flip side would be "since the only information we have is that the game is under development, it would be best to temporarily delete the article and maybe redirect to an appropriate related article until more information is available. Otherwise we'll end up with a stub article that could become a frequent site for unreferenced rumors in the coming year."
Personally I'd lean toward keeping the stub since I'm sure the article will eventually be viable. But I can definitely understand the desire to delete until more info is available, so it's not an easy call. Dugwiki 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect/merge to List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball. - brenneman 02:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raditz

[edit]

This is a pretty minor character from a pretty large series. The page just expands upon a five episode period that the character was around for (out of around 300 total episodes), and throws in some other junk.. There is really no reason the page should should exist besides for the sake of existing, so it should be redirected to it's place on the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball. Nemu 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into above list, as per WP:FICT. This is a minor character without a surplus of extra information, so they should just be mentioned on a list and not in a standalone article. --Maelwys 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - Nemu is just having the page deleted/merged just because everyone was against him at redirecting the page. He always does this. He wants every single character to be scrapped away to a list if they only appear in a few episodes. That's just wrong. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of thing you do when people close to the article think otherwise. This helps get a better opinion of the situation. It's hardly because I'm petty. Of course I want minor characters on the list. You just said it yourself: "only appear in a few episodes". That hardly warrents a page. Nemu 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see how this is in anyway malicious intent, he's just following protocol. He tried to redirect it to a list, but when that failed he filed an AfD to get a larger community consensus. Him following protocol to accomplish something that you oppose isn't a valid reason to oppose the AfD, you need to give a better reason to keep this article than WP:ILIKEIT. --Maelwys 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it weren't for Raditz (Goku's brother) dying and involving the other Dragon Ball villains, there wouldn't have been a DBZ. Hence, my reasons are simply that Raditz stays because of two reasons:
  1. He is Son Goku's (main hero) full-blooded brother
  2. He sparked the beginning of the DBZ series with a bang
Ergo, had it not been for his presence, the main good guys and heroes of Earth wouldn't have become as strong as they are all now. What other reasons are there? Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose for the same reasons Power Level mentioned. Raditz is a significant character because of the impact he had on the storyline as well as his direct relation to the main protagonist. I don't think a character's significance can be summed up by the number of episodes they appear in. JamesMcCloud129 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose this issue has already been disscused the consensus back then was No, He might not have been around long but he sure is a major character, actually he is the reason that Dragon Ball Z exists, although it seems Nemu is following protocol he is just doing this because he keep reviving the disscusion after a consensus was reached after he ultimately didn't get people behind him he decided to nominate the article for deletion he seems to enjoy doing that. -Dark Dragon Flame 23:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think it is about the joy of deleting an article. If Raditz is the main article, it's supposed to go into greater detail than the list entry... it's not doing that. It's supposed to give an out-of-universe perspective on the character... it's not doing that either. How about info on the creation of the character? Details of the appearances in other media? Something other than a summary of the five episodes it appears? It does none of that. So Strong Support: Merge.--Nohansen 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems the merger takes it by consensus, lets give it some time maybe a day more if no changes are made in this disscusion by then we merge them. -Dark Dragon Flame 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions last 5 days. Sometimes it goes shorter when there are many comments which are unanimous in one direction or another, thus we can invoke WP:IAR via the snowball principle. Another cases are when nominations are made in bad faith, often to prove a WP:POINT or if the article falls under one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Farix (Talk) 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge - As many others have stated, there's nothing in the article to warrant its existence. There's more information that could be added to the article, but still nothing that couldn't be added to his entry in a list. Wikipedia would be better served with Raditz as an entry on the character list. --DesireCampbell 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If, after the entry is added to the list, the information on Raditz balloons to a point where it seems it should be split into its own article, then so be it. But as it stands now - there's not enough. --DesireCampbell 03:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment - Why not redirect instead? If the article is merged, all of the useful info will be lost forever. I'm talkin' about the voice actors and such. They'll surely be forgotten. A merger is too much to bear, isn't it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion yes, but since it seems everyone wants the merge I can't really do anything here, unless we can all agree to redirect the page, Nemu's I-always-want-to-win attitude has won this one... -Dark Dragon Flame 04:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about Nemu's I-always-want-to-win-blah-blah-blah attitude. "What goes around, comes around" I always say, and he'll soon learn that not everything can go the way he wants it to. Soon, very soon, that is, he'll get what's comin' for him... Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do avoid issuing vield threats to other editors and remember to be WP:CIVIL. That is very much a blockable offense. --Farix (Talk) 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be frank: I don't really care what happens to this article, as long as it's not an article after this. Frankly, I don't want there to be any information about English voice actors. I don't want his 'story recap' to be any more than two sentences. He's a very small character, he doesn't need his own article. Delete, Merge, Redirect, ehatever - get him the fuck out. --DesireCampbell 20:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Applause Well said. Beyond a plot synopses of the first few episodes (excluding Gohan's adventure in the woods), what is there to say about the guy besides that he was Goku's brother and that he's a bad guy? He kills a farmer, punks out Piccolo, Reveals Goku's origin and smacks Kuririn, kidnaps Gohan, eats a deer, thumbs his scouter, fights off Goku/Piccolo, dodges the Makankosappo, has his tail grabbed and tricks Goku, gets hurt by Gohan, gets grabbed by Goku, eats Makankosappo, DONE. Make those proper sentences and I don't see why it need be more than two paragraphs max (with maybe a sub section on VG appearences) Onikage725 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Raditz was, IMO, a minor character and more of a plot device then anything else. I don't feel he was complex enough, or had enough history/actions to warrant a full page to explain him when a paragraph or two in the character list and a summary in the saga page would suffice. Beowulph 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I believe that Raditz's relevence to the start of Dragonball Z is important, but beyond that, he's done nothing to directly influence the series. He isn't a major character, and even his relation to Goku isn't really that important. There honestly isn't enough direct info on him that should be considered for a full article. Perhaps just him being listed on the list of Saiyans (or whatever that article is called) is enough, I think it is. Raditz's relevence could be easily summed up in a simple five or six sentences. --Majinvegeta 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge One could add a line or two on Toriyama's creation I believe, but that would go just as well on the list entry. There simply isn't much that could be done to expand the entry. If someone thinks they can, I'm all for it. Onikage725 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even if he is not a character who has appeared a lot he is the member of Goku's family which gives him the right of having a family tree when he is mentioned. He also appears in a lot of video games so the article would be too long for a brief selection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment I don't think video game info would take up that much. His role isn't terribly significant in any of them, so nothing really needs to be said besides that he was in them. It has worked for many other characters in the past.
    • Comment We don't confer notability to people are relatives to notable people. So why should fictional characters be an exception? --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think if everybody is hellbent on taking down Raditz' page, perhaps we should start proposing mergers and redirects for characters like Nappa, Dodoria, and Zarbon, who had far less of a long-term impact on the story line than Raditz did. JamesMcCloud129 03:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Granted that there are a lot of DB and DBZ character articles that should be merged. But to declare that Raditz is more important then Nappa, Dodoria, and Zarbon, that's just beyond silly. --Farix (Talk) 03:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The long-term impact that Nappa, Dodoria and Zarbon had on the DBZ storyline is minimal. Nappa served to further show the strength of the Saiyans, and also the strength of the resurrected Goku. Zarbon and Dodoria served to illustrate the strength of Frieza's army and also as fodder to illustrate the strength of Vegeta. Isn't this the same role Raditz played, to kick off the saga and show the strength of the Saiyans? (This is of course ignoring the fact that, if not for Raditz, Vegeta and Nappa would likely have not even come to earth in the first place.) Their pages are basically carbon copies of Raditz's page anyway: a short summary of their story with some other "useless" info thrown in. These pages could thus easily be merged or redirected, like the rabble seems to want to do with Raditz... Nonetheless, they are minor characters no matter how you spin it, and either all the minor characters get their own pages or none of them do. Otherwise you're just splitting hairs. JamesMcCloud129 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to say that Napp and Zarbon were far more of a presnece in this series than Raditz (Dodoria's arguable). The fact that Raditz dropped the opening plot twist has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he deserves his own headline here at Wikipedia. What is important is the content of the article. Nappa was in far more episodes, was the personal trainer and right hand man of one the first major villains and was pretty much the face of the "Saiyan threat" for most of the battle (responsible for the deaths of 3 of the Z senshi and incapaciting two others before Goku showed up). Zarbon and Dodoria showed similar presence as Freeza's top men, and Zarbon is present in most of what FUNimation dubbed the "Namek Saga," even handing Vegeta a severe thrashing during his tenure. Raditz really just showed up, dropped a plot twist, bit off more than he could chew, and faded into obsucurity. Giving him a full article is like giving King Cold a full article. Onikage725 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nappa killed three of the Z warriors and was in more episodes, yes. But Raditz' actions led to the death of the main protagonist, Goku. Raditz's presence also was the catalyst for Piccolo and Goku joining forces (a fact that has not been yet mentioned, but is still a very significant turning point in the series). If Goku had not died during Raditz's incursion, he would not have met King Kai, done all of that training, yadda yadda. Zarbon's biggest feat was whipping Vegeta. But so what? Raditz was one of the only villains to ever punk out Goku like he did. Does that make him more worthy of an article? Apparently not. Like I said, people now are just splitting hairs -- either give the minor characters all their own pages, or put them all in separate, collective lists. Not to mention, the same junk that people are complaining about on Raditz's page (voice actors, video game info) all exists as filler on Nappa's, Dodoria's and Zarbon's pages which are barely longer than Raditz's page. If you're going to start merging and redirecting, do it accross the board, don't just pick and choose characters here and there. It'll keep things consistent and tidy. JamesMcCloud129 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently discussing which articles to keep here. Nemu 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. JamesMcCloud129 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far, the "keep" comments have only pointed that the character was the first villain, albeit short-lived, of the DBZ storyline and that he is the brother of the main protagonist of the series. First of all, we don't extend notability to family members simply because they are family under any of the notability guidelines. Also, there really isn't much to say about this character. And while he does start the ball rolling for DBZ, he is no more important for that then Kagome's cat who was likewise merged into a list. --Farix (Talk) 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge Either way, the character is not notable enough to deserve its own page. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close, optional relist. Seriously, no concensus had or was ever going to form out of this, given the different levels of development the articles are at. The closest thing to concensus I found in this debate after reading it a couple of times was that these artists would require separate AfD's if anything like concensus was to be formed to delete. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian (street artist)

[edit]
Civilian (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No substantiated claim to notability Marcus22 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Bus stop 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Actually, this may just show that you are maybe a bit too close to the topic to be objective (and yes, I know, can any of us be truly objective, blah, blah, blah). But, "my artists" is a bit of an odd statement. You are the original author of the articles, and I understand that you feel strongly about it, but someone has nominated them for deletion and I think there is a healthy debate going on, which is especially useful for media such as graffiti art, where traditional sources may not be applicable. Freshacconci 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is more than healthy. I apologize for writing the shorter "my artists" in the stead of "the articles which feature Melbourne graffiti artists which I have contributed significantly to". I see your point, and the debate may be especially useful for media such as graffiti art, I just wish it wouldn't involve the deletion of "the articles which feature Melbourne graffiti artists which I have contributed significantly to." Cheers, Dfrg.msc 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dfrg. -- The reason for deletion seems valid to me. In the absence of citations it is unlikely the artist has demonstrated sufficient importance for inclusion on Wikipedia. How is that "Point Of View?" Are you saying that Wikipedia shouldn't have any criteria for who is considered notable and who is not considered notable? I think those standards are a necessary fact. If you are citing individuals with little or no recognition, then they likely are not sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Bus stop 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for deletion is: notability. Many of these artists are extremely notable. If you follow Street Art. All of these artists are notable if you live in Melbourne. Some of these artists are notable if you live in Australia. Few of these artists are notable if you live in New Zealand. None of these artists are notable if you live in Lisbon. It is very difficult to get web sources on graffiti artists who decline to reveal pictures or even their real names. Dfrg.msc 20:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dfrg. -- It is not the responsibility of the reader of the article to supply sources. It is the responsibility of the editor of the article to supply sources. You say that the artists are notable if one follows Street Art. But the burden is not on the reader of the article to be someone who follows Street Art. That responsibility belongs to the editor who creates the article. In the absence of notability I think articles should be deleted. Do you feel street artists constitute a separate category of artists that deserve special consideration? Do you feel lower standards of notability should be applied to this group of artists? If so, why? Bus stop 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor(s) have now supplied the sources. I don't feel that lower standards of notability should be applied to this group of artists, only people recognize getting concrete information about them, as would go in a biography, is extremely difficult as most don't want to be found. Dfrg.msc 06:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because in each and every case, as far as I can see, there is nothing to substantiate the statement common to each that "'X' is a notable artist'". No news articles, no critical reviews, no shows, no gallery reviews, etc. Marcus22 12:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Optic (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vexta (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phibs (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ha-Ha (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sync (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dlux (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meek (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pslam (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sixten (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Break

[edit]
  • Strong Speedy Keep All. As author. Have any of you even looked at the articles? No? I assure you it is quite difficult to fabricate and cite information on subjects that are little known. Here are the multiple reliable independent sources that you seem incapable of finding: [46], [47], [48], [49],[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55],[56], [57]

which substantiate the notability of the artists and shows work done by them as evidence to their notability.

I also believe that several books have been written on the subject. Here's one:

  • Title: Stencil graffiti capital : Melbourne / Jake Smallman and Carl Nyman. [58]
  • Author: Smallman, Jake.
  • New York : Mark Batty Publisher, 2005.
  • ISBN 0976224534

The articles are covered and recognized by Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Graffiti.

If these articles are allowed for deletion, then these articles would also merit deletion. So would Banksy. This cannot happen. It seems that you are allowing your personal interest to determine what and who is notable, to you. If you followed street art, these people are internationally known. The "fact" that they are no-notable local personalities is false. I don't even live in Melbourne, but I do follow street art, which is why they are notable enough to have an article on, in the same way that Dhani Ram Shandil is not notable to me, as I don't follow Indian National Congress.

Please look at he effort I have, and continue to put into, articles like Ha-Ha (street artist) and Rone. Don't delete them, you'll find they are more notable and better quality than a huge amount of articles currently on Wikipedia. I should be improving them instead of defending them.

Read before you judge and please reconsider. Dfrg.msc 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no comparison between Banksy and these artists. No-one is saying that a properly referenced article on an artist of repute is going to be deleted. The problem here - with all of the above - is that there are no sources whatsoever other than blogs and, ostensibly, one single reference book. Marcus22 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:it is quite difficult to fabricate and cite information on subjects that are little known - are you saying that you are doing original research on non-notable artists then? Garrie 06:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am stating that it would be difficult to fabricate and cite information on subjects that are little known. Dfrg.msc 08:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Merge into one article. I'm inclined to lean towards keep, simply because a precedent has been set for graffiti art (albeit not my personal favourite medium). However, the only legitimate reference is one published book in which all the above artists appear. That doesn't firmly establish notability as individuals, but as some sort of collective, or grouping, you could make a case. Could this be reworked as one article with a small section on each artist? Just a thought. Freshacconci 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge There does seem to be a notable Melbourne graffiti scene. Rone seems to be the leading light, so deserves an article, maybe one or two of the others. An article Melbourne graffiti art should be started and most of the articles merged into it. The references need to be more specific, not just a book, but page numbers and exactly what is referenced on the particular page(s). As for the list of refs provided above, flickr and Youtube are not acceptable references. Besides which, it's not up to the nom to find references: they should already be in the article. Tyrenius 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Grounds for a Speedy Keep are not 'there are too many to evaluate together'. Where are the sources? A few blogs and one unknown book? If that makes for a Keep - let alone a Speedy Keep - we are setting new and, to my mind, unacceptably low levels for Wikipedia. Marcus22 11:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources you are incapable of finding? Right here: [59], [60], [61], [62],[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68],[69], [70]. Try a Google search. I'm not making this stuff up. Dfrg.msc 21:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Selket. I agree with Tyrenius - each article needs to be sourced in accordance with WP:V. You-tube etc don't cut it but The Age does.
  • Comment - I agree with Freshacconci, a single article seems to be a better idea. If one artist starts to dominate that article then s/he can be split back out.Garrie 06:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it shouldn't be that way, the Australian cricket team does not list each of the players on the one page. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope doesn't list the cast on the one page. The best graffiti artists in Melbourne should not all be on one page. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
  • Comment – I don't know enough about this artist to say one way or the other about his or her notability. However, if any graffiti artist that gets a modicum of local fame is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, then there should be articles on at least half the artists in the documentary Piece by Piece should have an article. In some of the articles I've contributed to on the Mission School and related topics, I've avoided creating new articles on artists like Reminisce and Amaze because I didn't feel like they quite made the cut in terms of notability, at least, not any more than do any of several dozen local up-and-coming gallery artists. Some graffiti/street artists (like Bansky or Shepard Fairey) clearly are notable enough to merit an article, of course, but there really should be clear guidelines as to what constitutes sufficient notability for inclusion for street artists. Peter G Werner 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing – if Civilian, Rone, Optic, etc are sufficinetly notable to have articles, than what about San Francisco graffiti legends Reminisce, Amaze, Dug, ORFN, Vegan, Ribbity, etc? (Twist already has an article, but his notability based on fame in the "fine art" world is clearly established.) In other words, what's the cutoff for notability of graffiti artists? Peter G Werner 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, apparently they're not notable enough.Notability is POV. Peter, I live in Canberra, I like street art, so I have heard of these artists, so I developed articles on each of them. I've never heard of Reminisce, Amaze, Dug, ORFN, Vegan or Ribbity; but I would very much like to. You have, because you live in America, you like street art, and you can develop articles on them. Through Wikipedia, I can learn about your Street Artists, and you can learn about mine. If the consensus is not that most graffiti artists deserve not to have articles, I'll help you as much as I can to make them. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have poured many, many hours into these articles and easily over 250 edits. I will continue to improve them up to the moment they are deleted. I wish to prove my work ethic and co-operation, so I will make any and all changes you wish to keep them. Dfrg.msc 09:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has Wikipedia really changed so much? Here, for example, is the full text of the article for "Meek (street artist)":- Meek is a notable street artist operating out of Melbourne, Australia. Meek is twenty six years old, and started putting up street art at the start of 2003. Meek enjoys the irony of his name, in an area that is all about bragging and boasting. Meek lived in London for some time and was exposed to the work of Banksy. As well as stenciling prolifically Meek has also hijacked billboards, used wheat paste and stickers. And here is the full text for the article for "Phibs (street artist)":- Phibs is a notable street art operating out of Melbourne Australia. Some of the others say just as little. And those which say more are saying just as little! Are these really Keeps? Are they even a Relist?? Is it too much work for an editor on AfD to look at these articles and decide that they are all saying nothing? As to the single reference book - which we have no access to - is that really all that suffices these days in order to warrant an article? Times certainly have-a-changed on here.... Marcus22 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: YOUR EDITS MEAN NOTHING TO ME. Please look in the history's of the articles. You will find that I am the only editor adding content to all of them. At the moment Rone is my project, then Ha-Ha in time I hope to bring the rest up to standard or better. It is unfair of you to expect me to generate full articles or have them deleted. Dfrg.msc 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some. Delete some. The original author has asserted twice in this AfD that notability is POV. While in life, I tend to agree, there are some guidelines in place to prevent editor POV from prevailing. See WP:NOTE#Notability is not subjective. Of course, there's the basic def of notability: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other." So notability is POV, but the POV of people writing for sources outside of Wikipedia.
In the end, I think these need to be treated individually and not deleted or kept wholesale. The ones that are more developed and demonstrate references from multiple verifiable sources (Rone, for example) are worth stronger consideration than the ones that only reference this one book. The originally-nominated article is probably a delete, unless additional references can be directly incorporated into the article. I think an article on this scene as a whole might be worthwhile, but not necessarily at the expense of some of the more notable individuals with the scene. Planetneutral 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge Per Tyrenius & Freshacconci above. One article on Melbourne street art would I think be clearly justified for notability. Individually, even Rone is a bit marginal. Whatever Star Trek & the Australian cricket team do, treating minor artists as "schools" is a traditional way of handling them, of which there are many examples in WP (and there could usefully be more). See School of Fontainebleau etc. Johnbod 15:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Again, POV effects this debate too much, to you Johnbod, they're "minor artists". Not to me. Dfrg.msc 21:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dfrg. -- You take exception to Johnbod characterizing them as "minor artists." And you say that they are not "minor artists" to you. Can you tell me what they are to you? Can you shed some light on the significance you see in what they do? Surely you don't see them as "major artists," or do you? How would you characterize them? Bus stop 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lets go there; I presume he sees both terms as POV, which is a point of view I can understand, though I don't share it. Johnbod 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod -- Why are you "presuming?" Wouldn't it be preferable to allow Dfrg. to speak for himself? Bus stop 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've done enough talking for the both of us. Dfrg.msc 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSIC does have allowance for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." That doesn't mean all the exponents merit an individual article. I advise also not creating miniscule stubs but working articles up properly one at a time. Notability isn't just POV. We're looking to see if people have achieved it through wider recognition evidenced in media coverage, exhibitions, prizes, museum collections, books etc. Tyrenius 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All and nominate to Delete some individually at a later time There is no sensible way to deal with a multiple listing of pages like this. Clearly, the Rone and Ha-Ha pages, for example, are currently much better than some of the other pages and should not be considered for deletion. The fact that some of these artists have formed an artist's collective, Everfresh Studios, in Melbourne is notable and encyclopedic. Also, some of these artists could be contacted for photos, surely, and visuals would make these articles better. An example of art found at Everfresh Studios can be found here: Meggs photos. My feeling is that the primary editor needs time to develop these. --Greatwalk 02:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere are also stencil art festivals held in both Sydney and Melbourne and a documentary on Melbourne street art: Rash all of which feature one or more of these artists. Clearly, several of these articles can be better sourced. --Greatwalk 03:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
CommentI agree, Phibs is currently a bad article, but the subject is one of the Everfresh Studio artists. I hope this article is not deleted and protected to prevent re-creation.
  • I like the sound of these comments. There's something worthwhile here. It just needs the right form for it. There's no reason why a deleted article would be "salted". That usually only happens in cases of abusive recreation, e.g. with same content after AfD, as opposed to new super-improved content, which can make recreation acceptable if it successfully addresses AfD objections. Tyrenius 05:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't understand why the articles would be deleted only to have them re-instated later. The article would be deleted just for the sake of being deleted, then re-instated. Wikipedia in not paper. What is wrong with having the articles out so people can edit and improve them? We have already established the notability of most them. Dfrg.msc 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the notability hasnt been established across the board. My recommendation was to give you more time to establish it. The reason why some should be deleted is that you can only work on a few articles at a time, and some of these articles arnt worth keeping in there current form. For example, Vexta only says "Vexta is a notable street art operating out of Melbourne Australia". Thats it; the rest of the text in the article is merely dressing. Hardly worth keeping. Compare it to another article that is being considered for deletion: Magdalena Trzebiatowska. The Vexta article is no where near as good at present. John Vandenberg 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah, now to persuade you on Optic.... The complications around using the real names of the artists may be huge. f Ha Ha ever revealed his real identity, he would be arrested soon after on extremely seriously charges. Unless he has a serous mental disability, there's no way he would do it. Dfrg.msc 07:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Granted these pages should contain more citations, maybe we as a community should work on it rather than destroying it! These pages still contain much more than hundred of stub articles and they are just as notable and I dont see us deleting them, so If it has a good amount of information and is up to a quality standard which these articles are (nice work Dfrg) why get rid of these articles? If we delete this then hundreds upon hundreds of articles will constitute deletion! Who are you or anyone here to say what is more important. If wikipedia ran on that ideology of notability it simply wouldn't work. Culverin? Talk 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How are you defining notability then? It seems so elemental, but to reiterate: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other."
That's the ideology. It's laid out pretty clearly. No one who edits here gets to decide notability any more than you do. The decision is based on whether reliable outside sources think the subject is worthy of attention and demonstrate it through publication (and whether there is a consensus that this is the case). From the available evidence, I'd say that some of these entries qualify and some don't.
Also, some of the entries don't have a "good amount of information," as you've claimed. Vexta is a one-sentence article! Some of them, however, do have the right stuff. Sure, it's possible that there will be stronger evidence of notability for the other artists in the future, but there might be more evidence of my notability later too. Doesn't mean I warrant an entry now. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of articles that would disappear after a deletion proposal, but it's a matter of insufficient time and attention.
And I don't mean to sound uncivil here, but the evidence suggests that a) you didn't really look at all of these pages before commenting on them wholesale and b) you are here in support of an editor with whom you have a relatively close relationship. I don't have any problem with the latter (in fact, it's appreciable), if the comments are objective. Anyway, enough out of me... Planetneutral 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culverin, it great to hear you are keen for these articles to be kept. A lot of the comments on this discussion indicate that you are not alone. This deletion process will last about five days from when it was started, and you are more than welcome to help improve the articles during this time. For my own part, I would prefer that we concentrate on the best five of them. Five good articles is better than eleven stubs. If you look at the history of the five I have recommended to be kept, you will see that I have edited them all; User:Rfwoolf also has, and a new user User:Urbanistika also has started helping on Rone. If you know anything at all about these artists, share what you know by adding a comment on the talk page of the article. Each article needs to have at least two pieces of supporting evidence from [[WP:RS|"reliable sources"]. Due to the nature of this art work, I think it would be really helpful to have more photographs of the artwork. John Vandenberg 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I've added quite a few reference links with numerous photos of works exhibited in galleries or at shows, and a link to an award winning documentary in which several of these artists were featured...I'm not sure I agree that only the five best should be kept. 'Phibs,' for example, is now referenced well enough to develop the article further. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment: If the same effort being expendend to reach a consescus on wether they should be deleted or not, when into improving the articles, then we wouldn't be here at all. Dfrg.msc 01:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All, but nominate to Delete some individually at a later time, per Greatwalk. I think the notability of each artist needs to be assessed on its own merits – I do not support either blanket inclusion or blanket deletion. I also don't agree that "notability is POV". Wikipedia has clear standards about notability, namely multiple non-trivial mentions in published sources. Some graffiti artists rise to that level of notability, but many don't.

    I do like the idea of an article like Street art in Melbourne, or some variation on that (using "street art" in the title would make it more inclusive than "graffiti"). Such an article could probably be quite easily assembled from multiple non-trivial sources, even if individual artists may not rise to that level of notability. If that kind of article is a good idea, in the future, I'd certainly like to contribute a Street art in San Francisco article (for which I can find many published sources for). Peter G Werner 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are more than entitled to your opinion. I agree with some most of this, I like the idea of a Street art in Melbourne article, but not at the expense of deleting all the artits page. It could list really trivial small artists. Dfrg.msc 07:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know much about the notability of these artists, and none of the articles (except for the one on Rone) tell me very much about what makes that artist notable. Its probably the case that not every single artist listed above is notable in the sense of having been published in multiple non-trivial sources. The ones that aren't shouldn't have their own article, even though they should merit mention in a Street art of Mebourne article. Rone sounds notable, but there's very little in the other articles which speaks to the notability of those artists. Prime example, "Optic is a notable street artist operating out of Melbourne Australia." Well, why is he "notable"? Just because he has a page in the Stencil Graffiti book? Does that mean every single artist in Graffiti World and Graffiti Women gets a Wikipedia page? That's an awfully low standard of notability. Peter G Werner 21:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artist(s) are notable because their art is everywhere in Melbourne, all are prolific artists who's individual style can be easily recognized. In response to your questions:
  • Because of the prolific nature of his/her art, the skill of his/her work and his/her uniques style.
  • No.
  • No. Of course not.

Comment I would call it "Stencil art in Melbourne," or "Stencil art movement in Melbourne." But that second name really should have a citation referring to it as a "movement." I don't know if that already exists. I would not call it "Street art" or "Graffiti art." Neither "street" or "graffiti" is as specifically related to visual art as is stencil printing. I don't think any of the artists are notable enough to have articles devoted to them. None of them have received sufficient critical note. If one or more of them goes on to receive multiple non-trivial published citations then by all means I think separate articles should be devoted to them. Another possible name would be "Stencil art movement in Australia," since there seems also to be a Sydney stencil art movement. Bus stop 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. Dfrg.msc 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

Comment This article says that Ha Ha is artist Regan Tamanui and this Age article says the Citylights Gallery owner has been commissioned to collect stencil art for the National Gallery. Some of these artists are exhibited in galleries and have had works exhibited under their street names at the Stencil Art exhibitions, so several articles can be improved and are notable. --Greatwalk 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Greatwalk. Dfrg.msc 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then Ha-Ha (street artist) definitely needs to be merged into Regan Tamanui if they're known to be the same person. The precident on that is clear – graffiti artist Twist is gallery artist Barry McGee, and one article covers both his gallery and graffiti work. Peter G Werner 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, hold on. That hasn't been verified or confirmed. I doubt the Ha-Ha (or any of them) would divulge their real identities because of the nature of their art. Dfrg.msc 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha (I don't think it's hyphenated, btw) has appeared on TV and several public exhibitions. It's not really that hard to find quite a lot of info on most of these artists on Google. I added a few more references. Honestly, I think the time would be better spent on improving these articles. :-) Dfrg.msc is quite right, one link doesn't confirm Ha Ha's identity, but the styles are similar --Greatwalk 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling "Ha-ha" and "Regan Tamanui" reveals several sources that state the two are the same, including Ha-ha's MySpace page. I think a merge is in order. Peter G Werner 06:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be hesitant to think so. If Ha Ha ever revealed his real identity, he would be arrested soon after on extremely seriously charges. Unless he has a serous mental disability, there's no way he would do it. A merge should be discussed later on the appropriate talk page. Dfrg.msc 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Very little can be said about any artist. Notability is all that matters. Or, if you want to see what matters, look at the piece. Or, look at reproductions of the pieces. You can't write an article if a prior article or articles do not exist. That is: multiple, non trivial published material from reliable sources. That is why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a picture book. Bus stop 06:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Graphics would make better articles, but I agree in part. An artist is 'made' by review: public exhibitions, becoming the subject of documentaries, interviews, being members of known artists' collectives, becoming curators, judges and reviewers, etc. A surprising number of the artists the primary editor has selected have, and are, these. A quick search on Google shows as much in several cases. --Greatwalk 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greatwalk -- I didn't say an artist is made by review. But Wikipedia has standards. If an artist falls short of those standards do you feel we should waive those standards? And if so, what is the basis for the lowering of standards for so-called street artists? Can you explain to me why you might feel this category of artist deserves special consideration? Bus stop 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, poor wording on my part, so trying again: I said an artist is 'made' by review, and didn't mean to imply you had, Bus stop. My point was: Most of these artist have been exhibited, have been the subject of a documentary or have taken part in public exhibitions, have been interviewed by reliable sources...some are curators themselves, some have organised exhibitions and artists' collectives. As it turns out, Melbourne is recognised for its street art, and the National Gallery is currently collecting pieces. I found all of this out in the last 24 hours, in bits and pieces when I had the time, as the result of this AfD debate...so I think we're not really asking Wiki to drop its standards to allow these articles. Most would be easy to improve, are notable, encyclopedic would make good additions if fixed. --Greatwalk 10:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The continued stating that these artists are not notable and especially that "very little can be said about any artist" is a complete falsehood, ten minutes of research would reveal this to you. Dfrg.msc 06:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

Keep: I have updated Sixten (street artist) with the same info as can be found on Swedish Wiki. --Daniel de Leon 14:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel de Leon -- Sixten (street artist) is not notable. The sources given are trivial. Web sites are put together by the artists themselves, making them vanity publications. If, as the article says, "Sixten is one of the forces behind Stencil Revolution," then mention in that publication is self promotion. I don't think it matters if "Sixten is credited as inspiration for the part of "Klottraren" (Swedish for vandal), in the Swedish opera Kurfursten," because no mention is made of Sixten (street artist) at that web site. Bus stop 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greatwalk -- All that I see established is that there is a notable stencil art movement in Melbourne. (As I think has already been pointed out by Tyrenius.) But I can't clearly see that any of the artists in that movement stand out at this time. I think the first article that should be created is the Melbourne stencil art movement article. Then, if warranted, separate articles could be created for artists that can't be contained in that article without skewing the focus of that article. I think this approach (trying to establish notability for a handful of artists) is putting the cart before the horse. The activity surrounding stencil art in Melbourne is really interesting, to me. But it is misplaced focus to try to create individual articles on artists in that movement at this time. Bus stop 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you appear (to me) to be stating some different policy for 'notability' than I believe Wiki gives. Several of these artists are featured as artists in numerous, non-trivial sources: (the documentary and the feature in a book about street art in Melbourne is sufficient to show notability by Wiki standards, but several artists also are referenced as exhibited artists in their own right at festivals and galleries). I think a page on graffiti in Melbourne would make a great article too, but whether one exists or not can not be used as grounds for deletion of these articles, surely: they were made in good faith, and either meet or can clearly be improved to meet Wiki standards. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not talking about very old artists, with long established histories. Are any of these artists over 30? Not that age is a criterion. But an article devoted solely to one artist implies significant notability. I just find it ridiculous to create articles willy nilly, when logic shows that the many artists listed here are participants in an interesting movement that should receive it's own article. And it is only within that article that these artists receive their proper context. Bus stop 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, significant notability sounds like a possible new policy that might be developed for artists? I ask because it seems to me that these article could also be used to support a new article about the movement itself... --Greatwalk 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greatwalk -- We are not disputing whether or not these articles were created in good faith. And if they can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards, then why haven't they been improved to meet Wikipedia standards? I retract the phrase "significant notability." Obviously I am not holding these artists to higher Wikipedia standards than other artists. It is normal Wikipedia minimal standards of notability that are not attained. The closest any of the artists come to notability is being mentioned in passing while describing the stencil art scene in general in Melbourne. That constitutes "trivial" coverage, in my opinion. To none of these artists is actually devoted anything approaching individual coverage. I don't think the mention of the names and a few tidbits about them in an article covering stencil art in Melbourne qualifies each one for a separate free standing article. I do not see in the references even one of these artists actually receiving non trivial coverage. I've suggested the Melbourne stencil art article only because that seems an appropriate setting at this time for what little needs to be said about these individual artists. That is not to degrade them. But the published material out there simply barely does more than mention them, and only as part of a group. My suggestion of the Melbourne stencil art article is not meant as a reason why they should not have individual articles. It is simply the appropriate context at this time. Bus stop 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bus stop, your statements: The closest any of the artists come to notability is being mentioned in passing while describing the stencil art scene in general in Melbourne and To none of these artists is actually devoted anything approaching individual coverage are simply not accurate. The artists are featured individually in separate sections of the book/documentary: please look at the reference websites. Smallman/Nyman provide a photo of the pages dedicated to 'Psalm' for instance: book is a collection of individual artist profiles, including the eleven artists the primary editor chose to make articles about and the documentary site clearly lists names of the 'featured artists.' Some of the articles are better referenced again.: I don't know why all haven't been improved yet: perhaps they will be after the AfD closes. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop -- On the site (http://www.kurfursten.se), which is in Swedish you can download the programme for the show, which contains a photo of "Klottraren" putting up the 610 tag. Daniel de Leon 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel de Leon -- OK. Thank you. I have downloaded that PDF for the program, and indeed I see an individual spray painting what looks like "610." So what? By means of this I am to accept that a name not even associated with the number "610" except by the assertion of that in the article, is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia? I don't see that as notability. "Six ten" may be a very clever alternative to "610," but does that add to notability? Bus stop 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop -- Haha, I won't fight you on this, I just put up the same info as what there is on the Swedish version of wiki. If it really matters, a simple way to get a definite answer would be to contact the people who put up the opera. It's just an email away. Daniel de Leon 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel de Leon -- An e-mail from the people who put up the opera confirming that "Sixten is credited as inspiration for the part of "Klottraren"" would not indicate notability. Not in my opinion, at least. Do you feel that notability would be established by that alone? Bus stop 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the etymology of cruft is older than modern computers :-) John Vandenberg 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thanks for that John. Dfrg.msc 06:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this. Bur comparatively, they are all up to scratch now. Except Optic (street artist). Dfrg.msc 07:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Burial

[edit]
Sky Burial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

makes no claims of notability Ideogram 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in the 30,000s in sales rank at Amazon, where 12 reviewers have collectively given it 4.5 stars out of a possible 5. Both more widely read and more admired than vast numbers of books we have here. I've added the Amazon link to let anyone who pleased confirm this.
  • Keep 26,400 returns for Xinran "Sky Burial" on Google. A rather different view of Tibet than the standard one, and I can understand why some people would sooner believe Shangri-la. But Shangri-la was a racist western fantasy - in the original, no Tibetans and just one Chinese were fit to be in the elite. In a reference work full of obscure pop groups and cartoon characters, to delete a serious book would be an absurdity.--GwydionM 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Los Angelas Times favorite books of 2005 winner [71] Smmurphy(Talk) 04:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very persuasive. Can we get a ref to that in the article? --Ideogram 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the list on lexus nexus or factiva, so i don't have a better citation than metacritic, but the award is mentioned on the books barnes and noble page as well. Is the metacritic site ok for a ref? Smmurphy(Talk) 06:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not satisfactory, but probably enough to keep the article from being deleted. Also, is it a novel or nonfiction? --Ideogram 06:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, its a fictionalized account of a true story according to a Feb 3, 2006 NYTimes Book Review. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination. Please feel free to close anytime. --Ideogram 00:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Govindbhai Dholakia

[edit]
Govindbhai Dholakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Makes no claim to significance — and he does indeed seem to be non-notable, being just another businessman. I deleted an earlier (much thinner) version, but as it's been recreated and exhaustively padded out, I thought that I'd bring it here. Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Impressionism

[edit]
Chicago Impressionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, only source is an artist's personal gallery, seems borderline promotional. -Seinfreak37 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:VSCA is an essay, not official Wikipedia policy. » K i G O E | talk 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as G12. The JPStalk to me 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June Mack

[edit]
June Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (View AfD)

Article about his/her movies is well written, but they are not notable. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was article deleted by admin Mailer diablo – [72]. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae

[edit]
Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable (translation of) a Bible verse. There is no sign this verse is particularly more spoken/used/well-known than any other, and I don't suppose we're trying to replace the role of interlinear Bibles yet. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete- A7. Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey-Jane

[edit]
Casey-Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure how this page works re replies so apologies if I have done this incorrectly. The article is absolutely true & was created with the full knowledge & appproval of the subject. However Casey-Jane has a cyber-stalker adding vicious & offensive untruths & linking her to her online forum life, posing a massive security risk & causing much distress to Casey-Jane & her family. Casey-Jane has been in contact with Wikipedia regarding this issue and plans to take the matter further. I am the author & have been deleting these comments as they have appeared but we would like the article deleted immediately please. Thank you. Jennyacedaras 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reinstating this afd, last was malformed. This article does not prove its noteworthiness, but I am not sure if it should be speedily deleted. Maybe someone could put some references in to save this article. Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reposting as my original comment was removed by Jennyacedaras in her edit of this page. Recommend this article be removed as it sounds like a resume. Author most likely to be person referenced in article. Breach of point 11 - Advertising. FatalError12345 15:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In an attempt to save this, have been editing to remove self-promoting comments and neutralise statements. Would help if the Original Author wouldn't keep changing it back to the orioginal PR spiel. However, strongly recommend a surname be added as "Casey-jane" could be anybody of a few thousand casey-janes in the world. Also, doing a search on full name (as found in prior edit) brings up nothing in google. Subject of article seems to be unknown and not noteworthy for inclusion as none of the "achievements" are or can be referenced. FatalError12345 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have not reverted anything back to the "original PR spiel" - I have corrected a typo & added a lesser version of a comment you said couldn't be referenced. Also added a brand name as your version completely changed the entire point of the paragraph. I am removing the surname, as you can see from my previous entry on this page, there is currently a massive security risk to Casey & her family, which is why I removed it this morning. WOULD HELP IF YOU DID NOT ADD TO THIS. Her surname has never been used professionally so it is of no benefit to the article. Jennyacedaras 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Without the surname, the article is meaningless - who is Casey-Jane? This isn't MySpace. Also, please ad a comment to your corrections - it makes editing much harder if you don't tell us what and why you're editing. Thank you! FatalError12345 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article is waiting to be deleted because there is some nutter stalking her. Does it really need constant editting if it is waiting to be deleted??? JUST DELETE IT & STOP ADDING TO THE SECURITY RISK. We would very much like it to become meaningless! Jennyacedaras 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing it as pointed out by Adam, in order to attempt to reference and save it. Adding yourself to Wikipedia and then failing to accept others can and will be editing your content makes a mockery of the whole thing. FatalError12345 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO ONE WANTS IT TO BE SAVED. Not the author, not Casey, not you! If you do not think Casey-Jane is worthy of a precious Wikipedia page, is making a mockery of your little website & that I have written this about myself then why does it bother you so much that it be editted to absolute perfection? If the article is so inaccurate, just a PR stunt or advertising (Why?? Casey is retired now?) then JUST DELETE IT. Jennyacedaras 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't really understand why you're flying off the handle. I can't delete it. You submitted an article to a social website. Articles are then claimed by the community and continually improved. We both suggested it be deleted, but an Admin has suggested the article be referenced in order to save it. I'm attempting to do so. FatalError12345 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am 'flying off the handle' because this is not just that someone posted a nasty comment, it is that someone is creating a security risk to Casey & her family. We are trying to stop it & you adding surnames is making it worse! You think I wrote it about myself, you think Casey is unknown, so show admin your search engine results, prove she's a nobody & get them to delete it. You obviously doubt the entire thing & if that is enough to have it removed then so be it, that's fine by everyone involved! Jennyacedaras 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm attempting to save the entry as suggested by Adam. FatalError12345 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Why would Adam want to save an entry about an unknown person writing an article about themself as a PR stunt? Obviously Google results are all that signify sucess so Casey is obviously unworthy. Jennyacedaras 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ask him, he's the one who suggested it. Have managed to reference last statement so article might be salvageable. FatalError12345 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that just wonderful... thanks for that, I hope you never have a stalker after you, causing a risk to your children. Jennyacedaras 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't see the relevence. You added content to Wikipedia in full knowledge that it would not only be public, but fully editable. I'm sorry someone has taken exception that you, but surely the last thing one would do in such a situation would be to publicise yourself on such a large and open platform. I'm just following the site philosophy which is to work with what is provided and make it as detailed and relevant as possible. I suggest you take your ire out on 1. your stalker, 2. an admin (not recommended since it's hardly their fault!) 3. Yourself for creating this situation. FatalError12345 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The article was created BEFORE the stalker came about, otherwise I wouldn't have created the article, obviously. I have never blamed anyone for the situation, you are right in as much as it is the stalkers fault & possibly mine for creating the article (though if other models or TV presenters had someone posting about their personal or forum life it would hardly be the article's authors fault, would it!), but is that a reason to not help, make the whole situation worse & post even more details about Casey?? You started off by saying you recommend it for deletion, then go on to edit it so it can stay! And put in surnames which had been removed, as explained, because of a nasty situation & security risk that had arisen?? Why would anyone with any kind of morals or heart do that??? Jennyacedaras 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Last update for today - have only managed to reference two points in the article. Not sure if this makes it notable enough for inclusion. If it does, still recommend surname is added to title for clarity. I also retract my suggestion for removal, following Original Author's continuous assertions she isn't the subject. It can be found in earlier edits, I won't post it here as I can't deal be bothered to deal with more hysteria. FatalError12345 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant edits have deleted 2 replies. Now I can't even think what they were because all I can say is how could you? Knowing the situation, how could you do that? Sleep well tonight. I came asking for help & all you have done is give them even more ammo & go one step further - at least they hadn't posted Casey's married surname & husband's name. When have I said I'm NOT Casey? I've said you obviously think I am. Well that breaks the "philosophy" too & the article should still be deleted then, so fine, I'm Casey, I wrote it about myself, now delete it admin. At minimum you could leave it as it is & delete the history for now at least. Jennyacedaras 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anyone who could care less about this nonsense: Jennyacedaras *is* the titular Casey-Jane, despite her laughably hilarious third-person speech. She wrote an autobiographical Vanity entry about her non-Notable life (seriously, Google her full name and see what you find) and is now whining about it. Which is somewhat ironic given that she, well *wrote her own Wiki entry and is now bothered about the attention it garnered*. Here's an idea, if you don't want people to know stuff about, try *not* writing an article about yourself on a public website.

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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in Final Destination 3

[edit]
Deaths in Final Destination 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant with the plot sections. Expanding upon that is horror fancruft. It is violating the growing consensus for a word limit for film plot synopses. I have also seen a more basic list of deaths being added to the films' articles: these are redundant to the plot section and looks like something an amateur fan site would do. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deaths in Scream. Delete The JPStalk to me 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all of the same "article" genre:

Deaths in Final Destination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deaths in Final Destination 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He then walks over to the tub and slips on the puddle, causing him to fall on a clothesline cord, which snaps off the wall and, pulled by the velocity of Tod's fall, wraps tightly around his neck several times and strangles him in the tub, while he struggles to stand up, but only manages to kick over bottles of shampoo and soap, spilling them inside the tub and making it slippery and preventing him from getting to his feet. The blood vessels in his eyes burst as he tries to break free from the wire and reach a pair of scissors on the counter across the room. He slowly weakens and finally dies

This is what constitutes the entire article. Do we have porn pictures with the articles on porn stars? Video snippets of Debbie Does Dallas? To my mind this is violence porn. Call it "Fancrud."Noroton 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised view I've taken a look at some other death-list articles. There's one for Oz and another for the Sopranos, and they don't go into nearly as much gory detail (although why a picture of a severed head in the Sopranos list is encyclopedic is beyond me). I don't have nearly as much problem with that because I can see the sliver of an encyclopedic value in it, but to keep down the detail, which has absolutely no encyclopedic value, I think they should all be merged with the plot articles.Noroton 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are mainly already merged within the plot sections is as much depth as needed. The JPStalk to me 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my revision (Flaky of me? Well just call it being open minded ...) I'm changing my mind yet again on my ultimate !vote: JPS is right, the plot descriptions give as much depth as an encyclopedic article needs. Noroton 12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP! It's been a freakin article for half a year and NOW you want to delete it. there should be a law about that, Don't PUT AN ARTICLE UP FOR DELETION IF IT'S BEEN AN ARTICLE FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS!!!!! No, extreme keep!why the heck did you decide to freakin put it up for deletion?!? That's not a good excuse!!!!!! Chikinpotato11 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's almost 2 million articles on the English Wikipedia. We can't spot them all. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That still isn't a good excuse. Wikipedia is "So high tech and awesome" yet it takes the freakin thing with ALL of it's "Smart" users who "try to improve" "The so called geat website known as "WIKIPEDIA"" a FREAKING (i desrve to curse but i won't) seven months to think "Hey we missed an article, we are dumb after all but let's just put the article up for deletion now and people probably won't notice". Yeah, wikipedia is really smart. Chikinpotato11 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is superfluous information. Qualifies as fancruft. --PhantomS 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- The JPStalk to me 19:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously Keep Unlike other horror based series the friday the 13th is by far more notable for its over-the-top death lists. Also the FD series is basically a slide-show of accidental deaths and they constitute to the plot (It should be noted that they were created to prevent the main article from being too long) Jamesbuc
    • Comment: When a plot section gets too long, the idea is to try to cut it down: not make another one. Seriously, this is bad.

The JPStalk to me 11:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Unfortunately with the FD series unless the deaths/misses ARE explained the plot would suffer. Just saying 'Carter is saved and Billy dies' (ive seen that put down once) places little point on the plot and the happenings. Jamesbuc
  • Delete If it can't be merged into the main article it probably shouldn't exist at all. This should be on a fansite rather than wikipedia. Speedything 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, think about this. For example, Tod Waggner- Killed by strangulation by clothes line. Inside or out? How on earth did he get strangled by a CLOTHES LINE? Lotsa questions get asked if the death is summerised in one brief sentence. Think about it your self. If it was your first time looking at the movie, what would you think about their deaths? The F13 movies is unnecessary, as it's either pop, rip or stab. NOthing creative. 211.30.223.128 09:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even though id usually agree with that this time id have to disagree as both series in question are known for thier deaths and not much else. User:Jamesbuc
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, discounting several WP:ILIKEIT votes, and not fixing the WP:RS and WP:V concerns. Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Frontier

[edit]
Battle Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:RS and WP:V therefore WP:NOR, and most definitly Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Also notability has not been established. Chris M. 16:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discounted Jaranda wat's sup 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article meets WP:N as a major change to the RSE lineup and significant plot line of the anime. The info is sourceable and verifiable, and does not give instruction (merely description - which is completely ok accoding to info at WP:WAF and WP:RS) therefore these claims of "game-guide" are unfounded. I went through a few months ago and rm a lot of info that gave suggestions and strategy hints. A couple sentences throughout thew article could be removed becuase they specualate, and the anime section needs to be rewritten - but a large portion is fine and would constitute too large of a section to be properly merged. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dickerman street

[edit]
Dickerman street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think a short, one-way, residential street can really be considered notable. Its only claim to notability is that one killing happened there. I don't think every murder needs a place on Wikipedia, but even if this one does, I think a better place for it would be at an article about the victim or an involved gang, not the street it happened on. Wikipedia is not a road map. User:Eastmain (not the creator of the article) removed the PROD notice with the explanation "Street is notable for the killing and for other characteristics." -Elmer Clark 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At best, it is of local interest only. Slideshow Bob 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps the street is better understood as a neighborhood which can be distinguished by ethnicity, income and gang activity from the more tourist- and university-oriented parts of the city. There is a role for articles about boroughs and arrondissements and other subdivisions of cities, and while Dickerman doesn't have self-government, it has the other characteristics of a distinct community. --Eastmain 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this street on Google Maps, it consists of only one block and has about thirty houses at most. I find it very hard to believe that this tiny street has so strong an identity as to be deserving of its own article. -Elmer Clark 19:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy nonnotable scam website promo. `'mikka 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ppc appraisal"

[edit]
"ppc appraisal" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No original research.This article appears to be an earlier version of the one at Ppcappraisal. There is also one at Ppc appraisal. They appear to just keep creating new versions every time they want to edit the name. Cyrus Andiron 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkie respect

[edit]
Pinkie respect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nonnotable new gesture, unreferenced, about 100 unique google hits. `'mikka 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lynch (Survivor)

[edit]
Jim Lynch (Survivor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Survivor contestant. He was voted out first and has done nothing of note since. -- Scorpion 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Dar-Ape 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable reality show contestant, and the entire bio is borderline copyvio, since it's just a pretty thinly disguised re-write of the CBS bio (only changed 2-3 words per sentence, it seems). --Maelwys 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient references for notability Some of the Survivor contestents have independent published articles and interviews about them, but this article's only published source appears to be the CBS bio (which isn't independent). Delete unless there are some additional proper sources to cite that talk about this person in a significant way. Dugwiki 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Really, even discounting some WP:ILIKEIT comments, there isn't a concensus to do anything here. - Daniel.Bryant 07:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sephardic Pizmonim Project

[edit]
Sephardic Pizmonim Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The first AfD (here ended with no consensus, so I'm renominating it. Many of the voters voted keep simply because the article was new and were waiting for the article to grow and accrue more references. Sufficient time has passed and not much improvement has been achieved. I am cross-posting from Talk:Sephardic Pizmonim Project my analysis of the two sources that User:David Betesh has provided:

The organization is not notable, period. With all due respect to the wonderful cause that it represents, it is entirely unheard of outside of the Syrian community, and even inside the community its mention would barely raise an eyebrow. The two sources consist of:

  • A paragraph from Aleppo - City of Scholars that reads (in its entirety):
"Mr. David Betesh, a great-grandson of Gabriel Shrem, received these tapes [of pizmonim] as a Bar Mitzvah gift from his grandmother, Florence Zeitouni, the daughter of Gabriel Shrem, and resolved to pass on this treasured gift to the entire community. He re-released and upgraded both the published and the unpublished works of his great-grandfather to create an inclusive and wide-ranging recording of pizmonim. The CD set, which is distributed by the Bnai Yosef Synagogue, also includes an explanation of the origin of each maqam, as well as the perashah or occasion during which it should be used and why."

...which is honestly very nice, but it amounts to virtually nothing within an encyclopedic work about the Syrian Jewish community.

  • An article in Community Magazine. Community Magazine is a publication geared to a small subset of the Syrian community, and it will routinely report on even the most insignificant happenings in the community [things like a high school's trip to Israel on a "chesed mission", or a small-time Orthodox Jewish magician who has to struggle to keep kosher on the road, etc.].

The paucity of substance in the nature of each of these sources is reason enough to discount the notability of the SPP. In short, delete. DLandTALK 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it is at least borderline. I can't find much in the way of reliable sources referring to SPP on the internet, though I also don't see much of anything on the Syrian Sephardic community or pizmonim in general, which is probably due more to the fact that most of anything out there would not be in English. Btw, Aaron Lansky didn't always have personnel and a location for his Yiddish project (NYBC), he spent years as just a one-man student operation. I think projects dedicated to preserving ancient culture are of significant historical value that deserve an encyclopedia article. You'll definitely find more pop culture on the web, and are less likely to find info on nearly lost cultures. We want to keep "fluff" out of the encyclopedia, but I don't think this is fluff. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pizmonim per Mperel's comment above. JoshuaZ 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that would be an appropriate solution. I admire what Mr. Betesh has accomplished tremendously, and I do think his project deserves some kind of niche - just not its own article. Unfortunately it seems that he has taken this as some kind of personal vendetta. --DLandTALK 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is just too close to the last AfD for such a low-traffic article and one in which I'm still trying to think of how we can judge these cultural artifacts verses how we would judge "fan cruft". Little bit amused that someone we know removed related talk and the AfD nomination ! Oh boy does no-one actually realise what Watchlists are !. Ttiotsw 16:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's at least borderline + , and that should be keep. the problem is of sourcing this sort of material, and its now done as well as can reasonably be expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 08:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep --Java7837 04:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:MPerel. This article is not a marvel of anything but it is also not the "villainous piece" that is portrayed by the nominator. I just think that User:DLand is being too tough on this one. Wikipedia has lots of time on its hands... IZAK 08:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In logical analysis, it can be very easy to prove that something exists, while it can be treacherously difficult to prove that something doesn't exist (see Fermat's Last Theorem for math buffs). This AfD demonstrates that the same applies to Wikipedia: It's extremely easy (and often disingenuous as a result) to "prove" that a topic is notable, while it is well nigh impossible to prove that it is not notable. Indeed, if actual evidence existed showing non-notability, it would not be non-notable in the first place! To the issue at hand - I, through my personal connection and exposure to the Syrian Jewish community in Flatbush, Brooklyn, KNOW that the SPP is not notable. I can't prove that it's not notable, because that would be a logical fallacy. No other user (besides User:David Betesh, obviously) can claim to have personal knowledge of this project. Of course I realize that this testimony doesn't hold much water in an AfD vote, but I feel that I should air my thoughts anyway. And to IZAK, I never said that the article is "villainous" - I just don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia, even one that is not made of paper. --DLandTALK 13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There are much more important projects out there doing the same thing and ten times better. And more important websites on the topic. This is a unknown single person with only 5500 of CD- almost unknown. This is an unfunded project by an unknown. Here is a more important project funded by Avi Chai http://www.piyut.org.il/english/ Hebrew University has a project of Pizmonim as do others.--Jayrav 14:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I use this web site for the knowledge it has to offer. This is a very helpful, educational and useful website. I agree there are many other projects to look up to and to move forward but i dont think it means we should push others down. Stop critisizing and start working on the important things, while others work on the less important think, at least in your eyes.

  • The above contribution by 129.98.208.32 is user's fourth edit.--DLandTALK 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the first AFD, I wrote, "Delete. I really don't have a reason to delete, but I feel like sticking up for DLand for nominating a potentially nonnotable musical entity." I'm glad I have a chance to speak more wisely this time. DLand has established a clear case. It is incorrect to say that an article needs sources and the subject needs to be notable. An article needs sources, and those sources should affirm its notability. Everything depends on the sources. Since the sources are demonstrably trivial, notability has not been established. The SPP is a one-man, non-commercial project that has not received serious press coverage. If you take away the "Jewish culture" aspect, and evaluate solely based on WP:MUSIC, it falls short of the criteria for inclusion. YechielMan 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus PeaceNT 08:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hood film

[edit]
Hood film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism. I can find no widespread use of this term. Nv8200p talk 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep - multiple ghits [74] - Cybergoth 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better references provided I looked at the google hits Cybergoth mentioned above and, when you also take out Gavin Hood, I didn't see any popping up that actually talk about the subject of this article in any significant way. The article should probably be deleted as an unverified neologism unless better sourcing is provided. Even if the information is kept, if the article can't be significantly expanded, it should be transferred to Wiktionary as a definition in its current form since all the article does is define the word in a couple of sentences. It would need more verified historical content and analysis, etc, to work as an encylopedia entry. Dugwiki 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as film review and academic jargon for a subgenre (Google News Archive results, filtered). Problematically, the prototypical "hood film" that the article is about is often something cited that the current film is not, i.e. "not just another hood film". There are even a few Google Scholar results, several referring back to a full treatment by P.J. Massood in 1996. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's sounding like this phrase does possibly appear in a few good sources. The next question is can a couple of these sources be appended to the article? And also, can the content of the article be expanded beyond just the dictionary definition of the term? If both of those things happen, I'll likely strike out my delete recommendation. Dugwiki 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like the references and article have been expanded enough that I'm revising my recommendation to Keep. Appears to now be a reasonable stub article. :) Dugwiki 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Shri Krishna

[edit]
James Shri Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. No major media coverage or significant contributions. I cannot find enough information to verify the article. Nv8200p talk 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, notability is met ("Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office") as a former member of Fiji's parliament[75][76]. Verifiability weak but possible.[77][78] Probably destined to be a perm stub.--Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for being a national-level political figure. Also, I have added two sources to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Read Fijian newspapers (there are several online), and you'll come across him plenty. I am incredulous that American and British users judge people to be "not notable" just because they haven't seen them mentioned in some American or British publication. This guy was a member of parliament for five years and is therefore notable. David Cannon 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per David Cannon. I was alerted to this page by the removal of David Cannon's comments from Nv8200p's talk page. So the comments did do some good despite Nv8200p trying to hide them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is of WP:V and from my POV whatever Davicannon creates is of notability and verifiable and Iam from Fiji and this person is a former politician of notability and I totally agree with what David mentioned above (If you dont know them doesnt mean they dont exist)--Cometstyles 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known Fijian politician and worth keeping to keep uniformity with the various articles pertaining to such members of Fiji's parliament. Sources are proven so what's the ish? Matt Bray 11:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umbra (Elder Scrolls)

[edit]
Umbra (Elder Scrolls) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non notable character, as far as giving her her own article is concerned. Delete. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I concede that Umbra isn't a notable character. Can I move her information to the Characters of Elder Scrolls page? Thanks, RAmen, Demosthenes 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think she's that notable. She doesn't play into the main story at all. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty well you should know that on the Characters of Oblivion page I've already added a section about her (before this page was ever nominated for deletion), if you wanted to delete that too. Good luck, RAmen, Demosthenes 15:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This was relisted again because I was a little unsure about closing the debate with three delete arguments and a lengthy discussion on one of them, but it seems doubtful there will be any new arguments. --Coredesat 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokonatsu

[edit]
Tokonatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable anime convention. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable third-party sources, beyond AnimeCons.com, that are needed to write an article from. --Farix (Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This con used to be called Wildercon in 2003 and 2004. If the article isn't going to be complete enough to mention that (and perhaps more of the history about it) then I just don't see anything notable here that makes it stand out. --PatrickD 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: If you knew that, why didn't you edit the article and make note of that? Everyone can edit articles here, so making this kind of comment without doing something about it is a little absurd, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Two reasons: 1) I hadn't seen the article before I learned of the AfD, 2) That one fact alone would not be enough to save it. My point is that if it can't even list that simple fact, it's obviously lacking in information. My Delete vote stands. --PatrickD 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As part of the Committee for this convention I can understand where PatrickD is coming from, however I didn't realise that this existed till now. I will make amendments to the page and then make a comment here again and see if you are willing to re-vote. Out of etiquette I wont vote post changes either. Mystcb 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have made a few changes to the page, expanded on the history a little. I am looking about for references online to name change, and also details about the Committee and such, but I was hoping to make sure I was going in the right direction with the tidy up. Mystcb 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be aware of Wikipeida's polices regarding Conflicts of Interests. Convention staffers should avoid editing articles about their own conventions. --Farix (Talk) 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, I will keep that in mind. My only defence will be that I will not vote on this, however I would like to pass it via the general consensus to ensure that I am not doing something that will be in any Conflict of Interest. I apologise if I have over stepped my line at any point.Mystcb 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems with the article are based on the notability of the subject and the lack of reliable sources. Writing and including more sourced information is not going to help the article. If you can provide evidence through a reliable third-party sources that the convention is notable or meets one of the notability criteria in WP:ORG, then there is a possibility the article will be kept. --Farix (Talk) 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, I shall keep this in mind and see what I can pull up. Thank you for the replies though, hopefully I will find sources which are reliable, but if the article is deleted, then I can fully understand why. Mystcb 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V unless the article gets properly referenced. As it stands I cannot determine notability because there is no independent source. Nuttah68 13:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Understandable, I have found a reference, however due to it being the people that run the sub-event at the convention, I am not sure if this is the sort of reference you are looking for. Mystcb 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As noted below, there was not multiple independant reliable third-party source for this article, and this means a failure to meet our notability guidelines as well as our core policy of verifiability. - Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFSCars

[edit]
NFSCars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Need for speed fan website. Article fails to establish notability, Alexa rank 72,636. Delete, possibly a speedy deletion candidate. - Mike Rosoft 19:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why delete this page? Why not the 500 other sites which are much less useful than this one? What about Catahya? What the hell is that? That page is noting compared to NFSCars. You people seem to delete whatever you think is the slightest thing that's stupid to you.
No notability? I laugh at you. How come NFSCars was recognized in EA's community spotlight in 2005?


Keep - I agree on keeping this page. You say it has no notability right? Well, it has a lot. As you might not be interested in this, I'm sure you'd be surprised to find out how many people are interested in this. I have said my word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TargaGuy (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - So? Come on. Get real. What does Freya (Ragnarok Online) add to the "sum of human knowledge"? What does Blue's News add? What does Infinite Cat Project add? I could go on all day. Use your brain before posting please.
So nominate them for deletion, then. Chris cheese whine 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No sum of human knowledge? I'm sure you could learn a lot about cars and 3D modeling on the site.


Keep - Why is everyone flaming this page? I try to make something that might interest people and everybody insults it. It's not a copyright, it's not insulting anyone and it's definalty not pointless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TargaGuy (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Look, I'm sorry. But look at all of those other pages that have an even smaller amount of information whose subjects I haven't even heard of. Of all the pages you choose, tell me, why this one? Why not the others?
Comment - Because this is the one that happened to be selected. If you feel there are other articles that should be deleted, feel free to nominate them yourself. Other crap exists - it doesn't change this article's crap-status in any way, shape or form. --Action Jackson IV 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure crap is the right word, maybe helpful to some people.

LISTEN, If you don't like the page, DON'T COMMENT ON IT! If you leave it here, I'm surte many people will benefit from this page. If you don't like it, I respect that...but please just give it a chance.

Die page die!

Ok, Martin N / nextgen / hi fi / Motoroller / whatever you want to be called, you can stop it.

One of the senior members at NFSCars, Linkin, discovered that the person giving this page a bunch of shit is Martin N, [79] a former troll on NFSCars, their IPs match. Martin N's IP also matches with trolls on NFSCars such as hi_fi, [80] Motoroller [81], and a few others -JRice80

He joined in June 2004, that's not even close to noob. I recommend you stop harassing me.
I never said you were a noob. You harassed us first, you know.

I think this is the final nail in the coffin: http://nfscars.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19281&page=2 ^very bad things about wikipedians.

Targaguy's alt account: El_Countach has agreed that the quality of this page is 7th-grade http://nfscars.net/forum/showthread.php?p=348791

yet he wants it here? hmm

I did not know TG had multiple accounts on NFSCars... that is WEIRD.
Keep - This site has kept the old NFS games alive for so long now. It deserves to be on Wikipedia. I mean if Newgrounds ended up on Wikipedia, I sure as hell can't see why NFSCars, the best, most popular, most revolutionary and most active NFS site ever made shouldn't be on Wiki. As long as the information is correct, which it will be when some editing and correcting will be done, this deserves it rightful place on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.149.100 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - This article focuses on one of the largest, most active Need For Speed fan sites out there. It has over 6000 cars, tracks and other downloadable content. While it may have been created in haste, leading to poor quality writing, it will be edited and corrected. Please look at this objectively, and disregard the rude and obnoxious posts/edits from other members. Canada Kid 05:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So prove it. Chris cheese whine 10:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level of support for evolution

[edit]
Level of support for evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article in a previous incarnation survived deletion through “no consensus” as it was hoped by the community that improvements could be made to the article to keep it neutral, verifiable, and reliable. Unfortunately, this has proven to be an impossible task because of the nature and scope of the article itself. I propose this deletion after working for some time to try to improve the article content and now coming to the conclusion that, as an article, it cannot survive for very serious editorial reasons.

Much of the content of this article can and does belong on Wikipedia. For example, Project Steve is mentioned in its own article and appropriate parent articles such as creation-evolution controversy. The various opinion polls can be elucidated and outlined such locations as well. The problem is the original synthesis of the article described in the next paragraph which is specifically problematic in light of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

The article as it is formed functions basically as an undercover creationist POV-fork of the creation-evolution controversy article. This fact may be difficult for some to see, but consider that the article takes as its main thesis that there exists a way to gauge the “level of support” for the scientific concept of evolution by means of opinion polling, open letters, and the like. This very particular and peculiar point-of-view cannot accommodate the fact that no scientific theory in the context of science (which is the context in which evolution is defined, supported, and described) is “supported” by such means. We do not subject the theory of relativity to an article regarding opinion polls on the subject. Support for the principle of least action is not gauged in our encyclopedia by counting how many open letters were written regarding the subject. Even more controversial scientific subjects such as the Big Bang or the Gaia hypothesis do not have articles that treat the subjects in such a way. The only reason we have such an article ostensibly about “evolution” is because we are effectively accommodating a uniquely creationist POV-pushing perspective of evolution and how its support should be “measured”.

Consideration for this deletion proposal is guided in part by guidelines for how to cover science at Wikipedia. In particular, discussions about science that are neutral need to deal with science as it is evaluated by reliable and verifiable sources. Polls, open letters, and opinion pieces are not how this is done for scientific subjects. To advance the idea that a scientific principle can have its support gauged in such a fashion is a POV which is obviously at odds with how we have dealt with scientific subjects in the past.

We have an old problem with such problematic content forks at Wikipedia regarding evolution. I would remind the community of this AfD which was ostensibly on the same subject and was deleted for reasons similar to the ones I outline here. I believe that precedent for deleting articles of this sort is well-established and that the community can work to include the verifiable content in other articles.

--ScienceApologist 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per the well-reasoned nomination. Content-forking issues aside, this is a fundamentally unencyclopedic essay: a well-written and well-cited essay, but the lack of encyclopedic value makes this, in my opinion, high-class WP:NFT. This sort of thing is precisely what I mean:
  • "This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that evolution is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists.
  • There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."
  • A single disputed paragraph at the very end of an article doesn't warrant deletion of the entire article; this is a reason to make that paragraph more NPOV (I imagine it would be easy to simply quote an organization or expert in science stating that science is based on evidence rather than popular opinion, thus not even making it necessary for Wikipedia to affirm such a clearly factual statement), not to delete the article. You seem to feel that this paragraph is characteristic of the entire article, but that doesn't seem to be the case to me. The topic itself is encyclopedic, as it is a noteworthy issue in the creation-evolution debate about which there is much misunderstanding, making an article on this very valuable for reporting on the facts and claims of both sides. This is not an essay, because it is not making an argument: nowhere in the article is it argued that a theory needs the "absolute support of all scientists" (not even in the above quote), nor is the Guy Woods quote relevant (because the article doesn't say that a side is wrong or right based purely on popularity), and if you mean to apply that logic to science, you will end up abandoning both evolution and claims like "the Earth revolves around the Sun" or "if you drop an apple, it will fall because of gravity". You seem to be making counter-arguments against claims the article doesn't actually make. -Silence 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The quality of the writing is beyond question, but I feel that this article is trying to be a secondary source rather than reflecting our status as a tertiary source of information. The message is important, but it should be covered in other, less inherently-biased, articles. Tevildo 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the above claims are both (a) accurate and (b) reason to delete this article. First, the contents of this article cannot be moved to Project Steve (where they would be largely off-topic) or Creation-evolution controversy (where they simply wouldn't fit; that page is already 104 kb long!!!). Second, this article is not a POV fork of any article at all; indeed, that is impossible because there is no other article that specifically covers this topic. ScienceApologist's claim that this is an "undercover creationist POV fork" is both absurd (the article was created by User:Filll, one of the strongest anti-creationists on Wikipedia) and a clear example of failing to assume good faith. Third, this article does not have a "thesis", it has a topic. Encyclopedia articles do not make arguments; they report on noteworthy subjects, and the level of popular support for evolution is a noteworthy subject, by virtue of its being so frequently discussed, debated, and disputed in the creation-evolution controversy.
  • Fourth, ScienceApologist consistently misunderstands the clear fact (which no one else has failed to notice, even other critics of this article) that the word support in this context refers to popular support (i.e., whether a person supports or opposes something), not to evidence or arguments used to support a claim. To conflate these two very different meanings is an example of the equivocation fallacy, and while the article itself is quite careful never to equivocate on this matter, nor even to leave any ambiguity on it (hence the dab notice at the top of the article), ScienceApologist is not demonstrating any such compunctions in trying to dismiss this article with mere word-games. This is especially surprising considering how many times the distinction has been explained to ScienceApologist on Talk:Level of support for evolution. (This misunderstanding of his was also his motivation for trying to repeatedly delete this article by unilateral means shortly after it passed its last AfD; his appeal to AfD here seems to simply be a last resort after failing either to delete it himself or to convince others that he is correct.) As for Big Bang and Gaia hypothesis, both are much less socially controversial than evolution (and the latter isn't noteworthy enough to have a big series of articles).
  • This article is not a biology article, anymore than creation-evolution controversy is. It is a sociological article about the phenomenon of varying degrees of popular support for evolutionary theory in different groups, times, places, etc.; it is not about the evidence used to support the theory of biological evolution, which is already covered at Evidence of evolution. Wikipedia:Notability (science) (which is a proposed guideline, not a guideline) therefore doesn't apply here, except indirectly.
  • As for "Evolution poll", that article was, at the time of AfD, an unencyclopedic unreferenced stubby opinion-piece. It was, in other words, precisely the opposite of Level of support for evolution, which is well-referenced, neutral, lengthy, and encyclopedic. The majority of the article in question was also a rant about the reliability of polling, not actual information about the level of popular support for evolution; and the title was malformed and bizarre. All of this makes attempts to judge this page based on that one useless. Their topical similarities are purely superficial, and even if they weren't, almost all of the delete votes were about the contents. -Silence 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I'm not voting on this one, at least not yet... but if the article is kept (and I think the above poster provided valid reasons why it should) it needs some copy-editing to adopt a fully encyclopedic tone. Some statements, like "it is likely that there will be more conflict and controversy in the future," and use of the term "unfortunately" could be attributed or removed to better suit a factual entry. I think it's informative, and certainly well referenced, but it does need a little attention. ◄Zahakiel► 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I agree. Votes on an AfD like this are a reflection of the acceptability of the topic, not of the specific contents of the current article. There are plenty of areas of improvement for this page. -Silence 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bottom line to me is that the article appears to be generally well referenced and objective and which analyzes the unique social side of these creationist vs evolution debates. To fail the original research test, this article would have to be, as a whole, clearly forming an original opinion about the subject. But instead it looks like the article is collecting well documented major examples of how the various groups perceive evolution and creationism in context. Finally, the nominator complains about the use of polls, but in this case the article isn't using polls to validate the biological science of evolution, but is rather talking about a social phenomenan closely associated with the study and education of evolution and creationism and brings up polls as examples of the social issues in play. And even if you believe that the article presents some of the information in a slightly biased fashion (eg I think it uses weasel words like "frequently" and "often" too much) that would be an issue for clean-up and talk page discussion and not for an afd discussion on deleting the entire article. Thus while I think the article could stand some minor rewording and clean-up, I don't see any need to delete the whole thing. Dugwiki 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would probably support a rename of the article to something like "Social reaction to evolution vs creationism debates". That might make it more clear that the article isn't attempting to "validate" a scientific theory, but rather to present interesting and notable social issues tied to the way people discuss it in public forums. Dugwiki 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rest of your comment entirely (especially the fact that the article "isn't using polls to validate the biological science of evolution", nor to do the opposite), but I don't think that renaming would be very effective, mainly because this article doesn't describe how people react to the creation-evolution debates, but rather how they react to evolution. The creation-evolution debates are what makes this topic noteworthy (there aren't comparable creation-gravity debates, else that topic would also merit articles), but it's not the be-all and end-all of this article. -Silence 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's an interesting point on the rename suggestion. It might be worth thinking about possible modifying the article to more clearly discuss both social reaction to evolution AND social reaction to creationism. It does cover some reaction to creationism, though, as in the section talking about the Steve list as a reaction to creationist claims of acceptance by a wide cross-section of the scientific community. Dugwiki 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Project Steve is worded not as a rejection of creationism, but as an affirmation of evolution. (Hence it leaves the door open for theistic evolution, which is arguably a form of creationism.) Thus, although it is indeed a reaction to the creation-evolution social controversy, its primary relevance to the Level of support for evolution article is that it is one of many indicators of the level of support for evolution among scientists, and that it is also indirectly an indicator of the ongoing dispute over this level. -Silence 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The standards for deletion should be consistent and the bar should be set rather high. Reading the article I found information that was favorable to both sides of the issues and also found an article that was fleshed out and well sourced as well as the topic being notable in our society today. I can't help but think that perhaps part of the reason for wishing to see deletion may be due to a personal repugnance with the subject matter rather than a well warranted reason for removal. Bbagot 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Inkpaduta 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's a great article actually. I found many interesting statements, and they were well reffed. Additionally the references did generally seem to support the statements. I can't understand why one would want to delete it. Maury 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fill is usually very responsive to any reasonable problems left to work out.GetAgrippa 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as per above. The article could possibly use a rewrite/refocusing (it's a bit ADHD in its current form), but there's a lot of useful information, and contrary to the original request, I can't really see it as a pro-creation piece. (warning: pretty much soapboxing from here on out - feel free to skim :-D ) Maybe there're editwars going on that I'm not privy to, but if anything, the only bias I could find would be an "Americans are stupid lol, Scandanavia is so much more enlightened AMERIKKA=OWNED" bias - which is a theory that I, as an American who believes in the merits of the scientific process, have to admit seems to be supported by the Gallup numbers. Then again, maybe it's like what they say about finding smart jurors - "anybody who's smart will get out of jury duty" (or "anybody with an opinion worth sharing will have an unlisted telephone number"]. As far as the claim that sheer numbers neither prove nor disprove anything, again, I don't think the article is trying to prove anything one way or the other. (to wander even further off-topic for a minute: Saying that more than 98% of accredited scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution is a bit more substantial than the original request makes it out to be. People who respond to Gallup polls are also the sorts to loan Nigerian princes tens of thousands of dollars, so hey.) Anyway -- the article serves a clear purpose by being a handy compilation of primary and secondary sources, serving as a branching point for an important and noteworthy academic topic, which I believe is what Wikipedia is all about. Certainly better than something like this. --Action Jackson IV 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible KEEP As might be imagined, I dispute in the strongest possible terms what I feel is an incredible misrepresentation by ScienceApologist. I have plenty to say about this, but for now, I will say I disagree with it completely. I am open to a name change, but I would only support one that is within reason or certain bounds. --Filll 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The nomination asserts that "this has proven to be an impossible task" without specifying exactly what's wrong with the article in this respect. Much of the nomination consists of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. For the rest it's just an ex cathedra WP:OR assertion in need of a clarification. (Somewhat tongue-in-cheek: I'm awaiting SA's AfD for the Controversy article.) I also have a positive argument: this article reports on the acceptance of evolution amongst lay people whereas the Controversy article deals with acceptance amongst scientists vs. rejection amongst lay people (creationists...). As such this new article Fillls a very real niche that was empty until this article was started. Obviously its scientific counterpart, the Evolution article, has been there since time immemorial. (Some of the information relating to acceptance among the scientific community could be deleted from the article since it duplicates information also available in the Controversy article.) AvB ÷ talk 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename - It should be renamed to supporters of evolution or something else since the article is more about the people and organizations who support evolution rather than the "levels" of support for evolution. It's a very informative article other and am surprised it is proposed for deletion. Pbarnes 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "impossible task" referred to by the nominator is a spurious argument, based on the nominator's own recent edit-war (conducted anonymously) in which he/she seems to have tried to make the article unmanageable by constant reversion of one point. I am open to suggestions for renaming, but I see nothing much wrong with the present name. Snalwibma 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A disagreement over nomenclature is not sufficient to cause deletion. Articles with far less ideal names remain valuable Wikipedia articles. And I really think you're being very rude to the editors who made it, who are in no way creationists, and thus surely can't be making a Creationist POV fork. Adam Cuerden talk 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's criticisms would be dead-on if this article were about "evolution" or the "factuality of evolution". However, it is not!
  1. There does indeed exist "a way to gauge the “level of support” for the scientific concept of evolution". The article discusses support for the theory, and (unlike the nom) does not conflate this with the accuracy of the theory. The article is not POV as it presents both sides of the argument and always with references.
  2. The nominator notes WP:SCI and write "Polls, open letters, and opinion pieces are not how this is done for scientific subjects." Yes, but this article is not about the scientific subject of the theory of evolution. It's about perceptions regarding the theory. -- Black Falcon 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This does not sound like a creationist fork. In fact, I think the POV is fair & represents the scientific viewpoint in proportion to the consensus there, and similarly with the other sections. Others seem to see this also--some of the strongest pro-evolutionists in WP are one one side of this AfD, and some on the other. There is a great deal of editing to be done. some sections, like the one of the Catholic Church, are probably better merged elsewhere. Some on the general scientific literacy of the american public, should be articles of their own. Deleting the article is not the way to go about these changes. Once these are done, there is a great deal of editing in detail. But this is in my opinion at least perhaps the best and the fairest of all the articles on the controversy.

Name can be rethought later--the article can be moved either by consensus, or at WP:RM. I think it possible that a better wording might be found by consensus among the editors without WP:PM. (It will take a little consideration for finding the best name. Perhaps this AfD will prove useful in getting the cleanup accomplished, though it will take a while and should go by slow stages--not by a vote here. DGG 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep yes, the title sucks, but we've been down that road before. The article is quite well-written and detailed; though I've tried on several occasions to understand SA's objection to it, the reasoning seems entirely specious, and I've been consistently confused about his motivations. Opabinia regalis 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No surprise that this and the prevous AfD on this article garnered considerable support from creationists.--Filll 03:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm not a creationist, but I recommended keeping the article as a good article about the popular media debate between creationists and the bulk of biologists. So it's not just creationists that are recommending keeping it. Dugwiki 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Strong delete for what reason? AFD is not a poll, it is a discussion. ◄Zahakiel► 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs work, but it should not be deleted:
  1. If you have been reading the comments of the editors on the talk page then the idea that this is a creationist POV fork is ridiculous as the main editors are all pro-evolution (Fill, Silence, and Orangemarlin). This topic is relevant and important, particularly in the realms of politics and media. As sad as it is, since the government runs the public school system, politics is largely involved in education (which I feel should be eradicated with a voucher system, but that is another subject) and politics is obviously affected by public perception. All you have to do is look to San Francisco and the requirement of homosexual history to see this. It is even arguable that the public perception affects the teaching of evolution even more than scientific evidence does. Also, if I am not mistaken, one tactic that is used at almost every one of the "vs. evolution" trials is to bring in a stack of papers that support evolution and drop them on the objectors stand which is exactly what this article addresses. It is also very important in the media as the they use public opinion polls in their reporting, make decisions on what views to air, and decide how much time to give them and how to air opinions based on the popularity of the view. Regardless of how much time this issue deserves, it is often covered heavily by the media and thus is not just a creationist fork.
  2. Fill has been more then willing in cleaning up the article when suggestions were made. I am a creationist and most of my complaints were addressed though I still feel that Examining the level of public support section needs to attempt to provide credibility for the general public or the section should be erased entirely to be NPOV, but this is a simple problem to deal with.
  3. As for the title, it could probably use a better title, but the content is much more important, and I find it ridiculous that we keep wasting time on the title when we could be moving on to more important issues.
  4. The other editors have already stated that this is not a scientific article but a social one.

--Jorfer 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Rename. The issue appears to be the idea that the article is about popular support and polls. So rename it. WAS 4.250 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I suggest Level of popular support for evolution because: i) This partly addresses the concern that some sophist try to use the article to twist the poll results into a condemnation of the theory of evolution. ii) As User:Silence said above, that is the main thing the article is about, iii) It is a small change to the title. Cardamon 10:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason this change hasn't already been implemented is that Filll felt (and I agreed) that using "popular" here would suggest that the article is only concerned with the opinion of the masses, not with the opinion of scientists, etc., when in reality it discusses the level of support for evolution among all sorts of different groups of people. So "popular" in this sense would simply mean "by people", not "by laypeople". However, I'm coming around to thinking that this would not be a terrible change, and could perhaps be justified either by being careful to make sure that we're clear about which sense of "popular" we're using, or by simply refocusing the scope of this article and indeed focusing it primarily on laypeople's views of evolution, while discussing scientists' views only as a (lengthy) sidenote. However, considering that the current title (particularly with the dab notice at the top of the page) is about 99% non-ambiguous, I am still reluctant to change it largely to satisfy the nitpicking of one persistent editor (ScienceApologist). And I still worry that the new title would just replace one set of problems with a new, possibly worse set of problems (i.e., people might start trying to remove the scientific perspective from the article altogether). So at this point, I'm still wary about making such a rename, though it's certainly something to consider. -Silence 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the name is putatively a problem, I will note that this has been addressed repeatedly without much satisfactory result or resolution on the talk page of the article. I compiled a long list of potential new names, and attempted to gauge community opinion on the matter, but this did not produce a satisfactory conclusion. I suspect that if the name was changed, this would not stop ScienceApologist's unilateral edits and what seems to be emerging as some sort of personal vendetta. ScienceApologist has continued to agitate against the article's theme and dispute the wording of various sections, both while logged in and as various anons. Apellative inconsistency and incompatibility seems to constitute only a small part of his concerns. Most of his problem appears to be that a balanced NPOV article in this area is not desirable since it might give some succor and comfort to creationists, a complaint that is not addressable in WP, and has nothing to do with the name. Changing the name would not quell the rancor or polemical exchanges I fear. For example, a suggestion to replace the word "support" with the word "acceptance" or the word "approval", either of which might be potentially more descriptive and less open to misinterpretation, did not receive his affirmation. Another prominent area of apparent dissension in this altercation is the claim that this article tries to suggest that science is decided by opinion polls. However, I dispute this assertion vigorously, which is addressed prominently (but not exclusively) in the article itself, in Level_of_support_for_evolution#Validity_of_polling.2C_surveys.2C_resolutions.2C_etc.. and in other places in the text. This eristic contretemps is not solely over the name, but over the existence of the article itself, and even the role of WP in documenting the controversy.--Filll 16:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that General and Scientific Perceptions of Evolution would be a good choice then.--Jorfer 16:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"General" is too vague here; pairing "General" with "Scientific" would confuse most readers because they would assume that "general" normally encompasses "scientific". "Perceptions" also isn't the best word, because it is vague (and thus has less informational value than "level of support") and arguably infers too much about the page's contents (i.e., the fact that someone says something about evolution doesn't mean that that's his "perception" of evolution; this seems to be conflating "perception" with "point of view" or "opinion", when normally opinions are subjective inferences from perceptions, not perceptions themselves). It's also pretty long, and (on a grammatical/style note) shouldn't be capitalized. -Silence 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A similar name that is also overly long but more descriptive is Popular and scientific acceptance of evolution.--Filll 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I certainly agree the title presents a problem (more one of uncertainty regarding the topic than POV), the content is extremely clear, well-defined, and well-referenced. It's a fallacy of the original nomination that this article has no value because popular opinion has no direct influence on the sciences. While that may be so, the effects of the evolution debate have extremely strong encyclopedic value to sociology, political science, and demographics. The effect on a scientific debate upon public perception, which in turn affects politics and education, is clearly of historical and socio-political value to an excyclopedia. This is a good article by all wikipedia criteria, keep it. -Markeer 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep without reservation While I am in agreement with some of those comments about the title, this article needs to be kept. My only reason for keeping the article is that it is an excellent resource for understanding the debate between evolution and, well, the other side. Orangemarlin 18:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • one more point. As for this article being an "undercover creationist POV fork", all I can say is WTF? I helped Filll with some minor little points when he was developing this article, and neither he nor I could be described as creationists under any condition. I can't believe that I read such an odd accusation. Orangemarlin 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete ScienceApologist is right Tuohirulla puhu 18:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – this is a useful resource that can be linked from all the articles SA suggests, rather than trying to maintain the same information repeated in several article. The concern about this somehow conveying the mistaken idea that science is by majority opinion can usefully be addressed by a clear statement at the outset of the science section. Regarding the title, I suggest Public opinion on evolution as more clearly neutral, and as "public opinion" and "opinion polls" can refer to opinion amongst particular groups rather than the public at large. The sections could then be rephrased as "opinion on evolution" rather than acceptance or support. Alternatives might be Levels of opinion on evolution or Extent of opinions on evolution. Either way, these are problems that can be fixed and not a good reason to discard this resource. ... dave souza, talk 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a creationist POV fork. I may be persuaded to rename the article, as some of these subsequent arguments have merit, but the allegations that this is an "undercover creationist POV fork" is not well reasoned (and not backed by the facts that I know). StudyAndBeWise 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I concur with dave souza when he writes "The concern about this somehow conveying the mistaken idea that science is by majority opinion can usefully be addressed by a clear statement at the outset of the science section."--note that this is a vote... StudyAndBeWise 01:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hopeless mish-mash of opinion polls. Support for evolution by whom? This is not a coherent topic for an encyclopedia. This is a POV fork where the POV seems to be "anyone who is not actually involved in the field." KillerChihuahua?!? 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would semi agree that everyone who is not an evolutionary biologist, and anyone with less than a PhD has no right whatsoever to voice an opinion in this matter. Not other scientists. Not politicians. Not engineers. Not molecular biologists. Not preachers. No one in the general public. Not creationists. Not teachers. Not courts. Not lawyers. No one except for paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. If I was the king of the world, I would impose that rule. Except that is not reality. And this article describes our current messy reality.--Filll 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? Creation-evolution controversy describes our current messy reality. This article is a POV fork of indeterminate focus and no encyclopedic value. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is nothing like the stub called Evolution polls.--Filll 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This page has irrecoverable POV issues. It says that a majority of people believe in creationism, and then it's ended with "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world." There's no way to get any more POV than that. I'm also not sure why it's relevant to Wikipedia; it just seems to be a bunch of opinion polls, much of which have nothing to do with the subject (UFOs?). .V. [Talk|Email] 16:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even READ the article? And no it does not say that most people believe in creationism. That is pure nonsense. --Filll 17:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more specific. Parts of it do (near the end). Regardless, I don't really see the purpose of this article. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is true that some segments of some communities subscribe to creationism, but not to the extent that many claim. And this article documents exactly to what extent different groups subscribe to creationism. And if you do not understand why it is important, then you have been living under a rock since millions of dollars are being thrown at this issue and many court cases have concerned it and laws in 40 states are being considered, and in many other countries as well. This just reports on the situation. And one aspect of the dispute.--Filll 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it smacks of recentism. I fail to see why a particular snapshot of public opinion as it stands today would be at all useful for an encyclopedia. It would be like having an article about how many people currently like cars better than trucks. I understand creationism v. evolution is a large issue, but this article seems superfluous. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this evolution/creationism debate has been going on for at least a couple of decades, I don't think it's reasonable to classify the topic under "recentism". Dugwiki 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this editor has not actually read the article, since it has signed statements that date from 1966, and polls that date back for a couple of decades, and clear evidence in the "Trends" section that my intention is to find more historical material. My impression from looking at the literature is that creationism belief levels in the US have always been high, and that the recent excitement is not really anything new at all. It also appears that the level of acceptance of evolution among scientists appears to be increasing, not decreasing. This person does not seem to have even read the article.--Filll 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed read the article. Even though there are a few sources which date back to the 60's, that does not seem enough to merit being in an encyclopedia. The question we need to ask is, "Is this information important?" I don't see how this article can meet that standard. The majority of references are within the past 10 years. What is the value of this article? .V. [Talk|Email] 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<arbitrary indent reduction>The topic of this article is sufficiently of interest that at least 3 mainstream books have been published on this, as noted in the article. These sorts of discussions are the basis of laws or laws under consideration in at least 40 US states currently. These sorts of discussions have been part of more than 10 court cases in federal courts, including the US Supreme Court. The level of acceptance of the theory is also used by both sides in the controversy, and considerable effort has been expended by various elements to try to determine what the level of acceptance is by different groups. It is not an article about the science of evolution directly; it is an article about the controversy, and charting its progress. --Filll 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- I commented early on in this AfD, and I've been reading the comments since. I've read the article, and I do not see how any objective reader can conceive that the article is pro-creationism. Now, it is true that (as I mentioned up above) some POV statements need to be removed. The last "delete" vote had a point regarding the ending sentence... I don't think it was necessary, and certainly added nothing of value to the objective data. Nevertheless, that is a problem for cleanup, not scrapping the entire entry. The votes for delete have largely consisted of "I don't like it" comments (if any justification is included at all), and one scorched earth statement. I don't know about the (apparently intricate) edit wars that have attended this and similar articles, but coming into the arena fresh I don't see any good reason provided for deleting this one, and lots of valid data that justifies its retention. And further, reporting on other people's POV from verifiable sources is not, itself, POV; especially if the topic itself is about viewpoints. ◄Zahakiel► 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. What does "support" mean in this case? "I support evolution and think we should have more of it"? "I oppose evolution and want it to stop"? Clearly the article is about belief. Wouldn't that be a better word. semper fictilis 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. You are right! I don't think anyone had noticed that until now. However, I think instead of changing the word "support", we should add "the theory of" before evolution: Level of support for the theory of evolution. The article measures support for the theory of evolution, not the concept of evolution itself. "Level of belief" just sounds somehow ... strange to me. Then again, maybe it's just me. -- Black Falcon 23:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that the renaming of this article has been the subject of an immense amount of discussion. Part of the difficulty is that it has been difficult to get any kind of consensus about renaming. The problem with the word "belief" is that it has too many religious connotations. The acceptance by the scientific community of the theory of evolution to explain the fact of evolution is just what would be expected in any scientific activity. To call this a "belief" would draw parallels with creationism, the fear of which is driving the efforts to have this article deleted. So actually, to call it a "belief" would invite even more attacks of the sort we are witnessing on this page. One could of course include the word theory, but the distinction between the theory of evolution and the process of evolution is addressed in evolution and in objections to evolution and is also addressed in evolution as theory and fact. I will point out that some creationists accept the process of evolution, and some deny that it occurs. Some even accept the theory of evolution, at least in part, to explain the process of evolution. There are many many types of creationist with many different shades of acceptance of evolution the process, and evolution the theory. And none of them agree with each other, by and large. To get into these fine distinctions in this article would require much more information than is currently available, and would require a much longer article.--Filll 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion by admin Nishkid64. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Road

[edit]
Black Rock Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be based on original research. It is largely irrelevant information, and a picture, of a freeway exit which by and large dead-ends on either side of the road. It provides minimal access to the Mt. Trumbull Wilderness area, but most traffic to the Arizona Strip comes off of River Road in St. George, Utah. I think the purpose of the article is primarily to highlight the editor's photography.

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

The result was merge and redirect, which was already done by Mark Grant. - Daniel.Bryant 10:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Grant family

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

OK, this is a strange one and needs some thought. I'm nominating this as being basically an indiscriminate collection of information and possible original research. There are tens of thousands of 'Grants'. There is a Clan Grant and there are many descendants of it various chiefs. This article picks out some Grants who became wealthy recently and trances their origins back to some of them. Perhaps it is verifiable (although the references given don't verify it) but it really doesn't belong here. It is just genealogical trivial on one prominent set of Grants. Merging it with Clan Grant would make no sense either - as this not a geneology of the chiefs - and that article can't contain every Grant. Delete -Docg 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a bit tricky. First, normally I don't see the point of an X family article if there aren't at least a couple notable members (e.g. Bush family, Booth family). On the other hand, the Rich List treats the entire descendancy as one holding and they do occasionally receive coverage. Still this isn't direct coverage, usually, it's coverage of the business. I think being in the top 10 wealth ranking in any country is potentially notable, but is Scotland a country for these purposes? Ultimately I think my instinct is to merge with William Grant (businessman) (there's more information on him in this article than that one), and note the present wealth of the family there. If John Grant (current chairman) or someone else is notable individually, they should have an article, but if we don't have more than one notable member there's little point to an overview/navigation article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with a merge is that we are left with a redirect from 'Grant family' to one particular, and certainly not the most notable, Grant. I suppose, on reflection, we could simply redirect this, without merge, to Clan Grant?--Docg 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about "everyone named Grant", it is an article about the descendants of William Grant, who are rich, and tangentially perhaps related to Clan Grant. William Grant is possibly unquestionably the most notable member. Articles named "Lastname" are for generic information/disambiguation about last names. Articles named "Lastname family" are generally about a particular grouping of people with that name, and should be disambiguated as necessary (e.g. Grant family (distillers). --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, maybe I took your wording the wrong way. We can certainly merge the info and then redirect the article wherever best. As there is also an Irish line of Grants, perhaps Grant per se would be the best redirect.--Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Right now there seem to be three articles which all contain similar information -- Grant family, William Grant (businessman) and William Grant & Sons -- so I think it does need to be rationalised somehow to remove the duplication. Maybe instead of my original idea, moving the historical information to William Grant (businessman) and redirecting Grant family to William Grant & Sons? Mark Grant 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest merging it with William Grant & Sons as it seems like the information is relevant to that article but I'm not sure they're notable enough for an article of their own. BTW, they're at best very distant relatives, so I don't have any vested interest here :). Mark Grant 22:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did I stumble on this while writing about another relative of yours then? Charles Grant (British East India Company)--Docg 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I'm sure the Grants of the world must all be related somehow if you go back far enough :). Mark Grant 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Painted Pixie Moth

[edit]
Scottish Painted Pixie Moth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverified and unsourced article about a moth that I suspect does not exist. Only two ghits for the search term ""Scottish Painted Pixie Moth" -wikipedia". This is probably a hoax or something made up in school. Agent 86 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per consensus PeaceNT 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Roundhill

[edit]
Paul Roundhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article was written by his friend, he's unnotable, very few people would know who he is, and most of the article's factual accuracy is tenuous at best Reubensutton 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The above comments are wholly incorrect. The article is perfectly accurate with many statements referencing newspaper articles and a number of existing links to Wikipedia clearly visible. Mr Roundhill's career and creative contribution is of note in 21st century London literary and artistic circles. His extensive personal archive is relevant to students and researchers. ElizabethQ 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ElizabethQ, i will make a list of the statements which have citations and are therefore proved to be true:
  • his father being a canon
  • him having a bit part in absolute beginners
  • the balachada part
I see nothing in the citation for the public relations that even mentions roundhill.
There is no proof he wrote saga also.
So, if the article is kept it is an article for a bit part actor from 20 years ago with a defunct website devoted to pete doherty.
Reubensutton 16:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"Mr Roundhill's career and creative contribution is of note in 21st century London literary and artistic circles". Filming Pete Doherty on a camcorder is hardly a significant contribution - I'll admit that he's noteworthy amongst certain East London circles though (and we all know what kind of circles). Raskazz 21:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Roundhill co-wrote a song on a recent #1 album; he's the literary agent for one of the most famous musician/poets in the country, and he's featured in dozens of newspaper articles. The citations are adequate for a brand-new article, including documentation of his role as literary agent and publicist for Doherty, and work editing his prison diaries. I would like to add more citations and improve it, so if you see something lacking, please put a "citation needed" tag in, and someone can try to verify it, or remove it if that fails. It's much better than deleting the whole thing outright, especially when the man has been featured in dozens of reputable news articles and meets the standard for notability. OneVeryBadMan 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What song?
And your citation about him being a svengali is an article about him being implicated in a murder, I would say this is important. I don't believe you have a NPOV on this subject, which is why i suspect you're either ro or his associate.
It maybe does meet the standard for notability though.
If it is kept, i think it that it needs completely rewriting.
Reubensutton 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, sir, have you read the article? It clearly identifies the song as The Saga. I'm also baffled by your claim not to see anything about public relations in the relevant citation[83]. Almost the whole article consists of Roundhill acting as a PR, defending Pete and explaining the blood paintings, as well as organizing an exhibition of Peter's artwork. A few of the background bits need referencing, which I'm working on, but almost all the major elements of the article are supported by appropriate citations, namely the role as literary agent, PR, and role in creating the heavily-reviewed multimedia archive on balachadha (which is not defunct, but undergoing a redesign and update). As for co-writing a song with Doherty on the #1 Libertines album, he's credited by name in the songbook I have. I'm looking for an internet citation at the moment, but in any case, it is indisputably verifiable and very notable.
Also, a google search reveals 300,000 hits on his name, linked to him and his work with Doherty, Wolfman, or the Mark Blanco incident, and I've seen his name on the front page of several major newspapers in recent months.
I've been editing here for a long time, and I would appreciate it if you refrained from speculating about my personal life and whom I might or might not be friends with. It's not relevant, and I don't think you have grounds to challenge me on NPOV. People are entitled to their opinions as long as they produce factually correct and neutral articles, and I believe I have done that. I take Wikipedia's policies very seriously, so if you can find something in the article which is biased, please bring it to my attention and make an appropriate edit.
Indeed, I might suggest that your neutrality is dubious, like your claim that the 'svengali' article is "about him being implicated in a murder." The article plainly says no such thing and explicitly states there "is no suggestion that Roundhill had anything to do with it." OneVeryBadMan 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your friendship with Ro, it is relevant. Also, it is not a neutral article, the pete doherty article refers to mark blanco, why does the article not mention any of ro's bad qualities, you cite an article in which he is referred to as “a pond-life dealer and junkie.” in addition to: “There are always young kids round and he lets them take drugs. Since Pete started going around to the flat, more and more of them have been turning up there hoping to see him.". Why are none of these bad qualities mentioned? And in regards to the mark blanco incident, he was questioned about it, implicated was a bit strong, i apologise, but he was involved and you did not mention it at all. Why is this? And bala v2 has not changed in the 7 months i have been aware of it. (assuming it is still at the thinkartful address. I don't have any feelings for or against the man, indeed, he does sound interesting. You've convinced me that it should be kept too.

Reubensutton 01:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep The article has clearly been written by an associate of its subject and omits the unsavoury aspects of Roundhill's character - notably the death of Mark Blanco, the drug-dealing and the scam Babyshambles 'gig' that he arranged in 2005. However, subject to prudent editing and NPOV maintenance it is worthy of inclusion IMO. Raskazz 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Kenda

[edit]
Karl Kenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts Tyrenius 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The creator of this article acknowledges that this biography is OR (see notes below the images). Thus also fails WP:V. WP:BIO is in question as well. Perhaps if the author publishes this original research elsewhere, we'll be reconsidering this in the future. Planetneutral 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delete Not notable by Wikipedia standards Bus stop 03:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Change to Keep. Bus stop 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Although there may appear to be a lack of concensus here, there is no doubt really that this article asserts a bare minimum amount of notability (which makes it slightly more than a speedy candidate, but no-where-near notable enough for a Wikipedia article). - Daniel.Bryant 10:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Roxy (Formerly The Office)

[edit]
The Roxy (Formerly The Office) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be just another nightclub. A few names linked in there, but all indirect. WP:NOT a directory, and we don't include stuff on the off-chance that someone will find it interesting. Chris cheese whine 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Giants

[edit]
Wrestling Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable listcruft. I've already proposed it for deletion but original author has removed it, making me bring this to AfD.   oakster  TALK  21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as subjective, unreferenced and arbitrary inclusion criteria An actual article analyzing the history of "giant wrestlers" might be interesting, such as if it examined and compared historical big men in wrestling to modern day ones, looking at comparing styles, similarities in gimmicks, public reaction and in- and out-of-ring physical health issues (some of these gigantic guys have some similar health problems that most people, even other wrestlers, don't experience). Unfortunately, though, this article doesn't cut it. It's unreferenced, with a totally subjective list inclusion criteria (how giant do you have to be to be giant? JBL is really tall, does he count?) There is no attempt at putting the list in context or explaining exactly why this list of big wrestlers is any more interesting or notable than any other list of wrestlers. I suggest deletion, and then if an editor is interested maybe think about pursuing an actual written article about "giant wrestlers" using proper citations. Dugwiki 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Now The category is new as is the user who created it. Specifics of what defines a 'giant wrestler' can be dealt with over time as can sourcing. From the standpoint of the world of wrestling, it does provide useful biographical information. Bbagot 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation then would be for the new editor who is looking to maintain this to copy and paste the article to his user space. He can maintain the article as a draft in his user space and not have to worry about subjectivity and referencing. Then, if the draft version is fixed up to meet some of the points mentioned in this afd thread, he could see about reappending the new and improved version. Dugwiki 17:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per consensus PeaceNT 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury Baronets

[edit]
Aylesbury Baronets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extinct political or honorary office had only one apparently otherwise nonnotable holder appointed 1627. "Aylsbury baronets" gets 2 Google hits. Unless all titles of nobility which ever existed in the world are inherently notable, delete for lack of notability. Wikipedia does not need to contain copies of everything in every reference book or directory. Inkpaduta 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.Kitty, its funny that that is not the view you hold on other articles that have been up for AfD. And strange that the usual suspects who canvas amongest themselves on AfD's have turned up here again.--Vintagekits 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekşi Sözlük

[edit]
Ekşi Sözlük (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Sozluk.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This article has been sourceless since at least November, when I first tagged it as lacking sources. Googling doesn't bring up sources in any language I can read and none have been provided. Its primarily a venue for POV and original research, and the talk page is mostly trolling.

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. Jaranda wat's sup 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ships of Homeworld

[edit]
Ships of Homeworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list of gamer-only information. It was previously up for deletion here as well as another one which I can't find at the moment (the result was a merge/redirect I think). Anyways, delete as trivia/unencyclopedic. Wickethewok 21:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BPI Energy

[edit]
BPI Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This contested prod actually stayed "prodded" for the nescescary five days, but was then de-prodded by an anon without comment. To be deleted as failing WP:V/WP:RS, and per a lack of notability. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Charlotte

[edit]
Sarah Charlotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently a non-notable actor, their most notable role being 'Teenage Girl #1' in a non-notable short. Claims that she has 'written and published two books under an alias' and 'had her worked published in newspapers', but doesn't cite any examples. No obvious google hits. No IMDB page. Was speedied (deleted by another editor) and then prodded (deleted by the same editor, most of whose edits are to this page). Mark Grant 22:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just to clarify, one editor added a speedy delete tag shortly after the article was created, and that was removed by the original author. I don't think it's previously been deleted, just tagged for deletion multiple times. Mark Grant 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TheRingess, note that WP:CSD G4 only applies to articles deleted through an XfD process, not prior prods or speedies.--Dhartung | Talk 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Muslim Students Association

[edit]
Columbia University Muslim Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university student club. No assertion of notability other than an unsourced unverified statement that it might be "one of" the oldest clubs of its types. Even if it was the oldest, I don't think that meets the threshold. There is an exchange on the article's talk page about its coverage in the press, or lack thereof. Agent 86 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Spotswood

[edit]
Richard D. Spotswood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobio COI; sole link is to product. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Sigmunf Frei

[edit]
Wilhelm Sigmunf Frei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural. The nomination was unfinished, and I have no opinion. Salad Days 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be a word-for-word copy of the article at the correctly spelled name. No need to redirect since this is a highly unlikely typo for a search term. Otto4711 02:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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