Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 9#Omnitheism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article consists of detailed yet wholly unattributed speculation about a newly-termed religious belief. Searches of EBSCO, JSTOR and Google Books turned up just one publication which even includes the word "omnitheism" or "omnitheist": a 1999 book which says an omnitheist is "someone who believes that God is everywhere."^[1] That definition is completely unrelated to this article, which is a prime example of original research and has been prominently tagged as such since 2007-03-30. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to be be a notable use of the term; total lack of sourcing, along with a variety of different uses implies to me that this is basically a niche neologism, used by different people in different ways. Does not appear to be notable enough to be encyclopedic. --Haemo 05:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn and badly-defined neologism, not to mention WP:OR. Ford MF 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I cant find any scholarly use of the term. John Vandenberg 06:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, search engine didn't find many hits, so probably non-notable. Also has no references, so probably original research. *Cremepuff222* 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pantheism for which this neologism is presumably a synonym. The new word is an illegitimate hybrid between Latin Omnis - all and Greek Theos God. Such hybrids are to be deplored. The creator needs to establish that his concept is somthing else. Peterkingiron 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book mentioned above says an omnitheist is one who thinks God is everywhere, but this article (and the pages linked to in its External links section) give a very different definition. Neither equates "omnitheism" and pantheism, so I don't see a warrant for redirecting the former to the latter; such a redirect would be confusing for anyone who uses the term and useless for anyone who doesn't. — Elembis (talk · contribs) 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many academic and scientific coinages are mixtures of Greek and and latin roots -- indeed many later latin words are borrowings from the greek. There is nothing wrong with such a coinage. The problem is tha tthis is a coinage, with no apparent notability. If it had notability, the etyomology would not be a problem. as for "illegitimate hybrids", IMO there is no such thing in english: "The English language is the result of the attempts of Norman men-at-arms to make dates with Saxon barmaids, and no more legitimate than any of the other results." -H. Beam Piper DES ^(talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless reliable sources can be cited that establish the widespread use of this term, and its consequent notability. As per Elembis, a redirect would not be helpful. A redirect could also be reverted to the current article at any time -- an afd cannot make a decision to redirect binding unless it is "delete and replace with a redirect to..." DES ^(talk) 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research/soap boxing. DreamGuy 20:58, 11 June 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. Sr13 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freezing a wasp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Original Research/Hoax, supposedly a popular youtube trend/internet meme, a google search for "freezing a wasp" returns 8 hits, 2 of which are from Wikipedia. Little context, no independent sources, very dubious notability. Creator of article said he would greatly expand the article within one week when he contested the Prod, it's now 7 days later and no improvements. Wingsandsword 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if it's so popular, one would think there would be more out there discussing it. There doesn't seem to be. I did find a video in which someone froze a wasp and tied it onto a string, but it has a total of 969 views. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. -- Esurnir 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, you've gotta be kidding me. The lack of GHits seems to speak volumes as to this being non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR/hoax. Doczilla 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's just something you do to wasps, when you're bored and have nothing better to do. Well, that and write articles about it. --Haemo 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per reasons above. Useight 05:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone before me. Nonsense. Ford MF 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete -makes no sense, has no sources, just some hoax. Tynedanu 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominated for SD This article is a joke, why waste time with an AFD? Have nominated under Criteria: A1. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed --h2g2bob (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very little content beyond ordinary dictionary definitions. NawlinWiki 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sounds like a misnomer anyway. More like inducing hypothermia in a wasp. ~ Infrangible 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while laughing, non-notable, original reasearch. *Cremepuff222* 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the creator, I am sorry that I haven't had a chance yet to update it - but I have been very busy. Most of the confusion IMO is coming from the name of the article, which was a very poor choice - really I was trying to write a general article about stunning insects humanely. I *will* have time to write a better article this week. Best username yet 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to make fun, but it seems like what you are saying is, "aside from the title and the content, this is a good article". Seems harmless to delete this article, and let you write your better article with a better title when you have time, yeah? Capmango 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy may work also, provides little content, no citations--♫Twinkler4♫ 23:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. However, thsi is not a speedy. It is not Patent nonsense so A1 doesn't apply, not is it "empty", and there is context. The problems is the content, and that is for AfD, not speedy, since it is a judgement call. DES ^(talk) 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS Bigdaddy1981 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to White Fire. Sr13 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unremarkable technology, may make a good redirect to White Fire. 650l2520 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google didn't turn up any coverage in secondary sources outside a bunch of specs mentioning the mere fact of the subject's existence. Non-notable. Lots of things are patented; doesn't mean they all deserve wiki articles. Ford MF 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wow, this will really be great for the 12 people in the US whose cars don't have speakers. ~ Infrangible 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, (Infrangible, your humor is great), google search returned no independent sources so it's non-notable. *Cremepuff222* 19:14, 10 June 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. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 21:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-helpfull dab page. As far as I can see all entries should be removed for the page to conform with WP:MOSDAB Taemyr 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Allpages search for outer gives this.—Gaff ^ταλκ 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "non-helpfull" (correct term: "unhelpful") to who? Not me. It fits the definition of a DAB which is "solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term". Well, "outer" is the ambiguous term and can refer to numerous things. Also, the "See also" section fits many of these entries. If you're going to argue WP:MOSDAB (as you and others are on Talk:Mystery (disambiguation)), you better be prepared to delete 99% of the disambiguation pages on Wikipedia because every one I've seen contains links to articles that contain the word/phrase... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problems with entries that contain the phrase, I problems with entries included solely because they contain the phrase. Also, I do not suggest deletion because outer has links that should be deleted. I suggest deletion because outer has no links that should not be deleted. And yes, WP:MOSDAB#The "See also" section can be interpreted in a way that contradicts WP:D#Lists, I hope this get fixed soon. Taemyr 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it seems legitimate to me; the term "outer" can be used in many different contexts. This articles helps a user choose the correct article based on which context they are in. --Haemo 05:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A little broad, but otherwise seems on the up and up. Ford MF 05:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — it appears useful but perhaps needs a reduction in the number of links.--Arthana 09:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the three editors above; See my reasons for nomination; if someone points out two entries that are reasonable targets for outer then I would withdraw my nomination. I don't think there are. Taemyr 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep; dab page. John Vandenberg 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why would anyone search for "outer" by itself? --Alvestrand 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a reason to delete. The issue is that we have no articles that fits as targets. Taemyr 16:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee, Alvestrand, why would anyone search for any single term at all? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 17:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's quite a list of links on the page, so it's probably a legitimate use of a disambig. *Cremepuff222* 19:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a useful disambiguation page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a disambiguation article because it isn't actually disambiguating anything. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as dab page. Convert to list - I agree with Alvestrand, people looking for a particular article of information are unlikely to enter "Outer." One might, but most likely when just wandering through Wikipedia and not looking for a particular article. Its not useful as a standard dab article, but as a list it might make sense to keep it. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The belief that no-one would ever use this page is not a reason to delete it. It's too subjective and would set a bad precedent. Taemyr 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a good argument not to have it as a dab page, which is my first choice. I don't exactly agree with your logic, however. Lack of usefulness seems a good reason to drop a page. I presume you proposed this for deletion to preserve it existence? I'm a bit confused there. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to get this article deleted. But not from for the reason that no users would type outer. Rather for the reason that there is no article on wikipedia that outer should lead to. And yes, I do see that these two arguments are connected. Taemyr 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People who are looking for an article that begins with "outer" can use Special:Allpages; it's bound to be more current than this mess. And even if this so-called dab page is found useful by someone, it is a poster child for WP:D, which governs "different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title". "Outer" is not the natural title for any of these entries. If this is allowed to stand, we might as well throw out the guidelines and say "Go ahead, put any entry on a dab page if it helps draw attention to an article you wrote, or if it brings readers to an article about someone or something you idolize, even if that's not what they were looking for." Chris the speller 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems unlikely that anyone would run into this page, but it would be useful to anyone who did get there, and it's clearly harmless to everyone who never does go there. Capmango 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it help me if I type in Outer to be pointed to Outer Hebrides? None of the articles listed is good targets for Outer. The article can cause harm because we will end up dealing with "other stuff exists" type of arguments. Taemyr 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that harmful? It's called disambiguating--you know, making the ambiguous less ambiguous? <eyeroll> ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no actual ambiguity, between any of the things listed on the article, in the first place. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the terms are known only by the term "Outer". It is not a disambiguation page, merely a list of links that contain the word "outer". While it might perhaps be "harmless", it serves no useful function beyond what Special:Allpages can do better. older ≠ wiser 02:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that special:allpages also lists redirects, which can make it very annoying when trying to find links to legitmate articles (aside from the fact that special:allpages isn't very accessible and a dab page is much more user-friendly). Also, many existing dab pages already include compound-word links (i.e. "outer space") so you'd have to remove a lot of links from dab pages, which I think is just lame. Oh and creating a List of outer-related articles is also lame (like I had to do with List of mystery-related television shows recently due to a silly dispute over 4 measly articles with "mysteries" in their titles)--ridiculous (and creating various lists of outer-related genre/platform-specific articles is stupid, too, when a single dab page would suffice). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 06:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, dab pages are more user-friendly. This is because we have standards for what should be included in them. Taemyr 21:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and those standards are for disambiguating, which is exactly what outer does. Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not what disambiguation pages are for. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is what dab pages are for! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—No articles fit as targets, as Taemyr has explained. --Paul Erik 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation isn't just about articles that fit the target of a vague term, however. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong. That's exactly what disambiguation is about. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• None of the places and things listed are actually known simply as "Outer". This is a puported disambiguation article with zero things that are actually ambiguous, and the very thing that Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists cautions against. Delete. Uncle G 13:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per my comments on the Inner AFD. This is a list of articles containing the word "outer" it is not a disambiguation page. A Disambig page is not a search index. It should list "articles associated with the same title" (i.e. Mercury). But this is not a disambig page because there is no confusion between article names like outer space and outer ear.--Cailil ^talk 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. Deor 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What next after this and Inner. A disambig page for Upper? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think In between comes next?!—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good guesses, but Eep has instead tackled this one: Within --Paul Erik 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the argument that, contrary to the above claims, this is not a disambig page but rather amounts to a "List of articles with Outer in their name". None of these items are ambiguous and none of them referred to as "outer". Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Defies any logical attempt at justification. If I ever find myself at Outer Ankara while trying to read about outer nuclear layers, I'll take it back. Propaniac 16:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep I have serious issues with Σɛ_Þ² because of his/her general complete lack of tact and civility. However, pages such as this increase the access and browsability of Wikipidia. There are major problems with searchability and navigation on Wikipedia. Pages like this open up whole new dimensions for the way that average users (not able to use Special pages for searching) interact with Wikipedia. I think that this is a way to vastly expand the search capacity of Wikipdia. —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As an illogical page. This reminds me a lot of List of things with "darker" in the title. Both contributed by the same user. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ***I'm staying out of this. There is some ambiguity here over where to set the limit on disambig pages. I find the incivility of editor Eep2 just so over the top however, that its really not worth trying to have the conversation. An editor who is under review on RfC and has been blocked recently would typically know that its time to stop attacking other editors, rolling their eyes, and hurling insults.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allpages search for outer give this, which is vastly superior than anything like this list/disambig page. So, delete. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Again, they don't have descriptions and include redirects. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely unnecessary as a disambig page, leaving it an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT. Indrian 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridiculous the number of people who don't know how to (or simply can't) think relatively. Sad, really. Wikipedia's navigation system is crap and needs an overhaul--badly. The dab pages are a good place to start this overhaul since Special:AllPages is inept and inadequate, since it doesn't list by subject, has no categorization other than by namespace, lists redirects, and doesn't even give brief descriptions of each page anyway (usually obscured with wiki markup). Having a specific "related" dab page makes sense. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, on the other hand, maybe it really is illogical... Surely the majority can't be wrong? IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really stoned--what, IPSOS? Hypocrite... I don't do drugs (not even caffeine), thank you very much. The majority can and most often is quite wrong, actually--the majority elected Bush--twice (or 3 times if you count his father), for example. Most people are lemmings... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And no matter how wrong the majority might have been this still mean that Bush ended up as president. It's the same with consensus. Taemyr 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless any of these entries are actually referred to as simply "outer", in which case just delete the ones that aren't referred to as "outer". This is not disambiguating a term, just a word, and we are also supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns. Dekimasuよ! 07:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to stand-alone list article. This is not a disambiguation page, regardless of usefulness. --Piet Delport 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this page does not actually disambiguate between a bunch of article that are all named "Outer" but rather is a hodge podge collection of things that happen to have "Outer" in the title somewhere. WP:DISAMBIG under "What not to include" explicitly excludes lists "of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title". -- Whpq 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate between articles that have the same name. None of the articles listed are called simply "Outer", so this is an unnecessary page. If you think the navigation system here needs changing, simply making pages like this without discussion is not the way to go about it. WarpstarRider 00:17, 14 June 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. Sr13 00:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC 7893 jet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Lego airplane, honestly! I find it hard to belive that this specific Lego product or design is independantly notable, and the article is currently compeltely unsourced. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per my nom unless clear evidence of indpendant notability is established via reliable sources showing that there is mainstream (not merely fan) comment and analysis or serious interest. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly merge this to Lego Town#Airport, though I can't find anything all that exciting about it, so a deletion might be in order. A single LEGO airplane isn't any more notable than their other sets. Besides, an airplane made out of LEGO bricks probably wouldn't have good aerodynamics, since the round knobs everywhere would really make the airflow turbulent. 17 passengers in a four-engine aircraft isn't very cost-efficient, either. But I digress. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced, nn Lego product. Ford MF 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Also, it'd fall under describing an item in an in-universe way (referring to another Lego model as a competitor, for example). IL-Kuma 08:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Oh please... Trusilver 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That's probably a first like that I've saw on Wikipedia, but quite frankly any models or stuff like that should only be mention on the Lego and probably only if it's a popular product--JForget 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge this to Lego Town#Airport, per Elkspeak. Is the runway long enough? I don't know, but I think we should be told. Johnbod 22:18, 13 June 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 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prod. The article has been prodded and restored beforehand so I'm bringing it here. Personally, I think it fails to assert its significance. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable cruft. Tim^V.B._{{critic & speak}} 23:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine, fine, fine. Go ahead and delete it, since everyone is determined this is crap. I give up. Have it your way. Glacierman 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Calmer response below.[reply]
• Keep. Slim article so far, but doesn't appear more or less notable than any other cigar brand. Perhaps an {{expand}} template for now, but I don't see any compelling reason to delete. Ford MF 06:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ford MF. The article does need more to it, but this is a very new brand of cigar, of course the article will be in its infancy stages. It seems notable enough, so leave it. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may be a stub, but it seems to be notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Blood pressure is down again *grin*. As has been noted above, it is a new brand. The notabililty is tied to the creator/maker, Pepin Garcia. When more is known, it will be added. Glacierman 02:37, 11 June 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. Sr13 00:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 A Day The Color Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about a slogan for a organization which lacks an article itself. This seems to demonstrate a lack of notability for the slogan/programme itself. ♠PMC♠ 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the organization isn't notable, the slogan sure isn't. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has merit, if only because it represents the food "color code" of eating 5-10 differently colored foods per day, a valuable message in today's supersized society. Why not just alter the article title simply to Color Code and link it with pages where dietary guidance is provided?

Two relevant books: Joseph JA et al., The Color Code, Hyperion, NY, 2002. Heber H., What Color Is Your Diet?, HarperCollins, NY, 2001.--Paul144 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 5 times In Blue / Purple, Green, White, Yellow / Orange, and Red. No neutral third party sourcing available means its not notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a number of sources, including ones from major universities. - Richfife 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsatisfactorily sourced. Ford MF 06:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think advertising slogans are notable unless they are referred to outside of the ads--the ads just indicate that some interest group or company has tried to make them notable. As for the references: The Dole link goes to "Dole super Kids," their new name for "5 a day"--this particular slogan is not even mentioned; the Cal State link just go to "5 a day," again this slogan is not mentioned, the USC list is just posted at some indeterminate place on their site, the Sunkist site indicates that this has superseded "5 a Day" as their slogan in which case the article can be merged. & then we can discuss whether either form of the slogan should be kept. DGG 02:06, 11 June 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. Sourceability is the issue, and this one is borderline. Some feel it's enough, others feel it's not, but there's no clear consensus about it. Mangojuice^talk 11:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Jimmy Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not asserted. It lacks reliable third-party references. It has four references, three from a blog and one from Ain't It Cool News, which is also nothing more a blog "dedicated to rumors and reviews". Its publisher, Heavy.com might be notable, but just like not every book ever published by a notable publishing house is notable, not everything ever posted on such a website is notable. bogdan 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The references are enough for me. Different strokes, I guess. - Richfife 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. It's in the list of Wikipedia's newest articles on the Main Page, for crying out loud. -- 71.98.101.159 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? All articles created are on the list of newest articles. I could easily create a page called 2389450y23htawrhuioegop4eia;gjkl;rgpoagsda and it would appear on that list even if the page coonsisted entirely of me banging on the keyboard. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I see one ref, the AICN piece, and going through the under 600 Google results I get, I don't see any other outside coverage except for news releases. I don't think this meets notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please explain why not since I have explained below why it DOES meet the notability guidelines.GDallimore (Talk) 09:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wasn't aware it was necessary for an article to "assert notability". It merely had to be notable, requiring (for example) two non-trivial references. The AICN source cannot be discounted for notability given the content of the article and interview. So we have one reliable source. The other reference are not really blogs but are announcements from the development house itself and while I doubt they help for notability as not being independent, they should not be passed over with "oh, they're just blogs". There are other sources, but I haven't added them because they don't contain useful information for making an article. If you go over some of the 600 google hits you find the following:

• It was the last job that the animator of the pilot episode did before his animation house folded.
• It is one of Heavy's prime shows. In online discussions of other heavy shows, Chow is mentioned among the list of great things they've done.

So I think we have multiple non-trivial references.

Given that this show has only been around since April, I think it's doing some pretty fine business in achieveing notoriety and notability on the net. GDallimore (Talk) 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete blogs are not reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This delete vote is based on flawed information: The AICN article is not a blog. The blogs that are cited are not, as I have already pointed out, blogs by random people but are announcements by the production company and therefore meet the requirements for reliable sources that "the authors are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Francis. An article needs independent sources which I couldn't find on the web. *Cremepuff222* 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This delete vote is based on flawed information: There's a reliable, independent source referenced in the article itself, the AICN article.GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just re-read WP:NOTE and the entire basis for deleting this article is flawed. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, contrary to my poor memory, "multiple sources are generally preferred", but are not obligatory.

The subject of this article has received significant coverage in an AICN article, this being a secondary source that is on a significant website, not just a blog as asserted by the nominator. Perhaps the nominator has a thing against AICN, but it's an important site for covering up the minute news on all forms of entertainment and cannot be dismissed as unreliable. Therefore this article clearly meets the requirements set out in WP:NOTE.GDallimore (Talk) 09:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the coverage on AICN is an interview and interviews are primary sources not secondary. bogdan 10:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no. The information comes from the primary source, so it is reliable when it comes to the history of the show, but it is being published by someone independent of the primary source, who also comments on the show, so it is a secondary source. GDallimore (Talk) 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is based exclusively on primary sources. That's it. :-) bogdan 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It's based on reliable information published in a secondary source. In any event, even if you're right, articles can be based on primary sources so long as they are merely descriptive (see last paragraph of this. The current article is mostly a description of the history behind the show and the theme song. It does not include raving commentary about how good it is or extended criticism of how silly it is or any other evaluation, although AICN themselves (in what is clearly a secondary source critique of the show) said things like "Few online anime-take-off's have brought this much craft to their work" and so forth. I've chosen not to include such things in a "reception" section until such time as there are more reliable reviews of the series to make a balanced article. GDallimore (Talk) 12:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment have edited the article to include a new section about the animation on the pilot being done by an experienced animator who had previously worked on Hollywood films, Kung_Fu_Jimmy_Chow#Animation. Does this help? GDallimore (Talk) 12:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Being animated by a non-notable animator does not make it notable. It has to stand on its own! There are probably tens of thousands of "experienced animators" in the world... bogdan 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Perhaps notable in time through multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. One AICN doesn't cut it, and blog coverage doesn't count. Once this is recognized more, an article then would be fine. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To be honest, I had originally thought that, which was why I put the AICN in and did some hand-waving in relation to the other references. However, on re-reading WP:NOTE, it seems clear that one AICN is enough for notability, although more references would be preferred. GDallimore (Talk) 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTE is guideline, not policy. If any guidelines should apply, it should be WP:WEB; This page does not fullfill this guideline for me. I still believe this should be deleted until more than one indepent source can be shown. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Tony Fox. It doesn't meet WP:N --Squilibob 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• HOLD THE PRESS http://www.appscout.com/2007/05/joost_to_offer_heavy_programmi.php Just found this article by AppScout (brought to you by the editors and analysts of PC Magazine and therefore reliable by any measure) mentioning that Kung Fu Jimmy Chow was to launch the new Heavy Animation channel on Joost. That's two reliable sources. It must meet notability requirements now! GDallimore (Talk) 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per references cited, particularly recent addition of appscout.com reference. DES ^(talk) 05:49, 16 June 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 red link. Krimpet (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I cannot find any reference of this, but it may be a valid topic if someone can verify and explain it. 650l2520 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete lacks context, unsourced. Although possibly true (AGF), not something that I learned in medical school. At best, this could be merged into the Autism article, but without sourcing, would probably get deleted there as well. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regular Delete It's true that autistic people tend to do this, but I don't think the term in this form is all that commonly used. - Richfife 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Gaff. --ROASTYTOAST 04:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Doczilla 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gaff as well. Ford MF 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - autism has its many varieties. You could argue a case for a red diet article, a blue diet article. Any colour. This one is un-sourced and irrelevant. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Gaff, but don't merge. I couldn't find any reliable sources on the internet, so the context that is present can't be verified. *Cremepuff222* 19:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to diet (and mention on autism). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Autism therapies - The content is factual and encyclopedic but perhaps not enough to warrant an article. Or not unless someone writes a worthwhile article. Do a Google on "white diet" and "autism". --Richard 05:20, 13 June 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. Sr13 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-admited neologism. Google hits all seems to commercial sites using this term to sell stuff without providing any real info. Two of the external links do not atcually mention "Vibrational psychology" and the third is selling a course on it which is supposed to be a "meeting of Ancient Mysticism and Quantum Physics". I am left with the impression that neologism is just a sales term with nothing encyclopedic to say on the subjectBirgitteSB 22:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of widespread use outside of the inventors. - Richfife 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references, the stuff provided as external links is bunk. This article can go. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that anything which uses the words Ancient Mysticism and Quantum Physics in the same sentence is going to be non notable bilge.Nick mallory 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - self-admitted neologism, which does not appear to be notable. --Haemo 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some satisfactory sources can be dug up. I couldn't find any. Ford MF 08:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I looked for sources, but couldn't find any. This also suggests that it's non-notable. *Cremepuff222* 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as all above. JJL 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. JoshuaZ 02:45, 12 June 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. Sr13 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Rodney Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a mishmash of information which fails to establish notability per WP:BLP policy. Aarktica 22:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking sufficient claim for notability. The article is a disaster, which is besides the point: why is Orphanbot tagging articles with image deletion warnings rather than the usertalk pages?? —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Orphanbot didn't tag an article. The creator originally generated the article on his talk page & then moved it. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I can't decide if there are 4 articles in there or none. I'm going with none - Richfife 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTE; searching for William Rodney Galloway returns pretty much only Google Groups hits. The article also seems to violate WP:SPAM regarding the "Marquis Who’s Who" directory Lipsticked Pig 23:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only claim to notability is that Galloway is the "first junior enlisted serviceman to become an ALS Leadership Academy Instructor for the USAF". This does not seem to meet our notability requirements, but even more importantly, I can find no reliable, verifiable sources for this individual. -- JLaTondre 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - no real indication of notability, no sources, no article. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing but an in-domain (USAF) notability. Article's defense of Marquis Who's Who smacks of desperation; Marquis does have minimum standards, but they are far below that of Wikipedia notability, and individuals pay to have a complete listing unless they are exceptionally notable. Due to this conflict of interest, they cannot be considered an independent source for notability purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, unsalvageable mess. Ford MF 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, horrible mess, I'm not even going to look into notability. Even if this guy is notable, the article should still be deleted to make way for a better one for now, given that this article has no worth in an encyclopedia. T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If "Who's Who"'s are going to be reasons for BLP's, then half of the western world merits one.Piperdown 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Articles formatting/quality notwithstanding, notability has not been established. — ERcheck (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ick, what a mess! No notability in the article as it stands, and I couldn't find any decent references. *Cremepuff222* 19:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, This page was speedily deleted not more than 2 weeks ago. The user requested a copy put on their user space, and then that user moved it directly back to the article mainspace. The user can be found here: User talk:Research2020. T. Moitie ^[talk] 19:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I will not give my time any further to this entry, as well I will reduce charitable giving if you believe that notability in not established. To whom much is given much is expected, to whom little is given little is expected. You established that little was given or expected. The damage of your words are permanent, and they will have an effect on the future.

Please inform your local libraries, colleges, and corporations, inform them that they waste their money investing in purchasing Marquis Who’s Who editions. Paying thousands of dollars for online access or printed editions is a waste of tax dollars and company money that belongs to investors. I'm sure their justification to spend your money has no merit based on your extensive knowledge of what and who is notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.155.137.14 (talk • contribs).

same references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Who%27s_Who

As I said, I'm a novice wikipedia user and made this entry into a free database of information. This was not done by a public relations writer. I gave first hand knowledge and asked for wikipedia experts to edit and correct this entry so that it meets acceptable standards. All persons commenting have pointed out problems without proposing a solution.

You do not have to explain further, I know who and what all of you are. You are all examples of racist bigots that disrupt unity and work against mutual cooperation when asked for help. In no way was this constructive criticism, it was a blatant attack. I'm sorry that I do not meet those high standards of the trash you support.

Quote from Mr. Galloway The only autograph I'm asked for is my signature on a check. Bleeding liberals beg for money for their causes that were problems that could have been avoided by better lifestyle choices. If I decline, they do what ever they can to drag me down and into their despair and pain in order to silence my conservative opinions. In life we all suffer, but some suffering can be avoided by better choices. People have to want to change before they can be helped. A hungry drug addict made a choice.

Notable or notorious? All of you commenting desire to hurt others not uplift. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

A little more than a year ago, somebody approached Monica Lewinsky in an airport and asked for an autograph. Lewinsky declined to sign, explaining, "I'm kind of known for something that's not so great to be known for." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Research2020 (talk • contribs).

Reply:

• "I will reduce charitable giving if you believe that notability in not established." - Is that some sort of threat? I'm not following the logic here.
• "Please inform your local libraries, colleges, and corporations, inform them that they waste their money investing in purchasing Marquis Who’s Who editions" - I agree, but I don't control purchasing policy for these institutions. Feel free to go ahead yourself, though. Most of the references in the Galloway article attempt to bolster the status of Marquis. That didn't strike you as odd? This article is kind of interesting (click past the ad page): [2].
• "I gave first hand knowledge" - That may have seemed like a good idea, but it wasn't. Wikipedia is a Tertiary source derived from secondary sources. First hand knowledge is also know as original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
• "asked for wikipedia experts to edit and correct this entry so that it meets acceptable standards" - Sorry, but Wikipedia is so large and the pool of experienced editors is so small, that we require that new editors familiarize themselves with the guidelines for editing themselves first, before contributing. Contributing and then expecting others to fix up any problems later is not the right approach. Also, one of the ways that things are fixed up later is by deleting them completely. Thus this page.
• "You are all examples of racist bigots" - No one in this AFD has mentioned race. And even further: Nothing in the article mentions race. Even now I have no idea what race Galloway is. Is he Hispanic? Asian? Black? Native American? White? Mixed? Even if we knew, what basis do you have for this accusation? I can be grouchy and sarcastic all day long. That doesn't make me racist, sexist, classist, or anything except possibly misanthropic.
• "Bleeding liberals beg for money for their causes that were problems that could have been avoided by better lifestyle choices. If I decline, they do what ever they can to drag me down and into their despair and pain in order to silence my conservative opinions" - He's a conservative? We're all liberals? (OK, I am, but I'm guessing at least some of the AFD contributors are not). Again, I had no idea what Galloway's politics are and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Don't make assumptions about what this is about.
• "I'm kind of known for something that's not so great to be known for" - At least she's known. Galloway is not.

Thanks. - Richfife 14:57, 12 June 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. Now, let me explain.

I have evaluated all of the arguments carefully, and each side has raised some very valid points. Seth Finkelstein has been covered by the media in the past. The "delete" arguments said that a "mention" in the New York Times still does not make you notable. The "notability debate" ended with "no consensus". If this were not a living person, I would have closed it as such.

However, Mr. Finkelstein has expressed the desire to have his biography removed. According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability. Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. We've seen this happen before; only recently, a professor was detained in an airport because his Wikipedia biography falsely stated that he had ties to a terrorist group. These articles are about real people, not just some fictional video game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I closed this debate as delete. Keep in mind that this was in no way unilateral, that I did not come into this debate with a decided mind. I read the discussion, read the policy, and made a decision based on all arguments raised. Sean William @ 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards, I request that the community expand the precedent of courtesy deletions to a slightly wider scope: these examples aren’t world leaders and both of them have expressed to me by e-mail that they would rather not be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Bear in mind that some of the information Wikipedia publishes about these people comes from small presses and date from an era before either this site or the Internet existed. To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet.

With respect for the editors who’ve contributed these pages, it’s always been my belief that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be placed in the hands of the people who live with the consequences. No one could have more at stake in this request than these articles’ subjects. We ask notable people not to edit their own articles; we insist that they don’t own the content and we stand by other site policies. On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives.

I ask the community to replace these two pages with a template to the effect of “deleted per request of the article subject”, then Oversight the history and page protect, with equivalent action for the respective talk pages. I also ask we extend a similar courtesy in the future toward living persons who may be notable, but are neither celebrities nor criminals. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, SqueakBox 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Just because a few policy junkies have taken it upon themselves to make BLP more strict or try to enforce their view of it more strictly doesn't change anything. --Gwern (contribs) 01:09 10 June 2007 (GMT)

Er, if the policy itself has changed then surely that does make a difference? Orpheus 01:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we do need people to make policy and to not let others make policy in their own image etc, SqueakBox 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as before. Meets all relevant policies, enough nonsense already - we're an encyclopedia, not a charity case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply: Since when is it charity to remove someone of marginal notability from an encyclopedia? Keeping a non-notable would be charitable. 85.1.6.247 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am a something of an inclusionist, who would have in the past sided with Keep in this article. I have become convinced that allowing opt-out of semi-notable BLP subjects is a wiser course.Edivorce 01:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted by a participant in the Allison Stokke AfD, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry..... As with the AfD twinned with this one, the advice applies here. -- Robster2001 01:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the sourced data elsewhere as per WP:BLP. Keep the data. Lose the troll magnet. WAS 4.250 02:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Ripberger 04:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Badlydrawnjeff writes "we're an encyclopedia, not a charity case". On what planet would an encyclopedia carry an entry on a non-notable like Seth Finkelstein? Right thinking people sign up to write about Christopher Columbus and FDR, not to persecute individuals like Seth Finkelstein. Keep voters should be ashamed.--Oakhouse 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only response would be as to what planet would consider Finkelstein non-notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: You mean upon which planet? Well, he's not sufficiently notable on this one, for starters, to hold him prisoner against his will. For a more formal answer, how long of a list do you want (of planets? Does Pluto count? More importantly, which planet are *you* from?62.202.195.170 16:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Not sure how the article "persecutes" Finkelstein though. Ford MF 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Changing to Keep as I have been swayed by the arguments in this and the previous AfD debate, DESiegel, et al. Ford MF 07:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He makes his case here and here. WAS 4.250 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, for reasons I stated in the Daniel Brandt AfD. I've become more sympathetic of late with critics of the Wikipedia "system" due to my battles with the clique that's eager to suppress them (such as with the "BADSITES" proposal I wrote this essay about). I still think he's got some notability in "geek circles" and, like the Shakespearean lady, "doth protest too much" about his article, which doesn't seem harmful or defamatory in any way. In general I'd prefer Wikipedia to have coverage of such figures and topics that matter to computer nerds (if there's gonna be systemic bias, why not have it be in favor of my in-group!), but I'm giving more benefit of the doubt these days to those who say that Wikipedia isn't always so great for everybody, so I'll end up not siding with either side. *Dan T.* 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to make it official, for the arguments I've made so many times before. Please note, I don't want to retype them all for yet another discussion. Thanks to the proposer for doing a good deed, and the people above who have linked to the relevant past statements -- Seth Finkelstein 15:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep same as AFD before it. SakotGrimshine 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. --Mantanmoreland 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as the subject of the article is of questionable notability and the subject has also expressed his desire for the deletion of the article. Cowman109^Talk 17:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He's marginally notable and has said he doesn't want it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per request of the subject. (Although matters like this should be handled by WP:OFFICE.—AL ^FOCUS! 20:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. I completely disagree with this nomination. The idea that we should delete articles on "notable" subjects because someone somewhere doesn't like the coverage is abhorhent. It is typical PC, feel-good thinking run amuck and the sight of many editors patting themselves on the back for their newfound ethicality and love for their fellow man is appalling and revolting. In fact, it is this kind of approach that completely destroys whatever limited integrity wikipedia has built over the years. Perhaps that is the intent. Nevertheless, in the present case, Seth Finkelstein is no Daniel Brandt. Rather, he appears to be a complete non-entity unlikely to rise - despite the laudable attentions of the contributors to this article - to even a minimalist interpretation of wikipedia's "notability" guidelines. --JJay 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify: by no means do I propose an aggressively PC deletion standard at every Wikipedia article. I do suggest that the subjects of lower-end notability BLP articles be granted more respect when one asks us to delete the particular article about himself or herself. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Thanks for your remark, but I again disagree. There is no such thing as "lower-end" notability. Per policy and guidelines, topics are either "notable" or they are not "notable" - in the latter case the corresponding articles should generally be deleted. As for the wishes of article subjects concerning the disposition of bio articles, we should be granting equal respect to all article subjects, both living and dead (i.e. through their families). We should be encouraging them to edit their bios and to participate in improving wikipedia. Their opinions as to their proper suitability for a bio article should certainly be taken into consideration. This applies directly to Mr. Finkelstein, who has strenuously argued that he lacks the minimum prominence for a bio article. He wants his article deleted, I assume out of a desire to maintain wikipedia's notability standards. His voice is clearly heard, but it's his astonishing lack of prominence that rules the day and justifies removal of his article. Of course, should Mr. Finkelstein continue to pen articles on society and the world at large, should he actively seek to escape his current obscurity by transforming himself into a voice that matters, then the situation will have changed and Mr. Finkelstein would qualify for inclusion. JJay 14:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If, as you purport, there is no notion of marginal notability, then perhaps annotation to the policy is in order. This being in to offer a "shades of grey" perspective, a la "this is not a digital, but an analog determination". Anyways, he's only on Wikipedia by virtue of the propensity of hi-tech persons on Wikipedia, which doesn't at all represent the overall population of Wikipedia encyclopedia users.

• Actually this site has some longstanding precedents for courtesy deletions of borderline notability biographies that would otherwise have survived AFD, per a request for deletion by the article's subject. Now that BLP policy endorses this practice I'm proposing we extend that courtesy toward other living people who aren't notable enough for coverage in traditional paper-and-ink encyclopedias. I think that's reasonable because it wasn't so long ago that neither Wikipedia nor the Internet existed. This isn't a very frequent type of request so fulfilling it would earn goodwill with minimal impact on our database. Honoring this type of request is also, in my opinion, basically the decent thing to do. Durova^Charge! 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Keep. Thanks to the exchange above I decided to look closer at Mr. Finkelstein's "notability". I had thought that his award was a bit of a joke, until I saw that it earned him a long profile in the New York Times. The Times says: "Mr. Finkelstein has influenced public debate and legal decisions". [3]. He is called an "expert", an "Internet filtering authority" and a "civil-Liberties activist" by a diverse range of news sources including the Washington Post. As an award-winning activist and apparently a leader in his field, Mr. Finkelstein has become a de facto public figure and suitably notable for a biography. Interestingly, Mr. Finkelstein states in his Times profile: "Once you give censors free rein, they go after sex. They go after sex education. They go after feminism. They go after gay rights." He is absolutely correct here. The idea of "courtesy deletions" is part of a slippery slope that leads inexorably to censorship, both oblique and blatant. I'm seeing it everyday, as people use WP:BLP to remove information from wikipedia that they consider unencyclopedic or otherwise distasteful. The self-righteousness and disdain of these self-appointed moral crusaders - Wikipedia's own Mutaween - is sadly not surprising, but still shocking to me. Our policies and guidelines are robust enough to ensure that bios of non-prominent individuals are deleted. Mr. Finkelstein though, is not in that category and this nomination is misguided. --JJay 23:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I treasure my award, but sadly, I can neither eat it, wear it, nor sleep in it. Nor has it converted into anything along those lines. After kilobytes of tedious discussion, I hardly think anything is being censored. Moreover, I'm not trying to suppress or hide anything. Rather, I don't want a "weapon of asymmetric warfare" trained on me all the time. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Based on your comment, it would seem that you implicitly recognize that you are suitably "notable" for a bio here - and your article does not appear to have been vandalized since January. Therefore, your "I don't want a bio " argument does not seem particularly compelling to me. I also find it hard to believe that you shun the limelight when you would appear to spend a fair amount of time either writing columns for The Guardian [4] - work that is republished around the world [5] - or sharing your expertise with other journalists [6]. Incidentally, what sort of courtesy opt-out clause do you provide to google, censorware writers and other assorted targets from your weapon of asymmetric warfare articles and public activism? --JJay 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please note I've repeatedly, repeatedly, replied to these arguments. It's potentially harmful to me, and that should be recognized. I'm not a celebrity or someone of great media status, so if I wish to opt-out if at all possible, that should be a reasonable request. It's extremely wearing to have so many people seemingly requiring a long personally typed reply on a repetitive point -- Seth Finkelstein 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thank you for personally typing your 65-word comment and I'm sorry you seem to find this debate tiresome. In the interest of repetition, I will restate my previous question: As a Guardian columnist and censorware/google activist, what sort of courtesy opt-out clause do you offer to your subjects of predilection? For example, in your April column entitled "Accusations of sex and violence were bound to grab the headlines", did you ask the bloggers involved if they found your insinuations "potentially harmful"?[7] Or in your March column "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive", did you ask Ryan Jordan if he wanted to opt-out from further coverage of his "flailing as his tangle of lies became undone"?[8]JJay 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines arguing over not just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but what dances the angels should be doing, what music should be playing when the angels dance, and whether the heavenly choir is notable only as a group or for individual members. A hypothetical WP:OPTOUT would be no more or less indeterminate than WP:BIO in the first place. The idea that one can't define a workable policy about who could opt-out, is ludicrous.

But somehow, when this topic comes up, a quasi-autistic condition sets in. Like patients with neurological afflictions who cannot distinguish human beings from objects (ala "The Man Who Mistook His Wife From A Hat"), there's a proclamation of the utmost inability to distinguish among any sort of level of notability. No shade of gray is possible, only the starkest black or white.

It is simply absurd, and an annoying smokescreen for the unwillingness to recognize the harms Wikipedia can do. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Yes, wikipedia has policies and guidelines for bios/notability and you meet those standards by a wide margin. And while you have singularly failed to demonstrate any harm caused by this entirely neutral article, either real or potential, your award-winning activism and journalistic endeavors continue to make you a valid subject for a bio. I congratulate you for that. Regarding autism, I also congratulate you for completely ignoring my questions, which speak directly to the potential harm caused by your activism/writings. --JJay 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hypothetically, possibly, conjecturally, allegedly, harmful at some possible point in the unknown future. Should that be the basis for making policy decisions about it now? It seems like if you accept such lines of reasoning, you can open the way to all sorts of pernicious things, including various forms of censorship (Well, you know, porn | radical politics | information on making explosives | etc. can possibly cause harm to somebody in the future, so you should censor it now!) Anyway, regarding your earlier comments... somebody should encourage EFF to make their future awards edible, wearable, or sleepable-on so future recipients can't question their utility! *Dan T.* 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DanT, I've already responded. To paraphrase, it's one thing to give every dog one bite, another to go down the road that the bitten bears the burden of proving against the unwilling "owner" that another bite will happen, that it will break the skin, that there will be infection, and rabies is rare anyway, etc. etc. One bite should be more than sufficient to establish the reasonableness of not wanting that dog around. -- Seth Finkelstein 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; See my commentary here, except replace "Daniel Brandt" with "Seth Finkelstein"—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The NYTimes thinks he's notable, and the EFF gave him an award. He is now no longer a strictly private figure. He has written an article in the Guardian (cited in this article) "I'm On Wikipedia, Get Me Out of Here" saying essentially that because it was subject to being vandalized, he didn't want it. Anyone at all could say that. In his case there is nothing but positive coverage. But this is an unfair precedent--anyone and everyone with coverage they thought unflattering, but had not actually been convicted of a crime or elected to major public office could ask the same. The result is that WP would become, as far as living figures are concerned, a source of Vanity Biography.

Durova, have you considered this aspect? DGG 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the irony makes me smile - an essay about how Mr. Finkelstein wants his biography deleted getting cited as a reason for keeping the biography. I did some research before nominating these biographies and located very few individuals who had a known desire to have their biography pages deleted. If we adopt a paper-and-ink standard for courtesy deletions I doubt there would be a substantial impact on our database. Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, has certainly had his share of bad press but any general purpose encyclopedia would probably include him because of his role in international events. Notorious criminals wouldn't leave our pages either, since those people get indexed in specialty dead-trees encyclopedias. Durova^Charge! 19:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Barely notable. A mention in the NYT doesn't make him notable, either. -- ChrisO 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An 1,100-word NYT profile is hardly a "mention".~[9] JJay 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never even heard of this guy before. -Pilotguy hold short 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:IDONTKNOWIT from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. JJay 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable within his field, has been the subject of multiple artilces in major media outlets, has been given an award by EFF (and I'll bet I could find several additional sources). IMO the subject's desire to have or not have a wikipedia aticle should be strictly irrelevant, provided that all content is accurate and fully sourced. Anything else makes us just another Who's Who, which we don't consider a reliable source because entries are at the request of their subjects. And there htere isn't even any negative content. DES ^(talk) 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the first AfD for answers to this question. I wrote many replies there. I don't want to retype them here. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. I do not find the arguments made there persuasive. In effect, you complain that although the current article is accurate and in no way defamatory -- indeed it is fairly positive -- the chance that someone could vandalize the article and thereby have liable or defamation be given wikipedia's imprimatur is just too great for you to risk. While there are never any guarantees, I note that the last vandalism was this edit at 14:06, 21 January 2007, reverted in less than 1 minute. The latest previous vandalism was this edit on 10:03, 18 October 2006, also reverted the same minute, and the one before that was this edit on 14:47, 28 September 2006 also reverted the same minute, and before that was this edit at 13:24, 28 September 2006, reverted 1 minute later, and before that this edit at 13:16, 28 September 2006 reverted three minutes later, and before that this edit at 12:14, 28 September 2006 , reverted seven minutes later. All of these are obvious vandalism -- none were at all likely to damage anyone's reputation, or be seen as anything other than vandalism by anyone of sense, and none stayed up for as much as ten minutes. The article has been in a vandalized state for a grand total of less than 20 minutes over the last seven months -- not really horrid quality control. In short, i think you would do better to worry about being struck by lightning. As a matter of policy, i think that whether the subject of an article wants it deleted or not should have pretty close to zero weight in deletion decisions, or if anything a bit of negative weight. That is, a subject who wants an article should have it more likely to be deleted in a close call, and one who does not want an article should have it more likely to be kept in a close call. That is because the person who wants an article may be motivated by vanity, and his or her claims of notability should be looked at more dubiously, while a person who wants an article deleted may want something covered up. now I don't think you are trying to cover anything up here, so I think this article should be governed by our usual standards, and by those I think this is a clear keep. For better or worse, you have entered history in a minor way, and must put up with being recorded as a part of it. To say otherwise is ultimately to say that wikipedia should have no biographical articles at all, because the same reasoning about the risk of vandalism could apply to any of them -- indeed articles about really highly notable figures are vandalized far more often -- look at the edit history of George W. Bush for example, or John Kerry. Indeed, any article could be vandalized at any given moment, so, since inaccurate information is worse than none, the logical conclusion of this argument is that wikipedia should be shut down promptly, as inherently unreliable and a public nuisance. I don't agree. DES ^(talk) 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot tell the difference between me, Bush, and Kerry, there is nothing I can say beyond what I've already said too many tiring times. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is a justification for a Wikipedia listing, yet notability does not require a Wikipedia annotation. If that were true, this would be a worldwide "who's who", which it is not. And in the case of a living person, who doesnt like the listing - for God's sake, let them live in peace. Not even the entire Board of Wikimedia Directors has a BLP.BCBGchic 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User's second edit at wikipedia. [10]. JJay 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:N and it is sourced by reliable sources to boot. I'm getting tired of editors arbitrarily applying their take on our standards to suit their opinion. With these AfDs, our "policies" and "guidelines" are becoming meaningless. --Oakshade 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO and WP:N are guidelines which it may or may not easily pass; WP:BLP is policy which is does not easily pass. --Iamunknown 07:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What section of WP:BLP doesn't this pass?Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the fourth word of the nomination. Sean William @ 15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That says they may take the subject's wishes into consideration when closing, not that it's a deletion criterion in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a tip of the hat to Durova for bringing this to AfD instead of speedy-deleting, and without prejudice towards incorporating the information in other articles. BTW I don't think need to put a template up about this being deleted at the request of the subject.

Seth's words from a few months ago have stuck in my mind: something to the effect of, "You've done some good things, so here is your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life." The main objection I have to deleting articles upon request of the subject is that our graciousness would turn into a willingness to whitewash Wikipedia (and I believe we are doing too much whitewashing already). But deleting an all-positive bio about a private individual is not going to hurt our credibility, so let's do it. Kla'quot 16:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a need to say that while I support deleting this article, I strongly disagree with the rationale given in the nomination. The policy changes at WP:BLP#BLP_deletion_standards are guidelines for closing, not reasons for nominating or for voting. Wikipedia is developing a culture where all it takes for an article to be deleted is that the subject isn't a world leader, the subject doesn't want an article, and the closing admin hasn't heard of the person. Kla'quot 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while I argued to keep at the Brandt AfD, it does not appear to me that the subject here is of lasting enough notability to justify an encyclopedia entry. While I am not for the "delete-upon-request" mentality coming around recently, the fact that he doesn't want it either is rather icing on that particular cake. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It makes me really really sad when people find having a Wikipedia entry an extra nuisance. Having a Wikipedia entry should be an honor, not a burden... Very very sad. Also, it is one thing to "whitewash" (remove justified and well-sourced criticism), and a completely different matter when we unable to keep articles free from libel and vandalism. --Merzul 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we have been able to keep this particular article quite free of libel and vandalism. See my list of vandal edits above -- less than 20 minutes of unreverted vandalism in the apst 7 months, and none of thsoe approch libel -- the most "defamnatory" was a staement that his beard was too long, for heaven's sake. See also GRBerry's comments below. I also will put this article on my watch list if kept, and help make sure that any vandalism is rverted. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:N and requesting deletion is not an encyclopedic reason to delete; if Oliver North or Bill Clinton or Charles Manson wanted their articles deleted or have the unfortunate material removed from them would any self-respecting encyclopedia comply? Carlossuarez46 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Finkelstein is notable for his investigations into Google and search engine censorship,[11][12] especially his controversial views on use of bayesian filtering at Google.[13] He's regularly used as a pundit and quoted by many newspapers and blogs. Finkelstein got an exemption made to the DMCA,[14] which is no minor achievement. He is generally listened to - when he wrote about his previous deletion attempt[15] it got picked up elsewhere.[16] Finally, his work has been recognized with an EFF Pioneer Award.[17] Together, this shows he is notable enough for inclusion.

I don't know what the "precedent of courtesy deletions" are, perhaps someone can point them out. The BLP deletion link given is very limited. Suggesting oversight is needed is crazy - deletion means it's off the internet. Protection of the page is probably not needed (you probably left this in from your copy-and-paste from the Brandt article). The references given are certainly not "from an era before either this site or the Internet existed". --h2g2bob (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"regularly used as a pundit ... He is generally listened to" - Who is this "Seth Finkelstein" of which you speak? Must be someone else who shares my name. I've never met him, but I'd like to. Thanks for the kind words, but the previous deletion attempt got coverage not because of who-I-am, but because it was a human interest story of someone who viewed a Wikipedia entry of him as detrimental to his life, in contrast to how so many people want to be in Wikipedia for vanity reasons. As I say, I consider this a case of "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life" - Seth Finkelstein 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That line of argument isn't really designed to win over Wikipedians, who are unlikely to want to believe that articles in their encyclopedia are "troll magnets" (true or not). *Dan T.* 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but I'm not good at politics. What other reasonable answer is there to accusations of being a censor or a control-freak? -- Seth Finkelstein 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A mention in the New York Times doesn't make someone notable. A long article in the New York Times which covers his life including where he grew up and what he read as a child, and specifically credits him for making information widely public, an EFF award, and a DMCA exemption does. "As a founder of the Censorware Project, an anti-filtering advocacy group, Mr. Finkelstein has influenced public debate and legal decisions"... -AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If WP:OPTOUT existed, I'm not sure that this article would be at AfD. Mr. Finkelstein seems to meet the criteria for an article, and this doesn't really seem to be the main focus of his arguments for deleiton. As such, my preference that AfD arguments be based on established policy and guidelines leads me to this position. Maxamegalon2000 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is notable enough for an article and the existing article seems consistent with WP:BLP. I don't see any realistic way to incorporate the subject's desires to not have such an article into the process. Bucketsofg 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with User:Bucketsofg above. If we have a general "opt-out" policy, and this person seems to want, anyone whose biographical article includes accurate but unwanted content will opt out, introducing a huge systemic bias, and making this into a large vanity-bio site. The subject's role in getting changes made to the DCMA alone warrant an article. FredCups 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons stated by others. Three additional comments:

• Durova writes, "To paraphrase one appeal, the individual expected to wrap his fish in those papers the next day and certainly didn’t anticipate how those bits of information could be collected and assembled a few keystrokes away for anyone on the planet." This argument seems to apply only to pre-Internet incidents, and even in that sphere certainly doesn't apply to a profile in the New York Times, which was available on microfilm at every major research library in the United States.
• Mr. Finkelstein has urged deletion because trolling edits to the article will be "reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia." He has elaborated: "Wikipedia is different from putting a page up on the web, because Wikipedia strips out attribution, and worse, adds an unwarranted air of authority. Or are you saying that Wikipedia articles are (not *should be*, but *are*) in general trusted no more than a crazy ranter's website?" I don't think the laundering effect is all that great. I looked at a randomly selected vandalistic edit to the article and it told me, inter alia, that "Seth Finlestein [sic] ... jumps 4 inches high". The hypothetical reader who came to the article during the two minutes before that was reverted would indeed have trusted it no more than a crazy ranter's website (assuming the reader to have an ounce of intelligence).
• If vandalism of this article is indeed a problem, then semi-protection might be appropriate. It wouldn't prevent all vandalism, trolling, mudslinging, etc., but it would help.

JamesMLane t c 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Who? --Coroebus 11:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IDONTKNOWIT is no reason for deletion --h2g2bob (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the existence of a handful of references to someone, who has achieved nothing of interest or note, is no basis for an article! (I am of course talking in terms of what belongs in an encyclopedia, rather than having a go at Seth) --Coroebus 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he is notable and significant in his field. (Argument made more fully by me in the first AFD and by others above.) As I promised in the last AFD, I've watchlisted the article since then. I've only had three reverts on the article in the last year (two of those over external links); vandalism is not a frequent occurance. The only repeated vandalism I am aware of occurred within 48 hours of the first AFD closing, so we'll probably have to watch especially closely after this one closes. GRBerry 14:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry, there are many stories where the gist of the plot is that a threat which hangs over one's head is still destructive even if that threat is never carried out. A Wikipedia biography is a constant threat. Regrettably, I would like to be unburdened of it. Yes, there are other negatives besides this. But, in my view, Wikipedia has already had its "one bite" at me, and the frequent news stories of people's Wikipedia articles being used to libel them do not re-assure me. -- Seth Finkelstein 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't give a rat's ass about WP:BLP -- there's no "delete because the subject is a control freak" clause within it that I'm aware of -- but the subject isn't all that notable to begin with. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with indefinite semiprotection. The possiblity of vandals causing reputational damage is a great argument for indefinite protection of the article, but not for deleting the article. Agree with FredCups a few edits up in that allowing public figures to opt out would set a bad precedent. Squidfryerchef 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is only marginally notable. In accordance with the new BLP policy we should delete. [18] I have noticed all the keep votes have REFUSED to properly address the new policy standard. So that makes their votes irrelevant. This also confirms the article can easily be deleted within policy guidelines. I call on the closing administrator to carefully evaulate the AFD comments and the new BLP policy. I must say, both Daniel Brandt and Seth Finkelstein are not notable to any degree to be included in any encyclopedia (paper or online). Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a contentious subject, I consider it unhelpful for you to urge that several other editors' comments be ignored as "irrelevant". As to your specific point, (1) the new policy applies only in cases of borderline notability, and some of us don't consider a Times-profiled award-winner to be borderline; and (2) even when it does apply, the weight to be given the subject's preference is not specified -- I'm guessing that any attempt to make the subject's preference dispositive, or even to accord it "substantial" weight or some such, would have met with significant opposition. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Seth Who? is only borderline notable. Thanks for your input. I rest my case. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News The Daniel Brandt is gone and has been redirected. The Daniel article was a lot bigger and has a lot more press coverage, including a multitude of references. Both articles do not pass any notability test. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 02:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

Let's create a Censorware Project article and merge the non-trivial content from this article into that one. Problem solved. Jehochman ^Talk 04:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solution. Delete this article in line with Brandt's article and move on to bigger and better things. The subject Censoreware Project is even less notable. It would not survive an AFD. End of discussion. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that Daniel Brandt is canvassing votes to delete this article. The closing admin will need to take into account possible interventions by SPAs, sock- and meatpuppets. There is of course also that possibility for "keep" votes, though I know of no evidence of any such canvassing on that side of the argument. (comment text copied from ChrisO) Ford MF 08:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not disputed that subject more than meets the usual "keep" standards for biographies, nor that there has been little vandalism or BLP issues with the article. The only reason this is being proposed for deletion is that subject does not like having a Wikipedia bio, and worrying about it causes him to lose sleep and lessen his quality of life. While I'm not unsympathetic to this, I'm sure a number of people with Wikipedia bios have lost some sleep over their bios for far more dramatic impact to their lives (Finkelstein's life seems to have been impacted only to the point that he is just bothered by the thought of a wikibio), so it's not clear to me why we need entertain this man's wishes. --C S (Talk) 09:50, 14 June 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. Sr13 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has previously been a No consensus AFD in March 06. changes since Since the AFD there have been no new references or external links added. None of the current links on the page mention "zinc economy". From what I see on the relevent google hits this is a neologism with most useful hits being forums.--BirgitteSB 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Could use better sourcing, but a Google search demonstrates the concept's currency in discussions of future energy economies. Ford MF 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Which ghits do you think come from a third-party source other than a forum or a WP mirror?DGG 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Term is not notable, at least yet. I couldn't find any reliable sources about it (i.e., books or scientific journal articles). --Itub 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly original research. Indrian 20:46, 12 June 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. — Ocatecir^T 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been nominated for deletion several times, and been no consensus or kept on the basis of what was seen to be "borderline notability". However, I feel that she has in fact become less notable, and was only notable in the first place for her involvement in an accident, which is not a factor in notability. I think enough time has passed since the initial media furor to see that articles from that furor are the only material available on her. To elucidate, while there were independent sources, they were not in-depth - every story was about her falling on her head, not how she accomplished some other feat. She meets none of the other criteria under the general heading, and nothing for athletes. The lack of any new or different material indicates to me that she has in fact become less notable. This article is the #1 hit for her, and that's usually a good indicator of nn. MSJapan 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Violates WP:BLP1E - a person notable only for a single incident does not merit an article. She's had her 15 minutes. Clarityfiend 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While several months have passed by since the previous attempt to delete this article, which ended in a fairly resounding vote to keep the article. It seems hard to see that another nomination from the same person is not a violation of WP:CONSENSUS. As notability does not fade away, a statement about "lack of any new or different material" is ludicrous on its face. Given the multiple reliable and verifiable sources, this article should be retained. Alansohn 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Actually, it wasn't "resounding" at all; most of the keeps were qualified in one way or another. My issue here is that, in the end, the person is irrelevant - it is the event that is notable (if that), and I think this is a textbook case of "people are not notable for accidents they are involved in". She got a few days of media coverage, and that was (and has been) it, and WP does not do "flash in the pan" stuff, which is really what this all boils down to. MSJapan 09:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply This is your third attempt at deleting this article. Your previous two attempts ended in a clear consensus of Keep. As stated at WP:CONSENSUS, This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. This Wikipedia official policy is to attempt editors from taking a second stab (or third or fourth as you already have) at deleting an article after a consensus has been reached to keep it as is. I have yet to see a clearer and more well-defined effort by one individual to undermine established consensus. It's time to move on to other articles. Alansohn 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Thanks for the compliment, I guess. This article should never have been created, and in kind, I've never seen a clearer case of nn being ignored by a short-term popular reaction. This is clearly a "15 minutes of fame" problem. I nominated it initially, and a lot of the "keep" had to do with leaving room for future improvement. That simply hasn't happened, and again, policy states people are not notable for accidents they are in. Thus was ignored at least twice. I have left plenty of time for improvement, or some indication of notability, and none has occurred. Biographically, we know nothing about the subject except for her name and birth year. So how is this a biographical article of a notable person? My point is that it is not, and it never has been. The reasons stated for keeping never materialized, so what's the point? This is a lousy article that's never going to get any better, about a person who had some short-lived notoriety and has since faded back into obscurity. The Salukis even placed well in the NCAA Tournament, and she was never mentioned although she was ostensibly onm the squad and at the games. We have a clear policy here, and it's not being adhered to. MSJapan 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: No compliment was intended or justified. The problem is that "We have a clear policy here, and it's not being adhered to." The problem is that the policy in question is WP:CONSENSUS and you refuse to abide by it. WP:CONSENSUS requires you to obey precedent, and lays out a procedure for those too stubborn to accept it: "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page, at the Village Pump, or through a Request for Comment to see whether other editors agree. No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed." Yet you have refused to follow this part of the policy, as well. You have ignored consensus not once, but a second time. You have shown that you refuse to respect precedent as part of your ignore all rules crusade, firmly sticking your thumb in the eye of two clear agreements that this article stays as is. If this is a lousy article improve it. If you can't come up with a clear explanation for why WP:CONSENSUS should be ignored, it's time to walk away from this article. Alansohn 18:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That first sentence was sarcasm. As for why consensus should be ignored, no one has really ever made a strong case for keep based on actual notability, rather her "doing her job under adversity" or other moral/visceral judgments, which are not supposed ot figure into encyclopedic value. Additionally, no one has really said "hell yeah, she's notable" and cited evidence. As a matter of fact, in the second nom, the only solid keep votes were based solely on the fact that Wikipedia isn't paper, or that she was a victim, or that she was notewothy because the accident made the news. Meanwhile, Wikipedia policy clearly states that people are not notable solely for being involved in disasters and accidents. I think there's cause for concern, therefore, when the justification of an bio article is based only on the fact that WP's not paper - usually one can Google and come up with a pretty good idea of notability that way. Furthermore, based on the fact that others suggested renom in the future, I waited a few months, saw no change or interest in the article, and renominated. The third AfD was more of the same - many of the keep votes (that weren't cast simply due to renom) stated that it was likely the article would not pass the various year tests, which are one vague criteria of notability. Again, no one really directly addressed or rebutted the central point of the nom, which was the NN of the subject, instead contesting renom or basically saying, "Well, we'll keep it for now and maybe get rid of it later because WP is not paper". Thus, to my mind, consensus was reached by looking at other things besides direct rebuttal of the reasoning behind the AfD. My basic contention is that Yamaoka got 15 minutes of fame, and that was it. The article was based off of the same media coverage of the same event, and her notability was asserted based on "widespread coverage", which was quite literally down to zero not three days later. There is not one RS about Yamaoka that is not about her accident, nor is there a single story about her recovery or anything else afterwards. Therefore, I think that for some reason, the basic rules that WP follows with regards to article criteria were either sidestepped or ignored in building the supposed consensus for the AfDs, as shown by the responses, which is why I think consensus can be ignored in this case. MSJapan 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tried to delete this article two previous times. Each time the closing administrator evaluated the arguments made by all parties and decided that the consensus was to keep the article. The previous AfDs were months apart and still resulted in a clear consensus to keep the article, as is. While I appreciate your zeal in trying to get rid of an article that you personally don't like, you are persisting in spitting in the face of the WP:CONSENSUS official policy, which states that This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. I have never seen a clearer violation of this basic, bedrock Wikipedia official policy. I couldn't care less what you think of the reasons why your previous AfDs failed. The plain and simple reality is that your views on the subject were rejected by consensus on two occasions, and you have made it clear that you will refuse to abide by consensus if your third (or fourth, or fifth...) attempt fail. I'm not quite sure why you reject consensus, but this is starting to seem to be some WP:POINT violation that you have with this article. How many more times will we have to put up with your disruption on this subject? Alansohn 04:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Why did you ask me why I felt I could ignore consensus if you weren't interested in the answer? I clearly stated why, and yet all you did was restate your earlier argument and belittle my reasoning. Moreover, I don't think admins make value judgments in closing AfDs (which is your assumption - you seem to state that if the value of the keep arguments outweights the value of the delete arguments, it gets kept, when in fact, unless blatant sockpuppetry is involved, it's a simple majority vote regardless of basis). Why else do you think that many people have had to remind AfD participants to cite a valid reason when voting, if not for the reason that people don't do that? There's no point in belaboring reasoning at this point, because now what I assumed was GF interest is simply just baiting to undermine what I have to say by portraying me as argumentative. MSJapan 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: AfD2 ended with 21 editors specifying keep, 6 deletes and 1 merge; the result was keep. AfD3 ended with 12 keeps and 4 deletes; the result was keep. WP:CONSENSUS requires you to obey precedent, stating that ...editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. You've tried twice and failed twice, by overwhelming majority votes, your preferred definition. All you are doing now is spitting in the face of consensus and overwhelming precedent. By your logic, if some future AfD should finally end with your "preferred outcome", why should anyone respect the delete and not simply recreate this article, exactly as is? I'm not sure why you have developed this ignore all rules obsession with deleting this article, but your WP:POINT is disruptive of one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's official policies. If consensus means nothing, why bother trying to reach it or change it. Alansohn 14:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kind of a stupid article, but I don't really hold with any kind of eventualism, choosing to remain faithful to the idea that Wikipedia is not paper. Ford MF 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person. All sources referenced are about a cheerleading incident/policy, not biographically about this person.Piperdown 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One accident hyped by media should not be in an encyclopaedia (or the person involved for that matter).--Svetovid 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whatever if picked up my national media is notable the way we do things, and that still remains the rule until we change it. I hope when we do change it we'll find an alternative better than I do/dont like it. DGG 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sufficient media coverage as per DGG. IPSOS (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, media coverage connotes notability, which is not temporary. As for WP:BLP1E, nothing prevents an article for a one-event phenom: care to delete Monica Lewinsky, Mehmet Ali Ağca, Sirhan Sirhan, and many others who really are only famous for 1 incident? Carlossuarez46 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I had no idea a cheerleader falling on her head was as important as an assassination of a presidential candidate or a sex scandal leading to a presidential impeachment. Thanks for the enlightenment. Indrian 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Importance is subjective and irrelevant; notability is what matters. There are pleny of other people who are notable for 1 thing who perhaps even you would concede aren't important, but are still notable: let's see, we have Jessica McClure, Divine Brown (sex worker), or Kato Kaelin and the dozens of other who are only famous from OJ's trial, and all the participants in all the reality shows, none of which had much impact on world events but alas their notability endures. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It really does not matter how many people vote keep on this article. It clearly violates WP:BLP and needs to be removed for that reason. Indrian 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way does it violate WP:BLP? What contentious claims are not supported by reliable sources? Carlossuarez46 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think this is a reference to BLP1E again - not about sourcing, but "cover the event, not the person". MSJapan 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply If you have no issue with the content, why would you put this to AfD for your third time and not propose a move? Alansohn 22:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do have an issue with the content - an article about an event masquerading as a BIO article is a content issue. I just don't think every event that gets a few days of coverage is noteworthy, and the comparison made with Sirhan Sirhan, for example, is apples and oranges considering the relative magnitudes of the event. Moving this article isn't an option, because there's nowhere to move it to - we don't have an article on "cheerleading accidents", and without anything else to add to the stub, it would just get moved back. MSJapan 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Content is not the only issue you have. The far bigger problem is that you refuse to respect precedent as required by WP:CONSENSUS which states that ...editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome. If consensus means nothing, why bother trying to reach it or change it if those who disagree with you are free to ignore it? Alansohn 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in asking questions, and then replying to my answers with this same consensus material? Fine, you win. I withdraw the AfD, and feel free to nominate for a permaban, if that will make you happy. MSJapan 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For the love of God, her 15 minutes of fame were up LONG ago. This shouldn't have been kept in the first place, and all the harping on about precedent doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 13 June 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 - no reliable sources; fails WP:BIO, subject is simply a retired executive. - KrakatoaKatie 23:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Swanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We do not, as a rule, have articles on people because they were merely the executive of another notable article. This person does not appear to be notable, and indeed, given the complete lack of references, how could we possibly counter that initial impression? DevAlt 21:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. Bramlet Abercrombie 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. DevAlt 23:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (no, it's not helpful to the discussion, is it?)[reply]
• Daelete as nn. Notice that the preceding and following presidents of Encyclopaedia Britannica have no articles. Get the message? Clarityfiend 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Shows no signs of passing WP:BIO: not the subject of a bio or of multiple press pieces, and I don't think the encyclopedia itself counts as his personal contribution. —David Eppstein 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, Google news archive results indicate there is room for expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs)
• Delete, as notability is not inherited, unless the article can be better sourced, as per Jayvdb. Ford MF 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No Reliable sources have done biographies or biographical articles on this person.Piperdown 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, referring to the first two !votes, when has just stating an article's notability ever supported a !vote? Seems like this to me... *Cremepuff222* 19:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was somewhat my point. DevAlt 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Publisher of a very major publication is notable, even if it weren't one of our rivals. Agreed, not every publisher,but this one counts. That previous and later one's arent linked just means that we still have a way to go. DGG 02:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral (Weak Keep or Delete without prejudice against recreation) -- Long time president of a major publication. EB does not have an article on him, but that does not mean that we cannot develop one (they do have one on other EB presidents). The Atlantic, 1974 June has an article "Britannica 3, History Of" which at least references him, but it's not available by ProQuest, so I don't have access. However, as it is, it doesn't say anything about his contributions to EB, so it's not a useful encyclopedia article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Indrian 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a mention in the EB article should be enough. FredCups 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Am I missing something? What's the debate? Are we going to list every former business executive here? That he was president of Encyclopedia Britannica is cool but so what? --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 19:44, 14 June 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 per Speedy Deletion Criteria A1 - Very short articles providing little or no context. Nick 21:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is solely a dictionary definition which already has an entry at wikt:Not at all. BirgitteSB 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definaltly Delete-This articles is a conflict of interest and sounds as if the person who coined the phrase Guy Mayhew wrote it. Anyway the article is mostly about him and if kept at all should be changed to Guy Mayhew. I agree that it is already in wicktionary and has no purpose here.Yamaka122 21:49, 9 June 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 all. I remind the nominator that you don't need to run an AfD to merge things, just be WP:BOLD. Mangojuice^talk 11:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride of South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The Pride of Brisbane Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We Are The Navy Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good Old Collingwood Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freo Way to Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We Are Geelong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We're a Happy Team at Hawthorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Join in the Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's a Grand Old Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Power to Win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

When The Saints Go Marching In (sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Red and the White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sons of the West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See the Bombers Fly Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a list of lyrics. See WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The non-lyrical information, which is at best sentence or two worth of information, should be integrated into the team's page. Songs that merit their own article have articles like this or this. Please note that this nomination includes 15 articles of this nature. --Cheeser1 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Merge -- and redirect to the relevant team articles where possible. - Longhair\^talk 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with their respective teams. --Candy-Panda 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am inclined to suggest delete on the grounds that we should not be inflicting such appallingly bad lyrics on an even wider audience than are already subjected to them weekly at this time of year here in Melbourne -:) They are not notable and should be merged into the articles on the clubs concerned. --Bduke 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• give 'em the old heave-ho nothing to merge, more advertorial than artiicle especially as it includes the "sony BMG catalogue number", AfD should also include the template Gnangarra 03:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Templates have a different process for deletion. If (when) these articles are deleted (or merged and removed), I plan to TfD the template, since at that point it would be used nowhere and have nothing but dead-end wiki-links. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Any ideas about the copyright of the lyrics; can they be transwikied to Wikisource? John Vandenberg 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:An interesting side-point: the use in Wikipedia of these lyrics, if copyrighted, doesn't even fall under fair use, since no meaningful or critical commentary is provided. Part of the reason, I think, that the lyrics themselves must be deleted (unless someone can demonstrate that they are not copyrighted or provide adequate commentary to substantiate an article). I have no clue about copyright, and none about where to find out either. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would be copyrighted as Sony BMG has the distribution rights to them Gnangarra 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, surely not. These songs are sung everywhere. Distribution rights for a recording has nothing to do with copyright on the lyrics. Are the words of Marines' hymn which one of these uses for a tune a copyvio? They are in that article. The point is here that the songs are not notable enough and should be merged into the Club articles. Copyright just confuses that. --Bduke 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, quite clearly not notable on their own, but still information that would be useful on the relevant team pages. Lankiveil 04:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete all as non-notable and probable copyvio. Ford MF 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Um, aren't these a breach of copyright reproducing song lyrics. Should't they be speedily deleted. Assize 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That may be true for some, or even all, of the songs. Unfortunately, I cannot determine the copyright status for all 15 of these, and it makes much more sense as I see it to regular-delete them. Speedy deletion might be harder to estabilsh, and it's unnecessary since determining the copyright status of these lyrics doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be here anyway. But the point is well taken: if they are in fact copyrighted, that's yet another reason they need to be removed from Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio per Cheeser1's and Gnangarra's comments. Some information other than the lyrics if verified *could* be added to the club's article in each case, as has been done with the West Coast Eagles (whose song section in the article contains the same copyvio issues). Orderinchaos 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also have the lyrics in the article about the team? :O jeez! Talk about redundancy. My head just exploded. --Cheeser1 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Shake down the thunder from the sky - WP is not the place for lyrics, definitely not in separate articles, even without the fact that some are subject to copyright. Sufficient info on the songs is generally included in articles already without merging. JPD (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the appropriate team pages. Team fight song lyrics are not copyright violations, as they have either been created by fan groups, or have been released by the team in question as in the public domain (as in the fight songs for NFL teams, including the Washington Redskins, Philadelphia Eagles and the Chicago Bears) --Mhking 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Up until now, everyone has asserted that the lyrics' copyright status is indeterminate. Do you have evidence supporting the claim that are in the public domain? (Is there perhaps some reason a fan group is not entitled to copyrights on songs they write?) Are you proposing that we merge the entire set of lyrics into the team articles? ---Cheeser1 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an entire category for college and pro fight songs for multiple sports (Category:Fight songs), and the specifics can be seen in songs like Bear Down Chicago Bears (i.e., the Chicago Bears' fight song). Hence the precedent has been established on Wikipedia. These songs would fall underneath that category and classification, and if they are not merged back to their original articles, should be retained, and placed underneath that categorization. --Mhking 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is no such thing as "precedent" in this sense, since (1) those other fight songs could easily be AfD'd and (2) some fight songs may be encyclopedic while others may not. If a fight song has a substantial article with actual content that merits having a separate article, I see no reason not to have one. I don't know about all of the articles in that category (or the ones that aren't in it but should be) -- and I'm certainly not going to pick through them precisely in order to AfD the 100-something of them that don't merit their own article, not all at once. But none of the articles in this AfD have such merit, are dubious as to violations of copyright, and are basically just a sentence worth of info that could be merged into the teams' articles, if not already there. At least, that's my reading of wikipolicy. --Cheeser1 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Cheeser that WP:COPY trumps pretty much any other argument in dealing with these. It may be in some cases that there is no copyright, in which case there is no problem (except that the information is almost definitely unencyclopaedic and belongs on the club's own webpage, which is after all linked from the article). Orderinchaos 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the person who created it - if these articles are deleted then Category:Australian rules football songs needs to go too. I know that's an MfD not an AfD but it will be empty if the articles are deleted.Garrie 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Is it reasonable to assume that someone may try to get to the Adelaide Crows page by searching "The Pride of South Australia"? Come off it.--Yeti Hunter 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all a few of these might be old enough to be PD, but most aren't. In any case, unless an article can actually be written about a song that establishes its separate notability, with references, a separate article just for the lyrics is not needed. FredCups 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Most suitable solution for this situation. But are the songs covered by copyright? Does the AFL own them or the clubs? Also, would some of the songs be in the public domain because some have been around for quite a while. Lots of other song articles (not mainstream stuff) have lyrics probably not covered by copyright? (not too sure myself). Also, ensure the lyrics are copied and pasted over at LyricWiki. --Lakeyboy 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I contacted the Fremantle Football Club,and ask who held the copyright to the lyrics of the club song the response was quick(inside 24 hours) that the AFL is the copyright holder. If anyonbe wants to see the conversation just email me and I'll forward it along. Gnangarra 06:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate you going and actually figuring out whether this stuff is copyvio (I'm sure others do too). It clears up alot about this AfD. Much thanks. --Cheeser1 06:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but without the lyrics, and reduced to the historical information (who wrote the score and lyrics, when it became the official anthem, etc.) User:Jorge Stolfi as 60.32.109.194 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be disagreeable, but that will leave us with permanently-stub articles. It would seem to make far more sense for a sentence or two to constitute a subsection in the article about the football team than to have unexpandable one- and two-sentence articles floating around. --Cheeser1 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per the original suggestion by Cheeser1 I am a AFC fan but find all team lyrics unbearable unless it's the grand final. If people want the actual lyrics they can wait for a team to win a match and then put up with the screamed version before the TV cameras in the locker rooms. Sa87 09:23, 16 June 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. Sr13 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Part hoax, part original research, part weird humor. I'm not sure that this fits any of the speedy deletion criteria, but it sure doesn't make for a good basis for an article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Looks like original research to me. Hut 8.5 21:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You could possibly add in-joke as well to that list, but original research all right. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that this theory is part of internet folklore and deserves a page here as the term is used somewhat commonly amongst the online shooting community. -TRH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedHorseman (talk • contribs).
  • We'd regrettably need a) some context for the article - I'm not a gun person or an economist so the article is extremely confusing and I daresay confounding - as far as internet phenomena go, I'm a little bit more knowledgeable, but something that nets 5 Google hits sounds like a little bit weak online phenomenon, and b) sources that explain what makes this particular phenomenon so notable and interesting. Also, as you, as the article creator, share an user name with the alleged creator of this theory, I hope you get acquainted with our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as patent nonsense after sending any salvageable parts to BJAODN, pending if it ever returns again. 68.186.51.190 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable forums joke from AR15.com --Haemo 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, funny, but it isn't verifiable or notable. *Cremepuff222* 19:33, 10 June 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 all. Sr13 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 Greatest Songs of the 80s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This discussion concerns 9 articles of the same nature, the one above and the 8 listed below.

A list copied from VH1 without asserting the significance of this particular 5-day countdown. –Pomte 20:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivia. Who will remember about this arbitrarily compiled list tomorrow? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE ALL as copyvio. Ford MF 21:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't sure this consitutes copyvio, as I recall similar lists at AfD. I'm proposing the following lists for deletion as well.

The 100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 100 Greatest Women in Rock and Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

200 Greatest Pop Culture Icons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

100 Greatest One-hit Wonders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VH1's 100 Greatest Songs from the Past 25 Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Things like timelines of events aren't copyvio because you can't copyright facts or the order in which they occur. But stuff like this, i.e. content generated and hosted by MTV/VH1, with the little copyright symbol at the bottom of the page, most certainly is. Ford MF 09:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With only 5 episodes to each, and not much to say about them, I don't think the lists are worthy of inclusion. The gist of the "Greatest" series can be sufficiently covered in VH1#The Greatest series. –Pomte 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete copyvio. Doczilla 05:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and merge to suggested article; not notable, in and of themselves. --Haemo 05:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random trivia. Biruitorul 06:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 Hottest Hotties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VH1's Top 40 Most Awesomely Bad Metal Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two should be the last ones. –Pomte 07:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, articles were copied from another website. *Cremepuff222* 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedy if copyvio, although articles of these types show up from time to time, no one at WikiMedia has definitively andwered the question of whether these are copyvios. Regardless, they aren't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence that the show was notable. JJL 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aside from copyright violations, there have been tons of "Best" lists for songs, and it's all POV nonsense that doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. No way should this one take precedence for eighties music when they name a Bon Jovi song as number one. Like, duh! < / eighties > María (habla conmigo) 17:11, 12 June 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 Consensus to keep clear, closing early. ^(H) 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Age of Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I decided to withdraw the nomination, as at least one reference has been provided during the AfD process. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You crossed out your withdrawal. What does it mean -- are you now withdrawing the withdrawal and re-endorsing the nomination? Digwuren 14:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the the suspicion that the "abandon the trollfest in disgust" remark below might mean Ghirlandajo is not coming back to this nomination page, I also presented this question to his talk page. He proceeded to promptly delete my question without any further comment.

This appears to leave the nomination in limbo. Should we ask the administrators to determine its fate? Seeing the consensus, the most appropriate outcome would appear to be a speedy close of the AfD. Digwuren 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested administrator assistance in this matter. Digwuren 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I nominated this stub for deletion, I found myself the victim to a campaign of persecution and harrassment organized by a group of well-known extremist editors whose activities are coordinated from Estonian Wikipedia. After User:Petri Krohn stepped in to improve the article and demonstrated that the concept was recently introduced as a "historical construct" in some obscure Estonian publications, I withdrew my nomination. Nevertheless, people with a certain ideological background kept harrassing me in droves, throwing accusations of "bad faith" on my talk page, and three more persons added their votes to the inactive nomination by this point.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] My attempts to close the nomination were reverted. This prompts me to abandon the trollfest in disgust. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see rule that prohibits people adding their opinion before official closing by admin. Also I find personal attacks like well-known extremist editors highly inappropriate.--Staberinde 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you saw the light but need to point out that the difference presented is not mere addition of a source but replacement of an Estonica link with its English translation. Digwuren 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the history of this nomination, and I must point out that there have been no "attempts to close the nomination" by Ghirlandajo, at least as of now. Thus, the accusations of "reverting" those attempts, directed towards unnamed persons, are baseless. I'm having concerns this kind of knowing 'communication of falsehoods' might be inconsistent with commonly accepted standards of civil behaviour. Digwuren 16:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Archetypal original research. The term has no currency in English-language historical literature. Seems to have been coined by the author of this article. Wikipedia is not a proper place for introducing neologisms. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, [24] note the tiny difference in search term and difference in results. --Alexia Death 22:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search for disparate terms does not prove anything. This is beyond discussion. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first book it points to. It talks about this very period.--Alexia Death 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also [25] gives to references to "Age of awakening" in the context of Estonians. I hpe this makes you see that I have not made this term up.--Alexia Death 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The term is a direct translation from Estonian "Ärkamisaeg". It is used pessistently in estonian literature and history books.[26] google search shows it a lot. I do not understand the desire to remove this stub. IT needs expanding but has nothing that warrants deletion.--Alexia Death 22:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is wrong with the title and the current one is not considered to be proper English term then a move is in order, not an AFD. The period on question is in now way "coined by the author of this article". I learned about it from my history books in school.--Alexia Death 23:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this search produces some results so the stub has chances to develop into something useful Alex Bakharev 01:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's clearly a term that's used in Estonian literature and so the nominator's rationale for deletion - that it was a neologism invented by the article's creator - is false. Nick mallory 04:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs huge improvement, but if this is indeed a translation of Ärkamisaeg, then the subject itself is notable, valid, backed up by references, etc. Biruitorul 06:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I speak both Estonian and English, and I can vouch for 'Age of Awakening' being the translation of 'Ärkamisaeg'. 'Estonian' is a qualifier to distinguish this phenomenon from other Ages of Awakening. The main translation field is (Age|Era|Time|Period) of [National|Ethnic] Awakening|. (Standard BNF rules apply.) Digwuren 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a term with what appears to be considerable currency in Estonian-language sources regarding a verifiable time period. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English language encyclopaedia. If a wikipedian likes to introduce a new term into English historiography, this constitutes a breach of WP:NOR. No evidence has been presented that the term is notable in English-language publications. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's the English-language Wikipedia, however the point I'm making refers to the fact that the subject matter itself is notable. The exact article title can be hashed out elsewhere (do we want it in Estonian, in the same way as events which are of significance to other nationalities are frequently titled in their languages? Do we want it in English under this title, assuming it to be the best translation from the Estonian original? Do we want it in English and under another title, as a contributor below is arguing, on the grounds that a better translation exists?), but that's not important here. If something is notable, it's notable. It's always better to have English-language sources to prove that in an English-language encyclopedia, but in lieu thereof, sources in a different language which do the same are A-OK. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation doesn't constitute original research, or we should delete half of Wikipedia's articles. As to No evidence has been presented that the term is notable in English-language publications -- I have never seen such a requirement in WP rules. Colchicum 12:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly bad-faith AfD nomination. DLX 07:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  User warned. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The warning is clearly frivolous. Digwuren 16:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Oy, forget exactly what it's called - that's why we have redirects. By now it's clear that this period exists as a historical construct, and it's possible to write intelligent prose about it. But this is most definitely NOT a bad-faith nom; given those web search results, I would have listed it myself. :) YechielMan 08:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're speaking from a position of contextlessness. If it was true that Ghirlandajo was in a similar position, WP:AGF would be in order. However, he is not; he has shown consistent interest in Estonia-related topics and thus, can be reasonably expected to know about one of the major periods of history of Estonia. (For a brief overview, see History of Estonia#Part of Imperial Russia.) Thus, he has knowingly made a false nomination for deletion. Digwuren 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per DLX. Ghirlandajo's bad faith is, for example, displayed in wanton quotation marks in the Google query provided. Digwuren 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BigHaz. Incidentally, I don't think this is a bad-faith nom either. Ford MF 09:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have moved the article to Estonian national awakening and provided some references. I can fully understand Ghirla's suspicion, many of the editors now promoting this article, have so far contributed very little usefull or NPOV material to Wikipedia. I still think their edits should be followed closely. -- Petri Krohn 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously think that you should actualy ask opinions of other editors before making such hasty moves of actively discussed articles.--Staberinde 11:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, subject clearly deserves article, title may need some discussion.--Staberinde 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the subject is notable enough, per Wikipedia:Notability, but the title is problematic. --SunStar Net ^talk 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. See also National awakening of Romania, Latvian National Awakening, Armenian national awakening in the Ottoman Empire, National awakening of the ethnic Macedonians, National awakening of Bulgaria, National awakening and the birth of Albania etc. It would be very suspicious if Estonian national awakening didn't exist, so I have to agree with DLX. As to the titles, both are perfectly ok, as "the Estonian Age of Awakening" is the most natural translation of the Estonian term, while "Estonian national awakening" is modelled after all these. Colchicum 11:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "It would be very suspicious if Estonian national awakening didn't exist"? Words fail me. The whole concept of "national awakening" is an outgrowth from the tenets of Romantic Nationalism. Once Scotland gains independence from the Great Britain, you will learn that there has been the "Great Age of Scottish Awakening" between 1990 and 2010. A decade later, you will learn about the "Age of Texan Awakening" between 2010 and 2020, if Texas is lucky enough to break away from the US. That's how such "historical constructs" are made. The process is similar to an assembly line. In retrospect, every nation considers it proper to have a "national awakening" at some of its history, although the nation's independence may have been a matter of sheer luck or, as in the present case, Lenin's complaints about the "prison of nations" coupled with the Germans' desire to set up a puppet statelet immediately to the west from the Russian capital. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to understand the way small nations have awakened to their national identity is understandable, as you belong to a great nation that awakened so far back that it is hard to have any sources on it. The independence is the goal for a nation obtained in awakening. It is not always achieved. Scots have been awake and felt like a nation for ages. They have fought for their independence. Please try to see now that the world is not all big ages old nations.--Alexia Death 13:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Your ethnic slurs are noted.--Alexia Death 13:12, 10 June 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. There are no secondary sources to attest to notability and the article fails WP:V. There is no logic in a merge into Brattle Theatre, an unconnected business (also unsourced as it happens). A page on Brattle Hall sounds like a good idea but that is not for here. TerriersFan 22:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a review. Even if we cleaned it up, what significance does this restaurant have? Yes it is a historic building, but if we created an article for every single business and restaurant and coffee house that coincidentally site on a "historic" building, we'd have another 200 stubs and worthless articles. Aren't we trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia, articles and the site itself? Crad0010 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It probably was a review. it even gives t he ingredients and prices for one of the dishes. It is in a historical building, & there should be an article for the building, Brattle Hall.--there is none at present.We should be glad to have another few thousand articles on historic buildings, but not on NN current occupants DGG 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I suppose. I did create this sometime in the past, something I seem to have forgotten till it showed up on my watchlist. In the intervening time someone clearly added some strangely review-like aspects to the article, which certainly don't belong there. That being said, Algiers is the oldest operating cafe in Harvard Square, and is frequently featured prominently in books set in Harvard or about harvard - I can remember a recent bestselling murder mystery and Zadie Smith's last in particular. I would urge against deleting it, as coffeehouses in significant locations that serve as a particular intersection for intellectual life tend to get referenced over and over again. I did intend to at some point work on the article to make it comparable to, for example, Cafe Pamplona, which is a comparable establishment. Hornplease 04:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Shorten and merge with Brattle Theatre. Brattle Hall is a red link. I would suggest that be removed and Brattle Theatre be expanded to cover both. However, in merging the present article should be greatly shortened. Details of menus are not encyclopaedic. If retained the article title should be changed to reflect its location. There must be many coffee houses in the city of Algiers. Peterkingiron 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No assertion of notability, no sources. It's mentioned in Harvard Square, and unless someone can convince me otherwise, that's enough. Clarityfiend 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete per Clarityfiend. Ford MF 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletenot notable. IP198 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]