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.
Here we have a list of dead rappers (obviously). Normally, I'm apprehensive about AFDing recently-created articles...however, almost all the content here is copied and pasted from the various articles from them (a violation of the GFDL), and what isn't is unsourced and possibly unattributable. There's nothing to be merged since all the information is either unsourced or copied verbatim. Coredesat00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from that dead rappers aren't much fun, this is really something that's better handled by a category. All of these rappers have their information on how they died, for the most part, in their own articles, so we're better linking them in a category and leaving each article to handle it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMG, it's another article about dead people, but I don't mean Plato and Philo. Yeah, make it a category, or just delete it altogether because it's a bad article. YechielMan02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and no category - we do not categorize people on the basis of whether they are living or dead (with the exception of Category:Living people which as I understand it maintained for WP:BLP reasons) and in fact have already deleted a dead rappers category once. Otto471103:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is that there's clear-cut criteria for monarchs of the British Isles, making for a short list that won't be getting much bigger in the forseeable future. However, "rappers" could include any person who enters a freestyle competition and thinks he/she is notable enough for a WP bio and associated links. Hell, even Rodney Dangerfield could make this list, and he gets no respect! Can you imagine how cluttered and unmaintainable this article will be once it's been in circulation for a few months? And where's Left Eye? Easy E? Caknuck18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn it into an article on the unusually high occurance of murders of rappers - i.e. rename and get rid of the car accidents and other non-murder deaths. Someday rappers will start dying of old age, and we'll no more want a special article on them then on dead composers or dead reformation authors. Cheers! bd2412T 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Coredesat. Category would be acceptable if it served a more specific purpose, such as "Category:Murdered Rappers". Maybe. --Moralis (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that WP needs a list of dead Rappers, Rock Stars, Celebrity Chefs, supermodels or anything of the like. My initial thought was also to go the category route, but agree with Otto4711 -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wouldn't have a problem with a category, as the death by violence of rappers and their associates has been covered in enough independent news sources to be considered notable. But I don't care enough to actually create such a category. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cocept is too broad. Otherwise we could end up with List of all dead people.Murdered Rappers might be acceptable, as that's a bit more specific. A1octopus00:39, 17 April 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.
Technical nomination only. IP editor 203.10.224.58 (talk • contribs • count) started the nomination process with the following comment: "(AFD tag...Individual in non-notable other than being killed in Iraq...this page only serves as a memorial)" Eastmain00:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - member is only memorable for having died in combat. The page is a memorial. As for my talk page...it is a dynamic IP and is accessed by over 2000 people. Should have no bearing on the fact that this page exists solely as a memorial and the member is in no way "Notable". --00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete as I can't see any particular reason to differentiate this person from any of the other casualties of the conflict in Iraq. If somebody makes a movie or book about this person, that would change things. FrozenPurpleCube01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the discussion and sources cited below, his family and hometown indeed seem to have created enough press to push him into notability. However, since it's those media-covered actions of such subsequent to his death that have separate him from just "any other soldier sadly killed", the article should be written to note such. Mwelch22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it seems non notable until the end when we get the governor and the lowered flags and the references which seem primarily about him. I'm not sure what makes him stand out, but he seems to anyway. CanadianCaesarEt tu, Brute?01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In reviewing such orders,[1] it looks like Gov. Corzine does that for pretty much all New Jersey natives killed in Iraq. Mwelch01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above. All soldiers' deaths are tragic, all are (in ideal circumstances) reported in the media and recognized by authorities, but not all are notable. --Dhartung | Talk04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does he not meet the guideline you linked to? It says "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." and above I linked to evidence that such works exist. So clearly he does meet the inclusion guideline... people just are choosing to ignore it here. --W.marsh13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar The United States lost over 407,000 soldiers in World War II. A very substantial portion of them (99.9%) do not have their own articles. We've lost over 2,000 soldiers in the current war. Does every one of them deserve a page? Dead solderies are a tragedy, but they are only remembered for a few weeks (by the media) and then we move on. I understand the desire to celebrate and memorialize every life lost in the war. But, this is not the place for that. I think we need to keep in mind, that if he were still alive, he probably would not have a page. The fact that he died put him in the news for a couple of weeks. That does not substantiate his notability. I think we should focus on the long term. As sad as it is, he will not be remembered 50 to 100 years later by the general population. --CyrusAndiron18:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they do "deserve an article", if sources exist. Your argument was effectively that sources didn't exist, I was just pointing out that they do. I think people should be aware that deleting these articles does go against the letter of WP:BIO. Like I say below, I understand why people take that position, but I don't personally feel it's necessary at this point. --W.marsh18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Wikipedia is not a memorial. That being said, perhaps the Keep !voters could tell us what elements of WP:BIO this fellow fulfilled? Sorry if this sounds callous, but Sgt. Fenton was a young clerk with a high school education, no valor awards and a sparse official bio released by the military only after his death and containing little more than vitae curriculae. The article scarcely even asserts notability. RGTraynor 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh as said above, this appears to meet the core component of WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" --W.marsh16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I likewise hope the closing admin keeps in mind selective quotations. For one thing, that core component goes on to say "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The coverage of this soldier's death asserts practically nothing more than he died in action, and such encomiums as were given are the usual ones attached to any memorial. The official policy states that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Let's run down the list: is there a credible independent biography? Did he receive significant recognized awards or honors? Wide name recognition? Did he make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field? RGTraynor 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles were written about him by multiple publications giving non-trivial information... that's what WP:BIO requires. Attempts to bend that to require a book-length source of information on a topic to count as "non-trivial" are usually unsuccessful, as non-trivial just means enough to create more than a directory-style entry, but who knows, people might vote to ignore WP:BIO here. It's happened before. --W.marsh17:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is a guideline. I make no apologies for using personal judgement in addition to a guideline. It certainly does not require that an article with sufficient sources stay and there are numerous reasons that we might delete one regardless. --Dhartung | Talk17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm sorry if there seems to be an overly negative implication to my statements about people voting to ignore it. While I think it's slightly negative to ignore it, in that we have no size limit so no need to delete good articles that aren't "important enough", it's understandable that some people want to not follow it here. --W.marsh17:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument. Who is asking for "book-length" sources? We're looking for something, anything, which establishes this fellow's notability beyond his untimely death. A page will do, thanks. RGTraynor 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it... sources were presented, but it's not enough because you're imagining that the core of WP:BIO says it doesn't count if the sources are only about his "untimely death". There's no such language there, the sources meet what is actually required. --W.marsh18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar unfortunately, the problem with covering deaths is that it will lead to a systematic problem. Let's take the current war in Iraq. It's 3000 or so people now for Coalition forces. That's not bad, is it? But wait, what about Iraqi deaths? That would add 50,000 people. Most of whom won't receive coverage in US sources, and possibly not Iraqi sources, but some will. And then we have to think about other wars. There are newspaper articles covering deaths at least a hundred years back in some cases. Individual coverage of deaths in war is almost the de-facto now, is it really any different than any accident or crime victim's death? Not really no. This is a case where it's important to recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy(see WP:BURO, it's not about rules, but about reasoning. And mine tells me that absent some other notability (like a television movie, or a book written about them), it's not going to work to cover deaths in war. Not here anyway, if some other site wants to do it, more power to them. FrozenPurpleCube18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would the problem be? The Wikipedia articles could be accurate and reliable (if we include them only if sources exist), we obviously would have no problem storing them all, and their inclusion wouldn't at all harm our ability to cover "more important" topics, no one's required to spend their time editing these articles. So to say there's some impending problem waiting for when we get "too many" of these articles really isn't realistic. --W.marsh18:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for me, it's a mix of the problem of size (think about it, this isn't just a few articles, but potentially hundreds of thousands, even millions of people if we apply the same standards to every country and war, and there are systemic bias problems that could arise from that). I also feel that such coverage would be somewhat outside the general purpose nature of an encyclopedia. There are dead people in the military who are important and notable. There are dead murder victims who are important and notable. There are even dead car accident victims who are important and notable. But not every person who died while in the military, who was murdered or had a car accident should have a Wikipedia article even if they do have reliable news coverage of them. It would be much better to have a different place for it, rather than trying to put it here. FrozenPurpleCube18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there simply is no problem of size... even if a million such articles could be sourced (I doubt it, but just for the sake of argument) it wouldn't make the servers sneeze, even with the capacity we already have sitting around going unused. Size an article takes up should never factor into why we delete that article, as it's not technically necessary. Besides, deleted articles stay on the server anyway, purges of deleted articles can occur but are rare. --W.marsh18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite confident that it would be easily possible (that is, based on the existence of reliable sources, not in terms of getting users to do it) to make several hundred thousand articles on dead soldiers, at least as far back as the Korean War. World War II is also quite possible, and even World War I. That's a large number, and I don't know that it wouldn't cause the servers problems actually. Wikipedia currently runs around 2 million articles in English. This would be a significant expansion of that. Certainly, there is a lot of room to grow, but that's a lot to consider. And applying the same standards to other deaths (IMO, required by NPOV) would balloon the number even further. And I can imagine it would cause user problems. With that many articles, most of them would be orphaned and unknown. That would lead to Vandalism problems being unresolved. Bad idea that. I'm willing to be flexible, and inclusionist, but I just don't see this kind of coverage as appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make Wikipedia wastepaper, either. The main problem with a multi-million article encyclopedia is that it would be far vaster than any corps of volunteers, however dedicated, could possibly police. Without policing, Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness is shot; it's already the case that many institutions refuse to recognize it as a useful source. RGTraynor 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, thank you, and believe it or not, my standards for inclusion are probably wider than most people's. However I do have some limits, and since I don't imagine hundreds of thousands of people whose only notability is a short-lived bit of articles in papers because of their death is really encyclopedic, this is one of them. FrozenPurpleCube20:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentW.marsh suggested that the sources he provided asserted Mr. Fenton's notability. I checked over the 14 sources and this what I found:
1.
[3] - New Jersey newspaper article. Basically, noting that a local man was injured in combat. (May 6, 2006)
2. [4] – New York Post article that notes his death. (May 10, 2006)
3. [5] – New Jersey newspaper article that talks about a protest rally for the families of deceased soldiers. (Aug 17, 2006)
4. [6] – Another New Jersey newspaper article. This one is about how his father is now serving as a public speaker. (Aug 10, 2006)
5. [7] New Jersey newspaper article that notes that people from Mr. Fenton’s hometown are remembering him on the 1st year anniversary of his death. (May 29, 2006)
6. [8] - Web page unavailable. The synopsis indicates that it is about another deceased officer. (Sep 27, 2006)
7. [9] - North Jersey website. Talks about his death and funeral service. (May 14, 2006)
8. [10] North Jersey Website - Another article that discusses his families protest of the war. (Nov 20, 2006)
9. [11] New Jersey Newspaper article that is the exact same as the source above. (Nov 20, 2006)
10. [12] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the protests that occurred on the anniversary of his death. Very similar to number 5. (August 17, 2006)
11. [13] New Jersey newspaper article that talks about the 1st anniversary of his death. Mentions the protests much like #10 and #5 did and that his father is a speaker now (Aug 10, 2006)
The only nationally recognized puiblication that mentions Mr. Fenton is the New York Post. That article mentions the fact that he died and discussed the events surrounding his death. All of the other sources are from the New Jersey area where Mr. Fenton lived. I believe that he may have notability there, but not in the rest of the country. Additionally, nothing has been written about Mr. Fenton since September of 2006. Only two of the sources provided directly deal with Mr. Fenton's death and subsequent funeral (#1 & #2). After reviewing these sources I reassert my opinion that Mr. Fenton is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. He is mentioned only once by a reputable non trivial source. The local newspaper does not carry much weight as they tend to cover all deaths of people from the area. --CyrusAndiron19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the coverage is more meaningful than you say, such as the NYPost story, which does more than note his death. Anyway, the closing admin will... hopefully... take all of this into account. This is not a "battle" I really expect to win, it's just my opinion that there's no harm in including this article, as I've argued above. --W.marsh19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geeze, that comes off as rather trite. See above where I explained why this information is verifiable and notable, specifically so no one would cite that little page (which I wrote parts of). I guess I should have repeated myself loudly for people who just look for keywords and pounce. --W.marsh03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP does not create a page for every soldier KIA and nor should it. Since this is not just a US-based work, I doubt that similar raw material for, say, a Swedish soldier killed in the line of duty who was otherwise non-notable, would pass muster either. I believe that everyone who laid down his or her life for their country should be honoured, but WP is not the place to do it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While his death is sad, and should be memorialized, unless we are planning to create articles about every war casualty, I can't support inclusion without evidence that this person was notable in something other than his death. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a lot of irrelevant discussion here. Per WP:N the subject meets the inclusion criteria based on the number of independent non-trivial sources which provide information. Whether it is fair or unfair that not all soldiers in all armies or other victims of war receive notice, is irrelevant to this decision. There are no criteria which determine that national media is more credible than local media. --Kevin Murray20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I examined the sources in one of my posts above. There is only one non trivial source, please see the examination above. The other 13 are articles were created by local newspapers, the sort of coverage you would expect out of the death of someone who lived there. Additionally, the following comes directly from WP:ATTRIBUTION: In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. The key word there is mainstream. The New York Post is the only mainstream newspaper that cites Mr. Fenton. Therefore, there is only one non trivial notable sources that refers to him. --CyrusAndiron00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the more recent wording at WP:N allows for a single source to establish notability; however, the source must be significant and there must be corroboration of neutrality and veracity. This source might be a bit weak here. However, the synergy between the small national coverage and the more numerous local sources may be enough to put this over the border. --Kevin Murray17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic comes up occasionally a subject clearly meets WP:N, but editors come up with their own criteria, along the lines of "Wikipedia cannot have pages for every KIA soldier or Holocaust victim or whatever." It is true that we can't, but we can have articles on all of those that meet WP:N or ATT. The idea of having these guidelines is that we don't have to be subjective as to what constitutes a notable soldier or any other type of person. --Daniel J. Leivick23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NLöschen Just another person killed in war. Articles covering him are from a lesser known paper mourning a local person. Definitely doesn't meet notability. Reywas92Talk01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is only one source. WP:N says there need to be multiple non trivial sources in order to assert notability. The other 13 remaining sources do not assert notability as they were local news coverage (to be expected in regards to the death of a resident) or did not deal with Mr. Fenton himself as shown above. --CyrusAndiron11:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is the subject of multiple published workd from reliable sources. I see the Wikipedia is not a memorial as if a person's death negate's our primary inclusion standards. This isn't an article about an editor's grandpa who otherwise would not meet WP:BIO. --Oakshade05:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see what you mean - the criterion I used was to ask whether, if he had not died, would his life have met WP Guidelines? And now, was there something about his death that was any more remarkable than every other soldier who was KIA? I'm not seeing it, I'm afraid. I don't wish to appear heartless - I admire all members of armed forces who are defending their respective countries, I am just trying to interpret the guidelines here. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's sad that he died, but wiki is not a memorial. The references establish his existence, so we have verifiability, but beyond dying in the war, there is no establishment of any real notability. Mere existence is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the non-trivial coverage he has received in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a memorial applies only to articles that don't meet our notability guidelines. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any deceased persons. Most of the arguments to "delete" above promote a subjective/personal standard of notability that is not supported by Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Black Falcon17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - Has anyone here actually read the article other than looking at the references section? I would be hard pressed to believe it. Starting from the intro, where his notability is based on having "died from wounds", there is nothing that states his notability other than the fact that the NYT mentioned his death. Could it be based on the fact that he is from New Jersey and it might be worth a mention based on where the majority of their subscribers live? You will be hard pressed to find anyone who has contributed more information on the United States Marine Corps on Wikipedia then me but I do not think this Marine rates an article. I mourn his death but this page is a memorial pure and simple and does not belong here. --Looper592001:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability, as defined at Wikipedia as a standard for including or excluding articles, is proven through the presence or absence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable published works that are independent of the subject. I'm unsure why this Marine received as much coverage as he did, but the fact is that he did. We as editors shouldn't make personal subjective judgments on the notability of persons, but rather to convey judgments made by others in published works. I know not wherefrom his notability (as defined outside Wikipedia) stems, but the fact that he received coverage in multiple works proves his notability. -- Black Falcon17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims of notability other than normal memorials for the dead. Sorry, but he's no more notable than any of the millions who have died in other wars before the advent of the internet. -- Necrothesp22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:ATT mentions mainstream sources but I take that to mean mainstream in the sense of true, unbiased reportage. It is not a reflection of circulation numbers. To quote: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source" Unless we can make the case that these sources are unreliable, we should keep. JodyB00:46, 17 April 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.
Delete Member is not notable. Page is a memorial for a member. Again my IP is dynamic and 2000 people use theis address. Cannot help if some of them use it to vandalize.--203.10.224.5901:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article that indicates the subject is notable. Closest thing maybe would be the Bronze Star, but that's been discussed in the WP:BIO talk page archives more than once with a strong consensus that medals at that level do not bestow notability. (As opposed to something like the Medal of Honor, which would indeed make one notable.) Mwelch01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better evidence of notability can be shown; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Actually, a WikiMemorial might be an interesting use of the Wiki software. But Wikipedia isn't it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Being so involved in so many of America's most recent conflicts, in addition to surviving cancer, combines to make this person notable. Academic Challenger04:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claims of notability other than normal memorials for the dead. Sorry, but he's no more notable than any of the millions who have died in other wars or survived cancer before the advent of the internet. -- Necrothesp22:57, 16 April 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.
non-notable, when googled few hits come up, of those many are Wikipedia and it's various alternate languages, with most referring to a different subject matter entirely. PeteShanosky00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Crystalballery comes in as the author presumes that it will be successful, but it appears to be nothing more than a relatively new programming language that's still under heavy development. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "When integrated with ..., Vilno will be comparable ..." Definitely slight on substance and heavy on circumstances, like the cities. It is not notable yet. Shenme01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence here or elsewhere that anyone has ever used this. The fact that the main development site is an Opera blog doesn't speak well of it, either. Neither does the fact that most of the related Google hits are blog comments by the author. Zetawoof(ζ)03:28, 12 April 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.
Indiscriminate information; Any actor who has starred in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same role (however small) in a trilogy. Or any actor who has played the same character in four films in a series (ie Lethal Weapon), because four films are a trilogy if you don't count the fourth film. Or any actor who has starred in six films in a series (ie Rocky), because that's a trilogy if you ignore the last three films.
Anyway, the point is, appearing in more than two related films is not significant enough to justify a list of actors who have done so. Saikokira01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What does this list add to the encyclopedia? If being in a trilogy is somehow significant to the actor, great, mention it there. What is notable about this circumstance? Shenme01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412T 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't see why this list would really do any good. Each actor/actress should have a listing on their page of the movies they have been (or at least the most notable), which technically would incorporate this list on each of their pages separately. --sumnjimtalk with me·changes14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: What if it were renamed to "List of actors who have played in serial films", or "List of actors who have played the same role in three or more films" to eliminate the ambiguity of what is or isn't a "trilogy"? Trilogies seem to be the most common example of this, which was the reason I named the page this originally. But I could see how a list of actors who have played serial roles would be as useful, and less ambiguous than this. Lurlock03:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful to you. I've got at least 20 people who seem to be interested in it, according to the edit history. Who are you to decide what is and isn't useful to other people? A list of actors who perform serial roles is definitely of interest to enough people that I think it's worth keeping. Lurlock22:20, 16 April 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.
Article doesn't assert any notability, totally unverified and unsourced. All google turned up for this band was the myspace, and the wikipedia article EMP01:05, 12 April 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.
Been tagged for notability for several months now. It's apparent that the notability will not be asserted. If the group is notable, this page should still be deleted so that a proper article can be started. Sources are entirely self-referential. The asserted "source" of the Church of the Subgenius website makes no mention of anything in this article. To summarize WP:N and WP:ATT are simply not met. i kan reed01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is explained clearly that this is a made-up church. And then it is explained that the joke is known only in a small area. Well known jokes of this sort belong in WP, and this is totally unknown. By getting in here even temporarily it has perhaps achieved its object of getting better known. There are 21,000 ghits, of which almost all are mirrors and internet archive searches on words from the original articles. DGG00:02, 13 April 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 [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion rev
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
Delete Myspace 'r' us, not. Events in his life, but nothing significant enough in effects to warrant an encyclopedic article. He has enough web presence (as mentioned in article), not needed here. Shenme01:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I started to speedy, but I guess since Jay Thomas is a legitimate celebrity, laying claim to being Thomas's show's exec producer could be seen as a claim to notability. I still strongly reject said claim, though. Mwelch01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:BIO big time, and definitely cracks skulls against WP:VAIN. Jay Thomas' butler, shoe shine boy and 8th grade English teacher don't get to claim venereal notability either. RGTraynor 16:07, 12 April 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.
Non-notable. As the intro says, a list of pupils who have been taught by Yusuke Oeda in the game of Go. Yusuke Oeda is apparently important in the game, but that doesn't mean his students, or a list of them, are. Saikokira01:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need an expert here, as he apparently is one of the highest ranked players in the world, if I understand Go_ranks_and_ratings correctly. Having such a teacher might make a player notable enough to be on a list. DGG00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be preferable if the information on this page were moved over to the main article on Yusuke Oeda, famed Go professional and teacher. I would prefer that to be done before the page was deleted. It does look pretty non notable to me.--ZincBelief11:26, 13 April 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.
Delete as pretty useless. What's worth saving can be incorporated into Misanthrope#Misanthropy in literature. I'm not sure what POV means in this context. Neutral Point of View policy is meant to prevent us taking sides in a controversy, not from using our judgment to make decisions about what should or should not go into the encyclopedia. To label some character misanthropic is something that can be proven or not, not a decision to be avoided. As editors, we're all permited to use our brains and our footnotes.Noroton04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bah, this list is almost completely worthless, indiscriminate and POV-choked. The non-human list is largely and uncritically composed of generic fictional villains like "orc," "uruk-hai" and "Silurian." RGTraynor 16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previously deleted material- recreating the deleted category as a list doesn't change any of the original reasons the category was deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:55, 12 April 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 consensus to create a category straight-out. Anyone who wishes to proceed with turning it into a category is more than welcome to as a normal editorial action. If you do wish to do so, and are a non-administrator, please ask me and I'll make the text temporarily available to you. Daniel Bryant08:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Original Research to combine two unrelated TV shows into one article this way. Also fairly indiscriminate, and innaccurate; some of these "actors turned musicians" were musicians before they were actors; some of them aren't even musicians, but pop singers; and some of these actors were cast members of other series before - why not list those shows as well?
I was interested to learn that Russell Crowe is "Male", so there is some encyclopedic information here. But seriously, this was nominated for deletion last year, with a No Consensus result, although the only 2 attempts at a "keep" argument I could see were "useful and interesting" and "appreciated by Australians". I think it should be deleted this time. Saikokira02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A word of explanation: in Australia these two shows are often mentioned in the same breath - they are basically the only two shows in the category "Australian soaps", so the combination is hardly OR. The movement of stars of these shows into the music industry has been a much-discussed phenomenon in Australia. Especially given the varying levels of success.
Delete. WP:NOT Indiscriminate. Dallas and Dynasty used to get mentioned together, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article listing any comparisons of Dallas and Dynasty cast members. Regarding the above comment; "they are basically the only two shows in the category "Australian soaps"". That's funny, because there are actually 40 different shows in Category:Australian television soap operas, not two. Pufnstuf 06:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Response: Yes, but these are the only two shows on the list that are currently still being aired! I could make up a category "current Australian soaps" if you like... StAnselm06:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except that this is an encyclopedia that shouldn't make reference to a "current" anything, because we don't use a "current" point of reference. It's hardly an article that can age well. zadignose23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, soap-stars-turned-pop-singers are a notable phenomenon in Australia. Some of our most famous musical acts got their start on Neighbours (eg Kylie Minogue) or Home and Away (okay so mainly Neighbours). The ones from Neighbours often make it big in the UK too. --Candy-Panda12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they're a notable phenomenon they'll have their own articles (and they do). This article simply isn't required - this is what we have categories for. EliminatorJRTalk14:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and ors. As noted it's original research and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As for StAnslem, being mentioned in the same breath does not justify an article. It would be like me creating a list of people who've received heart transplants. It's useless information and of no encylopeadic benefit. Thewinchester(talk)13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create category - Create a category called "Australian Soap Stars who are also musicians" if desired. This is definitely what categories are for. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as a compromise to get rid of indiscriminate lists, why don't we merge the content (verified of course) into the separate Home and Away and Neighbours articles? That way it is a notable part of the shows, that some of their ex-actors have gone into music careers, rather than a list that is a bit random and doesn't really add anything special to WP. JRG06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps categorise as per Alucard. There is no reason for a list of people who meet a set of arbitrary and somewhat unrelated conditions. Orderinchaos14:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into the program articles. The music/soap star link is interesting but not enough for its own page. Euryalus09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and don't even consider a category or else get ready for an immediate CfD which can hardly fail. This is a bizarre intersection. Even categorizing "Neighbors Actors" is highly questionable. Categorizing them as "turned musicians" is worse. Intersecting the various performers who played some part in one of two different shows because they are "current," soap operas, and Australian is going WAY too far. This is all in addition to the facts that we shouldn't use a "current" time frame, the actors listed aren't all current members of the cast of either show, and many are more noted for other career achievements than their participation in these shows. The practice of telling editors to turn bad lists into categories, then telling them to turn bad categories into lists is a bad practice. It simply forces us to do more work while endlessly shuffling our problems back and forth. zadignose23:41, 16 April 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.
Delete. I usually prefer to userfy non-notable autobiographical articles, but this one is probably not worth userfying. --Eastmain03:11, 12 April 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.
Comment - Although I did most of the editing so far for that article, I would not oppose it being deleted, it can easily be created again later. If you want proof, see here. Last questions he talks about it, but once again this is not to convince you to keep it, it is just some proof. --- Efil4tselaer02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystal ballism. Very little can be certain at this point, including the year and whether it even gets made CitiCat 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete eh sounds like people on forums complaining about music that gets too mainstream for their tastes? I dunno. Article is a bit incoherent and leaves out details... such as anyone other than forum posters/bloggers using this term. Published sources would be helpful here. --W.marsh03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nature of the term makes it difficult to guarantee that there are no reliable sources- googling turns up a lot of unrelated stuff. If there is a real argument for notability, the article creator is invited to add the sources to demonstrate it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blog House Must be Saved, the real problem is that this term was created by the internet for the internet. In all reality this is a joke term used to describe a certian type of house listener not really a type of house music. For the people creating this type of Electro they take it really serious and are probably offened by the term. But for people who listen to House music this has turned into a semi slang word to talk about people who will not be listening to this music in a year. Its kinda a toss up if you want to keep it around on wiki, its kinda like New Rave. But I would say go for it. holler at me on them emails to discuss this. I have been working on some more text too, [email protected]casikroth 9:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Kommentar It's not the text that's the problems, it's the lack of citations or references. I would vote conditional keep, since there is some distinct material on the internet, but the entry needs to be more encyclopedic, esp. with respect to citations which would determine notability. Fishhead6417:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No endorsement either way, but you might want to remove your email address from this page unless you like junk mail. Yamaguchi先生01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sorry, but the changes don't make me change my vote. Almost none of those sources actually use the term 'blog house,' let alone discuss the genre in any meaningful detail. It sounds like it's a style that may be becoming more significant, but for now, I don't see the sources verifying the widespread use of this term. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:59, 16 April 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.
Article is a glorified dicdef, it might need to be replaced with a disambig page afterwards (including a link to wiktionary), it's current content needs to go. Vicarious02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, after this is decided I'll make the page into a disambig page for booty call (slang and movie), bootylicious, treasure, wiktionary link, etc. I just wanted consensus before I trashed the current content. Vicarious03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, dab away then. We need a better process for this than using an AfD to establish consensus... happened just yesterday with the article Tomorrow (paging Abbott and Costello...) --W.marsh14:45, 12 April 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.
Delete Article acknowledges that plans for the movie were cancelled. Possibly could be mentioned in Princess Diaries 2 article. <3Clamster02:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. Due to Hathaway's nudity in Havoc, her contract was dropped, and so she definetely wouldn't be acting in this. I do like the idea of putting this in the PD2 page if any verifiable sources can be found. Mastrchf9102:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She never had a contract with Disney (thus never dropped by them). She said in several interviews that she would voluntarily decline to do another PD film. But that's besides the point since there's no evidence that PD3 was even planned. Crumbsucker15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this sentence: After being cancelled, the PD3 plot line remains a mystery. Without any sources, it's simply [{WP:CRYSTAL|too mysterious]]. -- Black Falcon07:06, 15 April 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.
Unverifiable. Of the movies listed which appear on IMDB (Devdas and Kal Ho Naa Ho), Mr. Prasad appears nowhere in the credits. If these were minor Bollywood flicks, I could understand, but given that IMDB's credits for KHNH list parts down to "hot dog vendor", for example, this starts looking like some sort of hoax. Even if it isn't, though, we're still left with a biography with no sources and no verifiable claims of notability. Zetawoof(ζ)03:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the Devdas credits to verify that this actor played that part, but it was an exceptionally bit part. If I recall correctly, the character had one line "Pranām Choti Ma" (basically paying respects to his new Step mother) and then was in the backround for a few moments. Generally I would say delete unless there is verifiable evidence of his importance to a film or something else. The Devdas appearance doesn't qualify, but coverage focused on him in a reliable publication would. - TaxmanTalk14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was added in an edit to Devdas (2002 film). But like I said I haven't had a chance to check, and my copy of Devdas is scratched beyond repair. I may be able to get ahold of one tomorrow, or perhaps someone else can check. - TaxmanTalk18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... that just showed up, along with a similar addition to Kal Ho Naa Ho, by the same editor that created the article in question. Most curious. You'll have to excuse me for not being a little suspicious, especially given that IMDB doesn't list this actor. Zetawoof(ζ)23:32, 12 April 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.
Delete or Merge to her parents pages: Non-notable bio. Baby girl born on April 10, 2007 doesn't seem to be notable unless she does something notable. Tat Meng 03:14, April 12, 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, her sisters have articles, and she is a royal princess. This article will be moved by Friday morning when her name is officially announced. She is notable because she is the daughter of the heir to the throne of the Netherlands, granddaughter of the queen, and will probably be future daughter of a King, and later, sister to a Queen. Morhange03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major royal family members are certainly notable CitiCat 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep HRH is the future daughter of a King and sister of a Queen, of course she is notable enough to have her own page. Idiotic to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.207.184 (talk • contribs)
Keep. It's also ridiculous that this baby gets so much attention, but since she does, she deserves an article. By the way, do we have a category or list of "people whose real name is unknown"? Then we could add her next to Jack The Ripper and similar creatures :-) . Fram11:29, 12 April 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.
Keep In the region of Appalachia where he lived he is notable. Seems a bit like systemic bias to delete when Wikipedia keeps articles of very minor characters in TV shows like the Simpsons and Pokemon characters. Understood that WIkipedia is not a directory or just a collection of information - but this article does provide some helpful context to Avery County. Possibly a merge of his contributions into the county article would be an alternative to deletion.Brian032413:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That there is cruft in WP is not an acceptable argument for a race to the bottom by adding more cruft, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your links above to his books do not show him coming anywhere close to the WP:BIO guideline: "The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Pete.Hurd15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I'll try and incorporate the info that is relevant to Avery County into the article if it is agreeable by all to delete the bio.Brian032415:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold On The author says that the subject is notable within his region, but how is this demonstrated? There are no sources yet identified, but that's not a specific requisite for continued inclusion. We just have to have a reasonable expectation that we could find some sources in the future to prevent an immediate deletion. Since we use the existence of other publications on the topic as a surrogate for determining whether a topic is notable for WP, the author should convince us that someone has probably written about the subject or his book before - newspaper, magazine, government documents, book on the region. That he wrote books is irrelevant, unless the book(s) received written recognition in the form of reviews, awards, or are very widely cited. Good luck, and if you can make a case, contact me I'll vote keep. Read WP:N for some ideas. --Kevin Murray21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason that could be argued for his notability (as he was obviously not famous) is that he wrote a definitive history of a county that has been cited by geneaologists and researchers for the last 35 years. It is difficult to speculate on how significant his body of work was, but if it were the difinitive history of Los Angeles - it might make the cut methinks.Brian032414:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked at the offered sources, and not one makes any serious argument for notability; googling didn't turn up any better sources to verify notability. I see no evidence that he is notable even regionally. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G-hits are just not an indicator of notability for a minor historical figure. He wasn't on a reality show, he was reality in building a nation. --Kevin Murray22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's why I said "I looked at the sources," and not "I counted g-hits." Not one of the sources provided above is an article that discusses this person as its main subject, which is what WP:BIO calls for. The provided sources are:
an amazon.com page which says that the author's book is unrated by amazon and out of print.
an article about local history that cites the author's book as one of ten sources, but doesn't specifically talk about the book or the author.
a library catalog confirming that a copy of the author's book is held by Appalachian State University
a genealogy web page which I just can't bring myself to spend the next half-hour searching just to see if this author is one of the names in the family tree.
absolutely nothing else, and nothing that even provides any information to verify the accuracy of what's in the article under discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a cleanup and expansion candidate, not a delete candidate. rushing to deletion without encouraging cleanup and expansion first, unless the article is clearly so minor, seems bad process. I suspect that this article is perfectly notable regionally, and just needs improved, so i think we should give it time. --Buridan09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar On what basis is this a cleanup and expansion candidate? Doesn't even assert notability, much less source the said notability. --RaiderAspect02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you'll never know if you delete it will you? and neither will other readers, that is why we give things a period of cleanup unless they are terrible and wrong. --Buridan14:49, 17 April 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.
Similar lists and cats have been deleted: multiracial people, Multiracial Americans, etc. Also, the title of this one is more problematic and criteria harder to define. It was previously redirected/merged to the multiracial people list, but recreated after that list was deleted. Crumbsucker03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only does that broaden the scope, no reliable sources could possibly exist for such an insanely huge group of people. Ergo NN. Potatoswatter17:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment didn't "List of multiracial people" just get deleted, and per consensus that the topic was inappropriate/too broad? So I don't think that moving there is appropriate. In fact, this article looks eerily familiar, perhaps an admin can verify if it is substantially different than that deleted list. Anyway, I generally support lists like this organized by occupation, but in this form, I'm neutral. Smmurphy(Talk)16:48, 16 April 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.
Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. The article has a major COI issue; the creator's username is the same as the article subject's production company.RJASE1Talk03:50, 12 April 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.
This is a buzzword with no meaning -- Nexaweb uses this term on their own entry, which I suspect is an advertisement itself. Then, this page reads "Nexaweb says...". This is not a commonly used term, with any real definition, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Klondike03:53, 12 April 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.
I don't see why this is particularly notable, and has indeed been tagged as lacking any assertion of notability for months. Also unsourced and unverified EMP04:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Its a summer camp. People go there to do summer camp things." This is all the article can be unless something with widespread impact happened at that particular summer camp, which I doubt. Delete unless it can be shown that the summer camp meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), with Wikipedia:Verifiability establised by multiple, non-trivial, external sources for the information contained in the article established. -- saberwyn10:46, 12 April 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.
If I knew who the composer or a non-wrestling album containing the song was, I would suggest a redirect. Weak delete otherwise. -- saberwyn10:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better evidence of notability for this song is demonstrated. It's hard to imagine how this article could be expanded from a stub. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:39, 12 April 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.
Delete as non-notable information. Pretty much all of these cameos are within the same development house anyway, so it's not really all that strange. Studios make reference to earlier work they've done all the time. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The heck this isn't useful! It's very hard to find an acurate guide for all of Night's apperances. He appears in very popular games released by sega and for those of us who have marked childhoods by this wonderful game character would be exceptionally upset if anything happened to this page, either merge it with the other page, but do not delete it! I owe everything to Nights for teaching me to draw so that I could have a career in my life time. =)
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.
Prod contested without explanation from submitting user. I can't find any evidence that this exists at all. As I said in the prod reason: "WP:HOAX or WP:N -- one or both. Anybody care to provide a source?" So, here we are. – Luna Santin (talk)04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google turns up 0 results for this, article even admits that there's little or no information on the subject. Delete as unverifiable, unsourced OR/hoax-EMP04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verification found. text is dubious, to say the least - a trench going from "northern portion of the present-day Polynesian Islands" would not go anywhere near the coast of Asia. Micronesia, yes - Polynesia, no. Grutness...wha?06:32, 12 April 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.
Probable hoax. 1. Created by a user who did create another hoax article which has since been speedy deleted. 2. Nothing at Google. 3. No mention of the compere or channel which is a little bit odd. 4. No references. 5. No-one other than creator has made substantive edits since it was created in December. 6. I never heard of it. —Moondyne04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Moondyne and Hesperian. I too have never heard of the show in question, and these kind of disaster programs are right up my alley. Also no references to this show on any major bittorrent sites which target this type of content. Thewinchester(talk)17:12, 12 April 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.
Keep Multiple instances of independent non-trivial sources (In general a publically-traded company is extremely likely to have such sources, in the form of analyst coverage). This one [18] from the Sydney Morning Herald was already in the article at the time of nomination. Here's more [19][20][21]. This [22] listing shows 8 pay sources. cab13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an assertion of notability, which is met with the large quanitity of external links - however, these need to be converted into citations or references (which is a different issue.) As a side note, I don't see a cleanup issue with the article, but it does need to be expanded. --Sigma 703:09, 16 April 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.
Delete. While a business memo might attract some short term attention in a business newspaper, it has far too little long-reaching impact to be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a news service. Sjakkalle(Check!)09:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per Fishhead. I started the article on the chance that the phrase would catch, and we'd all be hearing "Spreading Your Peanut Butter" as the new buzzword in business leadership. As our peanut butter was largely unaffected by the article and phrase, recycling the electrons is fine. Ezratrumpet00:41, 15 April 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.
Unreferenced articles about a Palestinian tribe and its clans. Given the low number of Google hits, there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability given the lack of any sources whatsoever. YechielMan04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant for anyone interested in Palestinians and their ethno-political dynamics , quite a hot topic these days. It should be better referenced, although sources in Arabic may be all one can find. Still, it provides apparently credible and quite significant contextual information. WP:BIAS may be an issue here. Stammer05:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Stammer. Because English articles are not forthcoming doesn't mean notability isn't established - There's possibly 1000s of articles in Arabic! --Richhoncho08:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only reason for deletion given is a lack of Google hits, which is a very poor criterion. The articles cover historical clans, some of which date back a long time. References should be not hard to find for people who have knowledge of and access to Arabic or Hebrew sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar We are discussing the nomination and not the nominator here. The distinction may be subtle sometimes, but for civilised debate it is an essential one. Stammer12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep assuming they can be referenced. Lack of ghits alone is not a qualifier for deletion, but if it cannot be verified at all then it fails WP:ATT. Hesitant to !vote delete since i am unfamiliar with the subject and sources may be found in non-english languages, but it's also no excuse for having articles with nothing to back up their claims of existence, let alone importance. Arkyan • (talk)15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: I'll give a good reason for deletion: these articles completely fail WP:ATT. They were created in November of 2006, unimproved since, and there is no reason to presume that they will be improved now. Assertions that people should just go and research references are in direct contradiction to the requirements of WP:ATT -- to quote, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I suggest that the the Keep !voters not just presume (in the face of a complete lack of evidence) that these subjects are notable; rather that they demonstrate it.
... and stems directly from WP:V, which is copper-bottomed official policy, so let's not be needlessly pedantic. To quote Jimbo in this official policy, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Ravenswing 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree that the solution for lack of sourcing is immediate deletion; however, the author has stated a lot of rather trivial facts without an assertion of notability. --Kevin Murray21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep I'd like to see two things established in each article: (1) definition that demonstrates that the "tribes" are of significant size, prominnence, and durability as to be more than extended familes, and (2) some assertion that there is notability in this series collectively and individually. Could this be better handled in a single collective article? Achieving my wish list should be accompanied by some reasonable assurance that sources can be obtained per WP:N. --Kevin Murray21:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , probably as one merged article, but apparently the relationship between them is complex, and I leave this to the experts.--Assuming sources., which seems reasonable. DGG00:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) There are a number of steps that could have been taken with these articles that would be far more appropriate and useful than merely tagging with {{unreferenced}} and expecting that someone would magically come along and clean it up, then bringing it to AfD to be hurriedly looked over by a bunch of people who can't speak Arabic. One obvious thing would be to bring it to the attention of WikiProject Palestine or other Arabic speakers. In practise, Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English is also sometimes used to request verification by a foreign-language speaker for articles which can't be sourced in English. On the other hand, countering systemic bias is not a reason to keep non-notable or non-verifiable material, though it may be a reason to allow people more time to get sources, or to give more weight to GHits from countries with little Internet presence, or to recuse yourself from voting either Keep or Delete if you can't contribute usefully to the process of figuring out whether something is notable or not. cab00:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentarcab's argument is valid , but I see another side of the issue . I will give with an example first. Wikipedia provides a substantial amount of information about the Somali Civil War, the clans and the personalities involved and various aspects of Somali history and culture. Much of that is unsourced. Still, on the whole, the information available conveys a vivid and complex picture, where a discerning eye can at least try to separate the wheat from the chaff. I regard that as a truly remarkable Wikipedia achievement. While I think that a strict application of WP:V is essential for "mature" topics (such as, say, Physiocrats oder Foucault pendulum), its indiscriminate application to borderline situations would simply destroy value. Palestinian clans are, IMO, a notable topic. I agree that sourcing is a serious problem here, but dubious information is better than nothing. Stammer16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, but I don't see sourcing as the immediate problem. I just don't see the assertion of notability at most of the pages. Why the topic is notable should be apparent to the reader. --Kevin Murray16:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am increasingly uneasy here. These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page "Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter." The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenagers named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point. Ravenswing 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I was going to vote "Keep", but I get very uneasy as I look at the evidence per Ravenswing. If I was documenting local tribes in my neighbourhood, I'd have gone back and added further details, not simply created more and more new pages, none of them with significant details. Tribes cluster round rivers or quarries or sacred sites, I see no evidence of that here. It could be ethno-prejudicial to delete simply because we don't have anything in the way of English references - but I think it's probably justified in this case. PalestineRemembered21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the Arabic Wikipedia there is a very strict rule about clans and family names. They are not allowed. While I know a few people with some of these last names, I don't know the history of the tribes, and cannot verify them. There seems to be somewhat different guidelines here, and the issue seems whether it's verifiable or not. I disagree with PalestineRemembered that we should remove them all because they're written by the same person. He/she could be an expert on the history of Jammain. I agree with Kevin Murray that we need to establish the significance of these tribes. I'm leaning more towards a delete all at this point, or possibly merging all the info into an article about Jammain. I will do a Google search in Arabic on these family names, and see what I get, and update this page accordingly. --Fjmustak22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I did a quick search, Jammain is a village of about 6500 (according to the municipality website. Another website http://www.zaghab.com/ mentions in the "Family History" section that "Zaghab زغب ( Al-zaghabالزغب) is a family lives in the village of Jammaeen, a suburb of the city of Nablus in Palestine. It is a branch of Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan.Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan is an Arab Clan that migrated from Jerusalem to settle in the village of Jammaeen. Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan consists of 8 smaller branches Zaghab زغب ( Al-zaghab الزغب), Al Hamad, Al Sharei, Al Khalil, Al Sheikh Saleh, Abdul Jaleel, Al Sheikh Ahmed, and Al Eisa. In total the Zitawi زيتاوي ( Al-Zitawi الزيتاوي ) clan form a population of around 2500." Therefore IFF one article is to be kept it should be Zitawi, since it is the "parent" clan. --Fjmustak22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fjmustak, could you explain to us the rationale by which articles on family and clan names are excluded from the Arabic WP? It seems from my (ignorant) perspective an unusual restriction, so I'd like to find out something about the reasons. DGG04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Jammain, into which this info can be merged, would make some sense. But c'mon, folks, what if this was a bunch of articles based around a small village in Ireland? "The O'Traynors are an old family and some people say they've been around since the time of the Milesians." That's not remotely notable, however much Irish family conflicts might be abstractly considered important, and so far there's no evidence that these are either. Ravenswing 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the relevant references for the articles.Also i would like to like to mention that the article is going to be part of a larger more notable article which i am intending to write soon.As for the username I am using my sons wikipedia account and I really have no idea what he edits and posts . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phsychyzed (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 April 2007
Keep per the previous comments by User:Phsychyzed, who wrote the articles. I believe they should be merged because the content and references overlap, but that's a separate issue. I can read Arabic well enough to affirm that the references appear to be legitimate. Note that I nominated the articles for deletion; from my point of view, it's only a question of "no consensus" versus "keep" (or "merge"). YechielMan01:26, 17 April 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 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.
Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines - '"Banana pie" pontyclun' gets 6 google hits, and the article states that the sole source of info is from the group's myspace page. I wasn't sure if getting 10000 myspace plays in a year is an assertion of notability EMP05:05, 12 April 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.
Delete. The DMOZ link looks to me to be a valid substitute for this file, which was a spam target. I noticed that this article was cited from Bioinformatics. Generally, an entry in a proper Wikipedia list should be something that has its own Wikipedia article, which was not the case for this list. My comment refers to an earlier version of this List. The current version seems to contain nothing but the DMOZ link, probably a step in the reform plan of Jethero. Although his approach was unorthodox I agree with his conclusion, that we don't need a list of Bioinformatics groups that is maintained by hand. EdJohnston21:05, 13 April 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.
does not establish notability, sounds like a bio for 10,000 others in the Peace Corps, Doctors Without Borders... Chris05:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like the bio of 10,000 others except for the part where she marries one of the warlords, I would say. The article isn't written very interestingly, but I don't see how Emma McCune's actual notability can be doubted. There's a well-known book, Emma's War, specifically about her, and 20th Century Fox is currently trying to get that book adapted into a major motion picture. Mwelch08:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was taken from the official book blurb originally and I've cleaned up most of that. The 2002 book was fairly notable and at one point Nicole Kidman was signed to play her. --Dhartung | Talk18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why Chris picked this for deletion. Multiple sources and an interesting topic, not that the latter matters. --Kevin Murray21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys have made her more interesting here than she reads in the article, which doesn't stress the weight you imbue her with. We don't, say, have articles on spouses of politicians or military folks, unless notable in their own right, and the fact that she was mentioned in a book did not seem to have gravitas when I read the article. If as you say there will be cleaning up and improvement, I would be sold on it being a keeper, and would then withdraw the nom. Chris06:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't mentioned in a book -- she was the subject of a book, one which was widely noted and may be filmed. Anyway, if there are no other objections perhaps we should move to close based on WP:SNOW. --Dhartung | Talk18:20, 13 April 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 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.
Keep "non notable reality tv show losers" isa bit of an oxymoron. It'll be difficult to find English language sources on this, perhaps some help from Swedish folk would help? --badlydrawnjefftalk11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the article says they failed to qualify for the final and made 6th place at the semifinals. That is not being a "finalist in a music competition" and as such the group is NN per WP:MUSIC. - Chardish05:55, 17 April 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.
This article was nominated a while ago and kept based on ghits and citation rate, which are weak indicators of WP:N. Considering WP standards have evolved since then and this article hasn't, please discuss. Potatoswatter 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW: See WP:PROF for the guidelines. Potatoswatter07:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frivolous nomination. Obviously an expert in his field. Plenty of tenured professors in the US would kill for something like [30]. Stammer06:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That profile isn't particularly notable because he hasn't done anything of note. The websiteI've never heard of and their profiles are apparently all circa 2003. They don't explain their process at all, and the whole site is rife with broken links & formatting.
We're WP:NOT a list of experts, even very good ones. The list of papers seem to imply he mainly tries different methods of implementing biotech algorithms on different kinds of computers. That's the kind of thing done by most CS academics just making a living.
Moreover, the guy is an IEEE fellow, a title "conferred only by invitation of the Board of Directors upon a person of outstanding and extraordinary qualifications and experience in IEEE-designated fields, and who has made important individual contributions to one or more of these fields." [31]. Stammer08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to assess his work, but his notability. See WP:PROF. Beside being widely cited, his IEEE and ACM fellowships are significant independent acknowlegements. Stammer10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given this article, what can we say about him besides his titles and list of publications? There is not enough here for a worthwhile encyclopedia article, and we still don't have enough on him. We have some independent sources that say he's competent, but little else. Competence != notability if we have nothing substantive to note. Potatoswatter15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to add information about why he was awarded his awards. I'm sure an expert in his area could write at much greater length about his accomplishments. But my overall feeling is that you're making up standards that simply don't exist for other parts of Wikipedia. The article for Mathieu Turcotte, for instance, doesn't explain why he won his olympic bronze medal; it is sufficient that he won them, it is a significant award sufficient to make him stand out among other skaters, and the sources documenting that award are enough to justify his WP entry. Similarly, although it would add depth to the WP article and would in general be worthwhile to add, I don't see that we need to explain why Bokhari was awarded his ACM Fellow and IEEE Fellow awards in order to use them to justify his WP article: it is sufficient to state that he won them. They are notable awards the possession of which makes him stand out above the vast majority of professional computer scientists and electrical engineers. These societies don't award these fellowships except for good reason, and I think the article should explain what those reasons are (as I have now attempted) but an insufficiently detailed article on a notable subject is not to my mind a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awards highlight notable accomplishments. Turcotte won his medal in speed skating in 2002; that is absolutely essential information.
Why do you assume I don't know about Bokhari's field? I arrived at this page because I am working on parallelizing graph algorithms. Maybe I'll even read one or two of his papers. However the page appeared when I searched for "Tera MTA" and so far it's irrelevant. What's there right now amounts to copy-and-pasted cruft, not the sort of summarized information I expect from an encyclopedia, and I consider it pollution. As an expert, this page is confusing and just doesn't belong.
To answer your other question on notability, there are millions of electrical engineers and, although they're the top 1%, thousands of IEEE fellows. The award is notable but giving it to a specific person is not. The order of magnitude of recipients is larger than Wikipedia can keep up with. But that's not my point so much as the importance of content, and the unlikelihood of finding anything generally interesting to say about the guy. His research is relatively unfocused. The notability guidelines aren't to be interpreted to mean he "deserves" a WP entry to go with his awards. Potatoswatter23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - where are the sources that explain why this person is notable? Lots of cited works is impressive, but we need multiple independent reliable sources that explain why someone is notable. Otherwise they go. - Chardish06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should write a script to import the list into one article. What is your rationale for saying all these people could ever have more than a one-line stub? IEEE fellows are elected faster than we could make useful articles on them. Potatoswatter15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of those people have a highly successful academic career, multiple non-trivial and highly-cited research papers, often research monographs, etc. Also the fellow awards come with a citation that describes what they are particularly known for, which is more than we get for a lot of other articles on academics. IEEE authors generally include mini-biographies in their papers, which leads to more sourcable biographic information than for many other subjects of articles. And more than in many other fields, their papers are likely to be available online, at least via public-access terminals in university libraries if not without a subscription to most editors. Why do you think it would be difficult to write a real article about any one of them? —David Eppstein23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to an article on an academic that doesn't say what they're known for, and I'll prod it.
Autobiographies are poor sources... not secondary.
You're talking about writing lots of articles on lots of people. If you did that, you would realize that the purpose is better served by a few articles on their subjects with references to the people. Which is actually a little like parallelism and clustering :v) . Actually if a paper has more than one author, it's next to impossible to really assign credit. Did he come up with all these ideas himself, or does he have an eye for good students and a nurturing manner? No way for us, or the IEEE, to know. Maybe if there were a newspaper article we could get a feel. Potatoswatter23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this article has for a long time said what he is known for: his expertise in parallel and distributed computing. The ACM and IEEE citations are more specific. Autobiographies as primary sources, are ok as sources for unlikely-to-be-disputed facts, it is only for interpretation of those facts that secondary sources are preferred. The articles on the subjects' research are preferred but that doesn't mean they are the only thing that can be written about. And if you would look at the article again (as I've edited it to remove the low-citation papers and leave only the highly cited ones) many of them are single-author, so your generalities about being unable to assign credit do not apply in this case. —David Eppstein23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the article goes a step further and shows that much of his work is in implementing and evaluating algorithms on specific computers. I remain unconvinced.
Actually I suspect the degree of notability that led to the article getting written in the first place was his nationality. This is more legitimate than his academic credentials alone, although now we don't have enough sources to write anything. The page was vandalized by a presumable former student/coworker, who felt he forgot his roots. It was created by a fellow Pakistani engineer. We could go with that aspect, but a list of "citations" containing any papers which aren't somehow actually cited by the article doesn't belong. If his work can't get summarized even in his own WP article, beyond stating a broad category, then it's not notable! Potatoswatter00:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. ACM Fellow is a significant honor. Also Fellow IEEE, listed by ISI as highly cited. What more could one ask for? Each of these three is an independent reliable indication of notability as requested by WP:N. —David Eppstein14:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, conditional on the link verifying him being an IEEE fellow can be shown to work; I could not get it to. Only a small number of professionals get recognized as fellows by their professional organizations. That is enough notability if the link can demonstrate it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A comment in the first discussion states "there are a total of 320 computer scientists in the world on the ISI Highly Cited list". That and the fellowships indicate clearly to me that he does satisfy WP:PROF. --Bduke22:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Strong Keep It is the purpose of WP to record the notability the outside world has established. the IEEE fellow is a demonstration that those in his profession regard him as one of the most notable, and that alone would be enough. The place in ISI highly cited is enough to shown that way more than the average number of people have thought the work, and that by itself makes him notable.
the objections raised are specious: that one Palestinian scientist writes an art. about another means the same as if one US scientist writes an article about another--such a comment shows POV, the probably not realized as such.
the comment by someone here in a related field, that he doesn't think him notable, is a good illustration of why we use outside criteria, the acknowledgment by the profession as a whole . We do not judge scientific notability by what we think personally of the quality of the work, no matter how expert we maybe. This is personal POV, & I cannot account for the reason. DGG00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful info to its readers, not to assign credit. I concede that he may be notable, but this article needs work to explain what he's notable for. I want to see: Bokhari invented X. Every engineer, particularly academics, invents things constantly. I have not evaluated his work and cannot judge it, but the person who posted the article should've. Potatoswatter01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim.nom withdrawn Fine, I give up. Recognition by a professional organization means he must be notable for something, but Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to explain what it is. It's telling that the sentence describing his field isn't even WP:LINKed. I've learned a bit from this. Just one thing... Eppstein's edits cut out the keywords which brought this article's cruft to my attention, and I think that was a great improvement. Since the short list of articles doesn't appear to show any selectivity, and it's redundant with the ISI credit, I'm just going to condense it to a summary of research topics... tomorrow... Potatoswatter01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing you can infer from the lack of wikilinks in the description of his field is that the people who have been editing this page have been lazy about making wikilinks; I don't see how it reflects on the subject of the article. Anyway, I just added a longer research summary. Turns out (and I didn't know this before I started looking more carefully just now) that his research connects peripherally to some of mine: the application for a recent graph visualization paper I published was a distributed partitioning system close to what he describes in his paper with Berger, and some of the Berger-Bokhari paper's ~300 cites are from the research group of one of my coauthors who does that sort of thing. Anyway. I think the list of frequently-cited papers is important, for three reasons: first, for helping the reader get a better idea of the breadth of subjects considered in the subject's research; second, so that someone trying to find more about Bokhari's research can get a better idea of which are the important papers, and third, because citation data from ISI is not easily available to everyone without a university IP address. An indiscriminate list of 50 papers is obviously not helpful, but that's not what's there any more and I don't see what would be gained by cutting it further. —David Eppstein03:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, and add HESREALLYSMART and HEWRITESALOT to WP:ATA. To write about a subject, we need things written about them, not by them. I'm sure he's a brilliant computer scientist and has done some great work, but some name-drops in an editorial and having won a couple awards are not sufficient for an article. They are trivial mentions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled how you decide that the two Fellowships are trivial. I take it that you do not think a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal is trivial. What about Fellowship of the Royal Society? My two Fellowships of the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute are trivial as a notability criteria as a large proportion of the membership has that grade. Where do you draw the line. To me drawing that line is subjective, not objective as you have stated elsewhere. What is trivial to one person is important to another. This guy clearly meets WP:PROF. --Bduke01:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The line is not subjective, and we don't even have to judge a line for ourselves. Wikipedia articles are composed of condensed secondary sources, which are lacking for this prof. Nobel and Fields medal recipients get articles written by the popular media, on the strength of having won that prize alone. Lesser awards carry a lower probability of getting written up, but anyone who gets "noticed" has a chance in WP, whatever the prize is. Bokhari is not the subject of an article or story outside Wikipedia, and only successive AfDs are spurring the effort it takes to write the first article on him. He meets WP:PROF but not WP:N. People forget that these are the laws of how to make an encyclopedia work, not mere guidelines or practical rules. It's less evident now that the article is getting cleaned up, but this article (and the expenditure of effort on it) is a sign of the rules being mis-formulated and Wikipedians going beyond being encyclopedists... even if that's a good thing, it's untenable. Potatoswatter04:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how you fail to see the article in its current state as lacking secondary sources. My enumeration of the references, by number: (1) ISI highly cited page: secondary, reliable, nontrivial. (2) Google scholar search: somewhat but not entirely reliable secondary source for cite counts in this field, which are an indicator of notability. More useful as a way to find sources than as a source itself, though. (3) list of IEEE fellows: trivial mention. (4,5) ACM and IEEE fellow citation text: secondary, reliable, nontrivial. (By nontrivial I refer not to their length, which is short, but the fact that the citations are entirely about Bokhari and reliably attest that scholars have found his work significant.) (6) Letters to the editor, printed in major Pakistani newspapers: secondary, nontrivial, reliable for testing notability (the editors of the newspapers agreed they were on a notable enough subject to print them) though less reliable for factual information about Bokhari. But since notability is what we're trying to ascertain here... (7,8) Biosketches at places he visited. Secondary, reliable for factual information, nontrivial, but don't in themselves support notability. (9) Simon paper, reliable secondary source for the technical material it supports, but a single research paper is unlikely to support notability. (10) DBLP. Reliable and secondary but only supports the factual information, not notability. So of these I see (1), (4), (5), (6) as clear secondary sources for notability, easily satisfying WP:N's requirement that there be "multiple" sources. Where do we disagree? I am genuinely baffled to see you and so many other people like you in this discussion look at an article like this and blithely assert "no sources, clearly not notable" when my reading of the article is that he is someone who was (in the 1980s and 1990s, and once notable always notable) at the peak of his profession. —David Eppstein05:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have fixed the article, and I've put in my vote to keep. The point is that the fellowships and citation stats are not sources in the sense of providing material for an article, they are rather one-dimensional evidence of notability. You took that evidence and used it as motivation to do the research to find real secondary sources.
I was in favor of junking the article and you were in favor of fixing it. I'd still say the same thing coming across a similar article, because there are too many IEEE and ACM fellows out there to assume they have all had the same social impact. I believe that WP:PROF is a test of whether someone is notable as an academic given that they've had the impact to meet WP:N, to filter out the quacks. There's no chance this guy's an impostor. But without sources such as the letter-writing campaign, some human interest or impact on the world, there's no notability... Yes he might be among the top 300 cited computer scientists, but do we have articles on the 300 fastest speed skaters?
So anyway, you set out to write a proper article, and you did it. Furthermore you summarized his research, which must have taken some effort... hats off, WP would be cooler if we all sat down and credited academics we're familiar with. Potatoswatter06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is a guideline, not a law, and a strongly disputed guideline currently. I really do not know what you are on about. Fellows of the ACM and IEEE are notable. We then write an article if there are sources and there are. There does not have to be an article or story outside Wikipedia about him. There has to be sources for the information that appears in the article. From your comment below, why does "mention from the IEEE" "disgrace their own award"? That mention is the source that he has been honoured with a Fellowship of IEEE. What evidence do you have for "no other profession has the same tendency to grandeur"? Most academics have the opposite. Do you have a problem with academics? They are underrepresented on Wikipedia. For example, we still have not got articles on all Fellows of the Royal Society. We should be strengthening articles on people who are notable academics. --Bduke06:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is based on secondary sources. The requirement of WP:N is reliable primary sources so it follows from the definition of encyclopedia. This AfD started before good sources had been found so it's moot now. That the IEEE barely wrote a full sentence that I could find on their site I thought reflected badly on what the fellowship is supposed to be. I suppose the Nobel commission also writes little actually when they bestow honors, but it would've been nice to see more specifics. True honest academics are modest like all other good people, but what I meant was that academia also attracts delusioned quacks, for whom we have WP:PROF. We should strengthen articles by specifying and clarifying and linking what academics do and whom they've affected, but bending backwards to point at awards and paper titles and criteria in WP:PROF is a step backwards because it's uninteresting, uninformative, and it "polluted" my search results. Potatoswatter06:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ACM and IEEE Fellow citations are about but not by him. Both are not trivial mentions: they are not just names on a list, they come with a (brief) description of what he did and why he was so honored. Without having checked them, I'm nevertheless pretty confident that plenty of the hundreds of academic citations to his work are not trivial mentions either (though the majority may well be). But that is WP:BIO. Why are you so ready to throw out the more specific criteria in WP:PROF, which he clearly satisfies? —David Eppstein07:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is to exclude computer-generated or statistical sources. Ghits are useful when you can click and read something someone wrote, but all we have on this guy are copies of his own CV, auto-generated citation compilations, and a minimalist mention from the IEEE which disgraces their own award. This is an issue for WP:PROF more than WP:ATA because academics constantly seek to bend the rules of notability... no other profession has the same tendency to grandeur. The applicable Rule of Life here is that if nobody takes the time to write about ya, history has not been made. We can make machines and even bureaucratic processes to bend it, but there it is.
Many articles get cited because they provide a convenient formulation or review rather than invent something, and we'd have to read his articles to sort the situation out, which is the very definition of WP:OR. So that's full circle to the fact there are no secondary sources available. It's not about being "pretty confident" he's had some influence among those thousands of citations, it's entirely about communicating something that he did, and pointing to someone outside WP who took note enough to write more than ten words. Potatoswatter07:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he's definitely not average according to the ACM Fellow award guidelines: to meet the criteria for that award, he should have accomplishments placing him in the top 1% of ACM members. But could you explain why you think that means he doesn't pass the test? —David Eppstein02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly establishes notability through society memberships, fellowships, and publications. Consider also that "Average Professor" does not mean "Average at a Tier 1 Research Institution" -- are you comparing professors' achievements to those at the top, to create an average, or across a broad range of colleges and universities? --Myke Cuthbert21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a moot point. If all you can say about someone is that they're average in the most elite professional group in their field, that does not make them a notable individual. We're here to write informative articles, not to hand out brownie points. Potatoswatter23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed to establish notability. If WP:PROF allows an article without multiple non-trivial sources then its directly contradicts established policy, not guidelines, and is obsolete. If it doesn't, then this article fails to meet that as well, and should be deleted pending more sources. -Mask?16:16, 17 April 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 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.
Non-notable neologism. After a fair amount of researching, I couldn't find anything to verify any of the information, and currently is unsourced EMP05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It already mention it is a non-scientific term. Besides, people would likely mention ADD or ADHD first before going for this, thus it's non-notable. George Leung06:31, 12 April 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 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.
was speedied tagged, editor contested with a hangon, non notable, nothing found per google, failure of WP:N, reposted content so to Afd Dakota06:29, 12 April 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.
Well, no - it's not a list at all. When I saw the link I was pretty much "wtf", because I hate listcruft with my dark bleeding heart. I clicked, and was quite surprised to see that it wasn't listcruft at all. Silly either way - we don't need this article, and we don't need the article suggested by the title. Hence, Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contribs) 06:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Can't figure out the purpose of this article. "A list of unsolved problems is a list that contains the unsolved problems of a specific area of interest" is quite self-evident. Sjakkalle(Check!)09:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an indexing page. There are enough unsolved problems to warrant a breakdown by fields, and therefore enough to have a general directory of them. The fact that there is also a category is neither here nor there; a category is generated in software, a list is a catalogue raisonée that can include missing as well as existing entries. Category:Unsolved problems is in pretty sad shape, and does not contain even a tenth of the entries to which this list directs readers. - Smerdis of Tlön13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This just duplicates what a category should do. However the Category:Lists_of_unsolved_problems needs to be populated with this information first. I do think that this only applies to this article; the individual "List of unsolved problems in xxxx" still should exist on their own merits. --Dmeranda18:35, 12 April 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. Original research (as a concept and as a synthesis, not all individual facts are OR obviously) and POV. The latter can be corrected, but not the former. Fram13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first sentence is a POV, unsourced (and as far as I know wrong) addition, it has a POV title. We even have this: " No individuals have officially declared their interest", and we have only 3 weeks to the election. History part can be added if true. denizTC18:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be history part . But there is like a war in turkey--3210 23:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, merge, redirect whatever is necessary. I don't think that there is a lot of new content in this article, but if there is just merge.. Baristarim04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar
Additions are:
first sentence: "Turkish presedential elections always were controversial run-ups in the Presidential election history of the Turkish Republic"
section:The History of Turkish Presidential Elections: " Turkish precedential elections were allways disputed like a war. 2007 election going to be the most contvercial dispute.see:[[32]] === Atatürk === Atatürk was elected by 158 MP's of the patlement. All members of the TBMM were 334 MP's. But only 158 MP's participated in election.He elected full votes of partisipated 158 MP's vote. [[33]] === İnönü=== ===Bayar==="
removals are:
There will be a public demonstration at 14 April 2007 against Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğans' candidacy (some groups are oppose to any candidate from AKP). It is expected that a huge participation will be in this demonstration.
Comment, I transferred "additions" to original page, except first POV-baseles sentence. additional improvements are being done in original page.Must.T C08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Turkish presedent elections always do act like a war. 2007 spesific election does not mean turkish election history.--3210 12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not create notions, it reflects what is out there. Can you please tell us, which elections were like a war and who called them a war, or who said anything like "war of presidential elections in Turkey"? You are making a lot of unsourced and original research claims. It does not help bolding out some huge parts of the text. denizTC02:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i know ozal, demirel ,sezer,inönü , seemed like a war. even atatürk election(according to karabekir pasha ,İstiklal harbimiz book) was difficult. Half of the parlement did not partisipated the election. Look at the newspapers archivies of Özal before and after Presedency time, and sezer election times (how anti EU groups did do possible candidate Sadi Somuncuoğlu) ,what abaout Fuat Köprülü candidance???--3210 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No redirect. No evidence to suggest this title relates any more to the 2007 elections than those held in any other year. WjBscribe15:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good sources, no good structure... Some data from the article can be used in the 2007 Presidental Election article but thats all. Nearly rubbish... Deliogul22:19, 18 April 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 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, merged by Pottatoswatter, redirected (we may not delete after a merge for copyright reasons). Fram14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this should be merged into South Thailand insurgency. Over 2,000 people have been murdered there by Islamist terrorists in the last few years. Yesterday, for instance, a Buddhist girl was shot as she rode on her scooter through a 'muslim' village, burned alive by her assailants and left to crawl along a road as she died as no-one would come to help her. This is not random murder, it's part of a notable terrorist war. (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070411/3/305uj.html) Therefore it should be kept, just integrated into the larger article. Nick mallory08:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep.Nick mallory has a point, but merging may unbalance the main article. As it stands, the article provides relevant contextual information. I have added a reference, which mentions other victims too. ([34]). Stammer10:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the previous poster actually, if it was up to me I'd keep the entry in its current form and just link to it from the Thailand Insurgency page. I was just saying that merging it is better than deleting it completely which seemed to be killing sparrows idea. This is a small part of a very notable, and terrible, thing. It's not just a random brutal incident with no meaning. The human faces here should not be forgotten because they're held to be inherently less notable than some cartoon character on TV. 124.183.228.15113:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I hope no one thinks I am minimizing what is going on over there but should we have an article for each person killed in this insurgency? Each person killed in every insurgency? I agree that other crap exists, but...--killing sparrows14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Should we have a page for each civilian killed in every genocide? In every ethnic cleansing? In every war? Indeed that's not a viable option and pursuing it may be counterproductive. Herewith I change my stance to Neutral. Still, I have learned something through this article.Stammer15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the victims who are written about individually in newspaper articles or the like become notable, no matter how many. It is not us who make them notable, but the press coverage. Articles are written about things and people that the public in general finds notable. If the newspaper reading public finds every death in a war notable, then so they are. We just record N, not establish it.. DGG00:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.DGG's point appears quite strong to me, so I switch back and reinforce my previous stance. Changing one's mind repeatedly is still better than ignoring valid arguments. Stammer15:42, 13 April 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.
Non-notable musical group which happens to be an internet meme. Fails WP:MUSIC as a musical group. Fails WP:WEB as an internet meme. Fails WP:V, which is non-negotiable, for having no sources. A previous AfD said keep, but that was a year ago, consensus can change, and all of the keeps were simply "I've heard of it!" which is not an argument to keep. - Chardish06:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link from the Google News search you provided is dead - no article shows up if you click on it. A search from the Dallas Morning News website itself [36] turns up no results. - Chardish17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per the source mentioned by Badlydrawnjeff. Maybe merge to fark.com cliche list, if this is almost entirely a Fark thing (I really have no idea). --W.marsh14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable band. The lack of sources means that nothing in the article can be verified. If some published non trivial sources can be produced, I might be inclined to change my opinion. --CyrusAndiron15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into fark if that's appropriate, I dunno. This is just a tidbit. The one source mentioned is from 5 years ago. Seems unlikely to become a sufficiently verifiable subject for an article. Friday(talk)01:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these guys were one of the first internet memes. The photo of them and their cars was spreading around in 1996, and far predates fark. ALKIVAR™☢02:43, 17 April 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 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.
Weak keep- there seems to be some coverage in notable sources, and with some TV work would indicate notability- seems a close call though. Thunderwing16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like three of the four given references linking to copies of articles displayed on the subject's website; however, we don't require that the sources be visible from a link or even be online. Did the author verify that the articles aren't a hoax? Are these bona fide journalism or quasi press releases? Are they intellectually independent? I think that this meets the WP:N threshold which doesn't speak to any need for national notability, and my only objection seems to be in the I DON'T LIKE IT category, so I'll abstain with willingness to be persuaded either way. --Kevin Murray21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who linked those enteries appears to have been the subject himself, so we can't really trust whether he verified them or not before posting them on his personal website: [42] I second your sentiment - I just get a bad feeling about the motivations behind this entry. Alvis02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I apologize. I used Wikipedia as a promotional tool. I didn't mean to enter myself into an encyclopedia, and I am not claiming to be notable or famous. I was just trying to get my name out there and promote myself and my website on as many sites as possible. I understand that my Wiki entry should be deleted, and hopefully, I'll be back on here one day in a more notable way. BIG Ben Kennedy09:40, 13 April 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 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.
Keep. Fox News, NYT, Washington Post are not blogs. This organization is well known and cited in numerous other WP:RS's. csloat09:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are unmistakably sufficient--and, as mentioned a small number of what could be found, The names of the leaders indicates why they are considered notable by so many news sources. DGG00:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nothing has changed since the first and the second nominations. Both nominations showed a overwhelming consensus that the group was notable, and csloat restates the reasons above. Simon1200:59, 13 April 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.
Delete, eyh, a non-registered political party with no representation or prospect of getting it any time soon? As much as I agree with the ideas behind this party, they're not notable. Lankiveil12:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete - what a joke of an article, and a joke of an organisation. Pure and simple advertising, should be speedied. JRG13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and ors. The party is not currently registered, and therefore does not meet notability requirments. The article also reeks of conflict of interest issues as it seems to be written by someone very close to the subject in question. Thewinchester(talk)14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the original user name that created this article which virtually proves it was created by someone with a conflict of interest. I've also taken a look at the contribs, and it seems the user is a single issue editor. If an admin could close this as soon as possible, i'll go off and have some fun cleaning up the mess the user's caused. -- Thewinchester(talk)14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The party is unregistered (its page suggests it is trying to meet this criteria), has not yet run in any election and I am not seeing any news coverage via Factiva. Orderinchaos15:04, 13 April 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.
Completely unnecessary way to list games. It is just a different way to play the game; it's nothing unique enough (like an add-on or peripheral) that would require a separate list. (It would be like a List of Nintendo DS games that use the microphone.) So few games require the player to tilt the DS (there are three listed) that this list would remain a stub and could not be expanded further. It is far, far better to discuss the uniqueness in the respecitve articles themselves. hbdragon8808:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider using it sideways any less notable than using the wireless features or microphone is myself. But heck, I would probably say they should all be merged. (In fact, if you look at List of Nintendo DS games it already has a tag for wireless games, making that page unneeded too). Is there some reason why it shouldn't be merged? FrozenPurpleCube00:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's quite possible this list will be expanded as more games are release (and as more entries are added, note the age of the page, it's very recently started, so it could be very incomplete). I think it's better to just list the information as part of the main DS games list myself, but it is otherwise quite valid. FrozenPurpleCube15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still feel this is a case for deletion. Sideways Nintendo DS games are a function of novelty and not of playability. Playing the game in "book format" means that pretty much all of the DS's buttons are eliminated as functional methods of input. I imagine that there's going to be less than ten games released in the "sideways" format throughout the entire span of the Nintendo DS's life, which means that an article on games like that is not necessary. I'd support this as a category (something like "Vertically Oriented DS Games", since "Sideways" is a strange term to use), but not as an article or as a list. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 02:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am saying: Merge. Merge to List of Nintendo DS Games. This means add a tag like [SW]] to any games that are held sideways (or V, or whatever is decided as appropriate). This would be even easier than a category and far more useful. Is there something unclear about what I'm saying, because it seems people are completely missing it? FrozenPurpleCube14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am probably going to add it, but I figured I'd try to get people's perspective on the issue directly. Sadly it seems to have gone past people's minds. FrozenPurpleCube21:54, 14 April 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.
I'm decidedly unconvinced that this person/group is actually significant in any way. While there's a decent number of references listed, they all seem to be mass listings with Petrašovský mentioned only in passing (although I'll freely admit my knowledge of Eastern European languages is non-existent). As such, delete --Pak2108:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] (Geographic nit: Slovakia is located in Central Europe, Eastern Europe is Ukraine and Russia. Pavel Vozenilek22:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
CommentWP:VERIFIABILITY says that: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Basically, this article does not adhere to this policy. I'm not sure wether that qualifies it for deletion or not. Perhaps some sources could be produced in English so that we could better understand where the information is coming from. --CyrusAndiron14:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes assume good faith and by doing so we have multiple sources that look at least more professional than an AOL homepage. But this is substantially written by a single purpose user with the only other contributions from unidentified users. Seems a bit spammy to me. But are we setting as major precedent here and where is th risk? --Kevin Murray22:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (from someone who can read Slovak texts). The duo does exist, they specialize on Ruthenian folk music in Slovakia, they published a CD, obtained an award at a minor music festival in 1996 (not mentioned in the article, could be the only possible criterion for inclusion on WP [43]) but: (1) All external links (except the one about the festival) are very NN newspaper articles announcing the group in one sentence. There's no biography, no overview of the work, nothing about their history. (2) The festival is of relatively minor importance (AFAICS) and gives several prizes (in 1996 it awarded 4 out of 41 performers). It has no article even on Slovak Wiki. (3) The text here is not well written. (The text on Slovak Wiki is somewhat better and it survived their VfD in Dec 2006.)
IMO it would be better to delete it for now and wait until something better and more complete appears on Slovak Wiki and then to translate it here. Pavel Vozenilek22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's notable on one Wiki should be notable on another- we shouldn't take too Anglo-centric an approach. I'm tempted to defer to the fact that Slovak Wiki 's VfD reached a keep consensus. Tag for cleanup. WjBscribe17:08, 19 April 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 article itself hurts the eyes, but the question is - is the band notable? Author name suggests WP:COI, it's not sourced, and I can't find much bar the odd blog but as I'm wary of WP:CSB, here we are. EliminatorJRTalk10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally unsourced & unreferenced. If this is a genuinely major group in Pakistan someone can recreate it with appropriate sources and NPOV but at the moment it reads like it's been cut-and-pasted verbatim from a concert flyer. - iridescenti(talk to me!)00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 Delete - And tagged accordingingly before I realised this AfD was happening (as article tag had been removed). Page was already deleted as CSD-G11 yesterday. A1octopus11:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salt Ah, the penny drops, the article was up twice. Probably best it gets salted as well as deleted (the other Darkpole has been). A1octopus22:26, 14 April 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.
I am concerned over the term "major historic significance", because that is not a well-defined term which can easily discriminate between what should go in and what should not. The article does try to give some examples (led to a major change in working practices, or a key example of a particular type or cause of accident) but it does not solve the problem, again the terms "major" and "key" are subjective. I would actually say that most fatal rail disaster leads to some sort of change in practice, and all fatal rail accidents are of historic interest, that is why we have articles on them. This particular list is little more than a subset of List of rail accidents which provides all the information here. Sjakkalle(Check!)10:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes! He's done a huge amount for Wikipedia in that field. Regarding the article in question, redirect might work, but is there anything to merge? Sjakkalle(Check!)14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The term major historic significance is too subjective but there is no reason for the information not to be held somewhere. Arkyan • (talk)15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Slambo. We might want to look into some criteria for deciding which accidents are most notable, in order to keep the list from growing exponentially, but that isn't really a topic for this AFD. --Elkman(Elkspeak)04:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Note, however, that the combined page will get quite long, and it might be wise to split the pages into rail accidents in each century, or some other arbitrary dividing line. YechielMan14:57, 15 April 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 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.
Non-notable (or locally-notable) cafe. Article provides no references other than the cafe's website, explains no claim to notability. Mikeblas14:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Per above assuming notability, but I don't see it well asserted. It looks like there should be sources available, so I say where is the harm? --Kevin Murray22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 - fails to assert the notability of its subject. "It's a popular cafe" Is that it? Also, blatant excuse for an advert as well; "Food orders are normally quite quick, 10 minutes even when the cafe is full"... "a place to enjoy hearty carb fare". Crazysuit01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a couple of mentions from The Guardian: [44] ("one of the most famous mountaineering hangouts in Britain"), [45] ("another Snowdonia legend"), [46] ("If you want to experience climbing culture at first hand"). These are obviously only mentioning the place in passing, but I think they suggest some kind of notability within the climbing world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrabbits (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The only reference I can find in your link is "But I don't have much time, so instead opt for a cup of tea at Pete's Eats, another Snowdonia legend". If you have that link add it to the article. --Bduke01:44, 16 April 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.
Non-notable, no other sources of info seem available, statements in the article unreferenced save by their own website apparently. MadMaxDog03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some entries are not sourced at all. This is something to be changed, not used as an argument for your own case. You have not proven notability. If you'd like your article on Wikipedia, please provide sources like books, newspaper articles etc... as references. Ad hominem won't make a good case. MadMaxDog06:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reeks of hoax. Even if it isn't, zero third-party sources - and not the first attempt to introduce non-verifiable communities into articles [48]. Tearlach15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, PLEASE! If you all feel that it should be deleted, then do it. we do not NEED this page. It does NOT matter that you think that we are a hoax, because all that matters is that WE ARE NOT! We are everything that you have seen. We are no different than the other Gypsies. PLUS: We use the letter "Ŭ" becasue we wanted to. We are not a Celtic tribe, we are an AMERICAN GYPSY TRIBE, but we ARE NOT A HOAX. LOL! Now that's funny. Princess Elisabeth Vantar15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elisabeth, we do not CLAIM you are a hoax. However, this is to be an Encyclopedia, and, partly because of complaints about Wikipedia's quality, we require references for our articles. It is YOUR responsibility to prove, by reliable sources, that your group is notable. I had articles deleted myself about stuff that I cared about, but could not reference properly. It smarts, but its necessary to demand references, for otherwise, this would end up just becoming a heap of "stuff" instead of an Encyclopedia. MadMaxDog00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteNOT A HOAX! If you will delete the article please! If something causes this much absurdidy and blatant disrespect for a person or people, then I DO NOT want a part of it. Let this be known: I will make sure that EVERY person I know, and EVERY person they know and so forth, knows about the way that wikipedia has treated me and my tribe. God help/ forgive you, because I won't. I pitty the fact that you bully people like this. Wikipedia was nice, or AT LEAST I thought it was. I guess I was wrong.
Eapos, editing another person's comments on a talk page to fit your views is a major taboo on Wikipedia. I realise that you are angry now and say you will not use (edit) Wikipedia anymore. But if you insist on such behaviour, this may well become fact in another way (ban). MadMaxDog10:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALL I WANT TO HAVE MY ACCOUNT DELETED. CAN YOU GET MY ACCOUNT DELETED? I DON'T WANT ANYTHING *TO DO WITH WIKIPEDIA EVER AGAIN! I WANT MY ACCOUNT DELETED! I REPEATED MYSELF TO MAKESURE IT GOT THRE YOUR THICK SCULL. I CAN FIND EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN ON HERE...EXCEPT HOW TO DELETE MY ACCOUNT! TELL ME HOW PLEASE. Another thing: How long do these conspiracies stay on here? Does wikipedia store them forever?
In addition to iridiscenti's answer - this is, among other reasons, to prevent vandals from returning later with a 'clean slate'. This is not saying that YOU are a vandal - but it is part of the reason why there are normally no exceptions to this rule of accounts not being 'truly' deleted. MadMaxDog12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for 'these conspiracies' as you call them - they stay on here 'forever' (or at least for the forseeable future) exactly to make conspiracies impossible. If we had treated you unfairly, you could at any point appeal to administrators or to various other groups on Wikipedia tasked with this for a review what happened. At that point, this page will come in handy to recreate what happened. MadMaxDog12:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? NO! This is the second time I have been mistreated like this, the other was not even my fault! I am done with wikipedia and its cheapskate "administrators" who use their "power" to bully others. I want nothing to do with it any longer! Princess Elisabeth Vantar18:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not suggesting you come back (you do not seem to wish to, so suit yourself) nor are we suggesting you contest this deletion (you would be exceedingly unlikely to succeed). We are just trying to be reasonable. MadMaxDog00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FUCK YOU! YOU ASSWHOLE MOTHER FUCKER! I eat people like you for breakfast. Oh by the way...can you block me please? I would like to be banned. :) Have a wondrous day you piece of shit! Thank God that he firgives, or else you would be screwed...along wiht most over-zealous administrators on wikipedia. :] Princess Elisabeth Vantar01:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I totally agree with a block for you. You earned it, if for nothing else than again trying to tamper with talk pages. Also, a ban might actually make you stop coming back, as you insist you prefer not to. MadMaxDog04:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's how escalation works, though. It's sort of a delicate COI case, methinks, but Eapos is frustrated by our cliches. Sometimes it is too late to assume good faith: such activity is more efficacious towards the beginning of disputes. GracenotesT § 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at my previous posts. I always tried to explain 'our' positions and that they weren't an attack on her or her family group, clan, whatever. And in fact, I was very much itching to give a much harsher comeback to her later comments. This person was unwilling to even entertain the idea of coming into a different community (Wikipedia) and then having to follow its rules. MadMaxDog07:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MadMazDog, there is all this talk about banning me and deleting my article, but so far its just talk. When is this supposedly going to happen? And by the way, that last comment was from my cousin, James. He HATES people who mistreat our family, especially me, we are as siblings. If I would have known what he was going to say on MY ACCOUNT, I woudl not have let him do such. Princess Elisabeth Vantar16:10, 17 April 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.
Not sure This appears valid under notability, but is it bad precedent in some way?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanleroi (talk • contribs)
happy for this page to be deleted if it is best for wikipedia. subject is not me, but related, yes. thought i was adding something reasonable, sorry Bazilian16:15, 13 April 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.
Non-notable band; the three sources don't establish notability, and it's unclear that anything could. No releases (they're rumoured to be "on the verge of signing with Polydor"). Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:31, 12 April 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 disambiguate, the standard editorial process when any one of the possible targets is not exceptionally more notable than the others. That looks like what the original intent of this page was anyway, but without WP:MOS. This closing does not preclude other editorial decisions (like redirects) in the future, but the disambiguation seems most useful at this time. — coelacan — 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the rationale behind this page. A redirect to the Brazilian town should suffice. If any of the persons listed are really notable, they should have their own article instead. Egil12:00, 12 April 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.
Transwiki to WikiQuote. (To do a proper transwiki, it's recommended the page is deleted afterwards by speedy deletion (copy of material on other project-criterion). So I prefer delete be mentioned after transwiki rather than before). - Mgm|(talk)12:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Content has no place in Wikipedia, though a summary of his racist, homophobic and antisemitic rants ought to be discussed on the article about him. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. 1ne 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't shoot, I surrender. I surrender! I favor Speedy Delete of this, my own little baby, because I've just transwikied it myself, putting the quotes into the Wikiquote Don Imus page. Looking over WP:NOT I see I misread part of it yesterday, and looking over Wikiquote rules, it seems it should fit in there. I was inclined to wait a bit and see what other humorous objections :might come up, such as "Attack page on Don Imus", but That Would Be Wrong because it's just wasting the time of Wikipedians who are acting in good faith. I hope some admin will speedy delete this now under WP:SNOW and prevent others from wasting any more time or effort on it. Sorry for the bother, it was in good faith. Noroton21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it covers a current event that is getting an almost crazy amount of coverage on the news. It's on MSNBC right now as I type and has been covered for the past hour consistently. Therefore, a list like this is immensely helpful for people curious about what exactly Imus said and if he has a real history of such statements. Maybe delete in the future when the issue has died down, but right now this stuff is relevant to a MAJOR news story, for better or worse, and therefore is useful and interesting to Wikipedia readers. --172.129.153.23221:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It won't be speedy deleted. The AfD can be closed early though, then the page deleted, but I don't want to close it just yet. Perhaps another admin will feel differently. Prodegotalk01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for being an "attack page", it should be kept in mind that this is a fully footnoted list of quotes by Imus himself; the only "commentary" is a description of the list as statements that have been called denigrating to women and various other groups. How can the article attack someone by listing that person's own statements? I suppose statements could be taken out of context, but if that's the case, the article could be fixed, and the overall context that Imus says he was making these comments to get a laugh on a radio show is something that has been added to the Don Imus article. This objection is groundless. Noroton16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Even if this was not a page designed to slander "which I think it is" any pertinent information in this matter should be in the main Don Imus page. Vipercat02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some clear thinking is important here, and important for the record: In the law, truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander and libel. Except for two quotes (involving Ifill and 60 Minutes), as noted in this list article, neither Imus or anyone else has argued whether or not the statements were made. The list simply asserts that the statements were made and does not comment on them other than to say that they have been called denigrating to various groups, something that is also not disputed (even by Imus) and is verifiable. Information about what has been made of these comments by others is in the main Don Imus page. Noroton16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Keep in separate page beacuse they're quotations. It is not slander because it proves a history of bigotry. It is well supported by citations, and it will be of enduring value to scholars and laypersons interested in the history of bigotry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.185.93 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ehh, a transwiki seems reasonable, but it should probably be attached to the main article; I know at least I've been complaining about how such a reactionary hack can have such a wide platform to spew his bullshit, and now a lot more people are on my side apparently, so it's an important resource that a transwiki would partially silence (the awful truth, as we all know, is that wikipedia recieves infinitely more hits than any of its sister projects). --Tothebarricades06:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per article creator above. Though very entertaining to read, perhaps provide a link to Wikiquote on main Don Imus page? —24.23.67.21509:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable? Then what were those editors of TIME magazine thinking when they put this guy on the cover last week? Probably the same thing as the editors who put this controversy on the front pages of The New York Times, Washington Post and other newspapers. Probably the same thing the producers of the Sunday talk shows were thinking. And the evening cable talk shows. Those guys need to get a clue. Noroton16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki ... these quotes are all pretty valid and important. it establishes a pattern of behavior. in the face of the controversy, it explains why this much momentum picked up behind one comment. it was really a culmination of a lot of comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.234.98 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think the reason is here at WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Now you could argue that the quotes in this article are not "loosely associated", which is what I was thinking when I created the article, but then every list of quotes on a particular topic would fit in under that definition and then why would there be a suggestion to take them to Wikiquote? (I'm not sure what the words "loosely associated" is even doing in that sentence, since they don't seem to serve any useful purpose. But that's another discussion.) Noroton17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title is POV? You mean there was no controversy here? If it's the title you're concerned about, what would be an NPOV title, in your opinion? Noroton15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find that it's POV to start a collection of an individual's quotes which are specified as either favored or disfavored. The NPOV title could be "List of Don Imus quotes" but that really belongs at Wikiquote. - Gilliam16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we disagree that something identified as controversial can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Each of the quotes was something Imus was criticized for saying. There is no dispute about whether or not he was criticized for saying them. There is no dispute that those kinds of statements were particularly important in the controversy that eventually got Imus fired. None of this is POV. Focusing on what's controversial about an encyclopedic subject is part of what an encyclopedia does. Since he lost his job for at least one of those quotes, it seems to me that the subject is important enough for an encyclopedia to focus on. {My sole reason for reversing myself and wanting to delete is that another, related Wiki exists that can cover the subject [as long as the links are adequate from the Don Imus article]). I guess this is academic anyway, but it's useful to understand everyone's reasoning. Thanks for your response. Noroton00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gilliam. This is a list of offensive quotes. "Offensive" is not the same as "controversial," and "offensive" is even more of a NPOV term. - Chardish05:59, 17 April 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.
This article absolutely does not have relevant information on the mentioned topic/title, simply makes speculations, makes uncited recommendations and is written in non-encyclopedia language/informal way Xpclient12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last known good version doesn't have any content related to the article title - also the "see also" wikilink is also red, indicating either a deletion or incomplete creation. --Sigma 714:46, 12 April 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.
This topic is clearly of current interest to certain people following the New Orleans incident. The article is linked from nowhere— I came across it from a Redditsubmission which is an obvious exhortation to create a piece of original research. I suggest moving the list to a relevant blog or site such as GoogleWatch. Wikipedia is surely NOT a corporate watchdog. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep it - This is after all a 'Free' encylcopedia. This is simply a list of places on Google's Map service that have not fully appeared or completely edited out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.251.19 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep first of all, this is not WP:OR. It advances no claims based on any synthesis. I don't see 'censorship' mentioned anywhere on the page. This is a list. - Francis Tyers·13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." There are no sources for defining what "blurred out" means. Further more, in general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The topic of this list is not notable, is not sourced, and is not linked to by another article. 68.13.147.24113:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the above anon poster please keep this in mind. While Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That being said, this article is definitely OR. There are no verifiable sources for this information. Perhaps an article detailing why these places are blurred would provide context and provide notability. --CyrusAndiron13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar As a list, it must adhere to this policy from WP:ATT. The attribution policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." Also, from WP:LISTLists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. To say that you found thse places on your own and created the list constitutes OR. And finally, what asserts the notability of this list? --CyrusAndiron13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out List of New Order Jedi characters. Is there a reliable source listing all of the New Order Jedi? As for notablity, yes, I can't prove it notable since I don't quite understand how would I prove that. How do you prove lack of notability that you state is evident? --83.131.103.1814:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar From WP:NOTABILITY. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." You have no articles or sources that point out these blurs or explaion the reasons for them. You do not assert in the article why this information is important. As you do not have sources and you cannot explain why this article is worthy of being noticed, you have not met the notability requirements. --CyrusAndiron14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentList of inhabited islands of Croatia has exactly one link from main namespace: link from List of islands of Croatia. And it is a featured list. So I presume the number of links is not a problem since this article could be very nicely be linked from Google Maps article (I won't link it myself because of WP:POINT). As for importance, I have in numerous times tried to find a list of this kind on the web. That is the primary reason behind the creation of this article: I would like to check this article from time to time to see if some new blurs popped out. Now, for me, this article is quite notable... but, of course, I am aware that for you it might not be. We'll se what closing admin has to say... --83.131.103.1814:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen classic original research. The last time this came up, I mentioned that it's no different than an article called List of houses on Google Maps with lots of cars parked in the front yard and other assorted wonders of useless information people could theoretically drum up looking at Google Maps. The problem here is that it's basically original research. Wikipedians care... but the information they're generating might be quite misleading. --W.marsh13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, as someone showed in the Digg thread, the russian image is... drumroll please... an empty field. It's just a photographical error in the Google Maps image. --W.marsh13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator of the list so I obviously think it is notable, etc. Now, let me comment on the nomination:
This list was not made to support a claim of censorship by Google, it was made to list places censored by Google. Just as List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters was not made to support claim that Star Wars fans have no life, but to list minor Star Wars bounty hunters.
Every link to google maps is reliably sourced by a link to the google maps. Now, I happen to be a student of both computer science and philosophy, so you will have to trust me on this one: links to blurs on google maps indeed provide links to blurs on google maps. And, blurs on google maps are reliable sources that confirm existance of blurs on google maps. Just trust me on that.
As for definition of "blur"... since when is problem with one image a reason to delete the whole list? :-)
New Orleans incident? Sorry, never heard of it. I have been collecting this links as they appeared on reddit for some time now. I decided to publish it in this moment by pure chance.
As for the original research... now, what exactly is original research here? The fact that there is no published work that lists this blurs? Is there an published work which lists minor Star Wars bounty hunters? --83.131.103.1814:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this entire article is based on Wikipedians looking at something and drawing conclusions, the more correct analogy would be list of shots in Star Wars that are blurry. That could all be "reliable sourced" to the minute/second where the shot occurs in the DVD or whatever, which are published works. --W.marsh14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOT). One problem is these aren't even 100% true items, they're just Wikipedian's observations, which can be wrong (i.e. the russian image was not actually "blurred out" but an equipment error more likely). Even if the random Wikipedian is probably right in his observation... it's a fact with no reliable statement of context, explanation or significance possible. To group such tidbits together, be they the number of cars a Wikipedian sees in a front yard or the existence of a supposed blur, seems like an indiscriminate, or at least problematic, collection of information. --W.marsh14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me try and address some of your points.
Your reasoning is incredibly circular. You cannot say it wasn't made to make a claim about censorship when you say it lists places censored by google. Regardless, this is not the reason for deletion.
The links themselves don't constitute a source, circular reasoning again.
The definition of blur is important because inclusion on a list MUST be backed up by reliable sources that say "this is a blur". Since there is none, how can you have a list?
Reddit discussions don't really make it for notability.
Yes, there are works that list minor Star Wars bounty hunters in the forms of the countless Star Wars novels and such. This list has no such source and is infact nothing but original research. Your very admission for the reason you created this article is evidence that this is nothing BUT original research. For more detailed information please read WP:OR. 68.13.147.24114:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen - original researchish synthesis stuff. It's little more than "HAY GUSY IS AW TIHS STUF ON GOGGLEMAPS ADN IT WAS BLURRRY!!1" -- Cyrius|✎14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for that kind of mockery. Assume that the creators and editors of the article have good intentions, even if you think it fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be safely agreed that Google has no interest in blurring these locations beyond complying with whatever anti-spying regulations there are in place. As such, this list provides an important (and interesting) insight. Furthermore, the article should be renamed. The satellite images listed in this article are not all "blurred", but they are digitally manipulated in some way. The Plum Island example looks more like a median filter to me. Rufous14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a paragraph, by the admission of the people who wrote the article, could only say "These are links to things random Wikipedians think are blurs, or possibly equipment malfunctions, or maybe median filtered". Do we really want to put that in an article? --W.marsh16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs that have been added since my initial comment are nothing at all like what you describe, and seem like just the sort of thing I had in mind. Bryan Derksen08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear example of original research. Satellite images aren't perfect, how can we be 100% sure that one particular place is actually censored, or just an unintended glitch in the image? This potential for inaccuracy is exactly why we have policies against original research. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making assumptions as to what the intentions of the article's contributors are is pretty pointless - but that doesn't excuse the fact that it isWP:OR. As mentioned above, there are no sources to indicate whether these are software/imaging glitches, intentional blurrings, or so on. I've seen Google Maps images that were blurred due to high clouds - should I plop those on to this list as well? Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of loosely related topics, and "Hey, it's a blurry spot on the picture" is a pretty vague relationship as any. It may be "neat" or "interesting" but neither of those are valid inclusion criteria. Arkyan • (talk)15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it needs work, but it is informative, and it is not original research because it simply collects existing information. --Uriel16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a wiki, but it's not your wiki. If someone wanted to do a list of blurred out areas on Google Maps they could have started their own wiki. --SeanO16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This list is fascinating; it suggests business and political patterns that would be very hard to see without it. Peepeedia 17:27 PDT, 12 April 2007
Delete Fascinating, but the topic has apparently not been covered anywhere else, and therefore fails to meet notability criteria. Kla'quot17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and expand.Delete Before checking out all the areas, be aware that the Google Earth article notes that a record is kept of every IP address that calls up imagery of high security areas. There really are places which might be considered of national security importance which have the tops masked off and the surrounding area filled with a seeming impenetrable forest of trees which are not there in photos and other aerial shots of the places. This list is also very selective. If it were referenced to an article somewhere about the phenomenon it would be an ok article. This topic is also dealt with in Google Earth in the section "National security and privacy issues." That section and this article could also include [49] which shows how one country covers high security areas with fake impenetrable forests. Google in this case provides the undoctored image, so the article might better be more broadly cast as "Censorship of online aerial images." See also [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , and [56].Edison18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do, however propose deleting this article for all reasons stated above. I thought these things went under "discussions"?
Keep. A Google search for "Google maps blurred" returns nearly 1 million hits, a large portion of which are discussion of this phenomenon. Refeneces to some of this discussion could easily be added. I'd suggest adding a list of formerly "blurred" areas--the White House and Capitol were blurred but no longer are, while the VP's residence remains blurred. I'd suggest renaming the article "List of places on Google Maps with locally reduced resolution". I'm still confused about why a primary source document, Google maps themselves, do not count as a source. Craigbutz20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia's guidlines for lists says that the list entries must be vetted against a source that can constitute what membership in the list entails. I've not seen a source which describes what a "blur" is. Is it a sat error, censorship, dust on the negative, etc? Also, a list of places with locally reduced resolution isn't going to help. How much is fairly reduced? How big is locally? What if the area simply is old low res imagery, not reduced by some accident, omission, or censorship? What about the fake forests, that's not really reduced resolution? Who decides all this? You? This is why the maps themselves are not sufficient in any way as a source. 68.13.147.24122:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be the very definition of Original Research, as admitted by the words of the article creator above. - fchd20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and expand. This article should be kept, but expanded upon to include places thought to be intentionally altered to prevent viewing on Google Earth. This should include but not be limited to "blurring," adding trees, or any other digital manipulation. I was actually looking for this information the other day (out of curiousity), and an expanded list would be both noteworty, citeable (with various discussions, and from Google itself), and NOR. tlm202121:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "thought to be intentionally altered" is not encyclopedic. What someone "thinks" is irrelevant. This article doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a place for "blurs"...for censorship...for satellite errors...who knows? The fact is, you can find many sources on the internet with speculation on what these and other things on sat imagery may or may not be...but I have seen NOTHING in the way of a source that speaks to the true reason of any observed abnormality. As it stands, a source that defines what a "blur" constitutes would be needed to vet the entries on this list. An entry on a list is not its own source. 68.13.147.24122:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of arguments made on this page fall under the "it is useful" category (some of the delete arguments are not very helpful either). This is not an argument for keeping an article. Finding inconsistencies on Google Maps is original research. As it stands now the article makes ridiculous claims like blurring being caused by water on the lens, but even if non sense like that were cleaned up we would still have a list of things people found on Google Earth this is not encyclopedic content. The subject of censorship on Google Maps is covered in the main article, if this is such a prevalent issue I would be not opposed to a fork and a new page called Censorship on Google Maps or some such. --Daniel J. Leivick22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has recieved a lot of attention and has been cleaned up, but the problem remains. Wikipedia editors should not be making image analysis, it is not always clear what is censored and what is not, case and point was the Ramstien airbase image, it served as the lead image on the page, yet I don't think it is actually censored, probably just over exposed. --Daniel J. Leivick23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wikisource. I don't see this as original research. Each claim is clearly cited to Google Maps, which I'm sure is used as a primary source for other articles. Most of the links on this page are also very clearly blurred intentionally. Lincoln Labs is pixelated [57]. The dutch ones are even-more-obviously distorted, (blurred based on a Voronoi tesselation of random points) [58]. —Ben FrantzDale22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out earlier, according to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." It doesn't matter what you feel is obvious, items for inclusion on this list must be based on a reliable source. Crypticgeek23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red cardinal bird.jpgMale Northern Cardinal That's a valid point, but I would argue that interpreting obvious facts about a picture really is the same as reporting what the source says. For example, I would consider the image and caption at right a valid citation for the claim that male northern cardinals are red, even though the caption does not mention the color. —Ben FrantzDale01:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument. However, let me reiterate that original research...where editors draw conclusions based on a primary source (source google maps...conclusion "this is blurred out") is not allowed on Wikipedia for a host of very very good reasons. And when you frame your argument like you did, the rule seems frivolous. However, original research is big trouble. What if I saw a bump on a celebrity's lip and concluded on my own that it was herpes. That's my conclusion, and I believe it to be obvious. So I go put that on his Wikipedia article. This is why OR is very bad. Things on Wikipedia must be verifiable by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Again, this list could stay if a source for vetting these entries be found. But the very premise of "blurred out" makes this list in serious trouble. There is no standard for inclusion outside of Wikipedia editors deciding what is and isn't included. Wikipedia isn't information decided by random editors to be true, Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information from reliable sources. 68.13.147.24108:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your red cardinal example highlights a basic problem with Wikipedia's policy of citing sources... When do you stop? When is something so obvious and unambigous that it does not need a source? In the case of this article, I believe the term "blurred" is too ambiguous because it does not ONLY mean blurred. "Blurred" should/could also include areas covered by clouds, obstructed by reflections or photographed in low resolutions. The areas in this article are probably better described as "intentionally digitally manipulated" or, as we really seem to be talking about, "censored." However such terms would certainly make this an article that required expertise and original research. -- Ektar16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews has the same standards of citing sources as Wikipedia, so I don't think it would fly there either. Especially, now that the the name of the article has been changed to "Satellite images censored by Google Maps" it is much clearer why sourcing straight to the maps does not meet Wiki policies of citing sources. There is a discernible difference between showing that image of a cardinal and claiming it is red, and showing a list of images and claiming they are ALL censored. - Ektar18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP.This information is far from original research, and it provides a valuable database of infractions by Google to prevent the public from viewing a non-copyrightable property...planet earth. KEEP, Wikipedia should not police a list of this nature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 74.192.231.115 (talk • contribs)
But that's an original conclusion... a lot of them just seem to be equipment malfunction. Actually that shows a problem with lists like this that can have no explanation and require people to draw their own conclusions... lots of people are going to be the wrong conclusions altogether. --W.marsh02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia should police. If the author feels strongly the author may get his own web page to advance or promulgate this information. There he or she would have perfect freedom to push this notion, ignorant of Google as it may be. Here it just seeks to stick itself onto the credibility of Wikipedia and move from private obsession to generally accepted fact. Its a cheap shot and should be dealt with as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanderleun (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a free encyclopedia and the addition of a list of places doesn't seem out of order to me, I find this article quite interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by iDemonix (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia. I think someone should add this to an external page, and we can link to it from the google entry. Are we supposed to make one of these pages for every individual satellite map website? Or just for The Great Google's? Also, I worry that this page exists solely to try making people draw conclusions. Something like "Google censors." But how do we know Google censored the data, and the provider of the satellite data did not? I can keep on listing problems with this, but to me this is obviously not encyclopedic and adds to the glut of unnecessary Google sites. Rm99900:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not terribly useful, but it is somewhat important. Seems a bit like listcruft. However, even if it is OR it is verifiable, so it could be included if it's decided that it's an appropriate topic. People seem to be confusing OR with V. M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @)00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship. N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as bing an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. DGG00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's not original research, then you say it's useful because people can conclude that the raw images represent "an indication of the extent of censorship". That's drawing original conclusions from a primary source... --W.marsh02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is useful information, but redirect to a more general (less exclusively Google) list of places obscured by mapping services, with generalized latitude/longitude mapping links. Article maintainers can develop a useful neutral set of criteria for determining when a region has been specifically obscured. --Fjarlq00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no thesis being presented about Google censorship, it is a simple list of places that are blurred out. It could be quite useful for some people and is certanly more relevant than some of those esoteric Star Wars lists that a few people mentioned.--208.97.117.15401:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of views I see above, holding that this list is appropriate to be deleted because it is not important, constantly changing (hence wrong from time to time), not official or sourced, original research .etc. I believe these are not good reasons. Please compare it with an article of a similar kind: List of notable websites blocked in the People's Republic of China. The "list of blocked websites" exists, despite it is constantly changing (Chinese government updates its list of blocked websites constantly, in the dark) and not official (The Chinese government never officially admit that it blocked any of those websites). Both articles are about a vast entity hiding information from the public. Given they are so similar in properties, what is the reason of keeping one and deleting another? --Computor01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of votes on both sides that use inappropriate arguments like: (un)interesting, useless/useful. But the fact remains that this page is original research and unsourced as admitted by several keep voters and that is a reason to delete a page. --Daniel J. Leivick02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research? I believe this article is an effort to give facts, and nothing more - that is what Wikipedia aims to do isn't it? It is attributed by direct links to the sections in question on Google Map. Everyone can click on the links to see these facts.--Computor05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list should include exact coordinates for each site, and links to information on the security risk posed by photos of the sites. And it shouldn't be exclusive to Google. 68.101.205.4102:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plum Island has CLEARLY been blurred. Compare the buildings to the water surronding the island. I have been to the island personally, and I can assure you that the tops of the buildings look nothing like what is being represented. This is original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Villaged (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are no reported instances of Voronoi tessellation, pixelation or blurring of complex, clear-edged shapes appearing as an uncontrolled phenomenon in any imagery generated by devices of human construction. 88.112.27.9703:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Edit it and improve it, y'all. 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Picofluidicist
Keep. Hmm, neat. bd2412T 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you like it... do I really have to tell you this isn't a vote? Well... it will probably be closed exactly as a vote... but I can at least pretend... --W.marsh04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:NOT, original research, listspam, also note that this article was linked to on Digg, and is, at 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)~, in the top 10, so get ready for a lot of input from new/anonymous users Lord_Eru_(Cont)04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be worthy reference information, not an original synthesis nor listcruft. The text is not directly accusatory of Google but the citation makes clear that some Google censorship has been confirmed. 2 things:
The text should make clear that the identified "blurs" may be either censorship or imaging malfunctions, and in most cases censorship cannot be definitively confirmed.
Keep. This information should be made available to everyone and it would make sense to do so by putting it in an encycopledia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.165.164 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - I added the India and BBC references last night and slept on the AfD until today. It struck me that as a list the actual Google references are primary sources; this is fine in principle as long as we have secondary reliable sources that refer to "blurring" and "government" and/or Google control of this. We do with the India stuff so the article is 1/2 way there. If we couldn't find any references then it would be a clear delete BUT as we have evidence of Google manipulating the images it is a weak keep. Ttiotsw06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting article, but still not where we need to be. There needs to be some sort of source that tells us what is or isn't "blurred". There probably would also need to be a name change. This list seems more like "places with abnormalities on google maps" than anything else. There are places with blackness, places that are blurry, places that are lower resolution, ad infinitum. Again, this article badly needs a source for standard for inclusion. 68.13.147.24108:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Compiling a list of things does not constitute original research. If it were, every list of everything that isn't copied word-for-word from another source would be original research. The evidence of blurring is quite clear, it does meet the definition of blurring. To say that is not the case would be like claiming that tricornes and bicornes don't belong on the List of hats and headgear because they have corners. They do meet the definition of a hat, there's no reason not to include them on the list, there's no reason to delete the list just because it wasn't copied directly from somewhere else, and the same applies here. It's important to note that practically all lists and categories on wikipedia have been created by people going out and finding things that they think belong on the list, and deleting things that don't belong on the list, not stealing the list from another source. There is, and should be, no synthesis of the information, and only that would make this original research. Calling this original research would set a very bad precedent for Wikipedia. -NorsemanII06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the fact that the only source is some Wikipedian's interpretation of an image they found on Google Maps that makes people say this is OR. See the early examples about lists of blurry images in the Star Wars trilogy or list of houses with lots of cars in the front yards that would be just as "verifiable" as this list. It's a bad precedent to say that kind of stuff isn't okay? --W.marsh12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While visual analysis of this kind is unusual, I wouldn't go so far as to call it OR. After reading the OR policy, I don't think the policy was designed to deal with this type of article. —Tokek14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article presents information from Google Maps. Google maps is notable and this article contains no original research. Nothing in the article is synthesized (no original theories, method of solution, original ideas, new terms, etc. are present). Plenty of "list" articles exist as a precedent. —Tokek12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being new to these types of discussions on Wikipedia, it was very interesting to read these comments, reference all the different content-rule pages and understand better how Wikipedia content is decided. After all this, I'm pretty convinced this list has value to a subset of Wikipedian users but is not Wikipedia material. Plu5even13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Maps article has included mention of the blurred areas since January 2006. Having a list of such areas within Wikipedia seems natural. If there are doubts about verification of items in the list, that should be addressed by editors on the talk page of the list. I find the reasoning provided in the nomination for deletion of this list to be contorted and a poor basis for a page deletion discussion. --JWSchmidt14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main argument of the deletion proposal, that this list be a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", has not been sufficiently established. I do not at all see this article as advancing a position, but rather as a list of places that various entities consider important, and that therefore probably are important. Deleting the list does not improve the encyclopedia or help our readers. AxelBoldt15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason this list is seen as being more important than any list of what Wikipedians think images on Google maps show, say, List of houses with roof damage oder List of houses with more than 10 trees in their yards is that people (as this afd shows) often assume there's some kind of `conspiracy being suggested by this list. Even you draw the original conclusion that these are places considered important... some are not, they're just equipment errors. And yet this list is being kept instead of laughed at, even though there's no difference between it and the silly examples I suggest, people just like this list, or think it suggests some lovely conspiracy theory. Keeping such stuff does not seem like a good idea... --W.marsh14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This afd has neither implicitly nor explicitly referred to any sort of "conspiracy" before you just now used the word twice, and I don't know where you got it from. Blurring a picture is hard to keep secret, so it cannot be called a conspiracy. AxelBoldt16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to play semantic games... people have said stuff like "It certainly has piqued my interest as to who's behind the directive!" it's clear what a lot of people think this list is about. And again, you yourself are still drawing the original conclusion that all of these locations are considered important by the various entities. --W.marsh17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and under the new title, Satellite images censored by Google Maps, it doesn't just imply original research, it is original research. Wikipedians looking at an image, saying it's blurred, and using that to claim that the image was "censored by Google Maps". That is drawing an original conclusion from a published work to advance a position. --W.marsh14:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the title of an article is being changed during the article's deletion discussion, that surely cannot be construed as an argument in favor of the article's deletion. AxelBoldt16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) states that "a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative". I find that this list is "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". I've seen this page blogged about in addition to having friends email me the link. If a collective interest in a page that is properly not spam or other vandalism is clearly notable. J.reed15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an interesting list, and I'd vote Keep per WP:ILIKEIT, but it fails the list guidelines and WP:NOT, so it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Furthermore, the definition of "blurred" is open to different interpretations, which means we will never be able to make a good list. Jayden5415:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Unfortunately, GoogleMaps is frequently used a reference source. It is necessary for the encyclopedia to keep a list of areas where this reference source in inaccurate. Over time, I expect strong linking from other articles that point to this article as partial validation for a lack of source pictures. This is absolutely in line with Wikipedias goals. --Charles Merriam17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notion is sound. I don't agree with the WP:OR claim, because Google Maps is a fixed source. How is saying that "at this location in Google Maps, there is blurry imagery" different from saying that "on this page of Das Kapital, there is mention of the proletariat"? Furthermore: The article could be re-done based only on material documented elsewhere -- like Google Earth Community, Virtual Globetrotting (which has a "satellite problem" category), and other existing GMaps/GEarth placemark collections that include notations or categories. So even if I were to concede to the OR claim, which I don't, it still would be a valid article topic. - Keith D. Tyler¶ (AMA) 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see it as different because one can open Das Kapital and unambiguously see if the word "proletariat" is mentioned on a particular page. If, however, you say the ideals of the proletariat are mentioned but there is no direct mention of the proletariat, you would need a source or attribution. In this case, there is ambiguity in the term "blurred." Why not also list places that are blurred because of low-res photography? This list wants to be a list of intentionally blurred places and that kind of list would require original research. - Ektar20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete Absolutely ludicrous to have a page dedicated to blurry images on a piece of software. Firstly what constitutes a blurry image and secondly this could open the floodgates to other frivolous rubbish like flaws in some obscure piece of Microsoft software as an example.--Lucy-marie17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong KeepOne has to wonder why the majority of sites deliberately edited are located in two countries. Whereas countries such as China and North Korea there aren’t any (at least none documented yet). It certainly has piqued my interest as to who's behind the directive!--HJKeats18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems many people want to make the argument that one can simply go and see the "source" and therefore there is no need for attribution. The flaw in that argument is that although you may be able to "see for yourself " there is no unambiguous definition of blurred. Obviously, this is not JUST a list of "blurred" places because it would need to include all the other places that are blurred because of low-res photography, reflections, clouds, etc. It seem this list wants to be a list of "intentionally blurred" places, and that unfortunately requires original research. I love the idea of this list, but I just do not see how it fits within the restraints of wikipedia policy. - Ektar20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. since the author quoted the source (reddit) and the source lists a link to the maps image, its seems this would be vetted. wikipedia is just peeved that its not "credible" aka a college didnt vet it. all knowledge doesnt come from colleges or the military, nor corporations. sometimes normal stupid people can add to the sum of human knowledge without a phd.-JP
keep the list is notable - it's one of the 100 most viewed pages; it's verifiable - just go look at Google Maps (which is certainly a reliable source for information on Google maps). If there are errors on the page that is not a reason for deletion. It is no more original research than the popular culture articles whose primary source is the cultural object itself.Filceolaire00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable or not notable, this list is clearly original research. Get it published somewhere else and then maybe someone can write a Wikipedia article about it 68.175.108.11003:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep OR or not, a list such as this is both interesting, worthwhile and likely to improve in accuracy with time as dubious entries are subjected to scrutiny by others. I've looked a several of the entries and I've yet to find any which are not clear examples of artifical manipulation. Verification of the content of the list can be achieved by simple consensus of opinion, this article deserves to stay. 82.40.80.5317:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete - Even though I, personally, enjoy finding things such as this list, it, by no means belongs in the Wikipedia project for many of the reasons listed above. -Martinman21:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator comments that the list is an "original synthesis of material." Synthesis presumes analysis. A straightforward listing of intentionally blurred areas is just that - a list. No thesis is proven or proposed. Compiling lists of facts is not research.Ezratrumpet00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article. As to the point about it being original research - At work we have a saying "Follow the spec or change it" - perhaps the Wikipedia policy on original research needs to be changed. After an article is on Wikipedia more people research on the topic and it is no longer "original research". Nwk05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (but merge into google maps). Covered by news, verifiable, notable, etc. If there is 'pro censorship' bias, it should be corrected according to NPOV. Lakinekaki15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment To the multitudes of people who say "keep - i like it!", "keep - it is not OR!" with no explanation, "keep" with no comment or anything along those lines, please answer me this: Now that the article has a more appropriate and less ambiguous title ("Satellite images censored by Google Maps") shouldn't we have a reputable source and not just any wikipedian determining whether or not these images are actually censored? Also, there are just too many places where the censorship may not be obvious. For instance, I can practically ASSURE you this image is censored, but the censor is just not obvious. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this article. I think it is extremely interesting, notable and encyclopedic BUT unfortunately I just don't see how it conform to Wikipedia policies of citing sources. -Ektar17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article is going to be hard pressed for proper sourcing... I think this is a very, very rare instance we might have to use WP:IAR. And yes I'm already sorry that I brought it up -- but in this specific case -- sources are created by the entity itself. Google Maps/Earth are themselves creating the material and thusly the 'sources' of the information (aka the maps). I know this rule should be used very, very sparingly -- but in this case I don't see how we can find 'outside' sources -- Google Maps is essentially a database and the content of that database is where we get this info. MrMacMan Talk 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see how this is is any way encyclopaedic content. Stuff like this belongs on a personal website or a blog - not Wikipedia. - fchd18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple example of an outside source, which would satisfy Wikipedia citing policies, would be a New York Times article about how Google censors their maps. Such an article would, most likely, have a list of examples and those examples would be fit for inclusion in such a list. - Ektar18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information in that article is interesting but unfortunately the problem still exists that the Daily Telegraph does not accuse Google of censoring their maps. If the Daily Telegraph isn't claiming censorship, how can we claim censorship and use that article as a reference? There are numerous blogs claiming censorship but they are not considered reputable sources. - Ektar18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you brings up a good point: Like any blogger, I could speculate for hours about what is censored, but that wouldn't be a solid claim of censorship. It's the reason why a reputable news source requires good research and not just a simple claim of "Well, it LOOKS like it's censored" as proof that an image is censored. - Ektar18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relatively clear that google's image of the white house is 'modified'. I believe we can agree that the white house image was changed and that the roof of the white house is not a bunch of rectangular colors. See here for the history behind it. The thing is that other groups have satellite images that haven't been censored... by using them as references we can show the differences and signs of censoring. MrMacMan Talk 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing images and draw conclusions is complete original research, Wikipedia editor should not be in the business of image analysis. That is why this page should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this seems appropriate material for Wikipedia; however, the OR nature of the current page means it shouldn't be kept. The page needs to have multiple nontrivial independent sources - Google Maps changes over time (new satellite data, etc.) and is a primary source. Attention, page creator: I really like this compilation of information and I really want you to host it somewhere else. - Chardish06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's very interesting information, to be sure. However, not only is this far from comprehensive, this is entirely original research. This ought be rehosted on a personal web page.75.73.153.1813:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Content problems is never a strong argument for deletion. The topic is sound; the method of accumulating the content is questionable, but that can be repaired. If an article with the same or similar name can be created without OR, then the article should be kept, and fixed. It can, so it should. - Keith D. Tyler¶ (AMA) 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 7 of the 12 criteria for speedy delete (1-4, 10, 11, and 12) deal almost exclusively with content problems. And that's ONLY for speedy deletes. I agree the topic is sound, but the method of generating content is flawed and that is an article killer. Once an approved method of citing sources is used (e.g. when a reputable news source actually accuses Google of censorship) this article should be created and maintained with specific instances from those sources. But, until an initial source is found, we have no source of reputable proof of censorship. - Ektar18:49, 17 April 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.
Speedy keep Easily passes notability per WP:WEB, multiple non-trivial sources. Not to mention that "not as notable as X" isn't a reason for deletion. This seems like a bad-faith nomination by someone who's mad that ED was deleted and wants to take out other articles in retaliation. --Minderbinder23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability was established during the last couple of rounds of deletion voting. WP:WEB has not changed significantly in this time, nor has Lostpedia's notability waned. -Dr Haggis - Talk23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: we've been through this before, quite recently. whilst i personally think ED is notable enough to warrant an article, that is a separate argument, and this also strikes me as a bad faith nomination. --Kaini00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has half as many articles as ED, and it was started nine months afterwards, yet ED is still deleted. Not very notable, and is Lost fancrap (in my opinion, Lost sucks and is gay) Lulzy D.02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination not based on policy. If previous 3 nominations didn't get this deleted, the nominator has to share some particularly strong arguments to warrant yet another discussion. - Mgm|(talk)12:46, 12 April 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.
Nominating as per previous discussions on lists of fictional weapons such as those found in video games such as Battlefield2142, I am suggesting the same logic should apply here - WP:NOT. anything worth saving can be summed up on the main article in a couple of paragraphs. Fredrick day13:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking of nominating this page myself. This page is largely a copy right violation from the Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual. There is no real world context for these items because things like the HIMAT missle is only mentioned in one section of one book and are not significant in any way outside of one interpretation of a fictional universe. --Daniel J. Leivick17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I would prefer this to be kept, and somewhat dispute the copyvio comment (its still a very small amount of text compared to the book, and if it isn't in the same words...). However, I see some validity in your arguments. Can I ask that the person(s) proposing to delete this at least copy over the outline of the content to the article for the sourcebook? MadMaxDog13:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You will probably succeed in getting this deleted. However, would your argument not also apply to the Half-Life 2 weapon lists? Those are in some ways worse sourced - but you probably wouldn't be able to get them deleted for the outcry! By then deleting articles like this one, we end up only deleting less known stuff (okay, Aliens is not less-known, but this sourcebook is), while the big ticket stuff gets extra protection by its popularity. Seems unfair to me. But then I'd prefer both to stay. 13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with saying "I like it"? That is a good reason for including it in an Encyclopedia. 95% of Wikipedia use is recreational (my guess), so people saying "I like it!" is our main reason for an article. I am saying that the positive factors should be weighed against the negative ones, and that such an article need not be unsalvageable acc. to Wikipedia policies. MadMaxDog13:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my first comment, I do not oppose the deletion with any vehemence. It probably IS overkill. However, the core elements should be moved over to the sourcebook article, if only to give a better indication what is covered in it. MadMaxDog00:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may do some of that moving stuff over, but I am not sure I will have the time in the next days before it is deleted. MadMaxDog00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we could get the closing Admin to userfy it (if it closes as a delete) to a sandbox off your userpage, so you could work on it? --Fredrick day09:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on closer look (especially on closer look at the monster it has become in the last day!) I have either decided that there isn't that much to move over, or I have given up. Whatever ;-) Anyway, I reworked the manual article over a little, and if I ever feel the need to do more, I'll have the original at hand. MadMaxDog09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article should preferably contain more references, it does however contain a secondary source, should be tagged for references. Wikipedia is not paper, I see no reason to delete a perfectly encyclopaedic article. Matthew07:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - as far as I am aware, there ARE no secondary sources for much of the content. The sourcebook was written only partly based on the movie, much of its content is fleshed out separately. Very much staying within the Aliens universe, but probably not found anywhere. The nearest other source would be the Aliens vs Predator video games, and that is a dodgy proposition to base it on, sadly. As for me, as noted, in the meantime I've come to accept the idea of deletion as long as some important stuff is carried over to the article for the actual sourcebook. MadMaxDog09:22, 16 April 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.
Delete - Unsourced web game, vague assertion of notability, but unsupported. Prod removed with assertion that game 'is fast becoming as popular as WoW' DarkSaber2k14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A game "as popular as WoW" should have plenty of independent, third party sources providing non-trivial coverage. Show me some, then. Caknuck21:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, non-notable. Searching the web I see some pretty active fan forums, but that doesn't mean it's notable. I haven't found any coverage of the game in major gaming press, either reviews or features. --Dariusk15:46, 13 April 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.
Non-notable college club. No reliable sources to confer any notability. It also appears to have many conflict of interest issues. By their nature, almost all clubs and organization of individual college campuses are not notable outside of the community of the college. Metros23214:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Do you think it's notable enough to be merged? I'm not sure if we should put sections in the university's article about every club or organization on campus. Metros23214:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so only if the sources establish notability for the team in itself (i.e. national awards, etc.). Otherwise just delete it. RJASE1Talk14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created the page. Please tell me how to help in making it more credible. I could find some newspaper articles from our campus to show the team's involvement and awards from the past few years. I created the page after seeing that other teams, such as pro teams like Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team, had pages too. I just want to explain how a club sport competes and give people a general idea about competitive cycling on a non-varsity college level. Thank you for your help. -Appstatecycling— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.234.98 (talk • contribs)
Ok. Any advice for improving this page to prevent deleting by wikipedia? -appstatecycling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.234.98 (talk • contribs) 23:13, April 14, 2007 (UTC)
I think that anyone familiar with competitive collegiate cycling would assert that culb teams that compete in regional conferences, national championships, and world university games are viable beyond the bounds of their campus. Moreover, the aforementioned classification of the ASU Cycling team as "non-notable" is laughable as it has produced several professional cyclists in the recent past who have raced on both the domestic and international level. Furthermore, by participating in a sport sanctioned by USA Cycling, the national governing body of competitive cycling in the United States, the questioning of the "viability" of such an organization as ASU Cycling indicates that you have little if any understanding of the weight that USA Cycling carries as the body that determines which cyclists will represent the United States at World Championship events and the Summer Olympics. Although I understand the concern that Wikipedia has about the posting of articles that are not of "encyclopedic relevance," an article about the Appalachian State University cycling team, one of the most decorated collegiate cycling programs in the Southeast, is clearly more relevant and informative than an entry on the Super Soaker water gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.68.6 (talk • contribs) 16:51, April 16, 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm the one who tagged it for speedy. Sorry if that was inappropriate, it was late and I wasn't thinking too clearly about it. Anyway, as stated above, the My Chemical Romance wikiproject's members can't find any evidence that it exists, and if you look at the article's history, the track listing has changed over time. Being as it's almost certainly a hoax, I see no reason not to delete it.--Moralis (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's completely wrong. It's just a list of songs that MCR did without actually sticking them on an album Shamess17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The songs claimed to be on the EP come from various different recording sessions; the article is unsourced and badly written. thefunkygibson16:59, 15 April 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.
Delete as probable hoax. Article creator has made several attempts to insert subject as actor in contemporary television programs. Google search on name only brings up this article and references to a student by this name from Sydney Boys High School, coincidentally an article that this article's creator has also edited to include unnecessary info. PROD tag removed by possible SPA (very low edit count), with the reasoning I removed the deletion proposition because the book "Australians through the ages" by Sam Courrier, published 1963, John Wiley & Sons, names Bastable as one of the 19th century's most prolific writers - However, Google searches on "Sam Courrier" or "Australians through the ages" bring up no matching references, nor does a search on the claimed publisher's website. TheRealFennShysa14:47, 12 April 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.
Park that shows no signs of a notability. Prod was contested by a different editor from the author, who claimed "Significant Park. Editor doesn't know cultural significance of this article." Evidently, I do not, as my entire knowledge of the park comes from this article, and the article certainly doesn't tell me anything about its cultural significance. As far as I can see, this is no more notable than your average park. J Milburn14:59, 12 April 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.
Replace with {{wi}} due to the incoming links and as a courtesy as a decent amount of readers probably search for this term. --W.marsh17:32, 12 April 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.
There are no independent sources for the page, and it appears to be created as a fan page. He also doesn't seem to be a really notable athlete. Nyttend16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nyttend07:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC): IP address 72.139.16.231 added the following comment on the talk page: "So, who are you people? Who are you to decide who is notable or not?"[reply]
Delete What else are we supposed to do? We have notability criteria, and the burden of proof is on the article writer to bring references in support of notability. YechielMan18:35, 15 April 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.
keep Appears to be notable for its brewery, which has produced award-winning ales. See general results [60] and [61]. How can we delete an article on "one of the Top 50 Places to Have a Beer in America"? --W.marsh17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't help that that information wasn't in the article. But as far as it goes, I would not say Beeradvocate.com is a convincing benchmark as they aren't quite a Zagat's from what I can tell. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer has had some problems with the site as well. I'm also dubious of the value of an award from the World Beer Cup as well, since the page indicates they have awards in 85 categories. FrozenPurpleCube17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, the WBC does seem rather industry-geared, with so many categories, but the same could be said of the Grammies. I think it's a notable award for a brewer to win... especially 5 times... I'd heard of this award on television several times, and it gets a respectable number of news results [62]. --W.marsh17:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say most Grammy-award winners have sufficient notability outside the award to the extent that the Grammy-award is a non-factor in their having an article, and for those that don't, I would not say that every person or song that has won a Grammy should have an article as such, though at least the Grammy Awards get on primetime television, the World Beer Cup does not. FrozenPurpleCube17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, by that token, how many Microbreweries get on primetime in the first place? None. It's all relative, a microbrewery winning (as far as I can tell) the most notable award for breweries/microbreweries must be notable amongst microbreweries. I know none of the (several) microbreweries in my neighborhood have won an award, let alone a dozen, at this level. As for your other point, that's where the news results come in... a lot of verifiable information can be found in them. So we can write an acceptable article from that. --W.marsh17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, restaurants get coverage in papers fairly often. I just see a lot of trivial coverage and brief mentions by local papers, not one in-depth article I'd consider especially appropriate to establishing notability. And absent any kind of benchmark or standard, I'm just not convinced this brewery is different from any of the other breweries in the world just by winning this dubiously notable award. I'm honestly not sure about the whole Category:Microbreweries, as a look at a random sampling of the articles didn't find me many I'd keep. FrozenPurpleCube18:15, 12 April 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.
Fails WP:BIO. This page has had considerable editing by its subject so I've rolled it back to the most recent non-WP:COI non-WP:AUTO version. Either version has insufficient verification of notability claims, and the claims themselves probably fail minimum standards. DurovaCharge!16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The prize is notable enough for inclusion at WP, thus I see the winners become as notable as well. As the article on the prize would be unwieldy with minor bios on all the winners, it follows that an article on eash is legitimate if the info can be verifiable etc. It seems a bit trivial, but we aren't that restrictive--Kevin Murray22:15, 12 April 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 most recent individual AfD on this article was overturned by DRV on the grounds that the content was clearly unencyclopedic. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. The matter is submitted for new AfD consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of these depictions are at all notable (or even, really, depictions), except for The Rat Pack (film), which could simply be under a "see also" in the main article or at Rat Pack. There's also a reference to a musical with unknown writers that's been there since... let's see... since June '06 when it was added to the Sammy Davis, Jr. article by an anon, who never made another contribution: [66]. This should give an idea about the level of attention the article receives. There's no need to merge anything, all the items are in the history of Sammy Davis, Jr.. Mangojuicetalk17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already - how many more times do we have to go through this? 2/3 of the people who commented in the last AFD wanted the article deleted. 70% of the people commenting in the DRV wanted overturn and delete. How much more of a consensus does there need to be to delete the damn article already? Why does this have to go through yet another AFD when the message of delete could not have been any louder? As I've said repeatedly, the article is an indiscriminate collection of information and a directory seeking to capture every meaningless mention of SD Jr in any medium regardless of how pointless the mention is. Get rid of the thing. Otto471118:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - referring to Sammy Davis Jr in a song is not a pop culture depiction of him. Things, animals, etc named for Sammy Davis Jr are not pop culture depictions of him. Songs sung by Sammy Davis Jr are not pop culture depictions of him. If you trim out all of these, there are exactly 6 items in this article, none of which are sourced. This article should be deleted. --Haemo22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is verifiable and not indiscriminate. Each entry does not need to be notable provided that when they are pulled together like this, the list is notable -- i.e. this list of cultural references is far more valuable than most other similar lists that could be compiled about other people. Like was mentioned in the previous Afd, I think the works of Sammy Davis Jr do not belong on this article (e.g. theme song to Baretta); they should be moved onto the main article if they are not already there. John Vandenberg07:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Crotalus horridus. This is an indiscriminate list. The citations need to establish the presence of articles discussing cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. Citations to the cultural depictions themselves do not establish notability. - Aagtbdfoua23:11, 13 April 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 article has been tagged as lacking sources (save for one reference from Microsoft Technet) since October 2006. If that's not long enough to prove the existence of reliable sources I don't know what is. kingboyk16:51, 12 April 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.
This page duplicates material already covered in List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. It is full of fancruft, and was created to try and circumvent the will of the editing community at the above mentioned article, who have resisted attempts to create these pages. -- Elaich17:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article."
Such is not the case with Ed, Edd and Eddy. The three characters are covered quite well on the List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. They are not too long, and there is not enough substance to justify separate pages. As I mentioned at the top, the will of the community, as discussed on the talk page, is to keep things as they are. These pages were created in 2005 by a particularly disruptive editor, and have been kept alive by others who do not wish to accept the will of the community, at the same time refusing to work with the community. We will speedily delete any links to these page in the article anyway, so there is no reason for them to exist. They are just traps for fancruft. -- Elaich16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm kind of going to stay neutral on whether the article should be kept or not. After all, it does comply with most of WP:FICT, but it could use a bit of work (probably with tone, trivia, and in-universe perspective). On the other hand, if I wanted the admin to delete the article, much of the editors (especially Elaich and the IP who keeps experimenting with Linux) who edit List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy would be happy about it. There would be less "fancruft traps."
For those who have rarely edited or not edited Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles at all, please note that the Ed, Edd n Eddy for much of its history has had serious problems with other editors adding cruft to the page. The problem can be traced back as far as November 2005, but I could be wrong about that. Also look at this version of the article. Some of the content in there, such as, "In one episode, we see Ed's mothers hand (which looks really big also) drag Ed away due to his bad report card (straight F's). In another episode, Ed had a dream with his mother having Jonny's face," would have been reverted if it was even added back today because it would violate the "rules" on Talk:List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy. If you read the Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy archives (even the first one), you would also find that editors have been facing problems with other editors adding fancruft or irrelevent information. The page was repeatedly reported to WP:RFPP, but the requests were declined. This situation got so bad, that finally, an admin decided to protect the page due to content disputes.
I have a question I want to ask about you, Elaich. Do you have any reasoning for calling User:Wack'd About Wiki a disruptive editor? Any diffs or anything to back up that claim? I think I've heard the editor state that he/she used to be disruptive, but changed as he/she started to contribute to Wikipedia more (or something along the lines of that), but I don't remember what page it was. Now here's some advice for you: You did not follow the instructions at WP:AFD. You did not use the text that the page gave you. I'm referring to the one that enables you to put your reason for why you wanted the article to be deleted and that allows you to add a deletion category. You also didn't list the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 14. You did not follow instructions for nominating multiple articles that are related to this one (you nominated the other Eds, yet gave them separate AFD's).
You didn't look back far enough. This page was created by Bobber1. And you are correct about the coincidence. Why would I be logged in when I posted on your talk page, and not logged in 7 minutes later? Also, I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that the decision to ultimately delete or not will be made by an administrator. However, isn't expressing your opinion on this page whether to "keep" or "delete" a vote? I vote to keep it. Or, I vote to delete it. That's the context of "vote" that I intended. - Elaich08:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And they all look like the same kind of pages that are being discussed here. The characters do not meet notability guidelines, so the separate pages were created to try and fly "under the radar" and not receive the scrutiny of regular editors. They are all full of fancruft, and are only linked to at the bottom of the list of characters page, where nobody is likely to pay much attention. I'm not buying it. The only reason these pages exist is because nobody has brought them to light yet. I see them as attempts to create "fan pages" on Wikipedia where fan pages are not tolerated. -- Elaich22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not the place to take content disputes and it's not for demanding article cleanup (I know, I've listed articles before with the comment "article is poorly written" but in this case there's a whole explanation about the dispute. Nardman113:39, 14 April 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.
Uncited fancruft and original research about a not-particularily-notable rock song. If a better article can be written, it might be worthy of keeping, but the current one is worse than none at all. Eleland17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We usually redirect to the album if cases where a useful song article can't be written yet, as some people will be searching for/linking to the song title. --W.marsh17:49, 12 April 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.
Delete, only results for Eddy Ohms are this article and his Wikibook on his language. Spam for a non-notable constructed language. --Dhartung | Talk18:15, 12 April 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.
This is a small fictional company that is used in Pixar movies. It has only played a small role in one movie (and a few cameos in others), and asserts no notability outside of it. Even if it were notable, it's still just a very minor part of that one movie. I had proposed merging it, but it seems best to delete it at this point. Nemu17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presence in two films is enough for me to say keep as a short article, add in the Dynaco disambig, it'll be better served to keep. I'd be fine with a merge if the company wasn't in two films, or was less notable in Cars, but all of these factors convince me it's better to just keep it rather than delete or merge. FrozenPurpleCube17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable fictional company. That it played a small role in one film and was used as some sort of in-joke in another does not establish notability. Otto471117:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know I'll be overwhelmingly out!voted here, but I think this actually could be useful for people who've, say, seen it in the film and are wondering whether it's a real company. We do have Acme Corporation after all. It's not as if "Cars" was a straight-to-video underground film. - iridescenti(talk to me!)02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Acme Corporation is used in a LOT more films and cartoons, they're not quite on the same level to make it a fair comparison. - Mgm|(talk)08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Where else would you find information on the appearances and business practices of the company? (I also agree with what IridesCenti said)-dogman1504:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's used in more than just one film. Merging to a single one will cause problems for mention in the other film and removing it entirely would mean removal of useful information. If keeping isn't going to happen, I support a merge to cars as it appears to have the biggest role/mention in that film. - Mgm|(talk)08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Mgm said, it's in more than one film, making merging an issue. I think it's likely to continue appearing in Pixar films as well, and if so, the article will grow (and become even less specific to Cars) over time. Pinball2215:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a minor cameo in other movies. It isn't even talked about. If it's really that large of an issue, a section like "recurring themes" could be created in the Pixar article it can easily be placed in Pixar#Cameo appearances. Even then, this still fails notability, so I don't see how more than one movie is an issue. Nemu15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is only plot summary, with no real world context. May not even be worth mentioning on the movie pages. Jay3218300:55, 18 April 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.
This was nominated for deletion for the first time almost a year ago, and the nominator didn't present a strong argument, but taking a look at this list now I feel it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It is:
completely unsourced
full of original research (the subheading "Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such" gives this one away)
Delete. After taking a few minutes to read the old AfD, I have to agree with the nom that the old keep !votes mostly revolved around calling the last one a bad faith/weak nom. That notwithstanding, this article is indeed WP:OR, particularly with the sections that talk about "allusions" and the like. Even if you excise that shady stuff out of the article and only leave a list of songs that are explicitly about homosexuality, it's still trivial information. Arkyan • (talk)18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trivial to whom? Someone might say that the uses of maple trees is trivial information. This information isn't trivial to those who study sociological issues. April 14 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.166.214 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: Lists aren't indiscriminatory collections of information. Listcruft really isn't a helpful word. What would be the issue with the list of all the original research was removed and only songs where included which clearly show homosexuality in either the lyrics or the title were included? It would show the obvious, yes, but if someone wants to find such songs a list is the way to go. Basically, I don't see what is so problematic it can't be fixed by severe cutting of the list. - Mgm|(talk)08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar even that would probably be subjective, and would involve the author of the rewritten page doing original research as to what references were contained in which songs.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only way something like this could be kept would be if lists could be found in reliable sources or the list was changed to something less subjective like "List of songs with homosexual references in the title" Even then you would have to be very careful about establishing waht is considered a "reference." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:05, 13 April 2007
(UTC)
KEEP While it may be unsourced, many lists of these kinds are unsourced, however this is one of the only one that has been threatened to be erased. Also, it provides valuable information that is useful for those of us that study the presence of homosexuality in the mainstream. April 14
Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (for similar unsourced lists) is not a valid argument that this list should not be deleted. In fact, most of those other lists should probably be deleted as well, unless they can be adequately sourced. This information is subjective, original research. And sign your posts.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h10:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source wherever necessary. If the lyrics are explicit, must we find a citation? Do we need citations to prove genre in television in 99% of instances? ~ZytheTalk to me!23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first (and probably the third & fourht) part as relevant information on homosexuality's role in modern culture, but the second part ("Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such") is too POV an unsourced to be kept in the article. 96T21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Redirect not needed- the software automatically redirects as long as mixed capitalisation isn't involved. Typing "Wheatstone Bridge" into the search box and pressing GO will lead to the article on "Wheatstone bridge" once this article is deleted. WjBscribe02:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not demonstrated and I can find no sources on news searches or AMG. Also the current article looks like a copyright violation, but I can't find the source. --W.marsh18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bands which have names at all confusable with real-world things should always have (Band) in the name, as in Wheatstone Bridge (Band). There is an important electrical circuit called a Wheatstone bridge. No one looking for information about it should have to see an article about some obscure band. This should be an automatic practice: see a band, rename it with (Band) in the title. Edison18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete it, I think people who type in "Wheatstone Bridge" will get sent to "Wheatstone bridge" anyway. Not 100% sure but I don't think caps-based redirects are really needed. --W.marsh18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "go" button isn't... I just typed in "gEoRgE bUsH" and got sent where one would expect, so I was right. You meant that gEoRgE bUsH won't work as a link... and I understand that it doesn't. This is why we get so many duplicate articles with incorrect capitalization... --W.marsh12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's scores of redirects for capitalization mistakes. They are particularly useful if someone heads for an article using the URL rather than the search box and it's been common practice for quite some time. Grutness is quite right. - Mgm|(talk)08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original article author here. I am in process of rewriting the original article for resubmission in an existing Wiki I was recently made aware of. I am also in process of writing a Wiki regarding Dr. Wheatstone and his circuit. =) **** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.140.172.224 (talk) 20:14, 17 April 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.
Delete Appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL, though the article contradicts itself. It says it won't be released until 2008, then goes on to talk about the video premiere last month. Mr.Z-mantalk¢18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant hoax. Nothing to back it up. It also doesn't make sense to make a video clip only to wait with releasing it for over a year. - Mgm|(talk)08:28, 13 April 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.
Löschen. To be entirely fair here, I should point out the the first of those two references actually does argue, at least somewhat, to notability. That one seems to be more than just an obit. If you look at it, it appears the local paper actually did assign a reporter to the story of his death. Still, though, if that's the only independent nontrivial secondary source coverage (and don't be fooled by the long list of "references" in the artice — all the others are quite trivial), then I still don't see that the cut is made. Mwelch21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that most of the refs are just filler, but the obits I linked above are from 2 different sources and independant of each other and the subject. Also, both are much more detailed than the obituary everyone gets in the paper. Mr.Z-mantalk¢21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. I already granted that about the first link. But no, I believe you are mistaken about the second one. I don't think it's at all independent of the subject. Look at the heading it's under: Obituaries. It's nothing more than anyone (whose family chooses to do it) can get in that paper. Just look here. [69] Looks to me like you just submit your obit for publication, get the guestbook service set up through legacy.com and then, if you want it to last more than 30 days, pay to have the book sponsored. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be able to do that. Mwelch23:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about these 2: [70] and [71]. Similar text (one probably based off the other) but separate newspapers and different from the first link. The Town Talk also had 2 other articles about him around the time of his death, [72] and [73]. Mr.Z-mantalk¢23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first two are just additional examples of the family-provided obituaries. The same thing that literally anyone can have if their loved ones choose to submit to the paper, and in many papers, pay for the space. Their presence is in no way an indication of notability, because their presence does not indicate that any editor or reporter found the subject notable, only that the subject's family did. The second two you add here, on the other hand, are a legitimate argument for notability, but it's still the same story as the first link at the top, just evolving over two days. Obviously this newspaper found his death notable enough to assign one of their reporters to it over two days, and yes, that counts for something.. But it still appears that this small town (Alexandria has what? 50,000 people?) newspaper is the only independent media source that ever found him notable. If someone wants to argue that that's enough . . . well, I'll grant I can at least see their argument. But my personal opinion would still respectfully differ. I would never completely dismiss what's in a newspaper just because it's a small town operation. But goodness, if they are truly the only ones for whom this man is of note . . . Mwelch00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just another of Billy Hathorn's cut & paste jobs. Those "references" are nothing of the sort; I'll wager everyone who dies in a town that size gets their name in the local paper. - iridescenti(talk to me!)00:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having exhausted all the Louisiana state representatives, wen now turn to someone who, although a "staunch Republican ... did not seek public office" Only very few details are supported, and the rest must presumably be OR based on the primary sources given. The ed. is a good local historian, a good genealogist, and a very good writer. Unfortunately WP is neither a local history not a genealogy, and therefore not an appropriate showcase for his skills. The requirements for sourcing are to be interpreted with common sense: an article saying that someone did nothing in particular is not a source for notability. An obit is reliable only for routine facts--it establishes when he died, if the family reported it correctly. Almost none of the contents of the article are about him, so there will occasion to reduce it to size if it should for some reason be kept. The ed. should finally understand that the birth and death dates of a subject's relatives and associates are not worth encyclopedic treatment and linking except when the subject is a truly very important public figure.
At what point does the continuing production of such articles become an obstacle to the proper functioning of WP? DGG01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "Almost none of the contents of the article are about him . . . " What can you possibly mean by this line? It's all about him! -- Billy Hathorn05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It truly amazes me how people who obviously know nothing about the history of Louisiana can be so quick to rush to judgment on a man as great as Roy O. Martin, Jr. This was one of the most influential figures in northern Louisiana in the latter 20th century. Not only did he build one of the largest privately owned companies in the Southern United States, he was also a major leader of his community, which is considered to be its own metropolitan area by the US Census Department--not just some small town--, as well as one of the largest philanthropists in the area. His death was not only the front page story of his hometown newspaper, The Alexandria Daily Towntalk, but was also one of the feature stories on KALB's news broadcast on 3/22/07-ref. www.kalb.com. It was also featured on Louisiana Public Broadcastings program "Louisiana: The State We're In" on 3/24/07. In addition to this coverage, LPB also filmed a biography about Mr. Martin as part of the 2005 Louisiana Legends Gala which aired on LPB throughout the year. Please search www.lpb.org for these refs. Please ref the following link for a proclamation from Gov. Blanco honoring Mr. Martin: http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/docs/Proclamations/honorary/louisianalegendsday.pdf Please also ref. Carter, James E. Life by the Board Foot: Roy O. Martin and the Martin Companies, 2004. Claitor's Publishing, Baton Rouge, LA. ISBN 1-57980-985-5 . I believe this should more than enough to adequately establish the notability of Mr. Martin, but I would also like to put forward the argument that his appointment by Gov. Treen to the Louisiana Board of Commerce and Industry, being a statewide position under the executive branch, qualifies him as notable under WP BIO. This man's biography could be greatly expanded. Watch for both LSU, and especially LSUA where he served on the board for many years, to honor this man in the near future. I have to wonder if this article would have been written by someone other than Mr. Hathorn if it would have been subjected to such scrutiny. Some of you seem to hold a grudge. -- {unsigned|65.0.63.123}}— 65.0.63.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: And some of us who don't know Mr. Hathorn from a hole in the ground are perfectly competent to apply WP:BIO for ourselves, thanks. As it happens, "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures" is the criteria, and an appointment to an obscure talking shop is well under the wire. RGTraynor 06:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's a fascinating diatribe. Nonetheless the facts are as follows: That he was at least notable in Alexandria, LA, (population about 50,000, or population the metropolitan area, about 150,000) has already been granted. He was unquestionably a successful business leader, philanthropist and community leader in that area. For whoever feels that's good enough, and doubtless there are some that do, nothing else needs be said. They can advocate keep right there. But for those who would like to see a little more than that, I fail to see how any of the above adds much to his case. Where is KALB-TV? Alexandria, LA. Who co-authored that book? The wife of the lumber company's CEO. How significant is that book? Zero Ghits. Being profiled by LPB might sound interesting . . . because you left out the fact that he was one of their biggest donors. Where in WP:BIO does it say that appointment to some state board makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. Where in WP:BIO does it say being mentioned in some honorary proclamation from the Governor (seriously, do you have any idea how many of those types of things governors and mayors spew out) makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. Where in WP:BIO does it say that being honored by a board on which you serve makes one likely to be notable? Nowhere. I don't claim to know Louisiana history. But so what? If you have to be emotionally invested in Louisiana history before reading his bio in order to come away from that bio appreciating how he's WP:N . . . then he just might not actually be WP:N . Mwelch08:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all doubt: the opposition to this article is about the author of the article, not the subject of the article! Mr. Martin's notability is self-evident. No, this is not about notability, but something else. But what? -- Billy Hathorn04:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Billy, pretty clearly your calling me and iridescenti out for wikistalking at WP:ANI indicates that you believe you're being picked on. None of the arguments above indicate that anyone has any personal animus toward you (and I reiterate here that you are obviously a skilled Wikipedia editor who could potentially be an unqualified asset to the project). It's your emotional connection to all your article subjects that indicates you're a bit too close to them to objectively see the notability problems, indicated by statements such as It truly amazes me how people who obviously know nothing about the history of Louisiana can be so quick to rush to judgment on a man as great as Roy O. Martin, Jr. Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment, and imagine that you don't know everything about him. Why is he really notable, when there are thousands of businessmen just like him in every state? --Dhartung | Talk06:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. "It truly amazes me how people who obviously know nothing about the history of Louisiana can be so quick to rush to judgment on a man as great as Roy O. Martin, Jr." I did NOT write this statement, but I certainly agree with it. -- Billy Hathorn12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, a single purpose account (65.0.63.123) did, with an identical writing style to yours, with the same unusual line-break-and-change-indent formatting that you - and virtually no-one else here - use, and citing all the same publications you cite in all your articles. - iridescenti(talk to me!)16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal.I did not write from 65.0.63.123, do not know the person who did, and any comparison to my writing style is coincidental. I am unaware of the book or the television station coverage cited by the person. -- Billy Hathorn22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. True, he donated to LPB, but lets look at the list of the other people honored for a reference. http://www.lpb.org/friends/lalegends/pastlegends.cfm In 2005 alone, the other Legends consisted of the former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., the coach of the 1958 National Champion LSU Tigers (as well as multiple SEC Championship teams), a Women's Basketball Hall of Fame Coach, a Country Music Superstar, and an engineer who has made a significant impact on coastal wetland restoration in Southern Louisiana, but they probably all gave money to LPB too. No, year after year these are some of the best and brightest in their fields associated with the state and LPB chose to honor them accordingly. And sorry to disappoint you all, but I'm not Billy; just someone who is very interested in Louisiana history and that has played around on here enough to notice alot of the same names attacking his articles over and over again. While I can't attest to some of his other subjects, this man is very notable and his name will live on for many many years, wiki article or not. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.7.221 (talk • contribs) — 65.0.7.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.
Delete those two references are nothing of the sort; one is an obvious reprint of a press release from a trivial source, and the other is "he bought a painting". Aside from the art gallery - which, with all due respect, isn't exactly the Guggenheim - there is nothing in this article to indicate that he has done anything more than any other doctor. - iridescenti(talk to me!)00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that? Have you read the article? Billy Hathorn 05:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete as art collectors go, he is of trivial importance: There would be real coverage in the art publications if he were of any significance. As a physician, he has promoted a homeopathic remedy. The sourcing requirements for N are intended to be used together with common sense. If kept, it can of course be stubbified, as can most articles from the same editor. 01:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Is an art collector expanding his museum by $7 million "of trivial importance"? Dr. Abraham easily qualifies for notability.
Keep. We can debate his importance, but there are valid sources cited and he does therefore appear to meet the notability guidelines. That being said, the article could use some trimming and balancing.--Kubigula(talk)03:08, 18 April 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.
Obvious and clear spam from the title down from editor with a conflict of interest. Originally uploaded as a copyvio, cut-and-paste from their website. No assertion of notability at all, just a few links added. Verifiability does not equal notability and does not equal grounds for free advertising in a not-for-profit encyclopedia. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please define how it is spam. Also, please tell me how it is a conflict of interest. Finally, please state how the items listed in the 2nd paragraph do not assert any notion of notability.Dbmays18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Meets our standards how? You've rewritten the the opening paragraph but provided no proof that what is written is true. A direct citation to a third-party reliable source is needed but hasn't appeared. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Jeff, you know perfectly well that the article must establish notability, not just spammy links from it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. With no assertion of notability - and no proof of it having any other that what you've rewritten - plus the fact that it reads like an advertisement, then the free advertising this offers must end. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does assert notability, please see the second paragraph. Also, it doesn't read like an advertisement, unless you believe all stubs on companies do. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar You can keep telling me to look at the paragraph, but that doesn't make notability magically appear. Also, please don't ascribe views to me I don't hold. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree with the notability, but it's asserted in the text and justified per our notability guidelines in the external links. Meanhwile, I've ascribed nothing to you, I wouldn't do such a thing. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took out the only part of the 2nd paragraph that relied on a pay-to-view market study, which could be interpreted as advert content, as well as removing said market study from the references section, thereby removing the only 'spam' I could maybe see. Hopefully that helps. Dbmays19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well established company (since 1971) with notability claimed in the article for being the first to introduce several new aspects of computing technology. And, while the number of Google hits is not a litmus test for notability on its own, a search of "Diversified Technology, Inc." - a pretty specific string - returns over 31K pages. Any issues related to wording that might make it appear to be an advertisment, although I fail to see how a Wikipedia entry will increase sales of a technology company to any great degree, can be dealt with by suggesting improvements on the talk page. ◄Zahakiel►20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything, there is too little information aboutthe company's products. Yes some articles are spam, but this one is a good example of what is not spam.DGG01:40, 13 April 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.
Previously nominated for AFD. Article was significantly rewritten, and the nominator changed their mind. Instead of saying so at the AFD, they removed the tag from the article. Nobody opined in the AFD after the rewrite. AFD was closed as delete, and then the AFD nominator nominated the article for deletion review. Evidence there shows some still think it reads as a personal essay and/or POV fork. Please opine on the basis of the new article. This is a technical nomination; I have no opinion. GRBerry18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but userfy first. There may be a decent article in here, but right now the entire thing is written like an essay, it needs a full rewrite (again). Mr.Z-mantalk¢18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as people hate these types of suggestions, keep and cleanup. Or, in this case, continue to clean up. Obviously a term worthy of inclusion, but Mr. Z-Man makes a good point about how it's written. --badlydrawnjefftalk18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor writing isn't grounds for deletion, it means you clean up the article. Any deletion will be DRV'd again. Sourcing is unquestioned. I urge you deletion voters to reconsider that you must follow deletion policy. - Denny(talk)16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but strip all hints of the essay language to a bare bones. If nothing is left, consider CSD A1 (with no prejudice to recreation of an article that meets concerns of the deleting admin, of course). If there is something left to work with (which I guess there would be), tag as needed for cleanup/expansion/whatever. By the way, if this does end up delete, there are already enough people chiming in to trump the reason behind the first DRV (lack of consensus over last revision) and I am not as confident at Denny is that one would succeed this time. I also know enough about the work of Guy to know that he knows all about deletion policy and that his opinion is made in good faith and comes from his valid interpretation of said policy. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as said above, this is a real, notable concept. PS: Again my apologies for messing up the whole AFD process, never nominated an AFD before, probably wont ever again! Orgone15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a very current concept and the article seems to stick to its reference purpose despite essay-like qualities. Someone will edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.217.6.6 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 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.
Non-notable gallery owner, the creator of many rejected articles for apparently all of the artists that she represents. DGG18:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think here rather minimal academic work makes her notable. As we have deleted most of the articles for the artists she represents as being NN and undocumented--and as all of them have referred for whatever documentation there was to the references in this article, I think it desirable to discuss this one (deprodded for the purpose of discussion)DGG18:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly! That returns 108 unique hits. Doesn't look like she's going to appear on the Ukrainian Wikipedia any time soon either. (Which, in fact, she doesn't.) RGTraynor 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the argument that this article is not notable enough because there were only eleven Google hits is irrelevent. If you search Google with the Cyrillic version of her name (Людмила Березницкая), you get this result: [77], and when you take out wikipedia: [78]. Also, if you searched with the keywords Ludmila Bereznitsky, your results will be bias as well because there are many way people translate a name. For example, her first name sometimes may include two l's (Ludmilla vs. Ludmila) when translated, and so on. This applies to the last name as well. --Boguslav19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete based on the content of the article. The current text does not suggest much about notability of the person, galleries, foundations or her publications. Consider the vote moot if someone improves the article. If kept the ridiculous overcategorisation needs to be pruned down. Pavel Vozenilek12:44, 15 April 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.
Keep Subject appears notable and historical. I found this article in the Wikify backlog and have rewritten it entirely to fix several of the cleanup/wikify/content issues. It probably still needs a once-over (I know very little about sports) and still needs sources, but it should be a little better now. *Vendetta*(whoistalkedits)00:10, 19 April 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.
Only four appearances, and solely because Jesse L. Martin had to go do Rent. It seems that a lot of articles in the Law & Order series only exist because they are a detective, chief of police, or DA/EADA/ADA, which really isn't a good criteria. A Link to the Past(talk)19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (I'm ambivalent). Actually appeared in 5 episodes per article. But standard practice is to at least merge/redirect. --W.marsh20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to merging, but I AM opposed to keeping. I mean really, five appearances hardly warrants an article, especially when the character was not particularly important in any episode but one of those. - A Link to the Past(talk)20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think he was one of the top 4 billed stars in the 4 episodes he appeared in as a fill-in, that's the nature of the show (2 cops, 2 district attorneys as the main stars of each show). Not sure if you were aware of that. It's not like he was just some other guy in the episode for 2-3 minutes, he was a core part of those episodes (I presume at least, I've only seen one of them). But I support either merge or an outright keep, just explaining why. --W.marsh20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that he is in all of those episodes; however, I was not saying he was unimportant, I was saying that he was not PARTICULARLY important. And yes, I have indeed seen these episodes, including the episode where he is a suspect. Anyway, my stance is that being a detective does not warrant that they get an article. - A Link to the Past(talk)21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't agree with the merge premise. The role was major, notable, and regular; the longevity is not relevant. Notwithstanding a current lack of sourcing, I assume that mention of this actor's participation was well discussed in many formats. We have a well known actor playing a central character in a major TV production of long-standing. Where is the question? Add to that the impracticality of adding much more to the L&O main-page. --Kevin Murray22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the world suggested moving to the Law & Order article? The only merge that was EVER proposed was to the characters list. Anyway, I'm not sure why he's notable. Besides being a junior detective in the show, he's not important. If a character appears in only one episode and is only mentioned in one episode, longevity IS important, it is very important. Even if he was central to that one episode, it is not enough. Really, the L&O fans need to establish a better criteria than "put into a major role". Being a role that is often held by major characters does not make him major. - A Link to the Past(talk)22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article doesn't tell me enough to agree the role was a major one. It might've been, but I don't have enough info to determine that. Whatever happens, the material should clearly be kept in some form, so a deletion nomination is not the way to go. - Mgm|(talk)08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fairly significant for the series. No reason to overcrowd the list. User:Dimadick
Keep got an opening credit, was a major character in those 5 episodes. I can see no reason to downgrade his role. ThuranX23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alfred Wentworth should be unrelated to this discussion for a couple of reasons. 1. He was in the Pilot. Pilots notably often have different characters/actors than the regular series. 2. He's a different character, and he was a part of the series before it had a solidified format. - Phuff19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his character was major enough that without consulting his imdb episode list I wouldn't have known he was only in 5 or 6 episodes. He stepped into a major role which was a solidified part of the regular cast. After umpteen seasons, even a 5 episode stint in one of the major tropes of the show makes the character major. Should also be kept for completeness. - Phuff19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has made very few edits
Law & Order is not the exception to the notability guidelines just because it's popular. Same with Pokémon, Star Wars, and Star Trek. Is he a well-known character? A well-liked one? Is he verifiably popular? Or is it just that he appears in a major role, rather than being a major character? - A Link to the Past(talk)19:27, 19 April 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.
This one is a little difficult to parse, but after wading through it, this seems to be at the very best a dicdef of some kind. I attempted to do a search on Google but it seems that this, as well as the suggested alternatives, are also given names so there's a lot of irrelevant hits. If someone can point to a reference showing this to be something more than a dicdef I'd be happy to retract this nom but to the best of my ability all I can make of this is a dicdef. Arkyan • (talk)19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be a dicdef, and is very difficult to understand. Perhaps it can be re-created as a more readable article, either here or Wiktionary. Do not TransWiki in its current form. Herostratus02:44, 19 April 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.
Delete Any info that is not speculation should be covered in the pages of each individual person. Right now this contains little useful information. Mr.Z-mantalk¢20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten version, it's all verifiable now and similar to the many subarticles of United States Senate elections, 2008. This is something we'll want to include eventually, just because it takes place in the future doesn't mean it automatically falls under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". --W.marsh20:58, 12 April 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.
I am also nominating the following related pages because somebody seems to have added everybody in their academic department? Actually, it seems that they are all University of Karachi alumni...
List separately I would expect that a major university have a number of notable professors. It appears that some of them on this list have more publications and higher status than others,and are presumably more notable. Not all professors are equal. It is reasonable to expect that in most departments there will be those who are and those who aren't. this nuance seems to have been overlooked. It's as if one were to nominate all the actors in a given motion picture, the stars as well as the extras, or all the characters in a novel. I urge the nom. to withdraw this nomination, to read the articles, and nominate for deletion some that appeared least notable. Otherwise, a speedy end to this, and let somebody look at individuals. DGG02:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds per DGG. I would support joint nomination of Hasni, Siddiqui, Ansari, and Aqeel, since their articles are so similar textually (and would probably vote to delete at least those ones unless the articles are improved and distinguished from each other) but this is too wide a target. —David Eppstein03:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion as the arguments given are not valid. Not all above names are university of karachi alumni. The nominator should have at least read the entries before doing so. People concerned may improve/alter the entries. It is so dicouraging for the contributor that his genuine additions are being treated like that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.132.113.214 (talk • contribs)
Comment - per procedural concerns, I withdraw the nomination but will be listing separately. Being a university professor does not automatically make one notable. Where are the third-party sources, newspaper articles, media appearances, etc? Jefferson Anderson18:41, 13 April 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.
Keep It has coverage from multiple secondary realible sources. That satisfies WP:N, as far as I can tell. It does seem a little spammish, but that just means it needs cleanup, not deletion.Chunky Rice22:19, 12 April 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. Being an autobiography is not a reason to delete on it's own; consensus regarding his notability as a professional lies strongly at keep. Daniel Bryant10:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two papers mentioned in the article, on Chichen Itza and on Epidaurus, seem to be pretty widely reported and cited.[79] Seems to meet WP:PROF #3 Mwelch21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see that alone as reason to delete. WP:AUTO strongly discourages creating your article, but does not absolutely forbid it. So long as the user is actually notable (and this one seems to be), then having other editors come in to clean up the article to make sure it's content is made free of WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues is a solution preferable to just deleting it. (In my opinion, of course.) Mwelch03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar. I see. That's certainly an interesting additional dynamic. I can certainly understand that concern. I just a quick look through the article histories and I found these examples (perhaps there were others too; I only looked very quickly) which you reverted:
"The acoustics at Epidaurus is tremendous. It is as if speakers can be heard throughout the theater without any loss of loudness. These amazing effects are studied by famous acousticians, such as Declercq. It shows that the ancient Greeks had a broad scientific and technological knowledge and that they incorporated this knowledge into their wonderful constructions."
"Chichen Itza is well known to acousticians for its special acoustic effects at the ball court and also at the El Castillo pyramid. A handclap is transformed into the chirp of a bird and footsteps are transformed into raindrops. Studies have been reported by Nico F. Declercq, David Lubman and others in J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Nature and National Geographic"
The former is especially problematic and seems particularly "promotional" of Declercq ("famous acousticians"). The latter is not as bad from a "promotional" standpoint, but it's also not well-written. I'd hope a Ph.D. could do better, but certainly Declercq himself would have to be considered, at the least, a prime suspect with regard to question of who wrote the above. Even if it's not him personally, it seems almost certain it's someone with WP:COI issues with regard to him, such as one of his students or mentees. On the whole, given how widely reported and cited those two studies really were, I'm not sure I see anything wrong with each of them being mentioend in the respective articles. (Full disclaimer: I know nothing about either Epidaurus or Chichen Itza, so that's a wholly uninformed opinion.) But I also don't see any need to throw Declercq's name out there into the middle of the article text like that. How about a simple, brief mention — properly cited in the list of references — in each article, and then a talk page mention to the "promoter" (whomever it actually is) to please knock it off? Mwelch07:35, 16 April 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.
Unverified information, unencyclopedic style, looks to be a piece of personal family history. "Cecil Cowdrey" + "War" reveals no relevant google hits. Eleland20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is hardly an article about the individual since most of its content has to do with the problems he supposedly resolved during the land invasion of Normandy in 1944. Nothing on his backkground. Would need extensive revision to turn into a decent stub User:Dimadick
Delete. The man jimmied up an air filter one day. Not notable, unless we are going to have articles on the man who shod Napoleon's horse etc. Herostratus04:56, 18 April 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.
Delete per nom. Also, the creator of this page has a history of cluttering up Wikipedia with some sort of revisionist personal agenda. No valid citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevelSolve (talk • contribs)
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.
Merge the article has merit, but not enough to be an independent entry. Merge with American Idol season 6 "Miscellaneous" category.
Merge to some American Idol article if the editors there want it. This verifiable tidbit may warrant a brief mention there. But there's no way to have a proper biographical article on this flash-in-the-pan story. Delete if not merged. Friday(talk)20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Google her name (127,000 results on Yahoo!). How many hits does one have to have for her to be notable? That doesn't even unclude the searches by people who didn't know her name, searching for "crying girl" and such. I think that if she's been on E!, Access Hollywood, The Today Show, MSNBC, Fox News, and Entertainment Tonight, that's pretty notable. I don't watch American Idol. In fact, I hate the show, but it was absolutely impossible to keep from hearing about her. I haven't even heard of all of the contestants on the show, but I've heard of her. Keep... or at LEAST merge. This should absolutely NOT be deleted. - hmwith22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia offers limitless resources to information. The girl has made a splash on the web and the news media. Let her have her own biography; it doesn't hurt any —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.86.241 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge or delete. This girl is extremely unlikely to remain known, and is probably only known to fans of American Idol and some people who might remember her from being on one or two national show appearances since then. —Mike Trausch Fd0man•Talk to me00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Like User:Hmwith, I've heard of this person and I don't watch American Idol. And the article doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion; all of it meets WP:V, blah, blah, blah. And to User:Iridescenti, Faye Turney has not been deleted, it's a redirect. This article should be one too. --ALLIN01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is just becoming American Idol fanboy-ish. It's probably a bad precedent to create articles for people whose only claim to fame is sitting in an audience. There are lots of audiences for a lot of shows, after all.--Ataricodfish02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ataricodfish has hit the nail on the head with this one- a picture and a sentence or two would be enough to tell her part of the Sanjaya story; she doesn't need her own page. Mrobviousjosh04:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. She clearly became known for something trivial, but we can't sweep her appearances on all those other shows under a rug. It's not enough to warrant her own article, but a mention in American Idol 6 would work fine. - Mgm|(talk)08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets all inclusion standards. Featured on multiple national shows, and wasn't she lampooned on Saturday Night Live? Certainly should be kept, strongly opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjefftalk20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Nobody outside of America has ever heard of Sanjaya either, which highlights the cultural bias of this project. Why should Sanjaya as one unknown (and irrelevant) person be favoured over another simply because he is hated by Americans (who pretty much hate everyone anyway)? Why can't you guys get it together and have the CIA kidnap him and torture him in a secret prison without benefit of legal process like you did to one of our business men? Stop whining on Wikipedia and start actually doing something about human abuse. This poor girl has got a shot of becoming a meme and you want to spoil it by favouring some guy with funny hair just because you hate him more than her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.246 (talk • contribs)
Kommentar - Sanjaya is notable at this point because he is a finalist on American Idol, one of the highest rated shows on TV. A girl crying because she met a "celebrity" is hardly notable. If that was the case, where are all the articles about the fangirls for the Beatles? Or Elvis? dposse21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the highest rated shows on American TV. American Idol has very little relevance outside of America. We all get our own national spin-off shows. Just because something is big in America doesn't make it notable to the rest of the world. This is a mistake that Americans seem to commonly make. Nobody outside of America has heard of Sanjaya. I only stumbled across this because I was wilfing on Slashdot. My point is that Sanjaya is not notable and that American cultural influence is distorting the free nature of the Wiki. It's not like we need the disk space so why delete when you're already compromising the quality of information through American culture? She clearly is somewhat notable because I found her Wiki entry, and there are 21,600 Google links for "Ashley Ferl" (yes, with " marks). To exclude her and include Sanjaya is irrelevant to anybody outside of America - both are equally unknown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.246 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sure i could find documentaries. And i'm not sure how you can call the few seconds where she cried and hugged Sanjaya a "featured moment". dposse03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'm talking about her interviews on places like MSNBC. If she was just "crying girl in audience," I wouldn't think we should keep her. But "She's crying girl who was an interesting enough story for the major media to devote time on," so it's different. --badlydrawnjefftalk03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any one of them has 127,000 search results on Yahoo!, then we probably should. Wikipedia should be a reliable source where people can find information on celebrities, whether or you not you personally believe that he/she should be famous. I don't think that she should be a celebrity, but the media played it up, and, now, she is, whether we like it or not. - hmwith15:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar - She didn't just cry for Sanjaya. Not at all. If you read the article, you can see that she cried for several of the contestants. - hmwith15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That may be true, but she became "famous" because of her crying during Sanjaya's performance, which was highlighted by Simon during his review. Malamockq19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's quite famous, even if it was just for 15 minutes or seconds, with a fair amount of media attention during that time. Everyking07:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. We do not need and should not have a biographical article on every single person who ever was on the Today Show once. Why? Because as soon as the 15 seconds of fame wear off, what are we left with? A permanent stub about an otherwise entirely non-encyclopedic person who will probably e-mail OTRS in 5 years asking why a picture of her crying when she was 13 is now a permanent part of an Internet encyclopedia... and we'll have no real good answer for her. FCYTravis07:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since she is notable now and is part of the tales of the American Idol, I believe the article should be kept for reference purposes. The article is well written and referenced too. Correctus06:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Not famous at all outside of the American Idol community; appearing on television (even being lampooned on Saturday Night Live) does not automatically make one notable. KafzielTalk19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what she did, it's about the attention she got for it. Millions of people are aware of her and were talking about her. Everyking12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am aware of that. However, the point made by FYCTravis appears to be equally good as a reason for deletion, hence my vote.
For clarity, this point is "We do not need and should not have a biographical article on every single person who ever was on the Today Show once. Why? Because as soon as the 15 seconds of fame wear off, what are we left with? A permanent stub about an otherwise entirely non-encyclopedic person who will probably e-mail OTRS in 5 years asking why a picture of her crying when she was 13 is now a permanent part of an Internet encyclopedia... and we'll have no real good answer for her." Euryalus20:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In five years, no one remember or care about her. Maybe even 5 weeks.
Keep The media has spun her into something that is, at this point, considered to be notable. Later down the road, she may become a thing of the past. I believe that then, and only then, is when this article should be reconsidered for deletion. Aquatics01:44, 18 April 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 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.
Weak keep- there seems to be some coverage in notable sources, and with some TV work would indicate notability- seems a close call though. Thunderwing16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like three of the four given references linking to copies of articles displayed on the subject's website; however, we don't require that the sources be visible from a link or even be online. Did the author verify that the articles aren't a hoax? Are these bona fide journalism or quasi press releases? Are they intellectually independent? I think that this meets the WP:N threshold which doesn't speak to any need for national notability, and my only objection seems to be in the I DON'T LIKE IT category, so I'll abstain with willingness to be persuaded either way. --Kevin Murray21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who linked those enteries appears to have been the subject himself, so we can't really trust whether he verified them or not before posting them on his personal website: [82] I second your sentiment - I just get a bad feeling about the motivations behind this entry. Alvis02:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I apologize. I used Wikipedia as a promotional tool. I didn't mean to enter myself into an encyclopedia, and I am not claiming to be notable or famous. I was just trying to get my name out there and promote myself and my website on as many sites as possible. I understand that my Wiki entry should be deleted, and hopefully, I'll be back on here one day in a more notable way. BIG Ben Kennedy09:40, 13 April 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 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.
Sounds like nonsense, non-notable, WP:COI, or all of these. A user tagged it for notability concerns, but the tag was removed by its creator with the edit summary "Just because YOU don' know about something doesn't mean it is not notable". The racoon remark is amusing though. Húsönd21:57, 12 April 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.
This is another non-notable, crufty asset of Dragon Ball. Its only source is a random data book, and nothing else. Nemu22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft is a particularly inflammatory word and have nothing to do with deletion policy. The article also has sources. So it may not be notable, but that comment isn't entirely nonsensical. - Mgm|(talk)08:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that has nothing to do with attribution, it has to do with notablitity; and as I've said, WP should not care one bit about notability, we should be the Library of Alexandria and take in EVERYTHING verifiable. Thanos620:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If we aim to be the sum total of all human knowledge, that's what we should shoot for. No half measures! Thanos610:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GTA series is pretty notable, so, in turn, I can say that the events that happen in the series are notable; the two situations are very similar, and the two need to be shot in the head similarly. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 02:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity ; Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. ; the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research. This is NPOV. This is not original research. This is verified. If you think the references need to be made more specific, say so. If not, come up with a better reason than "cruft"; because I got all those quotes from WP essays and guidelines. Thanos610:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly detailed plot summary with no real world context. There is no means by which this situation can be fixed, except deletion. Jay3218303:26, 17 April 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.
Delete both. All I can find is rumours. No evidence that's the name of the album and if the album isn't confirmed I doubt the songs on it are confirmed too, so it's unlikely they already know which of them will be a single. - Mgm|(talk)08:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'No Little Angel' as Lindsay Lohan's third album but delete 'Overprotected'. The title 'No Little Angel' was confirmed as Lindsay Lohan's third album in billboard.com's albums to be released in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.1.52 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 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.
Delete. The alleged producer (7 GHits) has been in existence for about 10 days according to their freely-hosted web page [83]. Probably qualifies as G7 speedy, but now that it's here on AfD we might as well take it through the whole process (then in the future if it's reposted it would be speediable as A4. cab00:43, 13 April 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 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 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.
Keep. Unless someone can prove the references are bogus, this is amply sourced and mention in a wrestler magazine, a book and multiple newspapers clearly makes it notable. - Mgm|(talk)08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards delete. I noticed no one had mentioned google hits. Article actually turns up plentiful Google hits with almost all referring to the subject matter at hand, but I'm still not sure this lives up to notability standards. Based on comments and Suriel's keep vote, along with extended research into the article's subject manner itself, I'm changing my vote to Keep. PeteShanosky15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The newspaper references aren't bogus, but they are definitely not non-trivial sources. The extent to which Kleinrock features in each one can be seen here, here, here and here. The relevant text of the book isn't available on Amazon Online Reader or Google Books, but I'll wager the XPW attempt to buyout ECW is covered in a couple of pages at best, and Kleinrock has a trivial mention just like the newspaper articles. Per WP:BIO trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. One Night In Hackney30314:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've stuck in several more refs. I'm satisfied that the subject has made a unique and innovative contribution to his field of entertainment. Looking at Google his name appears all over the place. Not always in a complimentary fashion but people are talking about him ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided by Suriel1981, I believe that this passes WP:BIO and is actually one of the better wrestling-related articles we have to offer (meaning top 1%). Burntsauce17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough has been added to prove notability IMO - I am shocked that there aren't any references to "XPW - Bleeding was only HALF the job" in the article, pleasantly shocked ;) MPJ-DK20:43, 17 April 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.
Delete two sources cited: the Autry family archives, and unpublished research by Richard B. Autry. So the sources are (a) unverifiable, (b) unpublished and (c) not independent. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor sourcing, NN character, and much of the content genealogycruft. And:
Sorry if I was gruff or rude with you before.
You see it was on this week a few years ago that my 8yr old son died in my arms from cystic fibrosis. And just one year ago my best friend of over 20yrs died during the first week of April from a heart attack. This is just a bad time for me. Do whatever you want with the atricles. They don't really matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowonline (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 April 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.
Keep - Actor who appeared many times on the very popular soap opera Shortland Street and was a regular cast member of the popular internationally distributed show The Tribe (both Swedish and German Wikipedias have articles on this person) demonstrates "notability." --Oakshade00:00, 13 April 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.
I don't think a list of characters in this game merits a seperate article. The article is simply a list of characters, with no descriptions, most of which are non-notable (a list of bosses in a game isn't relevant to an encylopedia). — MalcolmUsetheschwartz!23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The GFDL requires a record of edits be kept, so when a merge is performed, the response is to redirect the page, so as to retain the history. FrozenPurpleCube00:31, 13 April 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.
These guys have 100k ghits, which is a lot, but the article is a total mess and doesn't make the notability clear, and doesn't cite refs. Maybe I'm in a deletionist mood; I could be convinced that cleanup is a viable option. YechielMan23:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this band had a top ten album in Japan, won best album at the Breakspoll awards, came 7th in DJ magazine's album of the year award, played Glastonbury - why has this ever been AfD'd? - iridescenti(talk to me!)01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Clearly notable based on the discussion here, but I doubt the article would be of use in any rewriting efforts. - Mgm|(talk)09:06, 13 April 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.
This article was previously kept once and deleted once. I had it userfied to improve it, and since I just put it into articlespace today, I want it to go through this procedural AFD to see if the community wants to keep it now. I've added a new paragraph on the exclusive interviews that WarCry conducts. This is intended to demonstrate that they are notable enough that many game developers and company presidents and CEOs want to give interviews with them. They have enough influence in the gaming world that these interviews are a worthwhile use of these people's time, reaching enough of an audience to generate considerable returns. I believe these numerous big-name interviews show sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, so my opinion is keep. — coelacan — 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the admin who closed the discussion and deleted this article last time 'round. I am personally satisfied that it now passes WP:WEB and is properly referenced. ATraintalk00:09, 13 April 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.
Löschen Just another person killed in war. Articles covering him are from a lesser known paper mourning a local person. Definitely doesn't meet notability. Reywas92Talk 01:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
